Rockaway Beach Branch

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Well, it's good to see a good number of Queens pols, including Congressman Meeks and BP Richards are on board with conducting an EIS on the RBB/Queenslink. Though I still remain opposed to extending the  back to 71st Avenue and would prefer they divert the  (terminating at Whitehall) instead of the . 

A Dozen-Plus Electeds Back QueensLink Subway Expansion – Streetsblog New York City

Edited August 5, 2022 by T to Dyre Avenue
Forgot to post URL

[Amtrak41]

The RBB embankment has not only thousands of trees, but tree trunks that have to be dug out, and the concrete viaduct in Ozone Park is shot. Didn't the MTA estimate it would cost $6 - $8 Billion, depending on whether it is a subway or LIRR branch ? 

I don't see it happening even though the Q53 bus that replaced it is a hell of a lot slower now than when it was originally. 

[Vulturious]

19 minutes ago, Amtrak41 said:

The RBB embankment has not only thousands of trees, but tree trunks that have to be dug out, and the concrete viaduct in Ozone Park is shot. Didn't the MTA estimate it would cost $6 - $8 Billion, depending on whether it is a subway or LIRR branch ? 

I don't see it happening even though the Q53 bus that replaced it is a hell of a lot slower now than when it was originally. 

I think you're forgetting that this is the MTA we're talking about here, they have a tendency to overestimate things. The people that have created the Queenslink have gone into deep research showing all theirs and the MTA's findings about it. Let's not forget certain things the MTA likes to do when they're working on certain projects even if they end up being expensive, for example, and it's sounding like a broken record here I'm aware, the $30 Million on some staircase. We also have to remember they're about to double down on that for a $61 Million for more staircases at Flushing station for the , granted it's much more reasonable than the Times Square one, but the point still stands, there's no way it actually costed that much without the MTA overestimating it.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

3 hours ago, Amtrak41 said:

The RBB embankment has not only thousands of trees, but tree trunks that have to be dug out, and the concrete viaduct in Ozone Park is shot. Didn't the MTA estimate it would cost $6 - $8 Billion, depending on whether it is a subway or LIRR branch ? 

I don't see it happening even though the Q53 bus that replaced it is a hell of a lot slower now than when it was originally. 

The MTA’s grossly inflated $8 billion estimate was a blatant attempt to shut everyone up who was in favor of reusing the right-of-way, because they didn’t (and possibly still don’t really) want to do it. 

Thankfully, the Queenslink people commissioned, their own independent study that found that restoring subway service on the Rockaway Beach Branch would cost far less than what the MTA and Systra (over)estimated. For more, go here…

https://thequeenslink.org/the-report/

Edited August 6, 2022 by T to Dyre Avenue
Posted link to Queenslink reports

[Lex]

I'm still of the opinion that this should be folded back into LIRR operations instead of trying to cram it into QBL.

[CenSin]

11 hours ago, Lex said:

I'm still of the opinion that this should be folded back into LIRR operations instead of trying to cram it into QBL.

The LIRR is much less accessible though… but it’s a problem on paper and there is really nothing stopping the agencies from truly integrating the disparate networks of trains. The BMT had a cross-platform transfer to the IRT at Queensboro Plaza after all. And the PATH uses the MetroCard. The least integration they could do is one fare method with free transfers.

Edited August 6, 2022 by CenSin

[Amtrak41]

When has the MTA completed any major project for less money than they estimated ? 

[ActiveCity]

The MTA should buy the former LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch for subway service because you already have the Crosstown connection and the 60th St connection . The 63rd St connection , however, was installed at a later date due to the 63rd St line ending at 21st- Queensbridge. What I would do to bring back subway service on the Rockaway Beach Branch is by sending the via 63rd St, and the via 53rd St. That way you won't have , , and trains merging in front of each other as much. I plan on having the   run to Forest Hills-71st Av, and the to Far Rockaway-Mott Av.

Edited August 7, 2022 by ActiveCity

[Trainmaster5]

2 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

The MTA should buy the former LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch for subway service because you already have the Crosstown connection and the 60th St connection . The 63rd St connection , however, was installed at a later date due to the 63rd St line ending at 21st- Queensbridge. What I would do to bring back subway service on the Rockaway Beach Branch is by sending the via 63rd St, and the via 53rd St. That way you won't have , , and trains merging in front of each other as much. I plan on having the   run to Forest Hills-71st Av, and the to Far Rockaway-Mott Av.

Correct me if I’m wrong but NYCT already owns the Rockaway Beach Branch from the southern terminals up to the severed connection with the LIRR mainline. With the existing infrastructure at that connection how are you going to reach the QBL ? I doubt that they have any interest in the idea because of the  financial situation now. I don’t think that it was part of the original  Plan for Action when it would have been much cheaper than today. Something that’s usually overlooked is that the City of New York owns the subway system , not the  , and any changes would probably be legally a legislative process with the state. IMO that’s why the new LIRR service proposal for Brooklyn-Jamaica shuttle service is the province of the railroad and not the NYCT. Just points for further study.  People don’t realize that the charter for the LIRR is for service between Brooklyn and points eastward. Carry on.
 

[Amtrak41]

4 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

The MTA should buy the former LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch for subway service because you already have the Crosstown connection and the 60th St connection . The 63rd St connection , however, was installed at a later date due to the 63rd St line ending at 21st- Queensbridge. What I would do to bring back subway service on the Rockaway Beach Branch is by sending the via 63rd St, and the via 53rd St. That way you won't have , , and trains merging in front of each other as much. I plan on having the   run to Forest Hills-71st Av, and the to Far Rockaway-Mott Av.

What would you do overnight and weekends when there is no M ? That's why the shoved the F train to 63rd Street. The FTA told them too.

[Amtrak41]

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Correct me if I’m wrong but NYCT already owns the Rockaway Beach Branch from the southern terminals up to the severed connection with the LIRR mainline. With the existing infrastructure at that connection how are you going to reach the QBL ? I doubt that they have any interest in the idea because of the  financial situation now. I don’t think that it was part of the original  Plan for Action when it would have been much cheaper than today. Something that’s usually overlooked is that the City of New York owns the subway system , not the  , and any changes would probably be legally a legislative process with the state. IMO that’s why the new LIRR service proposal for Brooklyn-Jamaica shuttle service is the province of the railroad and not the NYCT. Just points for further study.  People don’t realize that the charter for the LIRR is for service between Brooklyn and points eastward. Carry on.
 

The 1834 (or 1836) LIRR charter was from Brooklyn to Greenport. But LIRR has pondered abandoning North Fork service many times. Their charter means nothing. I think title of the Atlantic Branch west of Jamaica and Tracks 4 & 5 belong to Atlantic Avenue Railroad Company. Again, that is useless trivia. Greenport service runs so as to keep from angering Riverhead, Southold, and Shelter Island towns and pulling out of the MTA tax region.

MTA could put the Brooklyn shuttle under TA fare control, but are gun shy about totally severing its service from the rest of the LIRR. The little that will remain come December is already gaining large protests, along with rezoning Port Washington Branch service at Bayside rather than Great Neck. The proposed West Hempstead 7-day service thru service is a sop.

MTA has been psychologically opposed to the RBB since the early 1970's.  I suppose they thought getting rid of the double fare on the Rockaway peninsula in 1975 would have put and end to any discussion of the RBB.  

Edited August 7, 2022 by Amtrak41

[Trainmaster5]

3 hours ago, Amtrak41 said:

The 1834 (or 1836) LIRR charter was from Brooklyn to Greenport. But LIRR has pondered abandoning North Fork service many times. Their charter means nothing. I think title of the Atlantic Branch west of Jamaica and Tracks 4 & 5 belong to Atlantic Avenue Railroad Company. Again, that is useless trivia. Greenport service runs so as to keep from angering Riverhead, Southold, and Shelter Island towns and pulling out of the MTA tax region.

MTA could put the Brooklyn shuttle under TA fare control, but are gun shy about totally severing its service from the rest of the LIRR. The little that will remain come December is already gaining large protests, along with rezoning Port Washington Branch service at Bayside rather than Great Neck. The proposed West Hempstead 7-day service thru service is a sop.

MTA has been psychologically opposed to the RBB since the early 1970's.  I suppose they thought getting rid of the double fare on the Rockaway peninsula in 1975 would have put and end to any discussion of the RBB.  

I think that the charter is the only thing that binds the LIRR and the  together. If you put the Atlantic Avenue line under semi NYCT control then the problem becomes a maintenance one. Who’s servicing the equipment ? The other question is the Rockaway Beach Branch. It’s only connected with the NYCT. Even if ridership miraculously reappears after 60 years it’s not able to get to the already congested  QBL and there’s no remaining connection to the LIRR. Where’s the money for the project coming from ? Real world cash. I don’t believe the  and it’s cost projection numbers for any project but they are broke now and I don’t see any cash infusions on the horizon. Just my opinion. Carry on.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 8/5/2022 at 9:59 PM, Lex said:

I'm still of the opinion that this should be folded back into LIRR operations instead of trying to cram it into QBL.

The LIRR didn’t want this line 60 years ago and they don’t want it back now. Why force them to take it back? The southern end of the line already has subways running on it. I fail to see how you’d be “cramming it” into QBL. All you’re doing is rerouting one local service off QB and onto the branch, while the remaining local service continues to serve 67th Ave and turn at 71st. How is that “cramming?” Now, if you wanted to extend the  back to 71st as well, like the Queenslink people are calling for, then that could be considered cramming.

4 hours ago, Amtrak41 said:

What would you do overnight and weekends when there is no M ? That's why the shoved the F train to 63rd Street. The FTA told them too.

The  can replace the  overnights and weekends in 63rd St. The FTA didn’t tell them they had to reroute the  into 63rd. The FTA are not in the business of telling the MTA where to run their trains. I mean, the FTA definitely had no problems with the  running weekdays, the  overnights and the  on weekends through 63rd St for 11 years. This wouldn’t be any different, except for the  running 8-car R160 trains. The MTA decided to reroute the  entirely on their own. It was because they wanted fewer people going through 53rd because the Lex/53rd stop got severely overcrowded when both the  and  ran through there.

[Trainmaster5]

3 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The LIRR didn’t want this line 60 years ago and they don’t want it back now. Why force them to take it back? The southern end of the line already has subways running on it. I fail to see how you’d be “cramming it” into QBL. All you’re doing is rerouting one local service off QB and onto the branch, while the remaining local service continues to serve 67th Ave and turn at 71st. How is that “cramming?” Now, if you wanted to extend the  back to 71st as well, like the Queenslink people are calling for, then that could be considered cramming.

The  can replace the  overnights and weekends in 63rd St. The FTA didn’t tell them they had to reroute the  into 63rd. The FTA are not in the business of telling the MTA where to run their trains. 

The MTA decided to reroute the  entirely on their own. It was because they wanted fewer people going through 53rd because the Lex/53rd stop got severely overcrowded when both the  and  ran through there.

The  made the decision on the  /  stopping pattern because of the safety issues at that stop. The Command Center would make the announcement for certain trains to bypass the stop, especially in the AM rush hour. This announcement was also made by IRT Command Center to alert the  line crews of the situation. I used to work overtime trips in the AM on the  and it wasn’t unusual for that bypass announcement to be made. The people who wanted to exit the station and the ones who were transferring to the  for East Side trains were one thing. It’s my opinion that the dummies who rode to that stop to switch to/ from Sixth Avenue and Eighth Avenue service were the main culprits. One of my school car instructors who used to work the QBL lines used to tell us of the stupidity of some of our fellow  New Yorkers. He was a former Marine Corps drill instructor and he was blunt but honest. My memories. Carry on.

[ActiveCity]

What is the FTA?

[Vulturious]

3 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The LIRR didn’t want this line 60 years ago and they don’t want it back now. Why force them to take it back? The southern end of the line already has subways running on it. I fail to see how you’d be “cramming it” into QBL. All you’re doing is rerouting one local service off QB and onto the branch, while the remaining local service continues to serve 67th Ave and turn at 71st. How is that “cramming?” Now, if you wanted to extend the  back to 71st as well, like the Queenslink people are calling for, then that could be considered cramming.

The  can replace the  overnights and weekends in 63rd St. The FTA didn’t tell them they had to reroute the  into 63rd. The FTA are not in the business of telling the MTA where to run their trains. I mean, the FTA definitely had no problems with the  running weekdays, the  overnights and the  on weekends through 63rd St for 11 years. This wouldn’t be any different, except for the  running 8-car R160 trains. The MTA decided to reroute the  entirely on their own. It was because they wanted fewer people going through 53rd because the Lex/53rd stop got severely overcrowded when both the  and  ran through there.

The  made the decision on the  /  stopping pattern because of the safety issues at that stop. The Command Center would make the announcement for certain trains to bypass the stop, especially in the AM rush hour. This announcement was also made by IRT Command Center to alert the  line crews of the situation. I used to work overtime trips in the AM on the  and it wasn’t unusual for that bypass announcement to be made. The people who wanted to exit the station and the ones who were transferring to the  for East Side trains were one thing. It’s my opinion that the dummies who rode to that stop to switch to/ from Sixth Avenue and Eighth Avenue service were the main culprits. One of my school car instructors who used to work the QBL lines used to tell us of the stupidity of some of our fellow  New Yorkers. He was a former Marine Corps drill instructor and he was blunt but honest. My memories. Carry on.

This is just funny to read, although in fairness to said people that are transferring over to the , there aren't really any other better ways from Queens (I would assume at least) don't really have better options. Then again, if I'm not mistaken from your carrer and all the things you have experienced and mentioned here explicitly, the  is an easy transfer from Queens Plaza, now the , that has access to the rest of Lexington Av which is pretty much the rest of East Side of Manhattan. Currently though, we now have another alternative with the  running via 63 St that also has a direct cross-platform transfer over to the  which access the SAS (still could've been executed better, but what's done is done). Even if the  and  were to swap, it's not really easy for those trying to access Queens Plaza now from any local station east of Jackson Heights, 63 St connection made things a little worse. Wonder if it was in anyway possible to convert the 36 St station into an express station when the connection was being done. Although now that I think about it, service probably would've ran the same exact way, but maybe it would've changed when SAS was completed. I'm probably just spewing, but who knows.

Here's my two cents on this whole thing again, I'm not against reactivating the RBB. It certainly can be beneficial, although with Queenslink, I'm not really in favor of it. The way it's being executed in terms of rebuilding it is definitely something I think is feasible, I wouldn't be surprised if the  a few years back when they did an environmental study or whichever study they did decided to increase the prices a few times over just so they didn't have to bother with it. Maybe it wasn't the  specifically, could be some outside factor, but the results is the same and I'm getting off topic a little. As I was saying, I wouldn't be surprised if what Queenslink had proposed is actually much cheaper, but the execution of how service is going to be implemented with three different lines along the QBL local tracks is definitely something I personally think needs changing. A few other things needs to happen in order to make it work. Even if the  were to be rerouted via 63 St in order to allow better service running along the RBB, that doesn't really change much because of 2 other lines getting in the way. It also doesn't change that the  also needs to be at least full length now or has to run more cars in order for it to run along QBL. Although, in a few years, it's most likely going to be seeing changes in fleet again, probably going to see an increase in cars running around. Even then, there are still more that needs to happen which probably isn't going to happen any time soon or even at all. 

[Wallyhorse]

On 8/5/2022 at 11:02 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Well, it's good to see a good number of Queens pols, including Congressman Meeks and BP Richards are on board with conducting an EIS on the RBB/Queenslink. Though I still remain opposed to extending the  back to 71st Avenue and would prefer they divert the  (terminating at Whitehall) instead of the . 

A Dozen-Plus Electeds Back QueensLink Subway Expansion – Streetsblog New York City

Actually, as part of doing some de-interlining of the Broadway Line, I would move the  to Nassau where it would run to Canal Street, with the in this scenario replacing it 24/7 AND becoming the Rockaway Beach Branch running from Whitehall-Rockaway Park (to/from 34th Street late nights with the running then as it does now).  The would likely have to handle 71st-Continental alone in this scenario since this would turn off at 63rd-Rego Park to head to the RBB. 

[Lawrence St]

8 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I think that the charter is the only thing that binds the LIRR and the  together. If you put the Atlantic Avenue line under semi NYCT control then the problem becomes a maintenance one. Who’s servicing the equipment ? The other question is the Rockaway Beach Branch. It’s only connected with the NYCT. Even if ridership miraculously reappears after 60 years it’s not able to get to the already congested  QBL and there’s no remaining connection to the LIRR. Where’s the money for the project coming from ? Real world cash. I don’t believe the  and it’s cost projection numbers for any project but they are broke now and I don’t see any cash infusions on the horizon. Just my opinion. Carry on.

Both connections to the Long Island RR are there, it’s just blocked by a bus yard and lots of trees on both.

What they should have done with ESA is allow an additional $500 mil to convert the Brooklyn Branch of the Main Line under subway specifications, that way it fully remains under NYCTA jurisdiction and the frequency can be increased.

[Amtrak41]

10 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The LIRR didn’t want this line 60 years ago and they don’t want it back now. Why force them to take it back? The southern end of the line already has subways running on it. I fail to see how you’d be “cramming it” into QBL. All you’re doing is rerouting one local service off QB and onto the branch, while the remaining local service continues to serve 67th Ave and turn at 71st. How is that “cramming?” Now, if you wanted to extend the  back to 71st as well, like the Queenslink people are calling for, then that could be considered cramming.

The  can replace the  overnights and weekends in 63rd St. The FTA didn’t tell them they had to reroute the  into 63rd. The FTA are not in the business of telling the MTA where to run their trains. I mean, the FTA definitely had no problems with the  running weekdays, the  overnights and the  on weekends through 63rd St for 11 years. This wouldn’t be any different, except for the  running 8-car R160 trains. The MTA decided to reroute the  entirely on their own. It was because they wanted fewer people going through 53rd because the Lex/53rd stop got severely overcrowded when both the  and  ran through there.

The FTA told them to reroute the F or refund the money UMTA gave them because a part time M train could never generate enough ridership to justify it, and that was funding condition. Prior to 1988, it was a confusing mixed bag of Q, F, and B trains to provide service 7/24/365, or else. Of course FTA has no problem with it - they demanded it. The TA couldn't care less about serving Roosevelt Island and 21 Street as a stub service until the Queens Blvd connection.

E and F trains ran through 53rd Street fine for 50 years with 30 TPH, and during some years with 11 car trains. The very same E & F trains still share the express tracks west of Forest Hills. Decongesting the 53rd Street tunnel was not a valid excuse. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

3 hours ago, Amtrak41 said:

The FTA told them to reroute the F or refund the money UMTA gave them because a part time M train could never generate enough ridership to justify it, and that was funding condition. Prior to 1988, it was a confusing mixed bag of Q, F, and B trains to provide service 7/24/365, or else. Of course FTA has no problem with it - they demanded it. The TA couldn't care less about serving Roosevelt Island and 21 Street as a stub service until the Queens Blvd connection.

E and F trains ran through 53rd Street fine for 50 years with 30 TPH, and during some years with 11 car trains. The very same E & F trains still share the express tracks west of Forest Hills. Decongesting the 53rd Street tunnel was not a valid excuse. 

Or did they? (It was a lot more than 50 years, btw; it was exactly 61 years to the day.) If the  and  needed 11-car trains to handle service, then you know ridership had to be high enough to justify it. However, neither train has operated 11-car trains in a very long time because it's not possible to do so now. The R160's would have to have a new trailer car inserted in some of the 5-car sets like they had to do when they transferred R142A trains from the  to the . They'd also have to extend the platforms on the elevated Culver Line stations in Brooklyn to accept trains longer than 10 cars.

The FTA wanted the tunnel to have full-time service running through through the tunnel. Why wouldn't they? But specifically how that would be accomplished was left up to the MTA/NYCTA, as stated in this Final EIS report from June 1992. MTA came to the conclusion that the "Local-Express" alternative (connecting 63rd to both the local and express tracks) would be better at relieving the overcrowding on the  and  than the "Local" alternative (connecting only to the local tracks). The FTA are not in the business of telling the MTA or other transit agencies specifically how and where to run their trains. And I think this response has more to do with why the  got moved to 63rd versus what the FTA wanted:

14 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

The  made the decision on the  /  stopping pattern because of the safety issues at that stop. The Command Center would make the announcement for certain trains to bypass the stop, especially in the AM rush hour. This announcement was also made by IRT Command Center to alert the  line crews of the situation. I used to work overtime trips in the AM on the  and it wasn’t unusual for that bypass announcement to be made. The people who wanted to exit the station and the ones who were transferring to the  for East Side trains were one thing. It’s my opinion that the dummies who rode to that stop to switch to/ from Sixth Avenue and Eighth Avenue service were the main culprits. One of my school car instructors who used to work the QBL lines used to tell us of the stupidity of some of our fellow  New Yorkers. He was a former Marine Corps drill instructor and he was blunt but honest. My memories. Carry on.

That would definitely have been a good reason to move the  and substitute the  like they did. Unfortunately, it came with the consequence of creating delays between Queens Plaza and 36th St, due to all to the merging that goes on there now. Pre-December 2001, the only merge was between the  and  at Queens Plaza. After, it became a merge between the  and  in both directions at 36th plus a merge between the  (now the ) and the  northbound and the  southbound at Queens Plaza.

Edited August 8, 2022 by T to Dyre Avenue

[CenSin]

18 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

What is the FTA?

The Food Truck Administration

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 8/8/2022 at 2:20 AM, Vulturious said:

This is just funny to read, although in fairness to said people that are transferring over to the , there aren't really any other better ways from Queens (I would assume at least) don't really have better options. Then again, if I'm not mistaken from your carrer and all the things you have experienced and mentioned here explicitly, the  is an easy transfer from Queens Plaza, now the , that has access to the rest of Lexington Av which is pretty much the rest of East Side of Manhattan. Currently though, we now have another alternative with the  running via 63 St that also has a direct cross-platform transfer over to the  which access the SAS (still could've been executed better, but what's done is done). Even if the  and  were to swap, it's not really easy for those trying to access Queens Plaza now from any local station east of Jackson Heights, 63 St connection made things a little worse. Wonder if it was in anyway possible to convert the 36 St station into an express station when the connection was being done. Although now that I think about it, service probably would've ran the same exact way, but maybe it would've changed when SAS was completed. I'm probably just spewing, but who knows.

Here's my two cents on this whole thing again, I'm not against reactivating the RBB. It certainly can be beneficial, although with Queenslink, I'm not really in favor of it. The way it's being executed in terms of rebuilding it is definitely something I think is feasible, I wouldn't be surprised if the  a few years back when they did an environmental study or whichever study they did decided to increase the prices a few times over just so they didn't have to bother with it. Maybe it wasn't the  specifically, could be some outside factor, but the results is the same and I'm getting off topic a little. As I was saying, I wouldn't be surprised if what Queenslink had proposed is actually much cheaper, but the execution of how service is going to be implemented with three different lines along the QBL local tracks is definitely something I personally think needs changing. A few other things needs to happen in order to make it work. Even if the  were to be rerouted via 63 St in order to allow better service running along the RBB, that doesn't really change much because of 2 other lines getting in the way. It also doesn't change that the  also needs to be at least full length now or has to run more cars in order for it to run along QBL. Although, in a few years, it's most likely going to be seeing changes in fleet again, probably going to see an increase in cars running around. Even then, there are still more that needs to happen which probably isn't going to happen any time soon or even at all. 

I think @Trainmaster5 was talking about the  line riders who transferred there for 6th or 8th Ave service after that transfer opened in 1988. They had other options for West Side service.

As for Queenslink, I'm in favor of it as long as they don't cram the  on QBL. I know there are some people who pine for the  to come back to Forest Hills and believe the MTA greatly underestimated the demand for it when they cut it to Court Square, and accuse riders who point out there is far more demand for Manhattan-bound service of being selfish (happened to me on Reddit). But I'm not going to back off from that. Three locals on QBL is going to be a tight squeeze, especially if two of them will still be terminating at 71st Ave. My objection to running the  via Queenslink is that it already has too many merges and it's the first to go and the last to come back when QBL shits the bed (which is often). With a truncated  (to Whitehall or City Hall), at least you have a seven-day train that is less likely to get the boot in a service meltdown and you're able to preserve the ability to run three services on acceptable headways whenever one or two tracks is out of service for construction.

Though I do wonder how Queenslink/RBB would be integrated into a deinterlined QBL.

Edited August 9, 2022 by T to Dyre Avenue

[mrsman]

On 8/9/2022 at 10:55 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I think @Trainmaster5 was talking about the  line riders who transferred there for 6th or 8th Ave service after that transfer opened in 1988. They had other options for West Side service.

As for Queenslink, I'm in favor of it as long as they don't cram the  on QBL. I know there are some people who pine for the  to come back to Forest Hills and believe the MTA greatly underestimated the demand for it when they cut it to Court Square, and accuse riders who point out there is far more demand for Manhattan-bound service of being selfish (happened to me on Reddit). But I'm not going to back off from that. Three locals on QBL is going to be a tight squeeze, especially if two of them will still be terminating at 71st Ave. My objection to running the  via Queenslink is that it already has too many merges and it's the first to go and the last to come back when QBL shits the bed (which is often). With a truncated  (to Whitehall or City Hall), at least you have a seven-day train that is less likely to get the boot in a service meltdown and you're able to preserve the ability to run three services on acceptable headways whenever one or two tracks is out of service for construction.

Though I do wonder how Queenslink/RBB would be integrated into a deinterlined QBL.

A deinterlined QBL in my book means that the locals run to 53rd and the expresses run to 63rd.  For simplicity,  and  are locals and  and  and Orange-H are expresses.  [M is relegated to teh brown M Nassau service.]

Regardless of how the QBL connects with Manhattan, one can add some switches in the Rego Park area to deinterline the east side of the QBL.  

I would do the following:

Make Woodhaven an express stop.  This makes it easier to permit transfers between QBL local - Rockaway trains and QBL express - Jamaica trains.

Send all the locals to the RBB.  This would provide enough frequency on the RBB line to service the different Rockaway branches, to Rockaway Park and to Far Rockaway.  Both services would run as 8th Ave locals that terminate at WTC.   

Add a switch between local and express tracks east of where the RBB splits off.  This will allow three types of service to be run:

 Jam Ctr - QBL express (skips Briarwood, 75 Av, 67 Av) - 63rd - 6 Av local - Culver - CI.

Orange - H.  179th - Hillside local (makes all stops through 67 Av) - merges into express, 63rd - 6 Av local - 2 Av/Houston.  

 179th - Hillside/QBL  express (only stops at Sutphin, Union Turnpike, Forest Hills, Roosevelt) - 63rd - 6 Av local - Church Ave.  During rush hours,  can run express in Brooklyn between Jay St and Church Ave.

[Wallyhorse]

2 hours ago, mrsman said:

A deinterlined QBL in my book means that the locals run to 53rd and the expresses run to 63rd.  For simplicity,  and  are locals and  and  and Orange-H are expresses.  [M is relegated to teh brown M Nassau service.]

Regardless of how the QBL connects with Manhattan, one can add some switches in the Rego Park area to deinterline the east side of the QBL.  

I would do the following:

Make Woodhaven an express stop.  This makes it easier to permit transfers between QBL local - Rockaway trains and QBL express - Jamaica trains.

Send all the locals to the RBB.  This would provide enough frequency on the RBB line to service the different Rockaway branches, to Rockaway Park and to Far Rockaway.  Both services would run as 8th Ave locals that terminate at WTC.   

Add a switch between local and express tracks east of where the RBB splits off.  This will allow three types of service to be run:

 Jam Ctr - QBL express (skips Briarwood, 75 Av, 67 Av) - 63rd - 6 Av local - Culver - CI.

Orange - H.  179th - Hillside local (makes all stops through 67 Av) - merges into express, 63rd - 6 Av local - 2 Av/Houston.  

 179th - Hillside/QBL  express (only stops at Sutphin, Union Turnpike, Forest Hills, Roosevelt) - 63rd - 6 Av local - Church Ave.  During rush hours,  can run express in Brooklyn between Jay St and Church Ave.

How I do it is this with about the closest to de-interlining on Broadway as possible:

returns to  QBL full-time and with the run to 179th Street with the .  If there is congestion, trains can move to the express track (railroad) north of 169 to complete its run to 179.

 and remain as they are (continues to run local along Montague and lower Manhattan late nights as well as on 4th Avenue . 

moves to QBL and becomes the RBB line, running Whitehall Street-Rockaway Park (some rush hour runs end and begin at Canal Street).  Late nights, runs end and begin at either 34th-Herald Square or 42nd-Times Square. 

 moves to the Nassau line and runs 24/7 between 95th and Canal Street on the  line, with the abandoned northbound platform at Canal re-activated to accommodate this (as noted before, this is something that could not have been done prior to the work done to make up the current setup at Canal that eliminated the crossover at the southern end of the station), based out of East New York with trains on yard runs ending and beginning at Broadway Junction on the and making all stops on the on such runs.  Most  trains would terminate on the current northbound/old "southbound terminal" track at Canal while during rush hours some trains would use the "old northbound terminal" track to terminate.  The as noted would be shortened to Chambers except for a limited number of rush hour runs to/from Broad, most of the time on weekdays and would be set up where patrons cross the platform at Canal going southbound and Chambers going northbound between the and .  Late nights, this  runs to Metropolitan Avenue and absorbs the late night and weekend shuttles. If the does expand on QBL to 24/7, then this  runs all times between 95th-Canal Street on the . 

[CenSin]

4 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

 moves to the Nassau line and runs 24/7 between 95th and Canal Street

Anyone keeping a counter on this proposal? Safe to say it exceeds 3 digits now. 😂