Stranded L Riders Could Find An Unlikely Savior In the E Train: Proposal

[Far Rock Depot]

Nowhere near enough capacity in either Cranberry or Houston Street to run this.

 

Nowhere near enough space to install the proposed switch.

 

Absolutely 100% impossible.

 

(Ignoring the immense cost of the added crews and cars that this would need, on top of the cost of adding a set of switches to a line, even if it were physically possible, which it isn't)

I was debating with a member of their team on FB in detail the flaws on their plan explaining these same points and and even asked them of they even consulted with engineers within atleast NYCT and they said that they "have consulted with experts". They have no clue......

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Do people not realize that many more trainsets would be needed for the ? Where do they hope to get them from. This proposal is garbage.

They stated more cars could be bought. As in we can just order a new small fleet asap. Lmao

 

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[Around the Horn]

The R211's should start coming in 2019/2020 but still that's highly unlikely to help out a E to Bedford-Nostrand scenario (because let's face it, even if the E could go up the Crosstown, there is no way with that poorly thought out crossover/layup that both the E and G can turn at Court Square.)

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[bobtehpanda]

Wasn't the intention to build another tunnel, connecting Hudson Terminal with Court St., so that the locals would use that tunnel, while the express use Cranberry?

 

If that was the intention, then they wouldn't have built the at roughly the same level as Cortlandt .

[bstar1]

BMT lines already claimed that Cortlandt spot before IND lines.

[Eric B]

They would probably be able to go around it (it's not like WTC was there when the IND was built).

[CenSin]

They would probably be able to go around it (it's not like WTC was there when the IND was built).

Given the kind of sharp turns found in various parts of the system, the IND could very well elbow their way out of the blockage. Where the would go then is another question. Running along Wall Street before hitting the water seems possible since all the other streets have been occupied by other trunks.

[Eric B]

Yeah, I never heard the route it would go, but I did hear they were supposed to connect. Then, when that got put aside, SAS was the next idea for the Court St. stub.

[FamousNYLover]

 

 

I don't agree with loop and terminating at Court Sq.

 

I completely agree that riders at Court Sq-23rd St will get confuse because they'll be on different platform.

 

is chaos already and should remain as it is.

 

On Weekend, maybe should extend weekend service to Queens Plaza, where holiday train layover or

Or maybe they could name the new , train until service restored.

 

 

[R179 8258]

I don't agree with loop and terminating at Court Sq.

 

I completely agree that riders at Court Sq-23rd St will get confuse because they'll be on different platform.

 

is chaos already and should remain as it is.

 

On Weekend, maybe should extend weekend service to Queens Plaza, where holiday train layover or

Or maybe they could name the new , train until service restored.

How would the even get on the line in Brooklyn ????

[bobtehpanda]

It's strange how people assume that New Yorkers are way too dumb to figure out which part of the circle they want to be on, when most cities have a circle line that doesn't really have these issues...

[CenSin]

It's strange how people assume that New Yorkers are way too dumb to figure out which part of the circle they want to be on, when most cities have a circle line that doesn't really have these issues...

http://humantransit.org/2009/07/on-loops.html

 

I think loops are generally a bad idea. Loops are inefficient. The best path to take, geometrically is straight—and that is assuming the popularity gradient is flat. Since it is not, lines will have to veer off the straight course a bit, but efficiency is still good since it gets people where they need to be. Loops can always be separated into separate intersecting lines for better efficiency. The , , and form a loop with connections at West 4 Street–Washington Square and 7 Avenue. The , , , , , and form a loop with connections at Lexington Avenue/59 Street and 14 Street–Union Square. The will do the same thing with the , , , , and .

[bobtehpanda]

http://humantransit.org/2009/07/on-loops.html

 

I think loops are generally a bad idea. Loops are inefficient. The best path to take, geometrically is straight—and that is assuming the popularity gradient is flat. Since it is not, lines will have to veer off the straight course a bit, but efficiency is still good since it gets people where they need to be. Loops can always be separated into separate intersecting lines for better efficiency. The , , and form a loop with connections at West 4 Street–Washington Square and 7 Avenue. The , , , , , and form a loop with connections at Lexington Avenue/59 Street and 14 Street–Union Square. The will do the same thing with the , , , , and .

 

A two way loop is a bit different though. There really is no functional benefit to splitting a loop into two pieces unless it's actually a closed loop (in which case delays and switching drivers makes it operationally difficult), but the forming the shape of a 6 wouldn't do that. Most of the dumb part of this plan comes from the really unnecessary interlining, not the loop.

 

As another example, let's say the gets extended from Middle Village to Flushing (for the purposes of this discussion, not actually as a serious discussion. The train will function exactly the same even though it's shaped like a ribbon. People who want downtown will switch to the going via Broadway, and people who want midtown will switch to the going via Midtown. It would be the same if you had the going to Flushing and the going to Jamaica instead.

 

It even says so in the article you linked:

 

 

 

Two-way loops, of course, are a totally different topic (and can often be a ground of compromise between linear and circular modes of thought).  On a two-way loop, any portion of the loop can be experienced as an ordinary two-way route; some are even described as two or more linear routes that happen to be connected at the ends.

[CenSin]

A two way loop is a bit different though. There really is no functional benefit to splitting a loop into two pieces unless it's actually a closed loop (in which case delays and switching drivers makes it operationally difficult), but the forming the shape of a 6 wouldn't do that. Most of the dumb part of this plan comes from the really unnecessary interlining, not the loop.

I linked that article because there are also aspects of one-way loops that also applies to two-way loops: the inefficiency of traversing such a path, the confusion arising from stations that serve trains in too many directions ( to Jamaica Center, 2 × to Manhattan), and the lack of recovery time if the loop doesn’t have a terminal. The last one is obviously not the problem—as you mentioned—since there will be a terminal at both ends.

 

As another example, let's say the gets extended from Middle Village to Flushing (for the purposes of this discussion, not actually as a serious discussion. The train will function exactly the same even though it's shaped like a ribbon. People who want downtown will switch to the going via Broadway, and people who want midtown will switch to the going via Midtown. It would be the same if you had the going to Flushing and the going to Jamaica instead.

 

It even says so in the article you linked:

Two-way loops, of course, are a totally different topic (and can often be a ground of compromise between linear and circular modes of thought).  On a two-way loop, any portion of the loop can be experienced as an ordinary two-way route; some are even described as two or more linear routes that happen to be connected at the ends.

 

We could look at it that way, but then why have it be joined when they could be separated? Besides the inefficiency, there’s always the concern that there will be confusion at stations where the two ends of the route intersect, and such a route is longer—more delay prone. People who want to go downtown would be better served by a coming from Flushing since it actually penetrates the area as opposed to brushing by the outskirts.

 

It would be the same if you had the going to Flushing and the going to Jamaica instead.

It wouldn’t be the same, because the potential for confusion does not exist. Where the hypothetical Myrtle Avenue Line intersects with the Queens Boulevard Line, there is only one station (as opposed to station complex) serving a particular route. In the latter case with the going to Flushing, there would be a and an —not 2 .

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also argue that even non-looping routes should be separated with trains from Brooklyn and Staten Island ending at midtown Manhattan, and routes from the Bronx and Queens ending in the Financial District. Of course, the infrastructure for such doesn’t exist. But if it did, a route such as the would be split into a Wakefield–Wall Street route and Columbus Circle–Flatbush route.

[R10 2952]

I also disapprove of loops, especially within the New York City Subway system- there's a reason they discontinued Nassau service over the Manhattan Bridge.  And I've witnessed loops elsewhere which have their fair share of problems.  When I was in Europe there was this one partial-loop line that despite having popular ridership figures, was one of the most inefficient setups I've ever seen in my life.  Sometimes it really is better to sacrifice ridership for a linear, operationally sensible route.

[Wallyhorse]

I also disapprove of loops, especially within the New York City Subway system- there's a reason they discontinued Nassau service over the Manhattan Bridge.  And I've witnessed loops elsewhere which have their fair share of problems.  When I was in Europe there was this one partial-loop line that despite having popular ridership figures, was one of the most inefficient setups I've ever seen in my life.  Sometimes it really is better to sacrifice ridership for a linear, operationally sensible route.

Well, I'd be looking to re-connection the Nassau Line to the Manhattan Bridge going to Brooklyn ONLY and bring back the Nassau Loop that in this instance could have Bay Parkway or 9th Avenue on the West End Line OR perhaps 95th Street (to supplement the ) as the sole terminal (with Chambers technically the northern terminal though that would be in name only).  This would have the line run via the tunnel to Manhattan and stop on the northbound track ONLY at Jay-Metrotech, Court Street, Broad Street, Fulton Street and Chambers before going back to the Brooklyn over the Manny B and otherwise running via 4th Avenue local.

[bobtehpanda]

I also disapprove of loops, especially within the New York City Subway system- there's a reason they discontinued Nassau service over the Manhattan Bridge.  And I've witnessed loops elsewhere which have their fair share of problems.  When I was in Europe there was this one partial-loop line that despite having popular ridership figures, was one of the most inefficient setups I've ever seen in my life.  Sometimes it really is better to sacrifice ridership for a linear, operationally sensible route.

 

That loop had its own problems though; it was too small. No one is seriously looking to loop between DeKalb and Nassau St. A good loop is big enough that a partial journey on the loop is a trip people want to actually make; loops are not meant to facilitate joyriding in a circle.

 

Also, if transit's point is no longer to serve its riders by being useful, then we have all lost our minds.

[RailRunRob]

That loop had its own problems though; it was too small. No one is seriously looking to loop between DeKalb and Nassau St. A good loop is big enough that a partial journey on the loop is a trip people want to actually make; loops are not meant to facilitate joyriding in a circle.

 

Also, if transit's point is no longer to serve its riders by being useful, then we have all lost our minds.

Indeed valid points there are tons of city with Loop lines.

 

• Yamanote in Tokyo
• Osaka Loop in Osaka
• Circle Line in London
• U3 in Hamburg
• Line 6 in Madrid
• Line 2 in Seoul 

just to name a few.

 

Not to mention the countless Highway loops around Cities. From the M25 in London to I495 and I285 in Washinton and Atlanta  back here at home all perimeter layouts why couldn't rail mimic that here in NYC? What makes the dynamics different? Providing the loop is a decent size.

[Around the Horn]

Indeed valid points there are tons of city with Loop lines.

 

• Yamanote in Tokyo
• Osaka Loop in Osaka
• Circle Line in London
• U3 in Hamburg
• Line 6 in Madrid
• Line 2 in Seoul 

just to name a few.

 

Not to mention the countless Highway loops around Cities. From the M25 in London to I495 and I285 in Washinton and Atlanta  back here at home all perimeter layouts why couldn't rail mimic that here in NYC? What makes the dynamics different? Providing the loop is a decent size.

The Circle Line in London is no longer a circle. They broke up the loop because it was unreliable.

[R10 2952]

The Circle Line in London is no longer a circle. They broke up the loop because it was unreliable.

Exactly, this I one of the things I was getting at....

[Around the Horn]

Exactly, this I one of the things I was getting at....

I agree with you on that. I was just correcting RailRunRon's post.

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[RailRunRob]

I agree with you on that. I was just correcting RailRunRon's post.

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

I rode it in Feb are you referring to Hammersmith? You do have to get off and switch platforms is that not still considered a loop around central London?

[bobtehpanda]

Exactly, this I one of the things I was getting at....

 

Yes, it's a 6, which is more of what I'm advocating for, not an actual loop with no terminus...

[Around the Horn]

I rode it in Feb are you referring to Hammersmith? You do have to get off and switch platforms is that not still considered a loop around central London?

No. It operates between Hammersmith and Edgware Road, like a normal line now. The only difference that you can transfer on another platform to the other end of the line

 

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[RailRunRob]

No. It operates between Hammersmith and Edgware Road, like a normal line now. The only difference that you can transfer on another platform to the other end of the line

 

 

 

Sent from my iPod touch using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Maybe I'm getting mixed up with the District line stop's at Hammersmith as well. But the point being I can get on at let's say an Edgeware and still ride around central London and return to where I started for the most part. Even tho it's not a perfect loop you still wouldn't consider it a Circle or Loop? Does it not still service the perimeter of central London?

[Lance]

Since this topic has shifted toward loops in general, I feel I should leave my two cents. I don't have a problem with loop lines per-se. They probably work fine when the lines are short enough and the demand for the service is high. Doesn't Chicago have a couple of loop lines that work pretty well? My problem is the push to extend lines that are either too long or too busy further out to facilitate loop service. Take for instance the idea that started this thread, which is to extend the up Crosstown. Logistical issues notwithstanding, the plan in itself calls for the , which while not all that long, is quite busy acting as an alternative to the LIRR between Jamaica and Penn Station on top of being one of two primary lines that serves Queens Blvd. Adding to this with such an extension will kill the efficiency the currently sees.

 

I also disapprove of loops, especially within the New York City Subway system- there's a reason they discontinued Nassau service over the Manhattan Bridge.  And I've witnessed loops elsewhere which have their fair share of problems.  When I was in Europe there was this one partial-loop line that despite having popular ridership figures, was one of the most inefficient setups I've ever seen in my life.  Sometimes it really is better to sacrifice ridership for a linear, operationally sensible route.

Not for nothing, but the Nassau loop was discontinued not because of inefficiency, but rather a lack of riders. When the loop was planned in the 1910s, most of the city was still situated in Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn. As the years went on and the city expanded, the usefulness of having a dedicated service between the two old hubs waned considerably to the point where loop service was a rush-hour only thing.

 

Well, I'd be looking to re-connection the Nassau Line to the Manhattan Bridge going to Brooklyn ONLY and bring back the Nassau Loop that in this instance could have Bay Parkway or 9th Avenue on the West End Line OR perhaps 95th Street (to supplement the ) as the sole terminal (with Chambers technically the northern terminal though that would be in name only).  This would have the line run via the tunnel to Manhattan and stop on the northbound track ONLY at Jay-Metrotech, Court Street, Broad Street, Fulton Street and Chambers before going back to the Brooklyn over the Manny B and otherwise running via 4th Avenue local.

Again, what's the point? You keep bringing this up, and every time someone mentions you could achieve the same effect by just resurrecting the diamond service to Chambers St, you're completely quiet. There's no need to screw around with Broadway bridge service to fit what's effectively short-turned trains.