Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[LGA Link N Train]

I've been thinking about a certain idea for a few reasons, and if this idea would be an operationally feasible one.

SInce Queens Blvd is getting CBTC and 8th Avenue is supposed to get CBTC at some point in time. Neighborhoods such as Bed-Stuy and East New York are also Slowly Gentrifying, all of which Fulton Street and Pitkin Avenue Pass Through, how feasible (in terms of an operations standpoint) would it be to enact the following idea?

 -  (15 TPH) Jamaica Center/Jamaica-179th to Lefferts Blvd/Far Rockaway via QB-53rd-8th-FUlton Express

-  (10 TPH) 168th Street (207th on Weekends/Overnight) to WTC via CPW/8th Local

-  (10 TPH) 145th Street/Bedofrd Park Blvd to Euclid Avenue via Concourse/CPW/8th/Fulton Street Local

 -  (12 TPH) 207th Street to Brighton Beach via CPW/6th/Brighton Express

 -  Stays as is

The only 2 bottlenecks eliminated in this plan are the 2 Y Junctions below 59th Street and 50th Street. 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1VFJjSxL455GRPODxIIM-6nJXDsb3UyYk&ll=40.72070333815391%2C-73.93235774123153&z=13

 

[Vulturious]

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I've been thinking about a certain idea for a few reasons, and if this idea would be an operationally feasible one.

SInce Queens Blvd is getting CBTC and 8th Avenue is supposed to get CBTC at some point in time. Neighborhoods such as Bed-Stuy and East New York are also Slowly Gentrifying, all of which Fulton Street and Pitkin Avenue Pass Through, how feasible (in terms of an operations standpoint) would it be to enact the following idea?

 -  (15 TPH) Jamaica Center/Jamaica-179th to Lefferts Blvd/Far Rockaway via QB-53rd-8th-FUlton Express

-  (10 TPH) 168th Street (207th on Weekends/Overnight) to WTC via CPW/8th Local

-  (10 TPH) 145th Street/Bedofrd Park Blvd to Euclid Avenue via Concourse/CPW/8th/Fulton Street Local

 -  (12 TPH) 207th Street to Brighton Beach via CPW/6th/Brighton Express

 -  Stays as is

The only 2 bottlenecks eliminated in this plan are the 2 Y Junctions below 59th Street and 50th Street. 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1VFJjSxL455GRPODxIIM-6nJXDsb3UyYk&ll=40.72070333815391%2C-73.93235774123153&z=13

 

The idea sounds good, however it couldn't be implemented today since  trains would be traveling a much further distance than the  is. I do have a couple of questions to ask:

• How would late night service work in this scenario since current  trains are running local all the way during that time?
•  trains aren't operating on the Weekends and Overnights? I don't see a reason to do that since you basically have it operating to 207th along with the  also running local during weekend and overnights. It would probably be better to run it full time.

[Theli11]

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I've been thinking about a certain idea for a few reasons, and if this idea would be an operationally feasible one.

SInce Queens Blvd is getting CBTC and 8th Avenue is supposed to get CBTC at some point in time. Neighborhoods such as Bed-Stuy and East New York are also Slowly Gentrifying, all of which Fulton Street and Pitkin Avenue Pass Through, how feasible (in terms of an operations standpoint) would it be to enact the following idea?

 -  (15 TPH) Jamaica Center/Jamaica-179th to Lefferts Blvd/Far Rockaway via QB-53rd-8th-FUlton Express

-  (10 TPH) 168th Street (207th on Weekends/Overnight) to WTC via CPW/8th Local

-  (10 TPH) 145th Street/Bedofrd Park Blvd to Euclid Avenue via Concourse/CPW/8th/Fulton Street Local

 -  (12 TPH) 207th Street to Brighton Beach via CPW/6th/Brighton Express

 -  Stays as is

The only 2 bottlenecks eliminated in this plan are the 2 Y Junctions below 59th Street and 50th Street. 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1VFJjSxL455GRPODxIIM-6nJXDsb3UyYk&ll=40.72070333815391%2C-73.93235774123153&z=13

 

Yes but you're creating a merge between and , and trains twice (after 145 St and before . By removing the 59 St merge, mitigating a new 145 St merge. It's pretty much what happens in every CPW deinterlining plan. It's made to be interlined. Simply put, there has to be a Local-Express pair going to 168/207 St, and Grand Concourse. If you deinterline below 145 St, it will be interlined above it. 

 

Below 59th St [] trains, you'll have the a merge between and trains at Canal, and and  trains going on Fulton. I genuinely think that 8th Av is going to be impossible to interline unless there's a switch between local and express tracks on the upper 145th St level. 

[Vulturious]

I don't know if this was asked or mentioned before, but I'm going to say it anyways. A few weeks ago, I've been talking to people online about how isolated the  is and how transfers work. Because of that discussion, I and along with someone else thought of a question that really made everyone think how service might go. What if the MTA decided to convert all of the  line from IRT to BMT?

[Trainmaster5]

49 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

I don't know if this was asked or mentioned before, but I'm going to say it anyways. A few weeks ago, I've been talking to people online about how isolated the  is and how transfers work. Because of that discussion, I and along with someone else thought of a question that really made everyone think how service might go. What if the MTA decided to convert all of the  line from IRT to BMT?

Think about the Steinway tubes under the East River. Get my drift ? In other words what happens to the segment between Vernon-Jackson and Hudson Yards ? Pretty tight fit for B division equipment. Carry on.

[Vulturious]

27 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Think about the Steinway tubes under the East River. Get my drift ? In other words what happens to the segment between Vernon-Jackson and Hudson Yards ? Pretty tight fit for B division equipment. Carry on.

I know it's a tight fit, again converted. Last I heard, the tunnels at Flushing are wide enough for B division equipment, just the tunnels from Hunters Point all the way into Manhattan are tight. It'll probably cost a lot of course to get them converted, but maybe in the long run, it would be beneficial.

[P3F]

Whenever converting IRT lines to BMT spec is brought up, the problem areas are always the Park Avenue Tunnel serving the  and Steinway Tubes on the . These segments make the conversion too difficult to be worth performing. Of course this is aside from the fact that we have hundreds of perfectly usable IRT cars that would become obsolete if the lines were to be converted to BMT spec...

Edited October 24, 2020 by P3F

[Trainmaster5]

39 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

I know it's a tight fit, again converted. Last I heard, the tunnels at Flushing are wide enough for B division equipment, just the tunnels from Hunters Point all the way into Manhattan are tight. It'll probably cost a lot of course to get them converted, but maybe in the long run, it would be beneficial.

As a person who worked work trains in the Steinway tubes in the prehistoric era it’s my observation that the only way B division equipment could traverse this area is if the tubes were shut down and replaced with wider tunnels. R62 equipment scraped the walls when they underwent testing. The door indication lights on the upper car bodies were being knocked off in the tubes. I’ve walked from First Avenue uphill to the Grand Central platform a few times and it is a tight fit. We would rather take a diesel and a flat car rather than a diesel and a rider car through the area because the former seemed safer than the latter. My personal experience. Carry on.

[Theli11]

51 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

I know it's a tight fit, again converted. Last I heard, the tunnels at Flushing are wide enough for B division equipment, just the tunnels from Hunters Point all the way into Manhattan are tight. It'll probably cost a lot of course to get them converted, but maybe in the long run, it would be beneficial

Beneficial for who? I think it's better that it's better as it is now. Both and trains run perfectly fine because they're isolated lines (isolated as in they share minimal trackage with other lines). I think it'll cost MORE getting them converted for benefits that might not even exist. This goes for any other conversions of IRT to B-Division. It'll cost more than you'll get out of it.

 

[Deucey]

3 hours ago, Vulturious said:

What if the MTA decided to convert all of the  line from IRT to BMT?

If there was a need to run a Flushing service on BMT Broadway, then sure - save that switch from Broadway to Flushing would be slow.

But then, notwithstanding @Trainmaster5giving you company info, you’ve isolated Hudson Yards and LIC to make a route that people could do on foot now at QB Plaza or Roosevelt Av.

[LGA Link N Train]

On 10/22/2020 at 10:50 PM, Vulturious said:

The idea sounds good, however it couldn't be implemented today since  trains would be traveling a much further distance than the  is. I do have a couple of questions to ask:

• How would late night service work in this scenario since current  trains are running local all the way during that time?
•  trains aren't operating on the Weekends and Overnights? I don't see a reason to do that since you basically have it operating to 207th along with the  also running local during weekend and overnights. It would probably be better to run it full time.

I'm not too concerned about runtimes, because even without CBTC, I think that the  would save a few minutes of runtime compared to the  (I could be wrong though). To answer your first Question, I think the could remain as a local overnight and only run Express in Manhattan. For your 2nd Question, I was intendint to display that  Trains would replace  service to 207th during Weekends and Overnights, because this plan only focuses on swapping the and , which would require changes at 59th. Had I taken the whole DeKalb plan that was mentioned earlier, then sure, I'd make the  a full time route. 

21 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Yes but you're creating a merge between and , and trains twice (after 145 St and before . By removing the 59 St merge, mitigating a new 145 St merge. It's pretty much what happens in every CPW deinterlining plan. It's made to be interlined. Simply put, there has to be a Local-Express pair going to 168/207 St, and Grand Concourse. If you deinterline below 145 St, it will be interlined above it. 

 

Below 59th St [] trains, you'll have the a merge between and trains at Canal, and and  trains going on Fulton. I genuinely think that 8th Av is going to be impossible to interline unless there's a switch between local and express tracks on the upper 145th St level. 

To respond to your first part, the whole merge at 145th is staying the same way, only with the  and being rearranged, so I don't see what point you're trying to make. I don't mind any ideas involving deinterlining at 59th, but 145th has to stay inerlined IMO unless you were able to do any alterations in that area or if it were feasible to do some sort of peak express on the  which I don't believe is feasible. 

Now regarding everything below 59th, I understand your concerns with the fact that I didn't get rid of the merge at Canal Street, but that wasn't the point of my proposal so I left it alone. I also didn't want to mess with QBL so thats another reason I left it as is. 

[Armandito]

11 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Beneficial for who? I think it's better that it's better as it is now. Both and trains run perfectly fine because they're isolated lines (isolated as in they share minimal trackage with other lines). I think it'll cost MORE getting them converted for benefits that might not even exist. This goes for any other conversions of IRT to B-Division. It'll cost more than you'll get out of it.

 

Which is why I designed my Northern Boulevard subway line ( train) to be its own route instead of a trunk line serving multiple services. You get to maximize route capacity and there's much less propensity for delays due to the lack of interlining.

(Needless to say, I got rid of the third track in the latest revision of my proposal and settled for just two tracks like the SAS.)

[Theli11]

1 hour ago, Armandito said:

Which is why I designed my Northern Boulevard subway line ( train) to be its own route instead of a trunk line serving multiple services. You get to maximize route capacity and there's much less propensity for delays due to the lack of interlining.

(Needless to say, I got rid of the third track in the latest revision of my proposal and settled for just two tracks like the SAS.)

I would say a third track COULD be beneficial in Queen just in case something happens on either local tracks.

[JeremiahC99]

2 hours ago, Armandito said:

Which is why I designed my Northern Boulevard subway line ( train) to be its own route instead of a trunk line serving multiple services. You get to maximize route capacity and there's much less propensity for delays due to the lack of interlining.

(Needless to say, I got rid of the third track in the latest revision of my proposal and settled for just two tracks like the SAS.)

 

25 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

I would say a third track COULD be beneficial in Queen just in case something happens on either local tracks.

If we are going to do three tracks, why not go the extra mile and do 4 tracks?

[Vulturious]

14 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

As a person who worked work trains in the Steinway tubes in the prehistoric era it’s my observation that the only way B division equipment could traverse this area is if the tubes were shut down and replaced with wider tunnels. R62 equipment scraped the walls when they underwent testing. The door indication lights on the upper car bodies were being knocked off in the tubes. I’ve walked from First Avenue uphill to the Grand Central platform a few times and it is a tight fit. We would rather take a diesel and a flat car rather than a diesel and a rider car through the area because the former seemed safer than the latter. My personal experience. Carry on.

13 hours ago, Deucey said:

If there was a need to run a Flushing service on BMT Broadway, then sure - save that switch from Broadway to Flushing would be slow.

But then, notwithstanding @Trainmaster5giving you company info, you’ve isolated Hudson Yards and LIC to make a route that people could do on foot now at QB Plaza or Roosevelt Av.

I see, I just wanted to see if it were to be possible. Also about the Flushing service running on BMT Broadway, it doesn't necessarily need to do that at all. It's more of an alternate plan that would allow trains from Flushing to be rerouted in case trains cannot get to Hudson yard.

13 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Beneficial for who? I think it's better that it's better as it is now. Both and trains run perfectly fine because they're isolated lines (isolated as in they share minimal trackage with other lines). I think it'll cost MORE getting them converted for benefits that might not even exist. This goes for any other conversions of IRT to B-Division. It'll cost more than you'll get out of it.

 

Well, I never said said anything about converting the rest of the IRT division at all, I don't know where you got that idea. I do agree it would cost a lot of money, however I said in the long run. Maybe not as beneficial as I thought it would be, but if it happened around the time the MTA has grabbed BMT/IND and IRT, might've been a different story.

[Armandito]

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

 

If we are going to do three tracks, why not go the extra mile and do 4 tracks?

Because that would require interlining to some extent, and the general trend in recent years is for two-track lines with stations spaced further apart. As you can see in my route map here (https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1xxOviuFLs1P8LiFK-DurKk2yPp54nKbV&ll=40.76156963855868%2C-73.88143614999998&z=10), my proposal has fewer stops between LIC and Flushing than the train. While not the fastest way to get to Manhattan, fewer stops and CBTC treatment would pay off accordingly.

(Note that the stops at 36 St and Queens Plaza would be built underneath the existing platforms along the QBL.)

Edited October 24, 2020 by Armandito

[Theli11]

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

To respond to your first part, the whole merge at 145th is staying the same way, only with the  and being rearranged, so I don't see what point you're trying to make. I don't mind any ideas involving deinterlining at 59th, but 145th has to stay inerlined IMO unless you were able to do any alterations in that area or if it were feasible to do some sort of peak express on the  which I don't believe is feasible. 

Now regarding everything below 59th, I understand your concerns with the fact that I didn't get rid of the merge at Canal Street, but that wasn't the point of my proposal so I left it alone. I also didn't want to mess with QBL so thats another reason I left it as is. 

The point I was trying to make is that you eliminated some merges and kept others because it is impossible to deinterline that entire route. Best case scenerio using the track switch to merge  express trains on the local track and keeping the on Grand Concourse. Like all Deinterlining plans you'll force a transfer to either 145 St, or 125th St, depending on the stop.

 

3 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Well, I never said said anything about converting the rest of the IRT division at all, I don't know where you got that idea. I do agree it would cost a lot of money, however I said in the long run. Maybe not as beneficial as I thought it would be, but if it happened around the time the MTA has grabbed BMT/IND and IRT, might've been a different story.

It was generally to everyone who suggest the idea of converting everything to the same standards, too much money for something that MIGHT be beneficial.

 

3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

If we are going to do three tracks, why not go the extra mile and do 4 tracks?

Expensive, especially since it's going UNDER 36th and the QB Express. I don't want it to have express service if it's going to be spaced out as it usually is. Three tracks is good if there's no express service.. 4 tracks for express service. You don't need it if the stops are going to be spaced out like it is currently.

[Armandito]

1 hour ago, Theli11 said:

Expensive, especially since it's going UNDER 36th and the QB Express. I don't want it to have express service if it's going to be spaced out as it usually is. Three tracks is good if there's no express service.. 4 tracks for express service. You don't need it if the stops are going to be spaced out like it is currently.

Just for reference:

Edited October 25, 2020 by Armandito

[bobtehpanda]

21 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

As a person who worked work trains in the Steinway tubes in the prehistoric era it’s my observation that the only way B division equipment could traverse this area is if the tubes were shut down and replaced with wider tunnels. R62 equipment scraped the walls when they underwent testing. The door indication lights on the upper car bodies were being knocked off in the tubes. I’ve walked from First Avenue uphill to the Grand Central platform a few times and it is a tight fit. We would rather take a diesel and a flat car rather than a diesel and a rider car through the area because the former seemed safer than the latter. My personal experience. Carry on.

To add onto this, the Steinway tubes were originally built for streetcars, so they have probably been shaved back to the extent possible.

1 hour ago, Armandito said:

Just for reference:

<pictures>

I think this bears repeating, but the western portion of this (e.g. west of Northern Blvd  is simply not constructible. The last time the subway tried building around/under active rail lines it bankrupted the IND.

[Armandito]

3 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

To add onto this, the Steinway tubes were originally built for streetcars, so they have probably been shaved back to the extent possible.

I think this bears repeating, but the western portion of this (e.g. west of Northern Blvd  is simply not constructible. The last time the subway tried building around/under active rail lines it bankrupted the IND.

Didn't the PANYNJ assist with part of the construction of the Sixth Avenue Line?

[Trainmaster5]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

To add onto this, the Steinway tubes were originally built for streetcars, so they have probably been shaved back to the extent possible.

I think this bears repeating, but the western portion of this (e.g. west of Northern Blvd  is simply not constructible. The last time the subway tried building around/under active rail lines it bankrupted the IND.

Glad to see your reference to the streetcars. Many people are unaware of that fact. I wonder what they think of the Montague tunnel job. Has anyone proposed shaving that tunnel for clearance ? Would be a better place for the to spend their money  in my opinion. Then again this agency can't connect partially constructed tunnels north of 96th and Second Avenue. Carry on. 

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, Armandito said:

Didn't the PANYNJ assist with part of the construction of the Sixth Avenue Line?

No? It was still the H&M Railroad in its day. And the City paid the entire costs of constructing the Sixth Avenue IND.

Wikipedia says this about the H&M's "contribution":

Quote

The H&M's 33rd Street terminal closed on December 26, 1937 and service on the H&M was cut back to 28th Street to allow for construction on the subway to take place.[33] The 33rd Street terminal was moved south to 32nd Street and reopened on September 24, 1939. The city had to pay $800,000 to build the new 33rd Street station and reimbursed H&M another $300,000 to the H&M for the loss of revenue.[34] The 28th Street station was closed at this time because the southern entrances to the 33rd Street terminal were located only two blocks away, rendering the 28th Street stop unnecessary. It was demolished to make room for the IND tracks below.[35] The IRT's Sixth Avenue elevated ultimately closed in December 1938, just before the Sixth Avenue subway was completed.[36]

So not only did the H&M not do anything, the city had to compensate them, because they disrupted an active train line that would otherwise be taking paying customers.

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Then again this agency can't connect partially constructed tunnels north of 96th and Second Avenue. Carry on. 

Oh it can, for the low low cost of $6B. Better pay that before anyone blinks cause the cost can only go up in this city.

I can't believe Capital Construction's track record is supposed to convince us that regular maintenance for all the agencies should be handled by them, too 🙄

[Armandito]

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

No? It was still the H&M Railroad in its day. And the City paid the entire costs of constructing the Sixth Avenue IND.

Wikipedia says this about the H&M's "contribution":

So not only did the H&M not do anything, the city had to compensate them, because they disrupted an active train line that would otherwise be taking paying customers.

That's unfortunate.

On the other hand, had a Northern Boulevard subway been built at the time the other IND lines opened (during the Depression), it would've been a completely different story.

[Reptile]

14 hours ago, Armandito said:

Just for reference:

But you have the LIRR/Sunnyside Yards tracks that would be tons easier to work with, since you won't even cross QBL until the Northern Blvd station, you'll be staying south of it the whole time