Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[T to Dyre Avenue]

4 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

My ideal solution to this would be to construct a neat connection between the Nassau Street Line and the 8th Avenue Line local tracks, which would increase capacity on both lines, but there is a problem: the tunnels and tracks for this service would have to be constructed, since a direct connection between the two does not exist as of now. So as of now, changes would be limited to the tracks already there. Therefore, with this constraint in mind, I propose simply moving the  to Astoria (with the  going to the Second Avenue Subway instead), and rerouting the  to 63rd Street. In addition to that, the  could move to the 8th Avenue express and swap with the  route north of 59th Street. Using the existing track infrastructure in Queens, the slots left vacant by the , , and  can be used by a new  route that can operate between World Trade Center and 71st Avenue via all QB Local and 8th Avenue Local.

...

Queens Blvd alternatives:

•  express, local.
  • Cuts off local service to/from Queens Plaza.
•  local,  Express
  •  operates at 24 trains per hour.
  • Cuts off express service to/from Queens Plaza.

What could really go wrong?

Or we could do what I stated above. With this, the  would operate to Ditmars, and the  would go to 96th Street, with the other changes mentioned implemented.

I agree with the above except swapping the  and . For QBL deinterlining, I prefer the second option because it doesn’t cut off the west-of-Roosevelt QBL local stations from Queens Plaza and Court Square. However, it does force one of the QB expresses to get the  and its 8-car R160 trains, instead of the 10-car trains of the .

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

 - 96th Street/2nd Avenue to Coney Island, shares tracks with the up until DeKalb Junction.

- Asotria to Bay Ridge. With a 15 TPH cap at Ditmars, a 21 TPH cap near City Hall, and a 10-12 Cap at Bay Ridge, it'll make sense to run the line at 14TPH. Service takes up the remaining space so it could have 7 TPH.

Assuming that we Upgrade Bay Ridge's terminal capacity, we should be able to boost it to 24-30 TPH. I don't know how feasible adding relay tracks would be but they could be a nice addition. From there, about 6-8 Trains could run to Chambers Street. That's how I'd do it. 

 to Ditmars and  to 96th has long been my preference too. In that case, it’s best for the  to remain a three-borough train. I’m quite surprised to read that 95th can’t do better that 10-12 tph. If it’s not feasible to add relay tracks south of 95th, then perhaps they should install switches south of 86th St, that would allow trains to terminate at 86th and reverse on the middle track south of there. That should be able to handle the 6-8 Chambers trains.

3 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

To me, the easiest solution would be to reinstate the , and send the  to 95th-4th to replace the  in Brooklyn.

1. How so? There are switches north of 57th-7th that would allow the  to remain express after 34th; in all honesty, the  should never have been switching at 34th in the first place.

2. All they'd have to do is install a crossover north of Whitehall.

Well, theoretically we could have the  run express all the way to 57th St. But then it would still have to merge with the  there if the  is shortened to a Continental-Whitehall service. Whether it’s Prince, 34th or 57th, there would be a merge with the  and it would bork the Broadway Line. That’s what I’d like to avoid. And it’s possible to do so with a Ditmars , a Continental-Whitehall  and 96th/2nd Ave .

As for the crossover, it has to be installed after where the three tracks merge into two. Which means it would likely have to be closer to Rector  because you can see Rector from Whitehall. They’re quite close to each other. 

[LGA Link N Train]

2 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I agree with the above except swapping the  and .

The reason swapping the and is a good idea is because the subway line (Specifically within the IND) in its current state, is scheduled backwards around each other because of the junction at 59th. Swapping the and  at 59th, Permanently extending the to 10 cars (600' trains) and swapping the  and north of 145th to compensate for deinterlining 59th (in addition ending the pattern of short turning trains at 145th) would not only remove a bottleneck, but it would allow for a more flexible scheduling of trains on a larger scale as now you now have space to increase the number of TPH on the  and maybe the Lines along with the added bonus of CBTC. Of course, the downside is that 50th upper doesn't get served, but 7th Avenue-53rd Street and 42nd Street/PABT are within a reasonable walking distance from one another so that shouldn't be too big of an issue. 

[LGA Link N Train]

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The existing infrastructure is great where it doesn't need to be and sucks where it does. And right now if you optimize the trains you actually f**k over riders. For all its faults, the M/V combo is way more useful to riders than the old separate V and M services, because it took a bunch of trains terminating nowhere in the LES to going somewhere useful for Myrtle and Broadway riders. It's not really a coincidence that the gentrification of Ridgewood ripped into full gear once the orange M happened.

That's actually quite ironic. I think that the / combo could've been avoided if Grand Street on the and  were located a bit to the north to provide a direct transfer with the . However, If a transfer between Grand Street and Bowery were in place, I still think that an / combo would've happened regardless. 

[R10 2952]

With the Sixth Avenue Line, it would've been interesting to see how things turned out if the Second System tunnel from 2nd-Houston to South 4th had been constructed and tied in somewhere to the Crosstown or Franklin Avenue Line; I feel such a thing could've brought many benefits.  A Culver local service to Manhattan, or relief for the Dekalb Junction and Manhattan Bridge- perhaps this is something that the MTA ought to plan for in the long term.  Moving trains off the Manhattan Bridge before it starts disintegrating again would spare us another 20-year headache of "temporary" reroute gymnastics.

[mrsman]

15 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

My ideal solution to this would be to construct a neat connection between the Nassau Street Line and the 8th Avenue Line local tracks, which would increase capacity on both lines, but there is a problem: the tunnels and tracks for this service would have to be constructed, since a direct connection between the two does not exist as of now. So as of now, changes would be limited to the tracks already there. Therefore, with this constraint in mind, I propose simply moving the  to Astoria (with the  going to the Second Avenue Subway instead), and rerouting the  to 63rd Street. In addition to that, the  could move to the 8th Avenue express and swap with the  route north of 59th Street. Using the existing track infrastructure in Queens, the slots left vacant by the , , and  can be used by a new  route that can operate between World Trade Center and 71st Avenue via all QB Local and 8th Avenue Local.

Pros:

• Less merging on the  and and other lines overall (ex:  merges with   and  instead of    and )
• Increased service on 63rd Street, while retaining the same service levels on 53rd Street.
• Service increase on both 8th Avenue and Broadway due to less merging overall
• More reliable  service.
• No need to schedule trains around 59th Street. Delays insulated onto some lines but not affecting nearly the entire system.

Cons:

• Increased merging activity at 36th Street could increase the likelihood for delays on the , ,  and  (though as a counterpoint, the delays would be insulated to those lines and a few others, and not affect the whole system).
• No upper level service at 50th Street.
• Lack of yard access for the  (counterpoint: 36th Street Yard to be used for passenger train service)
• Potential conflicts with turning 5 of the  trains at Whitehall Street and Queensboro.

Queens Blvd alternatives:

•  express, local.
  • Cuts off local service to/from Queens Plaza.
•  local,  Express
  •  operates at 24 trains per hour.
  • Cuts off express service to/from Queens Plaza.

What could really go wrong?

Or we could do what I stated above. With this, the  would operate to Ditmars, and the  would go to 96th Street, with the other changes mentioned implemented.

Some of the above would really make a lot of sense in moving the trains better without as much blocking.  A partial deinterlining in the right places.

Just so I'm clear, is your plan more or less the following for Division B:

 As current, Inwood - 8th Ave Express - Fulton Express

 Concourse Express - 8th Ave Express - Fulton Local

 QBL Express - 53rd street - 8th Ave local - WTC

 QBL Local - 53rd street - 8th Ave local - WTC

 Washington Heights - CPW local - 6th Ave express - Brighton Express

 Concourse Local- CPW local - 6th Ave express - 4th Ave express - West End

 As current, QBL Express - 63rd street - 6th Ave local - Culver

 QBL Local - 63rd street - 6th Ave local - Willy Bridge - Myrtle

 2nd Ave - Broadway Express - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach

 As current, 2nd Ave - Broadway Express - Brighton Local

 Astoria - 60th - Broadway Local - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge

 Jamaica - Broad Street

It is not a bad suggestion, although there may be some merging issues that come up in Queens.  It does keep things moving well on the Broadway BMT and isolates the  so that it doesn't share tracks at all.  Also, an estimate of how much TPH on each line would also help envision this.

 

[Armandito]

My revised track maps for the X train:

 

Court Square:

 

Bedford-Nostrand Avenues:

 

Brighton Beach:

[LGA Link N Train]

15 hours ago, Armandito said:

My revised track maps for the X train:

 

Court Square:

 

Bedford-Nostrand Avenues:

 

Brighton Beach:

Did you delete the images?

[Armandito]

39 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Did you delete the images?

Yes, because I needed to make some minor adjustments to them (specifically the removal of some text on the Bedford-Nostrand map and the slight relocation of switches on the Brighton map). Here are the updated ones:

Edited August 6, 2020 by Armandito

[Around the Horn]

I personally feel like if you're going to have the X relay at Ocean Parkway, you might as well stop there too.

[Armandito]

1 minute ago, Around the Horn said:

I personally feel like if you're going to have the X relay at Ocean Parkway, you might as well stop there too.

The X can't terminate at Ocean Parkway because the relay tracks are located above the platforms. I made the layout that way so Brighton Beach can be aptly used as a terminal for both locals and expresses.

[RR503]

You really should just adjust the track layout there so you can cross from the local to the spurs and then onwards to the express immediately after Brighton Beach. You’d need to move the x between the expresses south a bit, but that’s trivial in the grand scheme of things. 
 

Neither relaying or terminating at Ocean Parkway is possible without significant alterations to the interlocking logic there. Having spent many an evening watching  layups at the location, I can tell you that when the switch is lined against you leaving OP (which it always would be), you cannot fully berth which is a dealbreaker. It’s probably tractable, but get ready to shell out a couple mil for a bunch of new IJs and ST-equipped signals.

Re: Court Square, we turn 30tph at a 2 track terminal at Hudson Yards. If you modify the track layout south of the station at Court Square to match (ie replace that spur with a simple scissors crossover), you should have no issue turning the  and (X) without spending millions or billions on an annex. 

Edited August 7, 2020 by RR503

[Armandito]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

You really should just adjust the track layout there so you can cross from the local to the spurs and then onwards to the express immediately after Brighton Beach. You’d need to move the x between the expresses south a bit, but that’s trivial in the grand scheme of things. 
 

Neither relaying or terminating at Ocean Parkway is possible without significant alterations to the interlocking logic there. Having spent many an evening watching  layups at the location, I can tell you that when the switch is lined against you leaving OP (which it always would be), you cannot fully berth which is a dealbreaker. It’s probably tractable, but get ready to shell out a couple mil for a bunch of new IJs and ST-equipped signals.

Re: Court Square, we turn 30tph at a 2 track terminal at Hudson Yards. If you modify the track layout south of the station at Court Square to match (ie replace that spur with a simple scissors crossover), you should have no issue turning the  and (X) without spending millions or billions on an annex. 

IIRC, we had another member here propose a / terminal swap by building a flyover somewhere between Neck Road and Sheepshead Bay so more trains can terminate at Brighton while simultaneously enabling through express service between Coney Island and Manhattan by way of the . In this case, locals would end at Brighton while expresses would continue toward Stillwell on weekdays, and at other times when the does not run, the is extended to and from Stillwell. With this kind of layout, the two outer stub tracks could be used to store additional trains (thus allowing for X's to terminate here as a result of the slight increase in terminal capacity).

Regarding Court Square, I proposed reconfiguration of the existing tracks and the building of a new platform so the station could be used as both a terminal and a through stop. Another reason is this: during a few trips from that station on the recently, I would see that both tracks would be occupied by turning trains. If you say that a scissors crossover would seem better, I would suggest building layup tracks north of that station instead--in a manner more or less like the layout at the Broad Street  station in lower Manhattan.

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by Armandito

[RR503]

7 hours ago, Armandito said:

IIRC, we had another member here propose a / terminal swap by building a flyover somewhere between Neck Road and Sheepshead Bay so more trains can terminate at Brighton while simultaneously enabling through express service between Coney Island and Manhattan by way of the . In this case, locals would end at Brighton while expresses would continue toward Stillwell on weekdays, and at other times when the does not run, the is extended to and from Stillwell. With this kind of layout, the two outer stub tracks could be used to store additional trains (thus allowing for X's to terminate here as a result of the slight increase in terminal capacity).

As I said when that proposal was first made, such a flyover would be an extremely low-value investment benefiting riders at only two stops. Really don't think it should be made. And if it was made, you could easily operate Brighton Beach as a relay, which would give you plenty of capacity to terminate  and (X) on the express tracks. 

7 hours ago, Armandito said:

Regarding Court Square, I proposed reconfiguration of the existing tracks and the building of a new platform so the station could be used as both a terminal and a through stop. Another reason is this: during a few trips from that station on the recently, I would see that both tracks would be occupied by turning trains. If you say that a scissors crossover would seem better, I would suggest building layup tracks north of that station instead--in a manner more or less like the layout at the Broad Street  station in lower Manhattan.

There's no need for Court Square to be both a through and terminal stop. Absent the construction of a new line (which hopefully would be valuable enough to be served by both the  and (X)), any extension of the  beyond CRS constitutes a negative-value proposition; you're reducing Manhattan-bound capacity on the Queens corridor. 

As for why there are trains in both pockets...schedules! If you're running a low throughput terminal, you're going to have long terminal layovers, and periods where both pockets are occupied. If you added service, you'd simply shorten layovers (the  averages 2-3 mins at 34H) and go from there. 

[bobtehpanda]

If any extension of the is to be made the most logical one is probably up 21 St.

[Armandito]

3 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

If any extension of the is to be made the most logical one is probably up 21 St.

Most likely it'll involve the demolition of 21st Street-Van Alst. That station has the lowest ridership in Queens outside of the Rockaways, not to mention being neglected and in horrific condition.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Armandito

[RR503]

8 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

If any extension of the is to be made the most logical one is probably up 21 St.

Which has the nice effect of allowing you to make a connection with the  at 21-QB. Makes deinterlining much easier. 

[Armandito]

48 minutes ago, RR503 said:

As I said when that proposal was first made, such a flyover would be an extremely low-value investment benefiting riders at only two stops. Really don't think it should be made. And if it was made, you could easily operate Brighton Beach as a relay, which would give you plenty of capacity to terminate  and (X) on the express tracks. 

As in if the flyover were to already be built and in existence?

Edited August 7, 2020 by Armandito

[RR503]

23 minutes ago, Armandito said:

As in if the flyover were to already be built and in existence?

Yes. But again, I don't think the flyover is even a rough approximation of a good use of funds.

[Armandito]

@RR503 I'll post a new track layout for Court Square soon, this time using your suggestions.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Armandito

[Lawrence St]

On 8/6/2020 at 12:46 PM, Armandito said:

Yes, because I needed to make some minor adjustments to them (specifically the removal of some text on the Bedford-Nostrand map and the slight relocation of switches on the Brighton map). Here are the updated ones:

Images dont work.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Which has the nice effect of allowing you to make a connection with the  at 21-QB. Makes deinterlining much easier. 

tbh even a short phase 0 extension just to 21-Queensbridge would be very good.

it sucks that 100 years later we're still paying the price for Red Hylan being a massive tool about the subway.

[Armandito]

3 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

tbh even a short phase 0 extension just to 21-Queensbridge would be very good.

it sucks that 100 years later we're still paying the price for Red Hylan being a massive tool about the subway.

What makes me doubtful about a 21st Street extension is that much of western Astoria is in a flood zone.

[EvilMonologue]

How long of an in-station transfer is still useful? I think we'd agree the connection to the  to the rest of Times Sq is too far, but would a connection from the  at 50th St to the  at 7th Av be within the realm of feasibility? Likewise, would connecting the  at 57th St - 7th Av to the  at 7th Av be too far? These are connections that I suppose can be made at Times Sq, after the  renovation, but it would be less of a walk, and would improve the 's role as a crosstown line. Is it just not worth the money? Maybe it is?

[bobtehpanda]

43 minutes ago, Armandito said:

What makes me doubtful about a 21st Street extension is that much of western Astoria is in a flood zone.

South Ferry flooded the first time and we built it again.

When it comes to analyzing flood zones you have to keep in mind that where there is already valuable developments, steps will be taken to shore up the defenses. You probably shouldn't be building more development in the Rockaways, but Lower Manhattan is not going anywhere without a fight.

[bobtehpanda]

25 minutes ago, EvilMonologue said:

How long of an in-station transfer is still useful? I think we'd agree the connection to the  to the rest of Times Sq is too far, but would a connection from the  at 50th St to the  at 7th Av be within the realm of feasibility? Likewise, would connecting the  at 57th St - 7th Av to the  at 7th Av be too far? These are connections that I suppose can be made at Times Sq, after the  renovation, but it would be less of a walk, and would improve the 's role as a crosstown line. Is it just not worth the money? Maybe it is?

The southern end of 57th-7 is actually only 400 ft away from 53rd, so that's about the same length as the Bryant Park transfer. To be quite honest, 57th 7th could be feasibly connected to either 7th Av or Columbus Circle. The longest passageway I believe is probably the to at 14th St.

Generally speaking the framework for "should you build a transfer" is

• what additional connections does it provide?
• how long is the transfer? Most ridership models assume something called a transfer penalty, which is basically "the average person would rather sit for X minutes than walk an additional minute." 

So let's take your two examples. First,  60th to at 7th Av. 

•  trains head north and south along the UWS and 7th (Lower West Side)
• trains head north and south along the UWS and 6th (Lower West Side)
• trains head south along 8th (Lower West Side) and west into Queens

This isn't very useful.

• Passengers going north and south along the UWS and the West Side can mostly stay on the train they're on for the and  
• Passengers going from the Lower West Side to the UWS from the can do a cross-platform transfer to the or even better just catch a train 
• Passengers from the Lower West Side to Queens are probably already on an train. If they're on a they have a cross platform transfer. If they're on a  they can already do this transfer at 42nd St one stop south
• Passengers from the UWS to Queens take the  and change to the  

Compare this to the Broadway to IND transfer. There is one transfer that isn't done well that this additional transfer would do better, and that is Astoria/East Side traffic to the UWS and beyond. You can kind of do this change at Times Square, but 57th St is an earlier opportunity to make this connection and it moves transfer volume out of Times Square.