Armandito Posted September 21, 2020 Share #10426 Posted September 21, 2020 3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said: You could relocate it, but the question is where to? As of now, Court Street is the only ideal location for it, given proximity to the multitude of train lines in the area. The abandoned platform at Bowery could be repurposed for a relocated Transit Museum. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bklyn Bound 2 Local Posted September 21, 2020 Share #10427 Posted September 21, 2020 10 minutes ago, Armandito said: The abandoned platform at Bowery could be repurposed for a relocated Transit Museum. I have an idea: The lower level at Port Authority. It would not be a fully fledged Transit Museum, it would be more of a tourist attraction.With a Lo-V consist on the track and few historical artifacts, it could end up as a bigger version of the Grand Central Transit Museum store. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armandito Posted September 21, 2020 Share #10428 Posted September 21, 2020 14 minutes ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said: I have an idea: The lower level at Port Authority. It would not be a fully fledged Transit Museum, it would be more of a tourist attraction.With a Lo-V consist on the track and few historical artifacts, it could end up as a bigger version of the Grand Central Transit Museum store. Doesn't the extension already cut through the former lower level at the PA station? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bklyn Bound 2 Local Posted September 21, 2020 Share #10429 Posted September 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Armandito said: Doesn't the extension already cut through the former lower level at the PA station? Oh yeah, I forgot about that. What about the 9th Ave Lower level. There is so much transit history in that area. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted September 21, 2020 Share #10430 Posted September 21, 2020 5 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said: You could relocate it, but the question is where to? As of now, Court Street is the only ideal location for it, given proximity to the multitude of train lines in the area. I mean like half of the Nassau Line is not in use and it is conveniently located. Chambers St has the real high ceilings and stuff; with a good power wash and some renovating it could definitely be a museum replacement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulturious Posted September 21, 2020 Share #10431 Posted September 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said: Oh yeah, I forgot about that. What about the 9th Ave Lower level. There is so much transit history in that area. Aren't they going to use 38th St yard and convert it from Work Yard to revenue yard for the W? I mean they could use the upper level middle track of 9 Av, but wouldn't trains be going in and out? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted September 22, 2020 Share #10432 Posted September 22, 2020 (edited) 21 hours ago, Armandito said: Let's face it, much of the B Division as it was built was designed specifically to allow for interlining, which could partly explain why there's been a lot of it happening with subway routes then and now. If deinterlining should be a priority, it's basically sacrificing one convenience for another in many respects. While track capacity would indeed be increased, it would inevitably come at the expense of many one-seat rides customers prefer today. I think you can say that about the original, pre-WW2 IND lines. Maybe also the proposed “Second System” lines. The post-WW2 connections are somewhat of a mixed bag, I think, especially the ones that connect into the Queens Blvd. The connection to the 60th St tunnel in 1955 made it possible to have a direct full-time Manhattan connection from the local tracks, instead of having all local riders transfer from the (although there wouldn’t be a full-time Broadway-QBL service until 1987). But when the 63rd St Tunnel was connected into the QB line in 2001 (instead of continuing further east via LIRR Main Line to Forest Hills as originally planned), it created a line with multiple bottlenecks. It’s gotten to the point where we periodically bring up removing the from QB. Not everyone is in favor of doing that, though. Likewise, the Chrystie St connection in 1967 made it possible to get more use out all four Manhattan Bridge tracks and provided additional options for getting to Midtown Manhattan. But instead of putting the extended and rerouted trains onto their own routes in Brooklyn (too expensive!), they had them piggyback onto the existing West End and Brighton lines. This resulted in the elimination of direct full time Broadway service on both lines. It also causes major delays between the bridge and DeKalb Avenue and forces all four bridge services to run at lower headways than they could if they didn’t all cross in front of each other. Brighton got a peak-direction service to Broadway, which in 1986 was expanded into a all-day weekday . West End had direct Broadway service only in 1986-88 and 2001-04 due to Manhattan Bridge track reconstruction. The full time Broadway-Brighton service that debuted in 2001 became permanent in 2004 upon completion of Manhattan Bridge reconstruction instead of the returning. This brings me to your X service via the Brighton Local tracks. It’s going to require reducing local service (or eliminating it outright) and that is going to sacrifice convenience for a lot of people who board at the Brighton local stops. I wouldn’t mind if the Franklin is connected to the and becomes the X. I just don’t think it should be extended to Brighton Beach at the expense of the current service. My feeling is that this X service will be about as unpopular with Brighton riders as the was with Queens Blvd riders. 3 hours ago, Vulturious said: Aren't they going to use 38th St yard and convert it from Work Yard to revenue yard for the W? I mean they could use the upper level middle track of 9 Av, but wouldn't trains be going in and out? I recall reading in the MTA Manhattan East Side Alternatives study that gave us the current plans for the SAS, that there were long-term plans to use 38th St to stable trains. Of course, that would require the to enter Brooklyn via the Montague Tunnel. Edited September 22, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armandito Posted September 22, 2020 Share #10433 Posted September 22, 2020 32 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said: This brings me to your X service via the Brighton Local tracks. It’s going to require reducing local service (or eliminating it outright) and that is going to sacrifice convenience for a lot of people who board at the Brighton local stops. I wouldn’t mind if the Franklin is connected to the and becomes the X. I just don’t think it should be extended to Brighton Beach at the expense of the current service. My feeling is that this X service will be about as unpopular with Brighton riders as the was with Queens Blvd riders. You think that would apply even with the swap that was proposed before? On paper, if the flying junction at Sheepshead Bay or Neck Road and the resulting route swapping were to take place, there would be more capacity at Brighton Beach to allow for the laying up of X trains while still maintaining the same current service frequencies on the (you'll see two maps depicting proposals for the swapping in one of my most recent posts here, in case you missed them). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulturious Posted September 22, 2020 Share #10434 Posted September 22, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said: I think you can say that about the original, pre-WW2 IND lines. Maybe also the proposed “Second System” lines. The post-WW2 connections are somewhat of a mixed bag, I think, especially the ones that connect into the Queens Blvd. The connection to the 60th St tunnel in 1955 made it possible to have a direct full-time Manhattan connection from the local tracks, instead of having all local riders transfer from the (although there wouldn’t be a full-time Broadway-QBL service until 1987). But when the 63rd St Tunnel was connected into the QB line in 2001 (instead of continuing further east via LIRR Main Line to Forest Hills as originally planned), it created a line with multiple bottlenecks. It’s gotten to the point where we periodically bring up removing the from QB. Not everyone is in favor of doing that, though. Likewise, the Chrystie St connection in 1967 made it possible to get more use out all four Manhattan Bridge tracks and provided additional options for getting to Midtown Manhattan. But instead of putting the extended and rerouted trains onto their own routes in Brooklyn (too expensive!), they had them piggyback onto the existing West End and Brighton lines. This resulted in the elimination of direct full time Broadway service on both lines. It also causes major delays between the bridge and DeKalb Avenue and forces all four bridge services to run at lower headways than they could if they didn’t all cross in front of each other. Brighton got a peak-direction service to Broadway, which in 1986 was expanded into a all-day weekday . West End had direct Broadway service only in 1986-88 and 2001-04 due to Manhattan Bridge track reconstruction. The full time Broadway-Brighton service that debuted in 2001 became permanent in 2004 upon completion of Manhattan Bridge reconstruction instead of the returning. This brings me to your X service via the Brighton Local tracks. It’s going to require reducing local service (or eliminating it outright) and that is going to sacrifice convenience for a lot of people who board at the Brighton local stops. I wouldn’t mind if the Franklin is connected to the and becomes the X. I just don’t think it should be extended to Brighton Beach at the expense of the current service. My feeling is that this X service will be about as unpopular with Brighton riders as the was with Queens Blvd riders. I recall reading in the MTA Manhattan East Side Alternatives study that gave us the current plans for the SAS, that there were long-term plans to use 38th St to stable trains. Of course, that would require the to enter Brooklyn via the Montague Tunnel. Well the is practically useless and just feels like another line that should be cut. However, people would argue about not having direct service into Manhattan from both Brooklyn and Queens. It's much better to have the running, but it would lead to another problem that used to run to Astoria of not having direct yard access. It should be cutback to Whitehall which was why I pointed out the 38th St yard for the to use to replace the entirely. The MTA should've taken the opportunity to extend the from WTC to go through Montague and replace the which would be more reliable anyways. Having a Broadway Line running on West End would also be much better than 6th Av because it would deinterline all Dekalb of its unnecessary mess, but the MTA would rather have a 6th Av line and a Broadway line both running on 4th Av and Brighton. Although, I do agree with the X being unpopular on Brighton line. Maybe during Rush Hours, they could be extended to Brighton Beach if the demand is high enough for that, but should definitely stay terminated at Prospect Av. Edited September 22, 2020 by Vulturious Said Dekalb instead of Prospect by mistake. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted September 22, 2020 Share #10435 Posted September 22, 2020 (edited) 11 hours ago, Vulturious said: Well the is practically useless and just feels like another line that should be cut. However, people would argue about not having direct service into Manhattan from both Brooklyn and Queens. It's much better to have the running, but it would lead to another problem that used to run to Astoria of not having direct yard access. It should be cutback to Whitehall which was why I pointed out the 38th St yard for the to use to replace the entirely. The MTA should've taken the opportunity to extend the from WTC to go through Montague and replace the which would be more reliable anyways. Having a Broadway Line running on West End would also be much better than 6th Av because it would deinterline all Dekalb of its unnecessary mess, but the MTA would rather have a 6th Av line and a Broadway line both running on 4th Av and Brighton. Although, I do agree with the X being unpopular on Brighton line. Maybe during Rush Hours, they could be extended to Brighton Beach if the demand is high enough for that, but should definitely stay terminated at Prospect Av. But given track capacity and DeKalb Junction, they can’t give direct, full time Broadway access to everyone in south Brooklyn. Someone has to get 6th Avenue, unless they want to reduce rush hour service on Brighton Local, Brighton Express, West End and Sea Beach. During 86-88 and 01-04, they did run direct Broadway service from all three lines, but that’s only because they couldn’t run 6th Avenue-bound trains over the bridge at those times due to Manhattan Bridge reconstruction. That shouldn’t be done under normal circumstances. I’ve given my preference for how to deinterline DeKalb in previous discussions about it ( via Sea Beach, via West End, via Brighton Express and via Brighton Local, with both the and to/from 2nd Ave). As for the and , my preference is for the to be cut back to Whitehall and for the to go 24/7 and run between Astoria and Bay Ridge with trains being stabled at 38th St in Brooklyn. The NYCTA/MTA probably had the chance to plan for extending the in the 1960s in coordination with the Port Authority planning the World Trade Center. But given how the words “coordination” and “cooperation” are gibberish to so many New York City and State agencies, that ship sailed decades ago in the end. Edited September 22, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue Clearing up my point about B, D, N and Q service 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted September 22, 2020 Share #10436 Posted September 22, 2020 (edited) Sorry, duplicate post. Edited September 22, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue Duplicate post 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bklyn Bound 2 Local Posted September 22, 2020 Share #10437 Posted September 22, 2020 What about a 7th ave line to bowling green? By reinstating the shuttle platform and adding another track, this could work paired with the proposed to Parkchester by running up to Harlem 148th St! Stops: Harlem - 148th St 145th St 135th St 125th St 116th St Central Park North - 110th St 96th St 86th St 79th St 72nd St 66th St - Lincoln Center 59th St - Columbus Circle 50th St Times Sq - 42nd St 34th St - Penn Station 28th St 23rd St 18th St 14th St Christopher St - Sheridan Sq Houston St Canal St Franklin St Chambers St Cortlandt St - WTC PATH Rector St Bowling Green 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armandito Posted September 22, 2020 Share #10438 Posted September 22, 2020 14 minutes ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said: What about a 7th ave line to bowling green? By reinstating the shuttle platform and adding another track, this could work paired with the proposed to Parkchester by running up to Harlem 148th St! Stops: Harlem - 148th St 145th St 135th St 125th St 116th St Central Park North - 110th St 96th St 86th St 79th St 72nd St 66th St - Lincoln Center 59th St - Columbus Circle 50th St Times Sq - 42nd St 34th St - Penn Station 28th St 23rd St 18th St 14th St Christopher St - Sheridan Sq Houston St Canal St Franklin St Chambers St Cortlandt St - WTC PATH Rector St Bowling Green The merging at 96th will certainly be a deterrent to running the as a local to South Ferry/Bowling Green, not to mention the former shuttle platform at the latter station being too short to accommodate full-length trains. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theli11 Posted September 22, 2020 Share #10439 Posted September 22, 2020 46 minutes ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said: What about a 7th ave line to bowling green? By reinstating the shuttle platform and adding another track, this could work paired with the proposed to Parkchester by running up to Harlem 148th St! Stops: Harlem - 148th St 145th St 135th St 125th St 116th St Central Park North - 110th St 96th St 86th St 79th St 72nd St 66th St - Lincoln Center 59th St - Columbus Circle 50th St Times Sq - 42nd St 34th St - Penn Station 28th St 23rd St 18th St 14th St Christopher St - Sheridan Sq Houston St Canal St Franklin St Chambers St Cortlandt St - WTC PATH Rector St Bowling Green I don't even see a reason why this would be needed. If the is going to Parkchester, best case would be to make a shuttle from 135 to 148, instead of a whole new train, even then I would just take away Lenox Terminal. I don't even like the to Parkchester because it's.. interlining the with the . and the (Let's call your route the ) would be interlined with the and . Not only did you ruin Lexington Av, you also ruined 7th Av. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bklyn Bound 2 Local Posted September 22, 2020 Share #10440 Posted September 22, 2020 29 minutes ago, Theli11 said: I don't even see a reason why this would be needed. If the is going to Parkchester, best case would be to make a shuttle from 135 to 148, instead of a whole new train, even then I would just take away Lenox Terminal. I don't even like the to Parkchester because it's.. interlining the with the . and the (Let's call your route the ) would be interlined with the and . Not only did you ruin Lexington Av, you also ruined 7th Av. If you're gonna leave criticism, at least make it constructive. Please don't be negative about it. Have a good day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theli11 Posted September 22, 2020 Share #10441 Posted September 22, 2020 19 minutes ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said: If you're gonna leave criticism, at least make it constructive. Please don't be negative about it. Have a good day. Your train works really well at taking over the (it being the new lighter load) until it gets to 96 St, when it merges. It's a bad idea to put 3 trains with 3 different North and South terminals on one track. Merging it with the at 96 St makes your bad idea worse. If you want us to be positive, give us something positive to talk about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bklyn Bound 2 Local Posted September 22, 2020 Share #10442 Posted September 22, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Theli11 said: Your train works really well at taking over the (it being the new lighter load) until it gets to 96 St, when it merges. It's a bad idea to put 3 trains with 3 different North and South terminals on one track. Merging it with the at 96 St makes your bad idea worse. If you want us to be positive, give us something positive to talk about. Edited September 22, 2020 by Bklyn Bound 2 Local i was negative 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theli11 Posted September 22, 2020 Share #10443 Posted September 22, 2020 Just now, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said: Here is something positive: The fact that one day you will stop rudely criticising people over a f**king PROPOSAL. Its a proposal, not a plan. Sorry if it came off as rude, but it's a forum. I'm criticizing it because it's a bad idea. It's what people do when they hear ideas that they have an opinion on. It's how this forum works. Someone says a proposal, someone gives their opinion on it, and it goes on from there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bklyn Bound 2 Local Posted September 22, 2020 Share #10444 Posted September 22, 2020 It's good, and sorry I went off like that. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bklyn Bound 2 Local Posted September 22, 2020 Share #10445 Posted September 22, 2020 I have a proposal, it's a bit controversial, but it could work A deep-level/above-ground subway line The Rockaways and to Manhattan. It would make frequent stops in Queens but the rest of the time, the line would go super-express. Placeholder for line: Stops: ---Aboveground--- Beach 116th Street Beach 106th St Beach 98th St Beach 90th St Broad Channel Howard Beach - JFK Airport Aqueduct-Conduit Av Aqueduct Racetrack ---Branches off from and dips underground directly after--- Ozone Park-Pitkin Av ( at nearby Rockaway Blvd) 84th Street Euclid Av New Lots Av Pennsylvania Av East New York - Atlantic Av LIRR [LAST FREQUENT STOP IN BROOKLYN] Nostrand Av LIRR Jay Street-MetroTech World Trade Center 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted September 22, 2020 Share #10446 Posted September 22, 2020 So, a slightly different Rockaway Park ? Why? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theli11 Posted September 22, 2020 Share #10447 Posted September 22, 2020 23 minutes ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said: have a proposal, it's a bit controversial, but it could work A deep-level/above-ground subway line The Rockaways and to Manhattan. It would make frequent stops in Queens but the rest of the time, the line would go super-express. Placeholder for line: Stops: ---Aboveground--- Beach 116th Street Beach 106th St Beach 98th St Beach 90th St Broad Channel Howard Beach - JFK Airport Aqueduct-Conduit Av Aqueduct Racetrack ---Branches off from and dips underground directly after--- Ozone Park-Pitkin Av ( at nearby Rockaway Blvd) 84th Street Euclid Av New Lots Av Pennsylvania Av East New York - Atlantic Av LIRR [LAST FREQUENT STOP IN BROOKLYN] Nostrand Av LIRR Jay Street-MetroTech World Trade Center If you make this [placeholder ] work, then you should remove the train. I think a better super express using the Rockaways could use Crossbay/Woodhaven Blvds to the QBL, this train feel unnecessary, but could work on it's own. It's pretty much a faster train, which (while it is long, not a lot of people complain about it since Broadway Junction is.. 30 minutes away* It'll still be the same amount of time away, and it still misses . It's like a combination of LIRR and . You should just make this train a or or something instead of using a as a place holder. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MottAvFarRockaway Posted September 23, 2020 Share #10448 Posted September 23, 2020 (edited) Proposal Changes (MapTrack FA) Extend the northern terminus of the B from Bedford Park Boulevard to 205 Street. Results in allowing more B services to run to 205 Street. A new P service will run through the West End line from 207 Street Terminate the R at Whitehall Street Eliminate the M and replace it with parts of E, F, G Eliminate the J/Z skip-stop, the successor to it is the J peak express service Include a T service but it will run from Chambers Street to 95 Street Give the new Second Avenue Subway service the Y Run a new IRT Third Avenue route, service 8 Services will include in proposal: The services [ A B C E F G H J K L N P Q R S T W Y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] will be in the new proposal. Eliminated in the new proposal: The [ D M Z ] trains are eliminated when the proposal happened. The D is replaced by parts of B and P. The J/Z skip stop is replaced by the J peak express Edited September 23, 2020 by MottAvFarRockaway 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theli11 Posted September 23, 2020 Share #10449 Posted September 23, 2020 2 hours ago, MottAvFarRockaway said: Proposal Changes (MapTrack FA) Extend the northern terminus of the B from Bedford Park Boulevard to 205 Street. Results in allowing more B services to run to 205 Street. A new P service will run through the West End line from 207 Street Terminate the R at Whitehall Street Eliminate the M and replace it with parts of E, F, G Eliminate the J/Z skip-stop, the successor to it is the J peak express service Include a T service but it will run from Chambers Street to 95 Street Give the new Second Avenue Subway service the Y Run a new IRT Third Avenue route, service 8 Services will include in proposal: The services [ A B C E F G H J K L N P Q R S T W Y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] will be in the new proposal. Eliminated in the new proposal: The [ D M Z ] trains are eliminated when the proposal happened. The D is replaced by parts of B and P. The J/Z skip stop is replaced by the J peak express Your train naming* would be confusing to passengers. the 'P' train can just be a 'D', your 'T' train can easily be the 'M' since you eliminated it. Then you can keep the 'T' as second avenue subway.. The train running to 205 as the sole train would be a wreck since it's the local train. Grand Concourse service will be split in half, because the shares with the and the (P) trains, without another service the Concourse will have less service than it has now. And the (P) train isn't needed in Washington Heights. Eliminating the entirely, and making it replaced with and trains instead of just changing the line it goes down is a new one for me. trains RUN EMPTY ON THE QBL, because it doesn't go to Manhattan. People like the as is, the only issue is the fact that it's only 8 cars. The (8) train would be extremely redundant with the Second Avenue Subway. Personally, I would just make your (Y) turn between 63 and 55th St, and go down 3rd Av to catch all the transfers, then turn back on 23 St, and go down First Avenue to catch all of the East Side. Building it would be a hassle however. Your 'T' train is.. fine, but without a supplement service on that line, 4th Avenue will still have less than adequate service since it'll share frequencies with the train. you might as well extend the since there's not enough space for it to all terminate at Whitehall. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bklyn Bound 2 Local Posted September 23, 2020 Share #10450 Posted September 23, 2020 4 hours ago, MottAvFarRockaway said: A new P service will run through the West End line from 207 Street There is controversy about naming the line P, as unfortunately, some New Yorkers are a little too immature for this to work. Yes, this is true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.