Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

I still stand by taking the (A) away from lefferts and having it concentrate on the rockaways would replacing lefferts with A (K) service help and would the math of (A) trains between lefferts and far rockaway help?

Well I'm in favor of less confusion by signing all Lefferts (A) trains as a (K). Seeing as the (A) is most certainly getting the R211's base order, it's honestly safe to say they can call start calling them the (K) because they won't have to deal with manually changing the rollsigns on both sides of the R46's. Plus the R32's aren't running around the (A) anymore. I doubt people would complain about this change since nothing is changing at all and helps with the confusion. As for the math of it, I don't know honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
36 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

Well I'm in favor of less confusion by signing all Lefferts (A) trains as a (K). Seeing as the (A) is most certainly getting the R211's base order, it's honestly safe to say they can call start calling them the (K) because they won't have to deal with manually changing the rollsigns on both sides of the R46's. Plus the R32's aren't running around the (A) anymore. I doubt people would complain about this change since nothing is changing at all and helps with the confusion. As for the math of it, I don't know honestly.

a while back someone told me the math of the balance of (A) trains going between far rock and lefferts 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

a while back someone told me the math of the balance of (A) trains going between far rock and lefferts 

IIRC, wasn't it like a split half and half? I could be remembering things wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Well I'm in favor of less confusion by signing all Lefferts (A) trains as a (K). Seeing as the (A) is most certainly getting the R211's base order, it's honestly safe to say they can call start calling them the (K) because they won't have to deal with manually changing the rollsigns on both sides of the R46's. Plus the R32's aren't running around the (A) anymore. I doubt people would complain about this change since nothing is changing at all and helps with the confusion. As for the math of it, I don't know honestly.

But like.. there is no difference. You're not adding any trains on the (A) line and the (K) isn't doing anything but the (A) route. People might not complain but it's rather pointless to do anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2021 at 3:46 PM, Vulturious said:

Well I'm in favor of less confusion by signing all Lefferts (A) trains as a (K). Seeing as the (A) is most certainly getting the R211's base order, it's honestly safe to say they can call start calling them the (K) because they won't have to deal with manually changing the rollsigns on both sides of the R46's. Plus the R32's aren't running around the (A) anymore. I doubt people would complain about this change since nothing is changing at all and helps with the confusion. As for the math of it, I don't know honestly.

I agree with this as well.  For the most part, unless you ride beyond Rockaway Blvd, (A) and (K) will be identical.  Kind of like how (2) and (3) are identical for riders between 135 St and Franklin Ave.  You simply take the train that comes first, as either train will do unless you are going north of 135 or south of Franklin.

The ease of confusion is especially helpful for passengers heading to JFK via Howard Beach.  Under the above proposal, all (A) trains will get you toward the airport.  And I am a little sensitive that a significant number of people taking the subway to the airport may not be regular customers of the system, so it is especially important not to confuse them and get airport passengers lost in Ozone Park.

It is true that this change will still leave some parts of the system with split destinations:  (A) to Far Rockaway and <A> to Rockaway Park, (5) to Dyre or <5> to Nereid,  the occasional (2) to New Lots,  (E) to Jamaica Center or <E> to 179 (any others that are run regularly?).   But as those are so much less frequent and don't generally involve an important destination as JFK, I am willing to let those stay as they are generally only relevant to a small percentage of end-of-the-line riders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/24/2021 at 7:45 PM, mrsman said:

I agree with this as well.  For the most part, unless you ride beyond Rockaway Blvd, (A) and (K) will be identical.  Kind of like how (2) and (3) are identical for riders between 135 St and Franklin Ave.  You simply take the train that comes first, as either train will do unless you are going north of 135 or south of Franklin.

The ease of confusion is especially helpful for passengers heading to JFK via Howard Beach.  Under the above proposal, all (A) trains will get you toward the airport.  And I am a little sensitive that a significant number of people taking the subway to the airport may not be regular customers of the system, so it is especially important not to confuse them and get airport passengers lost in Ozone Park.

It is true that this change will still leave some parts of the system with split destinations:  (A) to Far Rockaway and <A> to Rockaway Park, (5) to Dyre or <5> to Nereid,  the occasional (2) to New Lots,  (E) to Jamaica Center or <E> to 179 (any others that are run regularly?).   But as those are so much less frequent and don't generally involve an important destination as JFK, I am willing to let those stay as they are generally only relevant to a small percentage of end-of-the-line riders.

They say they want to change lefferts this was before the covid crap why didn't they pull the trigger 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I still play that jpwright subway map on building your subway 

Quick question 

I know they switched the (R) to forest hills due to yard issues 

In playing the game I proposed that the R run on a  fictional LIE Hhe line would it be feasible to build 1 or 2 track elevated that branches off at a possible FM Corona park stop that runs onto the line or runoff to the yard at eos via the van wyck?

Or would it just be simple is to have those yard bound trains end service at woodhaven and run like today's R does to forest hills

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2021 at 9:18 PM, Amiri the subway guy said:

Nice plan how many tracks would your proposed 3rd Avenue line have. And would it be elevated. Where would it turn to 3rd Avenue from Webster Avenue 

Sorry for late reply but I'm thinking a 4 track line whole way through and once it goes to queens it can be elevated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone If the MTA creates new routes like the T and 8 trains trains or bring back routes like H and K. What voices would the announcements be

I was thinking that the K and T train could have the announcements voiced by Catherine Cowdery with the next stop is announcements sounding like the G 7 and V trains. And the H train could have the announcements voiced by Kathleen Campion and the next stop is announcements sounding like the A C trains. The K train could alternatively be voiced by Kathleen Campion and the next stop is announcements sounding like the F train. This isn’t an official proposal it’s more of what if scenario

 

i bring this up cause I believe that the first step in making new MTA routes is looking for a women to voice the announcements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Hello everyone If the MTA creates new routes like the T and 8 trains trains or bring back routes like H and K. What voices would the announcements be

I was thinking that the K and T train could have the announcements voiced by Catherine Cowdery with the next stop is announcements sounding like the G 7 and V trains. And the H train could have the announcements voiced by Kathleen Campion and the next stop is announcements sounding like the A C trains. The K train could alternatively be voiced by Kathleen Campion and the next stop is announcements sounding like the F train. This isn’t an official proposal it’s more of what if scenario

 

i bring this up cause I believe that the first step in making new MTA routes is looking for a women to voice the announcements. 

This is a South 4th St Union Avenue bound K local train, the next and last stop is South 4 St Union Avenue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Hello everyone If the MTA creates new routes like the T and 8 trains trains or bring back routes like H and K. What voices would the announcements be

I was thinking that the K and T train could have the announcements voiced by Catherine Cowdery with the next stop is announcements sounding like the G 7 and V trains. And the H train could have the announcements voiced by Kathleen Campion and the next stop is announcements sounding like the A C trains. The K train could alternatively be voiced by Kathleen Campion and the next stop is announcements sounding like the F train. This isn’t an official proposal it’s more of what if scenario

 

i bring this up cause I believe that the first step in making new MTA routes is looking for a women to voice the announcements. 

Eh, personally, Catherine's version from the (7)(E)(G)(V) just doesn't sound the best. I prefer the ones from the Eastern Division (J)(L)(M)(Z) or South Brooklyn Division (B)(D)(N)(Q)(R)(W). While I do not mind Kathleen's version of the (A)(C)(S), I definitely do not like the (F)'s version which sounds pretty boring. 

When it comes to whatever would be voiced for the (H) and (K), I would assume it would be Kathleen's version of the (A)(C)(S). Maybe the (F)'s version would be added, but seeing as the (MTA) is trying to match all NTT's to one voice for "The next stop is:" announcements to default to Kathleen's version of the (A)(C)(S), it still would most likely be the that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

Eh, personally, Catherine's version from the (7)(E)(G)(V) just doesn't sound the best. I prefer the ones from the Eastern Division (J)(L)(M)(Z) or South Brooklyn Division (B)(D)(N)(Q)(R)(W). While I do not mind Kathleen's version of the (A)(C)(S), I definitely do not like the (F)'s version which sounds pretty boring. 

When it comes to whatever would be voiced for the (H) and (K), I would assume it would be Kathleen's version of the (A)(C)(S). Maybe the (F)'s version would be added, but seeing as the (MTA) is trying to match all NTT's to one voice for "The next stop is:" announcements to default to Kathleen's version of the (A)(C)(S), it still would most likely be the that.

Ok my opinion on the current announcements 

 

(A)(C)(F)(S) Best of the announcement sets by far in my opinion. They are extremely quick while at the same time being completely understandable by the average rider. It also helps that the majority of the original announcements remain and were not modified or mismatched like some of the others below. I prefer the (F) version of the next stop is cause the (A)(C)(S) sounds a bit too monotone for my liking


(1)(2)(3) Neutral over them I Don't hate them, but I also don't particularly like them either.

(4)(5)(6) Sounds great. The main problem I have is that  "THE NEXT STOP IS" sounds a bit too aggressive and authoritative for my standards and it’s does really sound right being paired with the (6) original more soft-spoken destination and stop announcements. I prefer the older version of this the next stop is announcements 

 

 

(L)(M)(J)(Z) My favorite of the Cowdery recordings, but that because they were mostly recorded back in 2001 when she didn't sound way too cheerful like she does on Broadway, or death warmed over as she does with the later Queens Blvd recordings.

(B)(D) (N)(Q)(R)(W) Cowdery's later recordings for the 160s I’m neutral but they either swung between too cheerful or beyond dead.
 

(E) The next stop is announcements sounds as if Cowdery’s trying too hard to be forceful while missing the mark the BMT Eastern Division version would’ve sounded better. 

 

 

(7) WTF MTA. This sounds like an spliced Frankenstein abomination experiment gone horribly wrong, Look MTA if y’all can’t get Annie Bergen to update some of the announcements, y’all really should've just  someone else to do the entire set all over again. I’m satisfied that they at they're making an effort to fix some of the problems with the set, especially regarding the awful splicing, but there are still a whole bunch issues that need to be resolved. 

(G)(V) Arguably the weakest next stop is announcements from Ms. Cowdery. It’s Way too slow monotone and droning for my taste. It sounds like Ms. Cowdery was either tired sleepy or gotten drunk before stepping into the recording booth.

 

I agree with how the (H) and (K) should sound I believe that a new women will voice the (T) but Kathleen and Cowdery would be even better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Ok my opinion on the current announcements 

 

(A)(C)(F)(S) Best of the announcement sets by far in my opinion. They are extremely quick while at the same time being completely understandable by the average rider. It also helps that the majority of the original announcements remain and were not modified or mismatched like some of the others below. I prefer the (F) version of the next stop is cause the (A)(C)(S) sounds a bit too monotone for my liking


(1)(2)(3) Neutral over them I Don't hate them, but I also don't particularly like them either.

(4)(5)(6) Sounds great. The main problem I have is that  "THE NEXT STOP IS" sounds a bit too aggressive and authoritative for my standards and it’s does really sound right being paired with the (6) original more soft-spoken destination and stop announcements. I prefer the older version of this the next stop is announcements 

 

 

(L)(M)(J)(Z) My favorite of the Cowdery recordings, but that because they were mostly recorded back in 2001 when she didn't sound way too cheerful like she does on Broadway, or death warmed over as she does with the later Queens Blvd recordings.

(B)(D) (N)(Q)(R)(W) Cowdery's later recordings for the 160s I’m neutral but they either swung between too cheerful or beyond dead.
 

(E) The next stop is announcements sounds as if Cowdery’s trying too hard to be forceful while missing the mark the BMT Eastern Division version would’ve sounded better. 

 

 

(7) WTF MTA. This sounds like an spliced Frankenstein abomination experiment gone horribly wrong, Look MTA if y’all can’t get Annie Bergen to update some of the announcements, y’all really should've just  someone else to do the entire set all over again. I’m satisfied that they at they're making an effort to fix some of the problems with the set, especially regarding the awful splicing, but there are still a whole bunch issues that need to be resolved. 

(G)(V) Arguably the weakest next stop is announcements from Ms. Cowdery. It’s Way too slow monotone and droning for my taste. It sounds like Ms. Cowdery was either tired sleepy or gotten drunk before stepping into the recording booth.

 

I agree with how the (H) and (K) should sound I believe that a new women will voice the (T) but Kathleen and Cowdery would be even better

Well to be honest I love the G/V next stop is announcement but the G/V train announcements in general didn’t really fit with the tone it sound too slow. I believe the B/D should’ve used this version of the next stop is announcements like the 7/G/V trains because The combination of the chipper Broadway "The next stop is" with the much more subdued stop/destination recordings from the E do not make for a good match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

I think you need to make this public for us to be able to see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Ok I made it public. What do you think of the propose routes. Any suggestions any modifications 

To clarify for everyone else what the routes are:

(T) - Co-Op City - Gun Hill Road/3rd Avenue Local - 2nd Avenue Local (from 116th) - Hanover Square
(V) - White Plains Road/Gun Hill Road - 3rd Avenue Express - 2nd Avenue Express (Stops at 116th, 55th, 42nd, 14th St, and Houston St), - Culver Local (Delancey Essex to Church Av) 
(K) - Northern Blvd Local, 63 St Local, 2nd Avenue Express (55th, 42, 14, Houston) - Williamsburg Ridgewood Local (?!) 
There is also the (Q) train and I'm assuming that's going to 125th either crosstown or just to Lexington
Most of my complaints are going to come from (K) and (V) trains since your (T) train is pretty cut and dry.

Your Williamsburg Routing has 3 free out of system transfers, and I feel like that's just inconvenient and should have an actual transfer rather than forcing people to walk. You could've used a South 4th St routing and I would've been fine with it. The usefulness is there I just think it can be better utilized while having the same idea. I'm not entirely sure how i feel about 63 St, and whether or not the (K) is sharing the track with the (F). (don't think there can be another tunnel for the (K) either way).
 

I also think the (V) can go to Euclid via Fulton St rather than via Culver, that way the (A)(C) will share the express while the (V) can go on the local. 

Other than that this is pretty fair 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

To clarify for everyone else what the routes are:

(T) - Co-Op City - Gun Hill Road/3rd Avenue Local - 2nd Avenue Local (from 116th) - Hanover Square
(V) - White Plains Road/Gun Hill Road - 3rd Avenue Express - 2nd Avenue Express (Stops at 116th, 55th, 42nd, 14th St, and Houston St), - Culver Local (Delancey Essex to Church Av) 
(K) - Northern Blvd Local, 63 St Local, 2nd Avenue Express (55th, 42, 14, Houston) - Williamsburg Ridgewood Local (?!) 
There is also the (Q) train and I'm assuming that's going to 125th either crosstown or just to Lexington
Most of my complaints are going to come from (K) and (V) trains since your (T) train is pretty cut and dry.

Your Williamsburg Routing has 3 free out of system transfers, and I feel like that's just inconvenient and should have an actual transfer rather than forcing people to walk. You could've used a South 4th St routing and I would've been fine with it. The usefulness is there I just think it can be better utilized while having the same idea. I'm not entirely sure how i feel about 63 St, and whether or not the (K) is sharing the track with the (F). (don't think there can be another tunnel for the (K) either way).
 

I also think the (V) can go to Euclid via Fulton St rather than via Culver, that way the (A)(C) will share the express while the (V) can go on the local. 

Other than that this is pretty fair 

You are right the (Q) Would go crosstown via 125th Street. The reasoning why I propose Northern Blvd/2nd Ave express trains using the 63rd St tunnel. 
Is that It would allow would allow riders coming from 6th Ave, Queens blvd, Hillside the chance to easily transfer to the 2nd Ave Subway. And it would safe money. And yeah culver ain’t the best option I was thinking that a SAS-culver link would allow for the (F) to run express but that would create a merge zone hence slowing down the (F)  Yeah the Fulton street connection and making both (A)(C) express is a better option. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Theli11 said:

To clarify for everyone else what the routes are:

(T) - Co-Op City - Gun Hill Road/3rd Avenue Local - 2nd Avenue Local (from 116th) - Hanover Square
(V) - White Plains Road/Gun Hill Road - 3rd Avenue Express - 2nd Avenue Express (Stops at 116th, 55th, 42nd, 14th St, and Houston St), - Culver Local (Delancey Essex to Church Av) 
(K) - Northern Blvd Local, 63 St Local, 2nd Avenue Express (55th, 42, 14, Houston) - Williamsburg Ridgewood Local (?!) 
There is also the (Q) train and I'm assuming that's going to 125th either crosstown or just to Lexington
Most of my complaints are going to come from (K) and (V) trains since your (T) train is pretty cut and dry.

Your Williamsburg Routing has 3 free out of system transfers, and I feel like that's just inconvenient and should have an actual transfer rather than forcing people to walk. You could've used a South 4th St routing and I would've been fine with it. The usefulness is there I just think it can be better utilized while having the same idea. I'm not entirely sure how i feel about 63 St, and whether or not the (K) is sharing the track with the (F). (don't think there can be another tunnel for the (K) either way).
 

I also think the (V) can go to Euclid via Fulton St rather than via Culver, that way the (A)(C) will share the express while the (V) can go on the local. 

Other than that this is pretty fair 

I tried to make a map about the routes here’s the link https://metrodreamin.com/view/ejJSdkwzOHltdVZjWldyVjBLY05WQ1BJMW9qMXww

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Williamsburg Routing has 3 free out of system transfers, and I feel like that's just inconvenient and should have an actual transfer rather than forcing people to walk. You could've used a South 4th St routing and I would've been fine with it. The usefulness is there I just think it can be better utilized while having the same idea. I'm not entirely sure how i feel about 63 St, and whether or not the (K) is sharing the track with the (F). (don't think there can be another tunnel for the (K) either way).

I wanted to do that but the map qulity wasnt all that great but agreed. I made a new Williamburg Ridgewood line cause there’s isn’t any more room on the Jamaica line and due to its limitations that would either force the (K) to be strictly reduced to 8 cars or expanding the entire BMT Eastern Division to 10 cars. Something while would be benefiting it wouldn’t be worth the cost as it makes the SAS more complicated than it already is. And i would be happy to created a south 4th street line, But As a separate line since replacing the Jamaica Elevated will likely take a long ass time and piss off a lot of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2021 at 7:58 PM, Theli11 said:

To clarify for everyone else what the routes are:

I also think the (V) can go to Euclid via Fulton St rather than via Culver, that way the (A)(C) will share the express while the (V) can go on the local. 

Which is exactly how I would do the (T) via the SAS via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would either come into the Transit Museum at Fulton or if that is not possible go into the unused platform/track at Hoyt-Schermerhorn and be the Fulton local to Euclid (extended late nights to Lefferts when the (C) is not running as the (C) would go to Lefferts) while the (A) exclusively serves the Rockaways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 10:10 PM, ActiveCity said:

What if the MTA built the Worth St line today? Where would it go? Grand Avenue? Utica Avenue? Myrtle Ave-Central Ave to Howard beach?

It depends a lot on what the planned goal is; if you wanted to be true to the initial IND plan you'd bring over the express tracks from Lower East Side-2 Av and combine them with two Worth St tracks to make a four-track trunk that you can send to Brooklyn (be that via Broadway/Jamaica Av as a Nassau St el replacement, or via Myrtle/Woodhaven per the older plans); the catch is that if you want to do that you need a four-track Second Ave Subway. You'd wind up with approximately the service patterns below:

(B) Bedford Park or 145 St to mainland SE Queens or Rockaways via 6 Av/new Brooklyn-Queens trunk express

(D) Norwood-205 St to mainland SE Queens or Rockaways via 6 Av/new Brooklyn-Queens trunk express

(C) 168 St to Jamaica or Aqueduct via 8 Av/new Brooklyn-Queens trunk local

(E) Jamaica Center to Jamaica (loop) or Aqueduct via 8 Av/new Brooklyn-Queens trunk local.

(A) 207 St-Far Rock/Rock Park/Ozone Park

(T) Bronx or Queens to Euclid Av via 2 Av/new tunnel/IND Court St

(P) Bronx or Queens to Coney Island via West End express

(V) Bronx or Queens to Brighton Beach via 2 Av/Brighton express

Alternately, you could send a two-track line along South 4th St and Utica Av, and put the (C)(E) on it as locals, and then use the (T) to fill the gap left by the Fulton local (and thus avoid the need for a four-track Second Av Subway.

Another interesting option would be to connect a South 4 St subway to both the LES/2 Av express track stubs and Worth St, leave the (D) alone, and then build an underground branch connecting the South 4th St to the Prospect Park local tracks; that would still require (T) to Euclid, but would also meaningfully decongest DeKalb by pulling the (B) off it; for that the service patterns would be

(B) 145 St or Bedford Park Blvd to Coney Island via CPW local\6 Av express\S 4 St express\Brighton local

(C) 168 St to Kings Plaza via CPW/8 Av/S 4 St local

(E) Jamaica Center to Kings Plaza via Queens Blvd exp/8 Av local/S 4 St local

(Q) 125 St to Brighton Beach via 2 Av\Broadway express\Brighton Express

(T) 125 St to Euclid Av via 2 Av\Fulton St local.

My personal preference is using any new Brooklyn trunk to properly replace the Jamaica El and moving the (B) to a new Williamsburg-based alignment connected to Brighton local; the goal is to push 45-60 tph through Jamaica/ENY/Richmond Hill/Jamaica where currently all you get is 6-12tph.

Edited by engineerboy6561
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.