Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 12/9/2021 at 8:55 PM, mrsman said:

The  does have a yard, in the same way that  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.

 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 s just reverse and don't need to enter the yard, but there is a way to get there.

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

Does the  actually need a yard? Not really.   Unlike and  , there is no direct way to get to a yard once the 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 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.

Even the current  has to continue out of service to get to Jamaica Yard, although it’s not far from Continental to the yard leads near Union Turnpike and the tracks are below the in-service  tracks at 75th Ave, so they don’t interfere with  and  trains. But the IND built those tracks right from the start, whereas yard lead tracks from the 4th Ave local tracks would have to be built from scratch and would likely force some service outages during the construction. 

I’m starting to wonder if maybe it’s more the multiple merges that mess up  service than the overall length of the line. I wonder if we address said merges, that could yield measurable improvements to the . Maybe it’s not entirely necessary to completely change the line into an Astoria-Coney Island service that might cause blowback from West End Line riders who would be put on a completely local service and have to transfer at 36th for express service.

Perhaps we can start by addressing the bottlenecks on QBL, Broadway and DeKalb first and maybe that might be enough to show better reliability and permit trains to run more frequently. So I’m in favor of having the  stay express all the way and run to/from 96th/2nd and rerouting the  to the 63rd St Tunnel and the weekday  to 53rd. I’m also in favor of running the  via Sea Beach, the  via West End and the  and  via Brighton. This would require the  to run solo in Astoria. But doing so would likely require a significant amount of  trains running into and out of Brooklyn because Whitehall and City Hall Lower will not be able to turn them all. I don’t think it would be so good to have all those trains taking up track space running light. So I’m going to suggest the possibility of having the  serve as a secondary Sea Beach service between Kings Highway and 8th Ave on weekdays in addition to the . 

On 12/10/2021 at 7:20 AM, Caelestor said:

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.

This last part I definitely agree with. Given how busy the N Judah line gets, it should get its own tunnel. The T Third line will be getting its own tunnel in downtown SF in just a few months (after a long delay), so it will no longer through route with the K Ingleside line. I guess the K will once again turn at Embarcadero as the M Ocean View and (soon) the J Church do. That might be a somewhat of a bottleneck with J, K and M trains turning there, while the N continues on to Caltrain at 4th and King streets. 

2024 will be the real test. That’s when the L Taraval returns to the subway. Perhaps then they should strongly consider putting the J on the surface at Market St. That’s really the easiest solution. I read that the PCC cars run in J service when they head to Balboa Park Yard, so it wouldn’t be a totally new thing. The Market St Railway claims they have enough PCCs for both the F and J routes (the E Embarcadero PCC route is still suspended), so maybe that’s worth doing. It’s got to be better than the J shuttle between Balboa Park and Church/Duboce and a transfer to the N. Though a really ambitious idea would be to have the J continue northbound via Fillmore Street to Fisherman’s Wharf and/or the Presidio.

[shiznit1987]

Here's some low-hanging fruit extentions that I think the MTA should consider: 

Extend the  up 1st street in Mount Vernon to downtown Mount Vernon. It's all of 10 blocks from 241st-Wakefield to the main shopping drag of Mount Vernon midas well serve it

Extend the  to Gateway Center with an intermediate stop at Flatlands Ave. Lots of new housing development in that area and would help to better intergrate that section of ENY/New Lots

Extend the  to Broadway Junction via Eastern Parkway. Gives  riders from Eastern Brooklyn an option to get to the east side of Manhattan. 

Relocate the  past New Lots Ave into the LIRR Bay Ridge branch and extend it to Flatbush/Nostrand with stops at Rockaway Ave, Remsen Ave, Kings Hwy-Utica, Albany Ave then Flatbush/Nostrand. This helps cover a subway desert in SE Brooklyn until a Utica Ave line gets built and helps riders in Canarsie/East Flatbush connect to the / for faster trips into Manhattan. 

Extend the  past Lefferts down Liberty Ave then up Sutphin to Archer/Sutphin-JFK. This gives  riders a chance to connect to all the transit around the Jamaica area. 

Extend the  to Bay Plaza

 

[Vulturious]

15 minutes ago, shiznit1987 said:

Here's some low-hanging fruit extentions that I think the MTA should consider: 

Extend the  to Gateway Center with an intermediate stop at Flatlands Ave. Lots of new housing development in that area and would help to better intergrate that section of ENY/New Lots

Relocate the  past New Lots Ave into the LIRR Bay Ridge branch and extend it to Flatbush/Nostrand with stops at Rockaway Ave, Remsen Ave, Kings Hwy-Utica, Albany Ave then Flatbush/Nostrand. This helps cover a subway desert in SE Brooklyn until a Utica Ave line gets built and helps riders in Canarsie/East Flatbush connect to the / for faster trips into Manhattan. 

Extend the  past Lefferts down Liberty Ave then up Sutphin to Archer/Sutphin-JFK. This gives  riders a chance to connect to all the transit around the Jamaica area. 

Mainly going to focus on these:

Extending the  to Gateway is definitely something the MTA should at least consider, you've already pointed out about the housing development so there isn't much else to really talk about.

I personally don't have an issue relocating a portion of the  to run along the LIRR Bay Ridge branch, but unfortunately freight service runs through there. It would be very unlikely to have that branch converted for Subway use. If this were to happen, might as well extend the line further if possible maybe up until 62 St-New Utrecht Av. This would allow for another Brooklyn crosstown service, but running through 3/4 subway services that runs to Coney Island.

The  to Jamaica isn't a bad idea, however I don't think that can happen. We would still have the issue of multiple different terminals for the  to deal with. One could say having the  in Queens could help with that, but that is just another issue for the  to deal with as well as people along Lefferts. Unless another express service is running with the  along Fulton St, it would be better to leave Lefferts alone as well as the .

[Armandito]

8 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Extending the  to Gateway is definitely something the MTA should at least consider, you've already pointed out about the housing development so there isn't much else to really talk about.

Why this has been overlooked by transit officials is quite puzzling. With Livonia Yard the infrastructure is right there, you just need to make some modifications and you're all set. There was once a plan to extend the as far as Flatlands Av back when the Program for Action came along in 1968, but it never materialized.

9 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I personally don't have an issue relocating a portion of the  to run along the LIRR Bay Ridge branch, but unfortunately freight service runs through there. It would be very unlikely to have that branch converted for Subway use. If this were to happen, might as well extend the line further if possible maybe up until 62 St-New Utrecht Av. This would allow for another Brooklyn crosstown service, but running through 3/4 subway services that runs to Coney Island.

The B6 route, part of which runs more or less parallel to the Bay Ridge Branch ROW, is already one of the busiest bus routes in NYC so if a subway isn't feasible your best bet is reconfiguring the segment between Flatbush Av and Ralph Av to accommodate bus lanes and SBS; I even did my own attempt at mapping a potential routing for it here on Google Maps (https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1rr0X07pPQeV5P7YUk1WxRyLPKkhpzn5F&ll=40.642556834464244%2C-73.889335&z=11). While SBS may have its own flaws it's still a decent alternative to shelling out astronomical funds to build ADA-accessible stations and new rolling stock for another subway through the heart of Brooklyn.

 

[Amiri the subway guy]

On 2/19/2021 at 4:44 PM, vanshnookenraggen said:

I figure I should jump in and defend some of my choices.

First off, the argument that the E shouldn't be extended to Fulton and Rockaway is moot because from Jamaica to Far Rock is slightly shorter than the current A from 207 to Far Rock. If you want to make the argument that the line would still be too long, I fell you but within the scope of this project (ie no big expansion) there really isn't more you can do.

You argue that there is a correlation between East NY and Harlem but in none of my census research have I found anything to support this. I'm sure there are a few people who do make this commute but not so many that a direct OSR makes all the difference. Just because the demographics are the same doesn't mean the job markets are.

What I do find is that many work close to home or in the major CBDs (downtown Brooklyn, lower Manhattan, midtown Manhattan, and Jamaica). Similarly, West Harlem and Washington Heights riders primarily work close to home (Columbia or New York-Presbyterian) or in midtown with a smaller percentage in lower Manhattan. So for uptown, the   express makes the most sense. If you really have to get downtown, switch at W 4th St. It won't add any more time.

One thing that I have come around on is Queens Blvd. In my post I presented the  as the local via 63rd St and  express via 53rd. Many people have pointed out that this strands some riders. My main concern with swapping the services is that the M runs with shorter trains due to the platforms on the Jamaica and Myrtle Lines. I do propose extending these but as a separate project. Should the Myrtle platforms be extended first then I would be happy with  express and I think it would be a better alternative.

Additionally, I've looked at extending the  up to Queens Plaza and beyond. The Twitter thread is here:  

The long short of it is that because of the location of the existing 63rd St Tunnel connection, any track extension or station expansion that would host a terminal for the would require complex engineering and most likely expensive land taking (not just the land but we are talking about heavy concrete warehouses). This isn't to say that extending the isn't feasible (all the alternatives I presented are) but that they would all be very expensive and probably not worth the cost simply to have the  terminate north of Queens Plaza. However, if this was part of a larger Northern Blvd Subway extension the costs may be justified. 

My solution was to simply add an infill station on the 63rd St Tunnel at 41st Ave right before the tunnel connects with QBL. Early plans for the super-express had a station here and given the growth of LIC I think an infill station would make sense. This way all riders can change no matter the local or express service.

That is bad. The E is a high ridership route that benefits from not being too long. E and Fulton exp would be the high-tph branches from either end of Cranberry), the E's reliability, and thus Queens, would suffer.

[mrsman]

18 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Even the current  has to continue out of service to get to Jamaica Yard, although it’s not far from Continental to the yard leads near Union Turnpike and the tracks are below the in-service  tracks at 75th Ave, so they don’t interfere with  and  trains. But the IND built those tracks right from the start, whereas yard lead tracks from the 4th Ave local tracks would have to be built from scratch and would likely force some service outages during the construction. 

I’m starting to wonder if maybe it’s more the multiple merges that mess up  service than the overall length of the line. I wonder if we address said merges, that could yield measurable improvements to the . Maybe it’s not entirely necessary to completely change the line into an Astoria-Coney Island service that might cause blowback from West End Line riders who would be put on a completely local service and have to transfer at 36th for express service.

Perhaps we can start by addressing the bottlenecks on QBL, Broadway and DeKalb first and maybe that might be enough to show better reliability and permit trains to run more frequently. So I’m in favor of having the  stay express all the way and run to/from 96th/2nd and rerouting the  to the 63rd St Tunnel and the weekday  to 53rd. I’m also in favor of running the  via Sea Beach, the  via West End and the  and  via Brighton. This would require the  to run solo in Astoria. But doing so would likely require a significant amount of  trains running into and out of Brooklyn because Whitehall and City Hall Lower will not be able to turn them all. I don’t think it would be so good to have all those trains taking up track space running light. So I’m going to suggest the possibility of having the  serve as a secondary Sea Beach service between Kings Highway and 8th Ave on weekdays in addition to the . 

I agree.  The length of the line is not what causes problems and delays, for the most part.  The merges are far worse at propagating delays.

So many merges affecting the .  The changes that you propose are good interim steps.  A partial deinterlining that is likely politically feasible, targetting the worst merges, even though not all merges are addressed.  

Remove the from the Broadway local which produces a lot of backups.  QN to 2nd Ave and RW to Queens.

Switching the tunnels of F and M will eliminate some merges along QBL.

The above also separates the services at DeKalb, which is absolutely necessary.  And any  trains that do make it to Brooklyn are better off riding along the Sea Beach than the West End.  That way, any merging that it does will only affect  and  , and only indirectly affect  .  [If W ran on West End, it would directly affect all three services.]

 

[I am still supportive of more signifianct system-wide deinterlining for the B division, but I know that doing so wold be a heavy lift.  These measures that you indicated above are far more politically feasible and don't change commutes for too many people.]

 

[Armandito]

3 minutes ago, mrsman said:

I agree.  The length of the line is not what causes problems and delays, for the most part.  The merges are far worse at propagating delays.

The and lines, despite sharing trunk lines with other routes, do not share any of their own trackage with their respective express counterparts which is why they can run as frequently and as reliably as they could. But keep in mind that overcrowding is a key contributing factor to delays and erratic scheduling if merging doesn't play a role.

[mrsman]

3 minutes ago, Armandito said:

The and lines, despite sharing trunk lines with other routes, do not share any of their own trackage with their respective express counterparts which is why they can run as frequently and as reliably as they could. But keep in mind that overcrowding is a key contributing factor to delays and erratic scheduling if merging doesn't play a role.

Sure.  All that is true, but the point is that those lines are deinterlined so they run much more consistently.  If for some reason there was an incident along  that caused a delay, and then the incident cleared up, you would liklely have a lot of bunching - which is not good for consistency.  Because  is by itself, a line manager can hold some trains to ensure that the full train line would soon run at consistnet intervals.  And they can do that without fouling up other services.

 

[mrsman]

Does anyone know if it is feasible to add a switch on the 8th Ave line upper level between 50th and 42nd in such a way that local trains from CPW could merge onto the local tracks from 42nd southward and not interfere with  trains coming from 53rd onto the 8th Ave local tracks?

If such were feasible, then perhaps it would be a good idea to run  as CPW locals, with  as CPW expresses.  South of 59th,  will both stop at 50th, and then merge onto the express tracks continuing towards Cranberry.   will follow its existing pattern on the 8th Ave local, terminating at WTC.  

If the above were done, we eliminate the merging at Canal, the CPW local will continue straight to 8th Ave, only skipping 23rd and Spring.  This would also deinterline Columbus Circle.  It would also allow  and  to both have access to 50th.

[Lex]

4 hours ago, mrsman said:

Does anyone know if it is feasible to add a switch on the 8th Ave line upper level between 50th and 42nd in such a way that local trains from CPW could merge onto the local tracks from 42nd southward and not interfere with  trains coming from 53rd onto the 8th Ave local tracks?

If such were feasible, then perhaps it would be a good idea to run  as CPW locals, with  as CPW expresses.  South of 59th,  will both stop at 50th, and then merge onto the express tracks continuing towards Cranberry.   will follow its existing pattern on the 8th Ave local, terminating at WTC.  

If the above were done, we eliminate the merging at Canal, the CPW local will continue straight to 8th Ave, only skipping 23rd and Spring.  This would also deinterline Columbus Circle.  It would also allow  and  to both have access to 50th.

Did I not already mention some time back that there is literally not enough space for a switch there? Those things require considerable space, yet the QBL spur ascends/descends just south of where the upper level's platforms end.

[CenSin]

On 12/12/2021 at 8:51 PM, Lex said:

Did I not already mention some time back that there is literally not enough space for a switch there? Those things require considerable space, yet the QBL spur ascends/descends just south of where the upper level's platforms end.

And you can actually see within the first 2 minutes that it’s not possible to make such a switch south of 50 Street. The only other option is to destroy some columns north of 50 Street and have CPW trains skip it.

 

[Lex]

22 minutes ago, CenSin said:

And you can actually see within the first 2 minutes that it’s not possible to make such a switch south of 50 Street. The only other option is to destroy some columns north of 50 Street and have CPW trains skip it.

Not only would that risk pissing people off (not without good reason, either), but I can't imagine that would be good for the structural integrity of the tunnels.

[ActiveCity]

The 50th st merge is a problem. The C or E train sometimes gets held in the station when it should be held in the tunnel.

[Lex]

38 minutes ago, ActiveCity said:

The 50th st merge is a problem. The C or E train sometimes gets held in the station when it should be held in the tunnel.

And where, exactly, is it supposed to wait in the tunnel?

[CenSin]

10 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

The 50th st merge is a problem. The C or E train sometimes gets held in the station when it should be held in the tunnel.

You have your priorities wrong. Waiting in the tunnel is the greater of evils.

[Vulturious]

12 hours ago, CenSin said:

23 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

The 50th st merge is a problem. The C or E train sometimes gets held in the station when it should be held in the tunnel.

You have your priorities wrong. Waiting in the tunnel is the greater of evils.

I have to agree, if something were to ever happen and people are stuck inside the train, trains at the station can at least stay in the station keeping their doors open if a passenger wants to get off. Waiting inside a train that isn't at the station is never something anyone wants to deal with. People would start feeling cramped, claustrophobic, and eventually riling up (probably). 

[Theli11]

 

 

2 hours ago, Vulturious said:

14 hours ago, CenSin said:

On 12/24/2021 at 11:14 PM, ActiveCity said:

The 50th st merge is a problem. The C or E train sometimes gets held in the station when it should be held in the tunnel.

You have your priorities wrong. Waiting in the tunnel is the greater of evils.

I have to agree, if something were to ever happen and people are stuck inside the train, trains at the station can at least stay in the station keeping their doors open if a passenger wants to get off. Waiting inside a train that isn't at the station is never something anyone wants to deal with. People would start feeling cramped, claustrophobic, and eventually riling up (probably). 

Or even letting that person catch the next local train if they just missed the one up top or down below. 

 

On 12/12/2021 at 4:02 PM, mrsman said:

Does anyone know if it is feasible to add a switch on the 8th Ave line upper level between 50th and 42nd in such a way that local trains from CPW could merge onto the local tracks from 42nd southward and not interfere with  trains coming from 53rd onto the 8th Ave local tracks?

 

The only way I can think of this happening is the Merge being moved to right after 42nd St, and the going downwards and covered over to make room for a switch. [Going Uptown Perspective],

Same thing Downtown, just having the  pop up right before 42nd St and Merging *then* giving the enough room to switch where they need to switch at. 

I'd just prefer the switch to be North of 50th St or just local. 

[mrsman]

My next proposal.  This proposal's goal is to minimize interlining of the branches as much as practical.  Key parts of the proposal involve having the M revert to the Nassau line, running all QBL expresses to 63rd and all QBL locals to 53rd, and general deinterlining of the usual trouble spots in the B division.  No changes planned for the A divison.

 205 St - Concourse exp - CPW exp - 8 Av exp - Fulton exp - Lefferts/Far Rockaway.  This will run 24 hours.   will run local along Fulton during late night hours. [An optional alternative would be to rename the Lefferts service as  , but H will be like A in every other way.  During late night hours, H wil run as a Lefferts-Euclid shuttle.]  Express service on the Concourse line only during rush hours in the prevailing direction. This is a very long train that runs in 4 boroughs.

 BPB/145th - Concourse local - CPW local - 6 Ave exp - Brighton exp - Brighton Beach.  Pretty much today's service.  During rush hour, in the prevailing direction will run local as  runs express along Concourse.  In the non-prevailing direction A and B will share tracks along Concourse.  During mid-day weekdays,  terminates at 145th.  No service nights or weekends.

 207 St - CPW exp - 8 Av exp - Fulton local - Euclid. Service all times except late nights.

 168 St - CPW local - 6 Ave exp - Brighton local - CI.  24 hour service.  Late nights, service is extended from 168 St to 207 St.

A quick word on the above pattern.  Currently, during late nights along CPW, we have  local to 207 and  express to 205.  The above pattern will bascially keep the same late night service, this time  express to 205 and  local to 207.  B and C will have the same service hours as currently, even though C's routing is now slightly different as an 8th Ave express instead of local.  Also,  services two branches on the south end (Lefferts/Far Rockaway), so it will get more service than  .  Given that Concourse will only be serviced by one line during nights and weekends, I felt it was better for the more frequent  to service Concourse instead of  .   Under this plan, during weekday hours, both Inwood and Concourse lines will each have one CPW express and one CPW local.

 

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd - 8 Ave local - WTC.  24 hour service.  Late nights, service is extended to 179 St.  Even though only one line is serving this corridor, I envision that about 20 TPH can be handled during rush hours.

 Jamaica Center - QBL exp - 63rd - 6 Ave local - Culver local - CI.  24 hour service.  (10 TPH during rush hours).

 Court Square - BQ Crosstown Line - Culver local - Church.  24 hour service.  During weekday daytime hours,  is extended to Kings Highway to prevent interference with         that terminates at Church.  (During rush hours, 18 TPH between Bedford-Nostrand and Court, and 10 TPH south of Bedford-Nostrand).  

[K] Orange-K.  179 St - Hillside local - QBL exp - 63rd - 6 Ave local - 2nd/Houston.   Service at all times except late nights.  (10 TPH during rush hours) 

 179 St - Hillside exp - QBL exp - 63rd - 6 Ave local - Culver exp - Church.  Service during weekday daytime hours.  (10 TPH during rush hours).

A word about FGKV service.  The combined total of service during rush hour on FKV lines along the line between Forest Hills and Houston along the QBL express - 6th Ave lcoal line will be 30 TPH during rush hours.  Since the G merges into the line in Brooklyn, one of the services has to terminate at 2nd/Houston so that there is room for the G.  So K will terminate at 2nd/Houston.  V will provide an express service durin weekday hours.  V will not interilne with G at all, since G merges into the Culver tracks south of where V will run on the Culver express tracks.  V terminates at Church, while F and G continue further into Brooklyn.  

 

 

 will run its current service from Jamaica Center to Broad St.

[M] Brown-M.  Metropolitan Ave - Myrtle el - Broadway Brooklyn el - Nassau line - Chambers.  During midday weekdays, service is extended to Broad.  Rush hours, nights, weekends, service terminates at Chambers.  Late nights, shuttle between Metropolitan and Myrtle  stop. 

Yes, I am divorcing M service from the 6th Ave line.  Yes, passengers will have to transfer to get to Midtown, but they will have more choices than what existed 10 years ago.  First, there will be more trains along the 6th Ave line stopping at Delancey (both  and ) to make the transfer at Essex better.  Second, I envision a new transfer at Bowery to Grand St to provide a transfer to the 6th Ave express trains, which for most passengers will make a quicker trip if headed to W4th (including transfers to 8th Ave line), 34th, 42nd, and 47-50.  Canal is still availble for transfers to Broadway lines and  .  For passengers heading to west Midtown, I don't believe most will go all the way to Fulton and then backtrack, so likely anyone heading for ACE or 123 will probably take a 6th Ave train and transfer at W4th or take a 6th Ave or Broadway train and either transfer at 42nd or walk from the nearest 6th or Broadway station.  

 

 96th/2nd - Broadway express - 4th Ave exp - Sea Beach.

 96th / 2nd - Broadway express - 4th Ave exp - West End.

N and Q are basically identical, except south of 36th in Brooklyn.  I can see the combined service running 24 TPH rush hours (12 TPH on each of the branches) with less service during less busy times.  Even late nights, it seems that running 6 TPH along the trunk (and 3 TPH on each branch) would be better than running one as a shuttle in Brooklyn and having full service on the other branch.  So I expect that both service will be run 24 hours.

 Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge.  24 hour service.  Yes, there is no direct yard access, but I think that MTA can run this service efficiently.  Yes, MTA ran this Astoria-Bay Ridge service in the 1980's and there were added costs in deadheading to yards, so the service was changed.  But in those days, shared tracks with the Forest Hills -Sea Beach  train.  Since  ran directly to two yards, and ran to no yards, service was changed to Astoria-Sea Beach and Forest Hills-Bay Ridge so that each service had access to one yard.  IMO, since we do not have a QBL service on Broadway in my plan, there is no need to muck up the works and a completely deinterlined Astoria-Bay Ridge service can work during revenue hours without the need for a full yard on route.  Out of service trains can hop along the Sea Beach line to Coney Island yard.

 

 

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

@mrsman I think it should be  to 207,  to 168,  to 205 (145 on weekends) and  to BPB (205 on weekends/late nights). I don’t see any real advantage to sending the  to 205 and the  to 168. Have the  serve Washington Heights/Inwood and the  serve Concourse; it’s what riders have been used to for 80-plus years. 

Your QBL plan is interesting in that it has one 8th Ave service and three 6th Ave services. I proposed a QBL with that same split a couple years ago, but with the  and  express to/from Jamaica and the  and  local to/from 71st Ave, with the  removed from QBL. The idea was to have both a Culver express (the ) while still having the  and having QBL deinterlined as much as possible. But like your QBL plan, it would have called for splitting the 6th Avenue local’s 30 tph three ways between the , K and . That’s going to be a very tight squeeze. In order for it to work, nothing can go wrong on the railroad that would require trains to be rerouted. And we all know that just isn’t possible with the NYC Subway in general. Not to mention that have 30 tph between the , K and  would force QBL to operate well below the line’s capacity because you definitely won’t be able to run 30 tph on the . Maybe 20 at the most. And you have the K dead-ending at 2nd Ave/Houston St. At least with my  plan, the  can still be the popular service it has been for the past 11 years, albeit with a tight squeeze on the 6th Ave local tracks.

I’m not in favor of returning the  to Nassau St with the  and  because that will make it a relatively unpopular service once again. I get why you want to remove the  from 6th, but I can predict it won’t go well with riders, even if there are more choices than before. As for the   and , I like them better on Brighton since the consensus seems to be that Brighton riders prefer Broadway over 6th. The only reason to do  and  on Brighton is that it’s a more simple operation that can allow the  to stay weekdays-only. But even so, it may prove to be a less popular option with riders than even the current  operations.

Edited December 29, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Theli11]

6 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Your QBL plan is interesting in that it has one 8th Ave service and three 6th Ave services. I proposed a QBL with that same split a couple years ago, but with the  and  express to/from Jamaica and the  and  local to/from 71st Ave, with the  removed from QBL. The idea was to have both a Culver express (the ) while still having the  and having QBL deinterlined as much as possible. But like your QBL plan, it would have called for splitting the 6th Avenue local’s 30 tph three ways between the , K and . That’s going to be a very tight squeeze. In order for it to work, nothing can go wrong on the railroad that would require trains to be rerouted. And we all know that just isn’t possible with the NYC Subway in general. Not to mention that have 30 tph between the , K and  would force QBL to operate well below the line’s capacity because you definitely won’t be able to run 30 tph on the . Maybe 20 at the most. And you have the K dead-ending at 2nd Ave/Houston St. At least with my  plan, the  can still be the popular service it has been for the past 11 years, albeit with a tight squeeze on the 6th Ave local tracks.

I’m not in favor of returning the  to Nassau St with the  and  because that will make it a relatively unpopular service once again. I get why you want to remove the  from 6th, but I can predict it won’t go well with riders, even if there are more choices than before. As for the   and , I like them better on Brighton since the consensus seems to be that Brighton riders prefer Broadway over 6th. The only reason to do  and  on Brighton is that it’s a more simple operation that can allow the  to stay weekdays-only. But even so, it may prove to be a less popular option with riders than even the current  operations.

How about  go express via QBL, go local on 6th, reconfigure Broadway Lafayette to connect the local tracks with Grand St, and the express tracks with Culver. You'd have and  trains on Sea Beach, and connect the  (With the same North of West 4th aforementioned proposals) to the Culver Line. The  ends at 2nd Avenue and the  continues to Coney Island. If you put the in the equation you can replace the proposed  service with the or have 3 trains run on that 6th Ave Local Track under your proposed plan. 

[mrsman]

22 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

@mrsman I think it should be  to 207,  to 168,  to 205 (145 on weekends) and  to BPB (205 on weekends/late nights). I don’t see any real advantage to sending the  to 205 and the  to 168. Have the  serve Washington Heights/Inwood and the  serve Concourse; it’s what riders have been used to for 80-plus years. 

Your QBL plan is interesting in that it has one 8th Ave service and three 6th Ave services. I proposed a QBL with that same split a couple years ago, but with the  and  express to/from Jamaica and the  and  local to/from 71st Ave, with the  removed from QBL. The idea was to have both a Culver express (the ) while still having the  and having QBL deinterlined as much as possible. But like your QBL plan, it would have called for splitting the 6th Avenue local’s 30 tph three ways between the , K and . That’s going to be a very tight squeeze. In order for it to work, nothing can go wrong on the railroad that would require trains to be rerouted. And we all know that just isn’t possible with the NYC Subway in general. Not to mention that have 30 tph between the , K and  would force QBL to operate well below the line’s capacity because you definitely won’t be able to run 30 tph on the . Maybe 20 at the most. And you have the K dead-ending at 2nd Ave/Houston St. At least with my  plan, the  can still be the popular service it has been for the past 11 years, albeit with a tight squeeze on the 6th Ave local tracks.

I’m not in favor of returning the  to Nassau St with the  and  because that will make it a relatively unpopular service once again. I get why you want to remove the  from 6th, but I can predict it won’t go well with riders, even if there are more choices than before. As for the   and , I like them better on Brighton since the consensus seems to be that Brighton riders prefer Broadway over 6th. The only reason to do  and  on Brighton is that it’s a more simple operation that can allow the  to stay weekdays-only. But even so, it may prove to be a less popular option with riders than even the current  operations.

Thank you for your comments.

I could rearrange the service as follows, to better keep the IND naming scheme.  But I want the heavier 8th Ave service (servicing two southern terminals Lefferts and Far Rockaway) along the Concourse to be matched with the part time (no weekend or late night) BDB/145 service.  But the change in nomenclature will change how these lines are run in Brooklyn.  Now the C will be the Fulton express and the A will be the Fulton local.  But if the naming is your only issue, I present the following:

207 St - CPW exp - 8 Av exp - Fulton local - Euclid. Service all times except late nights. 

168 St - CPW local - 6 Ave exp - Brighton local - CI.  24 hour service.  Late nights, service is extended from 168 St to 207 St. 

205 St - Concourse exp - CPW exp - 8 Av exp - Fulton exp - Lefferts/Far Rockaway.  This will run 24 hours.  will run local along Fulton during late night hours. [An optional alternative would be to rename the Lefferts service as , but H will be like C in every other way.  During late night hours, H wil run as a Lefferts-Euclid shuttle.]  Express service on the Concourse line only during rush hours in the prevailing direction. This is a very long train that runs in 4 boroughs.   

BPB/145th - Concourse local - CPW local - 6 Ave exp - Brighton exp - Brighton Beach.  Pretty much today's B service.  During rush hour, in the prevailing direction will run local as  runs express along Concourse.  In the non-prevailing direction C and D will share tracks along Concourse.  During mid-day weekdays,  terminates at 145th.  No service nights or weekends. 

Here, I envision twice as many C trains as A trains, since C serves two destinations and is the full time service in Brooklyn and at times the only service in the Bronx.  Likewise, I expect twice as many B trains as D trains, since D is the Brighton express and B is the all-stop service.  Plus, it overall balances the two uptown branches, if i have proportionately two B's and one A serving Washington Heights and two C's and one D seriving the Bronx.  Another consideration is that I want the late night to be served by B and C, where the CPW express goes to the Bronx and the CPW local goes to Inwood, much like today's late night service.

 

Witth regard to QBL, you are right that I envision a service that has a tight squeeze, but I don't envision it as being a problem.  This is a QBL express service that has three northern branches (JC, 179 via local, and 179 via express).  The current service has those same three branches as well, albeit the to 179 being a less frequent service then what I envision.  I want to make the 179 express a more frequent train to benefit the folks transferring from buses from Eastern Queens, as opposed to simply using the 179 express as a reliever for Jamaica Center.  When those three services come together in Forest Hills, they stay together for many miles with no merges or diverges until the Lower East Side.  And that is only done because I necessarily have to make room for the .  

You are correct that I am limited in my capacity for the QBL local, but the QBL local is already limited to 20 TPH due to issues at Forest Hills.  So if I am limited on that end, I might as well take those locals to a southern terminal that is also limited to 20 TPH - namely WTC.

Your  plan is definitely intriguing.  My two main hesitations are: [1] by running all locals on 63rd, you cut off QBL local stations west of Roosevelt from Long Island City, so my plans always send the local to 53rd, and [2] you are feeding trains from two different tunnels (53rd and 63rd) onto one set of Manhattan tracks (6th Ave local).  Assuming you use the full capacity on 6th Ave, you are absolutely unable to use the full capacity on 63rd since 1/3 of the 6th Ave trains are now going to 53rd.  Perhaps this is better, since 53rd is the busier tunnel and if one of the two should get full service, it should probably be 53rd.

I'll keep cracking at this.  Likely, I may revert to one of my earlier plans that seems to avoid many of these problems.

This one from August was one of my favorites:

 

 

 

[mrsman]

Before I get to my latest B division deinterlining proposal, I wanted to clearly outline a key limitation that is involved.

You can only run 11 full services on the three trunk lines (8th, 6th, Broadway).  This is because of the dead end at WTC.  Today's service runs 4 services on Broadway and 4 services on 6th, but only 3 services on 8th because of the dead end at WTC.  Even with all of the rearragnging you can't get around this fact.

If Broadway BMT service were completely separated from QBL, then we would have 7 services that can be run on the 8th and 6th lines.  This means that we can either run 3 services to CPW an 4 services to QBL or vice versa.  This largely means that the CPW local or the QBL local will not run at capacity.  For the plan that I posted on 12/28/21 at 10:46am, I was indeed hampered by this fact by running an  service that was limited to 20 TPH because it connected Forest Hills to WTC.  QBL local was limited, unless I can add service via  or  .  With that in mind, I decided to implement the latest plan that maintains  as a supplemental QBL local service to allow 2 services on the CPW local and 2 services on the QBL local.  The  will also provide service for the local QBL passengers who board west of Roosevelt to the Queens Plaza and Long Island City area.

 

Here is my latest proposal:

168 St - CPW local - 8 Ave loc - W4 switch - Culver line - CI.  24 hour service.  Late nights, service is extended from 168 St to 207 St. 

207 St - CPW exp - 6 Av exp - 4 Av exp - West End - CI.  Service all times except late nights.  Late night West End shuttle 36 St - CI.

  BPB - Concourse local - CPW local - 8 Ave loc - W4 switch - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle El - Metro Ave.  During rush hour, in the prevailing direction will run local as  runs express along Concourse.  In the non-prevailing direction, C and D will share tracks along Concourse.  During mid-day weekdays,  service runs to 168th.  Nights and weekends  shuttle between Essex and Metro Ave.

  205 St - Concourse RH exp - CPW exp - 6 Av exp - 4 Av exp - Sea Beach - CI.  24 hour service.  Express service on the Concourse line only during rush hours in the prevailing direction.  Local Concourse service at other times.  During late nights,  will run local in Brooklyn.

 Jamaica Center - QBL express - 53rd - 8 Ave exp - Fulton local - Euclid.  24 hour service.  Late nights extended to Far Rockaway. 

Forest Hills - QBL local - 63rd - 6 Ave local - W4 switch - WTC.  24 hour service.  Late nights extended to 179 St.

Court Square - BQ Crosstown Line - Culver local - Church.  24 hour service. 

 179 St - QBL express - 53rd - 8 Ave exp - Fulton exp - Lefferts/Far Rockaway.  All times except late nights.  Late night Euclid-Lefferts shuttle.  Some rush hour  service will run express along Hillside Ave to 179.

96th/2nd - Broadway express - Brighton express.  No night or weekend service.  

96th / 2nd - Broadway express - Brighton local - CI. 24 hour service. 

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 60th - Broadway local - Whitehall.  No late night service.

Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge.  24 hour service.  Yes, there is no direct yard access, but there should be room for out of service trains to hop along the Sea Beach line to Coney Island yard. 

 

With the above, we have deinterlining along CPW, the Broadway BMT trunk line, and the DeKalb junction.  We run 4 services on Broadway, 4 services on 8th Ave, and 3 services on 6th Ave.  We run 4 services on CPW,  and 4 services on QBL (EFKR).  The 6th Ave express trains are deinterlined, except in the 145th area.  The QBL-8th Ave express trains are completely deinterlined, but run a very long service.  The Broadway express is deinterlined.  Broadway locals merge with 6th Ave locals along the QBL local line.  8th Ave locals merge with some 6th Ave expresses around 145th, merge with  service along the Culver line, and merge with  service along the Williamsburg Bridge line.  The QBL line runs 2 services on the 53rd tunnel, 1 service on the 60th tunnel (that merges with Astoria line), and 1 service on the 63rd tunnel.  By running  local, we do provide access to the upper level of the 50th st station.

 

 

[darkstar8983]

2 hours ago, mrsman said:

Before I get to my latest B division deinterlining proposal, I wanted to clearly outline a key limitation that is involved.

You can only run 11 full services on the three trunk lines (8th, 6th, Broadway).  This is because of the dead end at WTC.  Today's service runs 4 services on Broadway and 4 services on 6th, but only 3 services on 8th because of the dead end at WTC.  Even with all of the rearragnging you can't get around this fact.

If Broadway BMT service were completely separated from QBL, then we would have 7 services that can be run on the 8th and 6th lines.  This means that we can either run 3 services to CPW an 4 services to QBL or vice versa.  This largely means that the CPW local or the QBL local will not run at capacity.  For the plan that I posted on 12/28/21 at 10:46am, I was indeed hampered by this fact by running an  service that was limited to 20 TPH because it connected Forest Hills to WTC.  QBL local was limited, unless I can add service via  or  .  With that in mind, I decided to implement the latest plan that maintains  as a supplemental QBL local service to allow 2 services on the CPW local and 2 services on the QBL local.  The  will also provide service for the local QBL passengers who board west of Roosevelt to the Queens Plaza and Long Island City area.

 

Here is my latest proposal:

168 St - CPW local - 8 Ave loc - W4 switch - Culver line - CI.  24 hour service.  Late nights, service is extended from 168 St to 207 St. 

207 St - CPW exp - 6 Av exp - 4 Av exp - West End - CI.  Service all times except late nights.  Late night West End shuttle 36 St - CI.

  BPB - Concourse local - CPW local - 8 Ave loc - W4 switch - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle El - Metro Ave.  During rush hour, in the prevailing direction will run local as  runs express along Concourse.  In the non-prevailing direction, C and D will share tracks along Concourse.  During mid-day weekdays,  service runs to 168th.  Nights and weekends  shuttle between Essex and Metro Ave.

  205 St - Concourse RH exp - CPW exp - 6 Av exp - 4 Av exp - Sea Beach - CI.  24 hour service.  Express service on the Concourse line only during rush hours in the prevailing direction.  Local Concourse service at other times.  During late nights,  will run local in Brooklyn.

 Jamaica Center - QBL express - 53rd - 8 Ave exp - Fulton local - Euclid.  24 hour service.  Late nights extended to Far Rockaway. 

Forest Hills - QBL local - 63rd - 6 Ave local - W4 switch - WTC.  24 hour service.  Late nights extended to 179 St.

Court Square - BQ Crosstown Line - Culver local - Church.  24 hour service. 

 179 St - QBL express - 53rd - 8 Ave exp - Fulton exp - Lefferts/Far Rockaway.  All times except late nights.  Late night Euclid-Lefferts shuttle.  Some rush hour  service will run express along Hillside Ave to 179.

96th/2nd - Broadway express - Brighton express.  No night or weekend service.  

96th / 2nd - Broadway express - Brighton local - CI. 24 hour service. 

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 60th - Broadway local - Whitehall.  No late night service.

Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge.  24 hour service.  Yes, there is no direct yard access, but there should be room for out of service trains to hop along the Sea Beach line to Coney Island yard. 

 

With the above, we have deinterlining along CPW, the Broadway BMT trunk line, and the DeKalb junction.  We run 4 services on Broadway, 4 services on 8th Ave, and 3 services on 6th Ave.  We run 4 services on CPW,  and 4 services on QBL (EFKR).  The 6th Ave express trains are deinterlined, except in the 145th area.  The QBL-8th Ave express trains are completely deinterlined, but run a very long service.  The Broadway express is deinterlined.  Broadway locals merge with 6th Ave locals along the QBL local line.  8th Ave locals merge with some 6th Ave expresses around 145th, merge with  service along the Culver line, and merge with  service along the Williamsburg Bridge line.  The QBL line runs 2 services on the 53rd tunnel, 1 service on the 60th tunnel (that merges with Astoria line), and 1 service on the 63rd tunnel.  By running  local, we do provide access to the upper level of the 50th st station.

 

 

I agree 100% with your de-interlining of Broadway (  train only running from 71 Av to Whitehall St, clearly with headways of only every 10 minutes due to track capacity limitations @ Whitehall St, similar to how the  ran during the Sandy closure of the Montague St Tunnel), with the  going from Astoria-Bay Ridge. There is room on Sea Beach Express to transport those  train to/from the yard, but I'd probably call that line the , because the Brighton Express can just be called , since the only deviation between the two patterns is the express service from Prospect Park to Sheepshead Bay. 

The  looks unchanged which is fine, but I'm not sure about making the Queens Blvd Express-53 St routes the lines that go out the Rockaways. Those lines sound longer than the current  service from 207 St to Far Rockaway. The same issue is present in the current  line proposal, which looks like it just absorbed the  route to Metropolitan Av and extended from 145 St to Bedford Park Blvd. This has the same issue as the last proposal of the QB Express-Rockaway plan in that the line becomes too long. The plan of connecting 63 St to Queens Blvd Local would help with passenger loads @ 21 St Queensbridge and Roosevelt Island because those trains would be "emptier". If there only was a campaign to help people realize that time is lost when making those convoluted transfers at Lexington Av-53 St to the  at 51 St, you could have remained on your train and just gone down 6 Av, which is on average 1.5 blocks away if you are going to 5th Av. 6th Av is three avenues away from Park Avenue South (5th Av/Broadway/Madision)

Example: Let us say you have to go to 14 St and 5 Av, and you are an able-bodied person coming from Roosevelt Av. Assuming current service patterns, you can:

1. Take the  Express via 53 St to Lexington Av, go up a tall escalator, walk two city blocks and go down a staircase, walk to another up escalator, and transfer to the downtown , which you are then likely to transfer out of at Grand Central for the "Express"  /  trains.  - This option would get you on the most crowded trains.

2. Take the  Local via 53 St and follow the same explanation as in proposal 1 - This option would just be slightly slower due to the additional local stops, but there is more space for you to social distance.

3. Take the  local via 53 St, but remain on the train to 14 St-6 Av, and walk one avenue over - You save energy that you would have expended pushing people to get up the stairs, and the train is already making its way downtown. The only walking necessary would be when you get off the train @ 14 St.

4. Take the  Express via 63 St, which makes different stops when going crosstown, but stay on it to 14 St-6 Av (train is more crowded than the local  in proposals 2 & 3). between the  and , it would essentially be cost-neutral, depending on the dispatcher. Crossing between Queens/Manhattan is faster on the  due to the need of the  to slow down and stop @ Roosevelt Island, and having to come down from 63 St to merge @ 47-50 Sts, while the  just merges from 53 St. 

5. Take the  via 59 St (local), and get stuck going down STAIRS two levels to reach the  trains. - This option gets you straight to the express, but the maneuvering the  has to do to get to the 60 St tunnel, and the local service make this option seem the least appealing, and of course, the reputation of this line having as part of the trio of the ever, Arely, and whenever.

Edited December 30, 2021 by darkstar8983

[ActiveCity]

The MTA needs to convert the lower level of City Hall station into a terminal station. The staircases to the lower level as well as the crossover tracks from Canal St are already in place. In addition, there are two side platforms on the lower level. In order to activate the lower level, it needs to be properly aligned with the upper level. Lastly, it would include the removal of the third track just like what the MTA did with 42nd St shuttle not too long ago which is doing just fine.

Edited December 30, 2021 by ActiveCity

[Amiri the subway guy]

3 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

The reputation of this line having as part of the trio of the ever, Arely, and whenever.

So what do we call the