Im Making An (1) Train Schedule

[Lawrence St]

No, you miss understood the would spilt before the Marble Hill Metro-North station it wouldn't technically touch Riverdale Proper. It would tuck into the old Putnam ROW see below.

 

I mean does that area have tra kways or is it used by the Hudson Line? Edited March 22, 2017 by Lawrence St

[Fresh Pond]

 

 

It could be done you have 1,100 feet from 145th to the shoreline you could get 45-50 feet @ 4-4.5 % grade. Steep but not unheard of. The station extension would have to be on the southern end towards 144th-143rd the junction is at 142nd correct?

The junction is at 142 St. The southern end of the station (rough guesstimate here) is around 143 St. The station itself is approximately 310 ft long (only fits 6 cars, 51x6=306, round it up to 310 for all intents and purposes.

 

Once you leave the station, there's a crossover right in your face, a slight curve to the right, and a wide left swing into the station/yard which puts you at about 150 St. Not much room to play with for a diversion for a new tunnel, but it can be done. Just not all that practical.

 

 

No you guys misunderstood my point;

 

I meant it's not feasible to run a subway service right next to a railroad. Weren't there like 4 track connections between the subway system and the LIRR/MNRR (i.e between the and LIRR?)

1. Via Linden Shops. Connects to the LIRR Bay Ridge Branch

2. Via 39 St. Street level connection west of 39 St

3. Via train. Southbound track connected to the LIRR Bay Ridge Branch just north of New Lots Av. Connection removed during the CBTC conversion.

 

None of them are 3rd rail powered

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Right we did talk about it in the context of having a second FRA-regulated service Between Subway and Commuter rail. Not Subway. But this section of the line has unused space that could be utilized. I feel it could ease some of the pressure coming to Kingsbridge and Riverdale to a lesser existent as well as open up options for the West Bronx. A lot cheaper than subway.  

It probably could.  The thing is, I thought that area that you're talking about was going to be redeveloped anyway?  

[RailRunRob]

I mean does that area have tra kways or is it used by the Hudson Line?

 

Used to be the Old Putnam Line. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_and_Putnam_Railroad

 

The junction is at 142 St. The southern end of the station (rough guesstimate here) is around 143 St. The station itself is approximately 310 ft long (only fits 6 cars, 51x6=306, round it up to 310 for all intents and purposes.

 

Once you leave the station, there's a crossover right in your face, a slight curve to the right, and a wide left swing into the station/yard which puts you at about 150 St. Not much room to play with for a diversion for a new tunnel, but it can be done. Just not all that practical.

 

Umm.. right I see your point. Tight indeed.

 

It probably could.  The thing is, I thought that area that you're talking about was going to be redeveloped anyway?  

That's a good question that I'm not sure. But that would definitely throw a monkey wrench into things.

[Union Tpke]

The junction is at 142 St. The southern end of the station (rough guesstimate here) is around 143 St. The station itself is approximately 310 ft long (only fits 6 cars, 51x6=306, round it up to 310 for all intents and purposes.

 

Once you leave the station, there's a crossover right in your face, a slight curve to the right, and a wide left swing into the station/yard which puts you at about 150 St. Not much room to play with for a diversion for a new tunnel, but it can be done. Just not all that practical.

 

 

 

1. Via Linden Shops. Connects to the LIRR Bay Ridge Branch

2. Via 39 St. Street level connection west of 39 St

3. Via train. Southbound track connected to the LIRR Bay Ridge Branch just north of New Lots Av. Connection removed during the CBTC conversion.

 

None of them are 3rd rail powered

 

The tracks would go downgrade right after 135th Street. The 145th Street station would be deeper than the existing station. I am sorry that I did not make this clear.

[RailRunRob]

The tracks would go downgrade right after 135th Street. The 145th Street station would be deeper than the existing station. I am sorry that I did not make this clear.

I don't think you have to do that. Just looked at it again from video link below.

 

1:14 is the 142nd Junction at or about 1:26 would prob be your mark for the new end of the new extended 145th platform. (Near the signal). As far as getting under the River the Harlem is on Avg 20-25ft deep so not that crazy a feat. The covers that on 3.0% grade on both sides. You could break the line off anywhere from 4:31 to 4:37 and start your downgrade there. The crossover is on the incline further back yard access still possible. On further inspection I spotted some runway for the line to get some depth before crossing right under the Harlem River Drive might have to realign eight or nine support columns but doable. 700-800 ft there plus the 6-7feet gained from the breakout. You could get 40-45 foot depth sink a tunnel section I'm not counting pressurization and whether a shaft is needed. All and all skill required but possible.

 

Edited March 22, 2017 by RailRunRob

[A Former New Yorker]

Move those R62As that are still on the to the ?

Have some R142s from 239 or Unionport do rush hour trippers (like say a run from 241st to SF, then a round trip on the , then a trip from SF to 241st)?

 

Well The Has 38 Trains In Total and If It's 3 Minute Headways The Is 2 Trains Short

[Trainmaster5]

I was talking about when they were under construction. Do you really think that the MTA would shut down all service on the line to rebuilt the tunnel, and the deep stations at 157th, 168th, 181st and 191st? Do you realize how much it would cost? It would cost billions and billions. This would only save minimum time. It would be a much better investment to have open gangway trains and the construction of necessary subway lines.

This is a much better investment that wasting money on building that third track.

This would speed travel times on the 2 and 5, and it would double TPH on the Jerome Avenue Line and it would provide express service.

Express service on the Jerome Avenue Line could work if the 3 train is extended via the line like in this plan:

I would rebuild Bedford Park Boulevard as an express station. The yard leads north of the station would be grade-separated to allow trains to terminate there like what is done at Parkchester. The change would be like what was done on the Pelham Line.

 

My first question would be who thinks that the Jerome Line needs another line connected to it.  It wasn't that long ago the was proposing to cut the segment north of 161 St and abandon it .I didn't agree with it at the time (and still don't) but the argument they gave was that the was redundant because of the Concourse line. What has changed in that area? Population increase ? The residents along the Third Avenue Corridor and the Lenox Terminal area would rightfully tell a proponent of this extension where to stick this idea. My bigger beef with the whole idea is that if it was to be done it should have happened 100 years ago. I realize that this proposal is just an idea but I think I still remember the topography of Lenox Avenue from 145th to 147th St. North end of 145th St station ramps upward and toward the NE, matching the street above it. MCH bus depot occupies the west side of the street between 146th and 147th St, right? Are we closing a new bus depot to run a TBM at the front door? Tracks reach street level at the throat of Lenox Yard where all tracks veer westward to the station or the yard. To the immediate east of the throat, largely unseen, is the original Lenox Tower and yard leads. Due north of the throat and yard leads one can see the river and the Bronx. Don't forget that above all of this station and yard is a housing complex anchored to the ground in Lenox Yard. Also covered by the Harlem River Drive ? A train yard that's subject to flooding in extremely wet weather. A train yard that's connected to tracks that lead to Lenox Avenue where not too long ago we had a long term project, " The Lenox Invert Project" because of the ever present water conditions along that stretch.Think New South Ferry station. Very expensive. Seems to me that if one could squeeze in a new 145th St station it would have to be an extension of the present platforms to the south. Now if your proposal would be built even with the costly waterfront protection on both sides of the river, and shoring up the Harlem River Drive and the Deegan on the Bronx side, what about the Harlem folks you just screwed over? Oh, BTW, your proposal and any others using your basic plan have overlooked my main beef. You have abandoned Lenox Yard, entirely, simply because the yard and Lenox Terminal are at street level yet any plan connecting Lenox Avenue with the Bronx entails burrowing downward somewhere south of the present 5 car station. Believe me when I say we discussed this very idea in schoolcar in the early eighties. As a new C/R and as a new M/M who worked Lenox Yard many schoolcar Motor instructors and the Chief Transportation Officer in RTO all lived upstairs from the terminal and they'd be in and out even on their RDOs. I spent many a Saturday or Sunday with them listening to them and gaining all the knowledge I could. I don't think your plan is feasible in today's conditions. Carry on.

[Lawrence St]

What we need is what I think below:

 

New Crosstown Elevated Service from Marble Hill to Pelham Bay Park stopping at:

 

Marble Hill-225th

 

Jerome Avenue

 

Grand Concourse

 

White Plains Road-Pelham Pkwy

 

Pelham Parkway-Dyre

 

Pelham Bay Park

 

(Via Bronx Whitestone Bridge)

 

Flushing Main Street

 

Forest Hills-71 *

 

(Via Rockaway Beach Branch down to the Rockaways via that idea someone brought up three or four weeks ago.)

[Union Tpke]

My first question would be who thinks that the Jerome Line needs another line connected to it.  It wasn't that long ago the was proposing to cut the segment north of 161 St and abandon it .I didn't agree with it at the time (and still don't) but the argument they gave was that the was redundant because of the Concourse line. What has changed in that area? Population increase ? The residents along the Third Avenue Corridor and the Lenox Terminal area would rightfully tell a proponent of this extension where to stick this idea.

I would have an extension of the SAS built via Park Avenue. That is a much bigger priority than this. This would double service on the corridor, allowing for express service, and allowing for housing to be built atop Concourse Yard, which has provisions for that.

 

My bigger beef with the whole idea is that if it was to be done it should have happened 100 years ago. I realize that this proposal is just an idea but I think I still remember the topography of Lenox Avenue from 145th to 147th St. North end of 145th St station ramps upward and toward the NE, matching the street above it. MCH bus depot occupies the west side of the street between 146th and 147th St, right? Are we closing a new bus depot to run a TBM at the front door? Tracks reach street level at the throat of Lenox Yard where all tracks veer westward to the station or the yard.

The TBM would come in at about 135th or so. The tracks would go downward from there.

 

To the immediate east of the throat, largely unseen, is the original Lenox Tower and yard leads. Due north of the throat and yard leads one can see the river and the Bronx. Don't forget that above all of this station and yard is a housing complex anchored to the ground in Lenox Yard. Also covered by the Harlem River Drive ? A train yard that's subject to flooding in extremely wet weather. A train yard that's connected to tracks that lead to Lenox Avenue where not too long ago we had a long term project, " The Lenox Invert Project" because of the ever present water conditions along that stretch.Think New South Ferry station. Very expensive. Seems to me that if one could squeeze in a new 145th St station it would have to be an extension of the present platforms to the south.

It would be deeper than the existing station.

 

Now if your proposal would be built even with the costly waterfront protection on both sides of the river, and shoring up the Harlem River Drive and the Deegan on the Bronx side, what about the Harlem folks you just screwed over? Oh, BTW, your proposal and any others using your basic plan have overlooked my main beef. You have abandoned Lenox Yard, entirely, simply because the yard and Lenox Terminal are at street level yet any plan connecting Lenox Avenue with the Bronx entails burrowing downward somewhere south of the present 5 car station.

A track connection would be maintained to Lenox Yard. Of course you can't abandon it.

 

Believe me when I say we discussed this very idea in schoolcar in the early eighties. As a new C/R and as a new M/M who worked Lenox Yard many schoolcar Motor instructors and the Chief Transportation Officer in RTO all lived upstairs from the terminal and they'd be in and out even on their RDOs. I spent many a Saturday or Sunday with them listening to them and gaining all the knowledge I could. I don't think your plan is feasible in today's conditions. Carry on.

You clearly know more than me about this. I think that it still could be done. I appreciate your post.

[RailRunRob]

My first question would be who thinks that the Jerome Line needs another line connected to it.  It wasn't that long ago the was proposing to cut the segment north of 161 St and abandon it .I didn't agree with it at the time (and still don't) but the argument they gave was that the was redundant because of the Concourse line. What has changed in that area? Population increase ? The residents along the Third Avenue Corridor and the Lenox Terminal area would rightfully tell a proponent of this extension where to stick this idea. My bigger beef with the whole idea is that if it was to be done it should have happened 100 years ago. I realize that this proposal is just an idea but I think I still remember the topography of Lenox Avenue from 145th to 147th St. North end of 145th St station ramps upward and toward the NE, matching the street above it. MCH bus depot occupies the west side of the street between 146th and 147th St, right? Are we closing a new bus depot to run a TBM at the front door? Tracks reach street level at the throat of Lenox Yard where all tracks veer westward to the station or the yard. To the immediate east of the throat, largely unseen, is the original Lenox Tower and yard leads. Due north of the throat and yard leads one can see the river and the Bronx. Don't forget that above all of this station and yard is a housing complex anchored to the ground in Lenox Yard. Also covered by the Harlem River Drive ? A train yard that's subject to flooding in extremely wet weather. A train yard that's connected to tracks that lead to Lenox Avenue where not too long ago we had a long term project, " The Lenox Invert Project" because of the ever present water conditions along that stretch.Think New South Ferry station. Very expensive. Seems to me that if one could squeeze in a new 145th St station it would have to be an extension of the present platforms to the south. Now if your proposal would be built even with the costly waterfront protection on both sides of the river, and shoring up the Harlem River Drive and the Deegan on the Bronx side, what about the Harlem folks you just screwed over? Oh, BTW, your proposal and any others using your basic plan have overlooked my main beef. You have abandoned Lenox Yard, entirely, simply because the yard and Lenox Terminal are at street level yet any plan connecting Lenox Avenue with the Bronx entails burrowing downward somewhere south of the present 5 car station. Believe me when I say we discussed this very idea in schoolcar in the early eighties. As a new C/R and as a new M/M who worked Lenox Yard many schoolcar Motor instructors and the Chief Transportation Officer in RTO all lived upstairs from the terminal and they'd be in and out even on their RDOs. I spent many a Saturday or Sunday with them listening to them and gaining all the knowledge I could. I don't think your plan is feasible in today's conditions. Carry on.

Great points would be a bit costly with water protection After Sandy seems something would need to be done regardless to prevent flooding from any future storms. And you're correct in saying its a bit tight in the area and I'm sure your guys had excellent knowledge of the area so I guess I'm more curious than anything else.  What was the plan to get the line from 145 to the Putnam Bridge when the 9th ave El option was still on the table? I know this was pre 148th so I'm sure it was fewer obstructions. Second, do we feel a TBM would be needed? A trench to Sunken tunnel sections wouldn't work?  The Harlem River seems to be barely larger than a ship canal. From what I understand the IRT did this with the 142nd street tunnel more so on the Harlem side it's a lot deeper on the Bronx side due to topography so deep tunneling going into Mott Ave. Still, a lot of work can't discount that. And, to be honest, I don't feel Jerome needs another service. Still wanted to ask.

-R3

[paulrivera]

My first question would be who thinks that the Jerome Line needs another line connected to it.  It wasn't that long ago the was proposing to cut the segment north of 161 St and abandon it .I didn't agree with it at the time (and still don't) but the argument they gave was that the was redundant because of the Concourse line. What has changed in that area? Population increase ? The residents along the Third Avenue Corridor and the Lenox Terminal area would rightfully tell a proponent of this extension where to stick this idea. My bigger beef with the whole idea is that if it was to be done it should have happened 100 years ago.

Yep. We had a chance to send what is now the to the Bronx in the '40s and '50s when they wanted to link the Polo Grounds portion of the el to Lenox Avenue (the 9th Avenue line was being torn down at this point) but supposedly it wasn't feasible because the old portals didn't have enough clearance.

 

Hindsight being 20/20, we should have sent the Concourse line up (and under) Third Avenue and linked Lenox to Jerome anyways. But noooooo, the city wanted to replace the Jerome line with the Concourse line and let the Third Avenue El rot.

 

(we have really gone off-topic here  )

[RailRunRob]

Yep. We had a chance to send what is now the to the Bronx in the '40s and '50s when they wanted to link the Polo Grounds portion of the el to Lenox Avenue (the 9th Avenue line was being torn down at this point) but supposedly it wasn't feasible because the old portals didn't have enough clearance.

 

Hindsight being 20/20, we should have sent the Concourse line up (and under) Third Avenue and linked Lenox to Jerome anyways. But noooooo, the city wanted to replace the Jerome line with the Concourse line and let the Third Avenue El rot.

 

(we have really gone off-topic here  )

Was it really clearance issues for the 9th Ave? How different were EL and Subway cars besides weight and maybe the 3rd rail config? And even so, they couldn't reconstruct the tunnel walls to give a few more inches. What a waste they bearly got 50 years out of that extension. Welp let's not forget the City and IRT weren't on the same team until after 1940 so (Shrugs) All fair game before that. We're talking late 20's early 30's here even the 3rd ave in the Bronx was less than 40 years ago they could never have never seen what was coming. I'm sure our grandkids are going to be saying the same thing about what we're missing now. Foresight and Hindsight. 

Edited March 23, 2017 by RailRunRob

[Lance]

I believe the reason given was merely convenient. If there was any political will for such a project in the 1940s and '50s, the BOT would've found a way to salvage the Polo Grounds shuttle and connect it to the Lenox Ave line. No - what happened was the BOT (headed by former IND management) more than likely felt the opening of the 6th Avenue line in 1940 and the   and   routes along the Concourse line were sufficient enough to really not consider the expense of a 9th Avenue - Lenox connection.

[RailRunRob]

I believe the reason given was merely convenient. If there was any political will for such a project in the 1940s and '50s, the BOT would've found a way to salvage the Polo Grounds shuttle and connect it to the Lenox Ave line. No - what happened was the BOT (headed by former IND management) more than likely felt the opening of the 6th Avenue line in 1940 and the   and   routes along the Concourse line were sufficient enough to really not consider the expense of a 9th Avenue - Lenox connection.

Indeed seems hardly an issue to fix. Did they ever formalize a route this extension would have taken?

[Lance]

Most likely the  , which ran local along 7th Avenue at the time, would've been extended to at least 167 Street.

[Union Tpke]

Most likely the  , which ran local along 7th Avenue at the time, would've been extended to at least 167 Street.

 

What do you think of my proposal?

[RailRunRob]

Most likely the  , which ran local along 7th Avenue at the time, would've been extended to at least 167 Street.

Gotcha so it would have run parallel to the Harlem River Drive to 155th and crossed over the Putnam Bridge.

[Trainmaster5]

I believe the reason given was merely convenient. If there was any political will for such a project in the 1940s and '50s, the BOT would've found a way to salvage the Polo Grounds shuttle and connect it to the Lenox Ave line. No - what happened was the BOT (headed by former IND management) more than likely felt the opening of the 6th Avenue line in 1940 and the   and   routes along the Concourse line were sufficient enough to really not consider the expense of a 9th Avenue - Lenox connection.

That's basically the way it was presented to we schoolcar guys. If you go back and look at the pre- and post- unification discussions you'll notice the obvious BOT intention to combine the old BMT with the newer IND lines by either recapture or new connections. The IRT discussions seemed to be more focused on El elimination, especially in Manhattan. Remember the Dyre Avenue takeover was considered an IND project. I don't recall any outcry when the old Putnam  railroad line was abandoned and the Polo Ground Shuttle was scheduled for demolition which rendered that whole area of the Bronx a transit desert. No one proposed a Lenox Avenue extension that I recall. Looking back from today's perspective it seems to me that the East 180th St Dyre connection and the creation of the 148th St-Lenox Terminal station were the only IRT " improvements" for decades. Just my opinion though. Carry on.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

So just the Harlem River section of the Hudson Line.

Honestly I like this idea because it would put an extra pair of tracks right near the in Kingsbridge. Running a express on the middle track between 242 and Dyckman will not benefit anyone, because the express trains will have to merge back in with the locals at Dyckman. And because there are only two tracks and side platforms at Dyckman, either local trains will have to wait at 207, or expresses will have to wait for a local to clear Dyckman. So much for overtaking the local, then. A train running straight up the old Putnam Branch tracks with fewer stops between Van Cortlandt Park and the Harlem River would provide both extra trains between the west Bronx and Manhattan and a faster ride, so that might siphon some of the 1's riders living east of Broadway.

 

But is there enough space in between the Hudson Line and the Major Deegan between 225th St and 155th St to fit two subway tracks plus station platforms? If there is enough space, then I think extending the across the Harlem River ought to be considered as an option for relieving the crowding on the line.

So, according to Wikipedia:

 

"On February 6, 1959, 1 trains began to run between 242nd Street and South Ferry all times. Trains began to be branded as Hi-Speed Locals, being as fast as the old express service was with new R21s and R22s on the line.[12][13] During rush hour in the peak direction, alternate trains, those running from 242nd Street, made no stops except 168th Street between Dyckman and 137th Streets in the direction of heavy traffic. The bypassed stations were served by locals originating from Dyckman Street.[14]

 

"PM rush local/express service was discontinued on February 2, 1959, and morning rush express service was revised on January 8, 1962 to running non stop from 225th to Dyckman Streets and 168th to 137th Streets. This express service was discontinued on May 24, 1976, after which all 1 trains began to make all stops."

 

I have no idea how the trains skipping all those stoops did not catch up to their leaders. Perhaps there was a longer headway then.

The 1962-76 service pattern had express trains skipping only four stops (215 and 207, then 157 and 145). I can't imagine that saved much time, even if headways were longer. And I can't see the MTA willing to revisit the 1956-59 pattern because the headways and the MTA's safety regulations are much too tight. Expresses would almost certainly catch up to locals on the double-track segment and be stuck behind a local somewhere between Dyckman and 145, where the middle track starts back up.

 

They'd be better off doing a express to/from 242 that runs down the middle track between 145 and 103, with locals starting either at Dyckman or 242 (if space allows - like how some rush hour locals start/end at Willets Point or 111). Probably most locals would be running to/from Dyckman, given that 242 only has two tracks, unlike the three at Main St/Flushing (although given the delays at that station, I wonder how much of an advantage that third track really is). At least test it out like they did with the express.

Edited March 24, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Lawrence St]

Why don't we try skip stop on Jerome?

[danielhg121]

Some stops get more ridership than others so the dwelling time fluctuates between station to station which could lead to the train behind catching up. Also, people in the Bronx are gonna get pissed if they see a train full of ppl bypass their stop on the regular, even tho it happens quite often already.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[RailRunRob]

Honestly I like this idea because it would put an extra pair of tracks right near the in Kingsbridge. Running a express on the middle track between 242 and Dyckman will not benefit anyone, because the express trains will have to merge back in with the locals at Dyckman. And because there are only two tracks and side platforms at Dyckman, either local trains will have to wait at 207, or expresses will have to wait for a local to clear Dyckman. So much for overtaking the local, then. A train running straight up the old Putnam Branch tracks with fewer stops between Van Cortlandt Park and the Harlem River would provide both extra trains between the west Bronx and Manhattan and a faster ride, so that might siphon some of the 1's riders living east of Broadway.

At current seems more than enough room for two extra tracks. This wouldn't be too hard to execute low hanging fruit. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

At current seems more than enough room for two extra tracks. This wouldn't be too hard to execute low hanging fruit. 

I was on the express bus yesterday and saw that were doing work by those tracks that you mentioned earlier, but the tracks have not been removed for now.  I am not sure what they are building there, but it appears to be a rather large project underway.  Looks like they are doing some excavation/foundation work.

[RailRunRob]

I was on the express bus yesterday and saw that were doing work by those tracks that you mentioned earlier, but the tracks have not been removed for now.  I am not sure what they are building there, but it appears to be a rather large project underway.  Looks like they are doing some excavation/foundation work.

Well, that might put a hex on that plan.