Jump to content

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

New proposal for IRT Jerome Avenue line. 
 

I saw on IND Second System Track Map proposal that Vanshnookenraggen made and that the (3) was gonna be extended to Bronx using 9th Avenue el and connect to Jerome Avenue. But we can’t do that now since 9th Avenue el is gone. Harlem 148th Street is build and the Yankee stadium is build over the former location of the subway el. My Proposal is called the 7th Avenue-Jerome Avenue link. The (3) would be extended to the Bronx Running underneath the Macombs Bridge. Then stopping at Anderson Avenue after that it’s runs Elevated to 170th Street where’s it then connects to the Jerome Avenue line meeting up with the (4). Finally the (3) terminates at Bedford Park Blvd heading straight to Jerome Avenue yard with the (4) continuing to Woodlawn.      

Currently the (4) operates at 13 TPH in the Bronx this leaves plenty of space for the (3) to be extended to Jerome Avenue. The (3) would run at 11 TPH Bringing Jerome Avenue up to 24 TPH. Anderson Avenue would be three tracks to store extra trains during peak hours. This would make Jerome Avenue more attractive as now people have one seat rides to the West Side of Manhattan via 7th Avenue. And less people would be transferring at 149 street to the (2). This would start off as a rush hour only extension to Bedford Park Blvd. And if proven to be popular it will be all Weekday route. Evenings Weekends and Late Nights the (3) will only run up to Anderson Avenue. CBTC would be installed to further encourage ridership and boast up capacity.      

Bonus the (4) could be rerouted to 7th Avenue in case of emergencies on Lexington Avenue. And vice versa with the (3) via Lexington Avenue   Similar to the current (2)(5) pattern in the Bronx. Feedback anyone?

Amiri, that could work (possibly?)

I also have plans that both the <C> and (D) be rerouted to Coney Island via the Culver Line, and (F)<F> to run via West End Line, with the <F> going to the Second Avenue Line, where it will meet up with the (T) service. During rush hours, the (D) makes express stops on the Culver Line while the <C> (which in this proposal, it became a diamond) makes all stops. The (D) makes all stops on the Culver Line in times the <C> is not running.

If there is room, I could put in a <Q> peak express service which combines the old NX and the new Q services.

I will then have the (H) running as the old "C" service that used to run from Bedford Park Boulevard to Rockaway Park or Euclid Avenue. I would then eliminate the (J) and (Z) skip stop, replacing it with the <J> peak express.

I would reinstate the <5> (Nereid Avenue service).

I will have the (N) and (R)'s northbound terminals swapped, with an extra service that is basically the brown M running to 95th Street instead of Bay Parkway (I will call it the <R>) and it will only run during rush hours as an addition to the normal (R) service, helping the number of trains per hour to 36 TPH.

Two new services, the (K) (168th Street to Jamaica-179th Street) and <M> (Metropolitan-Culver peak express) could help with the crowd numbers. During evening rush there could be an option to reroute (B) trains via the (Q) line, and it will be called the <By>. It will jump the number of trains per hour to 20 TPH.

NOTE: The circle C is changed to a diamond C when this new proposal happens.

Feedback, anyone?

Edited by MottAvFarRockaway
Edit 1.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

Amiri, that could work (possibly?)

I also have plans that both the <C> and (D) be rerouted to Coney Island via the Culver Line, and (F)<F> to run via West End Line, with the <F> going to the Second Avenue Line, where it will meet up with the (T) service. During rush hours, the (D) makes express stops on the Culver Line while the <C> (which in this proposal, it became a diamond) makes all stops. The (D) makes all stops on the Culver Line in times the <C> is not running.

If there is room, I could put in a <Q> peak express service which combines the old NX and the new Q services.

I will then have the (H) running as the old "C" service that used to run from Bedford Park Boulevard to Rockaway Park or Euclid Avenue. I would then eliminate the (J) and (Z) skip stop, replacing it with the <J> peak express.

I would reinstate the <5> (Nereid Avenue service).

I will have the (N) and (R)'s northbound terminals swapped, with an extra service that is basically the brown M running to 95th Street instead of Bay Parkway (I will call it the <R>) and it will only run during rush hours as an addition to the normal (R) service, helping the number of trains per hour to 36 TPH.

Two new services, the (K) (168th Street to Jamaica-179th Street) and <M> (Metropolitan-Culver peak express) could help with the crowd numbers. During evening rush there could be an option to reroute (B) trains via the (Q) line, and it will be called the <By>. It will jump the number of trains per hour to 20 TPH.

NOTE: The circle C is changed to a diamond C when this new proposal happens.

Feedback, anyone?

There is a lot going on here that doesn't make sense or work.

The <C> can run to Culver, but not the (D) and the (F) to West End. If (D) trains are still running along 6 Av, then they need to crossover to the local tracks somewhere between Bryant Park and Herald Square or just before West 4 St. This would result in crossing over another service that is already on the local tracks which in this case would probably be the (F) which is trying to crossover to the express tracks to get to West End because tracks are set up for express access only. I would assume the (B) isn't around anymore which makes things easier. I'm also going to assume that the <C> is still running from 168 St, but I don't know how well that terminal can handle 2 lines.

There is no demand to revive the old (NX67) converting it to the new <Q> service. Sea Beach needs to have some express stations to allow this because of the lack of any express stations on the line. There is a reason it was discontinued.

The <C> was discontinued because it was too long, all local, and just unreliable (I would assume unreliable because of it). No one would take it because of it, you had a lot of merging involved. Starting off at Bedford, it would already merge with the (D), then with whatever local service along CPW passing by 145 St which I assume is just the <C> and (K) so 3 lines on CPW, then with the (E) south of 50 St which is also 3 lines on 8 Av because the (K) split off, then the <C> splits off around West 4 St to then merge with the (A) around Canal St to split after Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts and remerge again after Euclid all the way to Broad Channel to Rockaway Park. This in fact is even worse because of the addition of the third local service on CPW. There are many choke points which will hinder the (H)'s service to the point of it not even existing.

The <5> is still a thing you know that right? (5) trains are still making that rush hour service to Nereid Av, the Diamond variants of many rush hour reroutes don't exist anymore because they don't need to. Nowadays, diamond variants still signify as a rush hour service, but mainly as an express variant of the current service.

The (N) and (R) swapped terminals because when the (R) used to make full time service to Astoria, they didn't have a direct yard access unlike the (N) which had 2. Doing this would result into going back to the original problem and unless a new yard is built in Astoria for the (R) in this proposal, this just can't work. As for the <R>, no one would take it at all. That line would be carrying air and confuse people for thinking it's the normal (R) that's running into midtown Manhattan. <R> would be better, but it would still be useless. Then you got the issue of limited capacity at both terminals that being Metropolitan Av and Bay Ridge-95 St. 2 track terminals can only work for 1 line. The <J> express would be a thing if there was another track between Broadway Junction and 121 St that allows for peak express service, unfortunately there isn't. While I don't mind the (Z) not existing, it's there to help the (J) which from what I hear does that job even with it only appearing very little. The merges are also what hinders service which definitely doesn't allow for 36 tph. The <R> starting off along the Myrtle Av line to Myrtle Av-Broadway between all 3 lines, then the splitting of the <M> around Essex St, then another split from the (J) at Broad St to merge with the (R) along Montague all the way to Bay Ridge. 

There's no way the (K) can run this service at all and neither the <M>. There are no existing tunnels that allow either service to run to their destinations without relaying in the middle of their route. The (K) would be starting off at 168 St going all the way down to 34 St-Penn Station to then relay and run all the way to Jamaica-179 St. The <M> would run from Metropolitan Av all the way to West 4 St to then relay and run along Culver. The process is very complicating and just so unnecessary. The only good thing that could come from this to a certain extent is the <By> which you might as well just call this the <Q>. I say to a certain extent because you still have the (N) running around which probably is still running via 60 St tunnel. 

There is just too much going which results in a lot of unreliable service. None of these services are getting any benefits whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

Amiri, that could work (possibly?)

I also have plans that both the <C> and (D) be rerouted to Coney Island via the Culver Line, and (F)<F> to run via West End Line, with the <F> going to the Second Avenue Line, where it will meet up with the (T) service. During rush hours, the (D) makes express stops on the Culver Line while the <C> (which in this proposal, it became a diamond) makes all stops. The (D) makes all stops on the Culver Line in times the <C> is not running.

If there is room, I could put in a <Q> peak express service which combines the old NX and the new Q services.

I will then have the (H) running as the old "C" service that used to run from Bedford Park Boulevard to Rockaway Park or Euclid Avenue. I would then eliminate the (J) and (Z) skip stop, replacing it with the <J> peak express.

I would reinstate the <5> (Nereid Avenue service).

I will have the (N) and (R)'s northbound terminals swapped, with an extra service that is basically the brown M running to 95th Street instead of Bay Parkway (I will call it the <R>) and it will only run during rush hours as an addition to the normal (R) service, helping the number of trains per hour to 36 TPH.

Two new services, the (K) (168th Street to Jamaica-179th Street) and <M> (Metropolitan-Culver peak express) could help with the crowd numbers. During evening rush there could be an option to reroute (B) trains via the (Q) line, and it will be called the <By>. It will jump the number of trains per hour to 20 TPH.

NOTE: The circle C is changed to a diamond C when this new proposal happens.

Feedback, anyone?

Well, to all the posters on here who object to proposals to de-interline the subway, here’s a proposal that’s the exact opposite.

That said, there’s a lot here that I just don’t think is necessary. These extra services - the <By><C>, <F>, <J>, (K)<M>, <Q> and <R> - are going to force their parent services to run on reduced frequencies during rush hours. DeKalb and West 4th St are going to be delay-prone nightmares. The (H) running as the old <C> train would be a super long route just like the old service was. And why switch the (D) and (F) lines in Brooklyn? And wouldn’t it be confusing to have the (F) go on its regular route while having another <F> that goes onto the upper 2nd Ave line be confusing? Does it replace the (Q) or does it run in addition to the (Q) and (T)?  If it’s in addition, then you’d have three services on upper 2nd Ave with only one service on midtown/lower 2nd. That’s even worse than the MTA’s proposal to have the (Q) and (T) on upper 2nd and just the (T) on midtown/lower 2nd (which really is a bad proposal, but that may have well been intentional on the MTA’s part).

There’s just too much reverse branching here. You’ve may have more tph at the ends of many lines, but it’s going come with the cost of reducing service on the trunk segment of each line in Midtown and Lower Manhattan 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

Amiri, that could work (possibly?)

I also have plans that both the <C> and (D) be rerouted to Coney Island via the Culver Line, and (F)<F> to run via West End Line, with the <F> going to the Second Avenue Line, where it will meet up with the (T) service. During rush hours, the (D) makes express stops on the Culver Line while the <C> (which in this proposal, it became a diamond) makes all stops. The (D) makes all stops on the Culver Line in times the <C> is not running.

If there is room, I could put in a <Q> peak express service which combines the old NX and the new Q services.

I will then have the (H) running as the old "C" service that used to run from Bedford Park Boulevard to Rockaway Park or Euclid Avenue. I would then eliminate the (J) and (Z) skip stop, replacing it with the <J> peak express.

I would reinstate the <5> (Nereid Avenue service).

I will have the (N) and (R)'s northbound terminals swapped, with an extra service that is basically the brown M running to 95th Street instead of Bay Parkway (I will call it the <R>) and it will only run during rush hours as an addition to the normal (R) service, helping the number of trains per hour to 36 TPH.

Two new services, the (K) (168th Street to Jamaica-179th Street) and <M> (Metropolitan-Culver peak express) could help with the crowd numbers. During evening rush there could be an option to reroute (B) trains via the (Q) line, and it will be called the <By>. It will jump the number of trains per hour to 20 TPH.

NOTE: The circle C is changed to a diamond C when this new proposal happens.

Feedback, anyone?

WTF are you even proposing. Here’s people are trying to deinterline the system. In this proposal you add EVEN MORE interlining that flat out unnecessary. 
 

1. Why the hell are you swapping the (D) and (F) routes that just stupid and unnecessary the  <C> Becoming rush hours only is just plain stupid. (H) is going to be too damn long AKA the reason why the <C> got eliminated in 1992. Central Park West cannot handle 5 services at once. 
 

2. The (N) and (R) swap is going to be a problem too as the (R) will lose access to a yard AKA The reason why they HAVE to swap routes in the first place. The (R) could be sent back to Astoria in different ways but not like the way your planning. The <R> makes no sense once so ever. The Jamaica line can’t handle the (J)(M)<R> at the same time this would cause huge delays. 
 

3. (K) WTF is that route is stupid and idiotic <M> the Christie Street connection wasn’t designed to allow for a route like that the <B> reroute to (Q) is unnecessary complicated. 
 

4. <J> that could work out but Jamaica line needs to be rebuild to have three tracks for the peak way express service to work

5. The <5> still exists it’s been relabel as (5) to reduce confusion 

 

 

Edited by Amiri the subway guy
Add feedback
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

And why switch the (D) and (F) lines in Brooklyn? And wouldn’t it be confusing to have the (F) go on its regular route while having another <F> that goes onto the upper 2nd Ave line be confusing? Does it replace the (Q) or does it run in addition to the (Q) and (T)?

I will have the <F> replace the (Q), so that there will be room for the <C> to run to Coney Island via Culver. I will then have the number of stations of the Sea Beach Line converted to express stations. I will leave the (D) and (F) as it is. I will shorten the (H) to run Bedford Park Boulevard to Euclid Avenue only. When this happens, the (C) (circle C) is changed to a <C> (diamond C).

Edited by MottAvFarRockaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

2. The (N) and (R) swap is going to be a problem too as the (R) will lose access to a yard AKA The reason why they HAVE to swap routes in the first place. The (R) could be sent back to Astoria in different ways but not like the way your planning. The <R> makes no sense once so ever. The Jamaica line can’t handle the (J)(M)<R> at the same time this would cause huge delays. 

I decided that they should build a new "yard" at Ditmars to have this happen.

Edited by MottAvFarRockaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

I will have the <F> replace the (Q), so that there will be room for the <C> to run to Coney Island via Culver. I will then have the number of stations of the Sea Beach Line converted to express stations. I will leave the (D) and (F) as it is. I will shorten the (H) to run Bedford Park Boulevard to Euclid Avenue only. When this happens, the (C) (circle C) is changed to a <C> (diamond C).

These new route changes and bullets doesn't make sense nor will make the service better. Even some of those routes would be retired quickly due to low ridership because the original routes are taking most of the heavy work on the line. If you're gonna propose something. Think of something accurate instead of this

 

You're creating like a whole 1960's version of the MTA but with more routes. It isn't necessary also some of these routes you just said happened before (not all of em) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's been talks about reactivating the defunct Rockaway Beach Branch by extending the (M) train from Rego Park to Beach 116 St but I disagree with that plan: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2021/07/14/mta-hiked-costs-of-long-sought-eastern-queens-subway-expansion-report/

In my perspective, the (M) is already too circuitous of a route to warrant an extension to the Rockaways; I'd just leave it at Howard Beach for connections to the (A) train for continuing service as well as the AirTrain to JFK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Armandito said:

There's been talks about reactivating the defunct Rockaway Beach Branch by extending the (M) train from Rego Park to Beach 116 St but I disagree with that plan: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2021/07/14/mta-hiked-costs-of-long-sought-eastern-queens-subway-expansion-report/

In my perspective, the (M) is already too circuitous of a route to warrant an extension to the Rockaways; I'd just leave it at Howard Beach for connections to the (A) train for continuing service as well as the AirTrain to JFK.

I’d prefer they extend the (R) to the Rockaway Beach Branch, but then terminate it at Whitehall St, while having the (W) be expanded to 24/7 service and extended to Brooklyn (local to Stillwell Ave via West End Line). The (M) would stay the same, but maybe run more frequently.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ActiveCity said:
20 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’d prefer they extend the (R) to the Rockaway Beach Branch, but then terminate it at Whitehall St, while having the (W) be expanded to 24/7 service and extended to Brooklyn (local to Stillwell Ave via West End Line). The (M) would stay the same, but maybe run more frequently.

Use the City Hall lower level instead.

While I agree in having the (R) take that branch with it cut back to Whitehall or City Hall, what exactly is taking over the Bay Ridge portion? Sending the (J) wouldn't be a good idea because it'll just be carrying air for the most part and give more reasons for passengers to just stick to the (D) and (N) along 4 Av. I have one idea that not everyone might agree with, but could work out.

Extend the (E) onto the lower Broadway line running into South Brooklyn. To make sure stations aren't too close to each other, we can cut service at the WTC platform for the (E). I say WTC because cutting back the Cortlandt would lose that transfer to the (2)(3) for the (W). It might not be that much of an issue if the (W) makes rush hour service or maybe even full service to Bay Parkway (except weekends and late nights) as they can have another transfer at Court St and Barclays Center. If that is the case, then cutting back Cortlandt it is.

I proposed this because it at least gives the (E) more reasons on why it runs express along QBL and maybe more incentive for people living along the Bay Ridge branch to stick with it. This is just a thought as it would probably be a better option than the (M) along the RBB as well as the (J) to Bay Ridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

While I agree in having the (R) take that branch with it cut back to Whitehall or City Hall, what exactly is taking over the Bay Ridge portion? Sending the (J) wouldn't be a good idea because it'll just be carrying air for the most part and give more reasons for passengers to just stick to the (D) and (N) along 4 Av. I have one idea that not everyone might agree with, but could work out.

Extend the (E) onto the lower Broadway line running into South Brooklyn. To make sure stations aren't too close to each other, we can cut service at the WTC platform for the (E). I say WTC because cutting back the Cortlandt would lose that transfer to the (2)(3) for the (W). It might not be that much of an issue if the (W) makes rush hour service or maybe even full service to Bay Parkway (except weekends and late nights) as they can have another transfer at Court St and Barclays Center. If that is the case, then cutting back Cortlandt it is.

I proposed this because it at least gives the (E) more reasons on why it runs express along QBL and maybe more incentive for people living along the Bay Ridge branch to stick with it. This is just a thought as it would probably be a better option than the (M) along the RBB as well as the (J) to Bay Ridge.

I suggest extending the (W) to Coney Island via the West End Line, similar to the proposed (R) in the Vanshnook plan.

https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2020/10/deinterlining-with-one-switch/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Oh you know I completely forgot about that idea I'm not going to lie.

Don't West End riders prefer Grand St over Canal St? Back in 2004 when the Manhattan Bridge reopened, this was the reason why the (D) was chosen to be the full time West End route over the (W), which in the end got downgraded to a weekday only route to Whitehall St. If any (W) extension is suggested, it would operate rush hours only to Bay Pkwy in a manner similar to the (B)(D) trains in the Bronx; when (W) trains are running the (D) would operate express in the peak direction along West End between 9 Av and Bay Pkwy.

Edited by Armandito
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Armandito said:

Don't West End riders prefer Grand St over Canal St? Back in 2004 when the Manhattan Bridge reopened, this was the reason why the (D) was chosen to be the full time West End route over the (W), which in the end got downgraded to a weekday only route to Whitehall St. If any (W) extension is suggested, it would operate rush hours only to Bay Pkwy in a manner similar to the (B)(D) trains in the Bronx; when (W) trains are running the (D) would operate express in the peak direction along West End between 9 Av and Bay Pkwy.

But by doing that, you'll create a merging bottleneck at 36th Street. When the <M> operated to Bay Pkwy, it merged with the (D) at 36th (as well as the (W) and the (B)<By> before it). There would always be delays at 36th. Why bring that back?

If there is a demonstrated preference of West End Line riders for Grand Street and 6th Ave, I wouldn't want to stand in the way of that. I mean, before Vanschnookenraggen posted that plan on his blog, my favored option was to have the (B) run via the Sea Beach Line, while leaving the (D) and (R) in Brooklyn as is. But that would either require the (R) to stay on QBL (and deal with its million merges and continue to be unreliable) or build connecting yard lead tracks from the 4th Ave local tracks to connect to them to the 38th Street Yard, so that the (R) can be based in Brooklyn. But this option would likely require the work trains based there to be dispersed to yards around the system (is that really a bad thing?).

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Clarifying my post
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But by doing that, you'll create a merging bottleneck at 36th Street. When the <M> operated to Bay Pkwy, it merged with the (D) at 36th (as well as the (W) and the (B)<By> before it). There would always be delays at 36th. Why bring that back?

If there is a demonstrated preference of West End Line riders for Grand Street and 6th Ave, I wouldn't want to stand in the way of that. I mean, before Vanschnookenraggen posted that plan on his blog, my favored option was to have the (B) run via the Sea Beach Line, while leaving the (D) and (R) in Brooklyn as is. But that would either require the (R) to stay on QBL (and deal with its million merges and continue to be unreliable) or build connecting yard lead tracks from the 4th Ave local tracks to connect to them to the 38th Street Yard, so that the (R) can be based in Brooklyn. But this option would likely require the work trains based there to be dispersed to yards around the system (is that really a bad thing?).

The 36th St Yard will very likely be converted for regular maintenance service once the SAS is finished in its entirety (if it ever happens). But nothing is known about what routes would be assigned to that facility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/8/2021 at 10:16 AM, Armandito said:

The 36th St Yard will very likely be converted for regular maintenance service once the SAS is finished in its entirety (if it ever happens). But nothing is known about what routes would be assigned to that facility.

This is a project that the MTA can do independent of finishing the SAS, especially since it's looking like the MTA will finish it sometime after the Jets win another Super Bowl. So they should be converting 36th St Yard independent of the SAS.

22 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

Keep in mind that the Sea Beach line is supposed to be served by 4th Avenue express trains, while the West End and Bay Ridge lines are supposed to be served by 4th Avenue local trains. This is all based on the current track layout. 

They are? That's news to me.

The MTA definitely didn't keep this in mind. I mean, from late 1988 to roughly Fall 1994, they ran a fully local (N) train on the Sea Beach Line. The West End Line's current Y-junction with the 4th Ave Line makes it possible for both local and/or express service to serve it. In fact, prior to 1967 (Chrystie St connection) and between 1986 and 2010, that's exactly what was done. Not saying we should run both 4th Ave local and express services there again; only that it is possible to run both. As for Bay Ridge, the local tracks are indeed straight-railed for trains to go to Bay Ridge, as the (R)/(RR) has always done. There are, however, provisions for switch tracks between 36th and 45th St, that would make it possible for trains to run express between Atlantic and 36th, then make all stops to 95th St without interfering with West End trains entering and leaving the 4th Ave line at 36th.   

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For nearly 20 years, there was significant construction on the Manhattan Bridge, which limited train service to only one set of tracks.

In the first phase of the construction, (B) , (D) ,and Orange-Q connected the 6th Ave express with West End, Brighton local, and Brighton express services while (N) , (R) , and Brown-M connected Montague tunnel trains with Sea Beach, Bay Ridge, and West End trains to Bay Parkway.  During the second phase of the project, at least during midday hours, (W) , (Q) , and <Q> connected the Broadway express with West End, Brighton local, and Brighton express services while (N) , (R) , and Brown-M connected Montague tunnel trains with Sea Beach, Bay Ridge, and West End trains to Bay Parkway.

Based on the above, one can surmise that the MTA prioritized Brighton and West End riders by giving them more direct connections to Midtown, while the Sea Beach and Bay Ridge passengers were forced to take the long way via Montague.

When the project finally ended, the MTA could have really implemented a service plan to reduce interlining, without much political cost.  (N) and (R) would keep their then-existing routings as Broadway locals with service from Astoria-Sea Beach and Forest Hills-Bay Ridge.  Meanwhile, (B) and (D) could both run to Brighton (one local and one express) and the (Q) could run to the West End line as a Broadway express originating at 57th Street (and eventually 96th once the SAS phase 1 was completed).  Each group of passengers would have ridden on similar service in the recent past and many of the merges that plague our system would be eliminated.  Alas, it was not to be.

As we think about untangling the merges today, we are left with a constraint that each subway line should have direct access to a yard.  If this constraint weren't there, it would make plenty of sense to run Astoria-Bay Ridge (R) trains through Montague tunnel and leaving the (N)(Q) trains for Brighton and the (B)(D) trains for West End / Sea Beach (or vice versa).  But if we must assign each service with a dedicated yard, and the desire is to have the fewest merges overall, then it makes sense to run a (B) or (D) train to Bay Ridge (allowing Bay Ridge trains access to a yard in Northern Manhattan or Bronx) and running the Astoria trains to the West End line (with access to Coney Island Yard), as specified in the vanshnookenraggen plan.  With the addition of a pair of switches south of 36th, this is possible.  However, it will force many West End passengers to make an additional transfer.  I'm not bothered by that, because I know that the overall affect on the system as a whole would remove a lot of delay (including West End passengers), but I do understand that a bunch of West End passengers will not be happy with the additional transfer.

As far as I can recall, since 1967, the main West End service was routed onto the Manhattan Bridge.  So it will be a big leap of faith on the MTA to actually implement the vanshnookenraggen plan and send the West End service to the Montague tunnel, even though it is clearly better from the point of view of merging delays.  So likely, the MTA is more likely to accept a plan where (B) is sent to Sea Beach, (D) is sent to West End.  (R) and (W) run as they do currently, providing Bay Ridge trains with access to the Jamaica Yard and Astoria trains terminating at Whitehall with out of service access to CI yard.  (N) and (Q) can both run from 96/2 to the Brighton line, with one line the Brighton express and the other line the Brighton local.  This would still be a marked improvement over current service as it will deinterline the DeKalb area and prevent (N) trains switching from express to local on the Broadway BMT main tracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mrsman said:

For nearly 20 years, there was significant construction on the Manhattan Bridge, which limited train service to only one set of tracks.

In the first phase of the construction, (B) , (D) ,and Orange-Q connected the 6th Ave express with West End, Brighton local, and Brighton express services while (N) , (R) , and Brown-M connected Montague tunnel trains with Sea Beach, Bay Ridge, and West End trains to Bay Parkway.  During the second phase of the project, at least during midday hours, (W) , (Q) , and <Q> connected the Broadway express with West End, Brighton local, and Brighton express services while (N) , (R) , and Brown-M connected Montague tunnel trains with Sea Beach, Bay Ridge, and West End trains to Bay Parkway.

Based on the above, one can surmise that the MTA prioritized Brighton and West End riders by giving them more direct connections to Midtown, while the Sea Beach and Bay Ridge passengers were forced to take the long way via Montague.

When the project finally ended, the MTA could have really implemented a service plan to reduce interlining, without much political cost.  (N) and (R) would keep their then-existing routings as Broadway locals with service from Astoria-Sea Beach and Forest Hills-Bay Ridge.  Meanwhile, (B) and (D) could both run to Brighton (one local and one express) and the (Q) could run to the West End line as a Broadway express originating at 57th Street (and eventually 96th once the SAS phase 1 was completed).  Each group of passengers would have ridden on similar service in the recent past and many of the merges that plague our system would be eliminated.  Alas, it was not to be.

As we think about untangling the merges today, we are left with a constraint that each subway line should have direct access to a yard.  If this constraint weren't there, it would make plenty of sense to run Astoria-Bay Ridge (R) trains through Montague tunnel and leaving the (N)(Q) trains for Brighton and the (B)(D) trains for West End / Sea Beach (or vice versa).  But if we must assign each service with a dedicated yard, and the desire is to have the fewest merges overall, then it makes sense to run a (B) or (D) train to Bay Ridge (allowing Bay Ridge trains access to a yard in Northern Manhattan or Bronx) and running the Astoria trains to the West End line (with access to Coney Island Yard), as specified in the vanshnookenraggen plan.  With the addition of a pair of switches south of 36th, this is possible.  However, it will force many West End passengers to make an additional transfer.  I'm not bothered by that, because I know that the overall affect on the system as a whole would remove a lot of delay (including West End passengers), but I do understand that a bunch of West End passengers will not be happy with the additional transfer.

As far as I can recall, since 1967, the main West End service was routed onto the Manhattan Bridge.  So it will be a big leap of faith on the MTA to actually implement the vanshnookenraggen plan and send the West End service to the Montague tunnel, even though it is clearly better from the point of view of merging delays.  So likely, the MTA is more likely to accept a plan where (B) is sent to Sea Beach, (D) is sent to West End.  (R) and (W) run as they do currently, providing Bay Ridge trains with access to the Jamaica Yard and Astoria trains terminating at Whitehall with out of service access to CI yard.  (N) and (Q) can both run from 96/2 to the Brighton line, with one line the Brighton express and the other line the Brighton local.  This would still be a marked improvement over current service as it will deinterline the DeKalb area and prevent (N) trains switching from express to local on the Broadway BMT main tracks.

The (R) dosent need a full time yard. Look at the (G), there's no yard anywhere along its route and yet it's still one of the best preforming lines in the system.

If the (R) really needs a yard, just convert 36th St yard into a storage yard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

The (R) dosent need a full time yard. Look at the (G), there's no yard anywhere along its route and yet it's still one of the best preforming lines in the system.

If the (R) really needs a yard, just convert 36th St yard into a storage yard.

The (G) does have a yard, in the same way that (W) has a yard.  

While it is true that neither has a yard on its route, an out of service train can continue on the existing train tracks beyond the revenue portions of the line and eventually hit CI Yard.

(W) ends at Whitehall in revenue service, but out of service trains will continue through Montage and DeKalb and eventually make its way to Coney Island, likely on the track for West End or Sea Beach.   Most (W)s just reverse and don't need to enter the yard, but there is a way to get there.

(G) ends at Church in revenue service, but out of service train will continue down the Culver line toward Coney Island.  Most (G) s just reverse and don't need to enter the yard, but there is a way to get there.

Does the (R) actually need a yard? Not really.   Unlike (G) and (W) , there is no direct way to get to a yard once the (R) goes south of 59th in Brooklyn.  There is a lot of history of MTA and BMT running an Astoria-Bay Ridge via Broadway local service.  It didn't have a yard then, and it doesn't really need a yard now.  However, it is true that more efficient operations would have a yard along the route, so to the extent that there are two services on the Broadway local (like today with R and W), it is beneficial to route the Bay Ridge train to a yard (like the Jamaica Yard).  

Can MTA be convinced to run a deinterlined Astoria-Broadway-Bay Ridge service without a yard, even when there are no other trains on the line to cause merging delays? It's hard to say.  If they can, then it is clear that the (R) should run on such a service, leaving the bridge routes [N,Q,B,D] to service Brighton, West End, and Sea Beach, preferably in a way that doesn't cause more merging at DeKalb.  But if they want a yard, then the Astoria trains need to link to either West End or Sea Beach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, mrsman said:

As far as I can recall, since 1967, the main West End service was routed onto the Manhattan Bridge.  So it will be a big leap of faith on the MTA to actually implement the vanshnookenraggen plan and send the West End service to the Montague tunnel, even though it is clearly better from the point of view of merging delays.  So likely, the MTA is more likely to accept a plan where (B) is sent to Sea Beach, (D) is sent to West End.  (R) and (W) run as they do currently, providing Bay Ridge trains with access to the Jamaica Yard and Astoria trains terminating at Whitehall with out of service access to CI yard.  (N) and (Q) can both run from 96/2 to the Brighton line, with one line the Brighton express and the other line the Brighton local.  This would still be a marked improvement over current service as it will deinterline the DeKalb area and prevent (N) trains switching from express to local on the Broadway BMT main tracks.

Above, we earlier discussed some of the "poliltics" involved, where riders would be upset at a change in travel pattern where they will now have an additional transfer, even if by doing so they get better frequencies and less delays.  So likely West End passengers would not be thrilled with their service going into the Montague tunnel, even if it improves reliability on other South Brooklyn routes - all for the price of a transfer at 36th and 4th (Brooklyn).

An interesting story out of San Francisco reinforces the point.  San Francisco has the muni metro service, which is basically a street running trolley system that leads to a subway tunnel for the Downtown portion of the trip.  [Kind of similar in operation to Boston's green line or Philadelphia's subway-surface lines.]  For the longest time, it was kinown that delays for the street running portion led to delays in the tunnel service, preventing the running of consistent service at regular intervals that led to massive congestion.    On top of that, there were also capacity issues (and related efficiency issues) since the subway could run 3 car trains, but only 1-car or 2-car trains were run due to constraints on the surfact portion of the lines.

When COVID hit, SF suspended service on the subway.  Over the past few months, they have slowly reinstated the subway service, but they did not reinstate service on the J-Church line.  J-Church is running as a surfce shuttle and passengers must transfer to one of the other streetcar lines to continue service to Downtown.  The managers of SFMTA have discovered that this makes the subway operate more efficiently and with fewer delays.  But the passengers of J-Church are unhappy with the requirement to transfer and have gotten their political representatives involved to make sure that this service pattern does not remain permanent.  The SF supervisors unanimously voted to reinstate J-Church subway service some time next year.

https://humantransit.org/2020/06/san-francisco-a-forbidden-fantasy-comes-true.html

https://www.sfmta.com/blog/j-church-pilot-eases-subway-congestion-muni-metro

https://sfbayca.com/2021/12/08/j-church-to-return-to-subway-in-early-2022-with-next-round-of-muni-service-restoration/

https://www.streetcar.org/muni-to-consider-pcc-streetcars-for-future-j-line-service/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

The (R) dosent need a full time yard. Look at the (G), there's no yard anywhere along its route and yet it's still one of the best preforming lines in the system.

If the (R) really needs a yard, just convert 36th St yard into a storage yard.

The (G) may be one of the more reliable lines at this time, but this not so in the past when the route ranked at the bottom for regularity of service and breakdowns. Needless to say, some of the stations along the (G) line are in subpar condition, and you don't need to look further than the 21 St-Van Alst and Broadway stations to find out.

Edited by Armandito
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deinterlining is just a way to increase capacity by optimizing train slots and reducing potential merge delays. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the (7)(L) have the best service of all the subway lines. On the other hand, the current (C)(M)(N)(R) services actually reduce the overall capacity of the 8 Ave, Culver, 63 St, Broadway, and Second Ave lines. It's unclear whether those lines actually need the extra trains given the current pandemic, but assuming ridership eventually rebounds, relatively easy gains in capacity can be made by reorganizing services while new megaprojects such as lower 2 Ave slowly get built out. 

That said, deinterlining should be a gradual process, as it does increase the fleet requirement and riders will need time to get used to new service tterns.

8 hours ago, mrsman said:

An interesting story out of San Francisco reinforces the point.  San Francisco has the muni metro service, which is basically a street running trolley system that leads to a subway tunnel for the Downtown portion of the trip.  [Kind of similar in operation to Boston's green line or Philadelphia's subway-surface lines.]  For the longest time, it was kinown that delays for the street running portion led to delays in the tunnel service, preventing the running of consistent service at regular intervals that led to massive congestion.    On top of that, there were also capacity issues (and related efficiency issues) since the subway could run 3 car trains, but only 1-car or 2-car trains were run due to constraints on the surfact portion of the lines.

When COVID hit, SF suspended service on the subway.  Over the past few months, they have slowly reinstated the subway service, but they did not reinstate service on the J-Church line.  J-Church is running as a surfce shuttle and passengers must transfer to one of the other streetcar lines to continue service to Downtown.  The managers of SFMTA have discovered that this makes the subway operate more efficiently and with fewer delays.  But the passengers of J-Church are unhappy with the requirement to transfer and have gotten their political representatives involved to make sure that this service pattern does not remain permanent.  The SF supervisors unanimously voted to reinstate J-Church subway service some time next year.

https://humantransit.org/2020/06/san-francisco-a-forbidden-fantasy-comes-true.html

https://www.sfmta.com/blog/j-church-pilot-eases-subway-congestion-muni-metro

https://sfbayca.com/2021/12/08/j-church-to-return-to-subway-in-early-2022-with-next-round-of-muni-service-restoration/

https://www.streetcar.org/muni-to-consider-pcc-streetcars-for-future-j-line-service/

 

The optimal capacity of the Market St tunnel is 30 tph, but pre-COVID all 5 branches (J, K, L, M, N) ran ~8 tph each. All those branches also get delayed by street traffic, so service was not great, to say the least. Long-term, it's clear that at least one branch needs to be removed from the subway entirely, to increase service on the remaining branches. Of the 5 branches, the J Church runs only 1-car trains and doesn't run the entirety of the tunnel, so it's the obvious candidate to be removed from the subway. The K Ingleside also only has 1-car platforms, but it isn't as challenging to convert the branch into 2-car operation. Nonetheless, the K Ingleside was supposed to be interlined with the L Taraval so that only the M Ocean View and the N Judah entered the tunnel, with 3-car subway-only S shuttles providing more than enough capacity for riders transferring from the K and L lines.

Fast forward to today, and the Market St tunnel has plenty of capacity. Only 3 branches (K, M, N) are running at ~6 tph, and the L is suspended until 2024, so the J Church can be temporarily reinstated without causing significant delays. Long-term, the plan should be to run only the K, L, and M branches into the subway at 10 tph, run the J Church as a streetcar line along Market St and Embarcadero to Fisherman's Wharf, and give the N line its own tunnel.

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.