Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
KK 6 Ave Local

De-interlining: Problem or Solution?

Recommended Posts

I decided I would make a discussion on the topic of interlining.

For those who don't know: Interlining is when two lines share tracks with each other (e.g (A)(D) on CPW express tracks). This limits capacity on an entire line and can delay trains by a lot. 

My stance on de-interlining is that it should happen, it works, and it frees up capacity. So if you're complaining about having to transfer, don't worry because you'll only have to wait a minute or so! My one problem is that it makes for slower rides.

My plan for de-interlining:

(A) unchanged

(C) Now express to BFB. Only local on Fulton Street.

(E) To 179th, ALL LOCAL ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE.

(B) 168th- CI via CPW local, 6 ave express, Brighton Local

(D) 205th- Brighton Beach via Concourse Express, CPW local, 6 ave express, Brighton Express.

(F) unchanged

(M) Parsons- QBL express via 63rd

(N) unchanged except goes to SAS

(Q) unchanged except goes to West End replacing (D)

(feel free to post your opinion on this) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This plan is just absurd...

You want to get rid of the only 8th Av express service on QBL, screw over people on Hillside, swap the (D) and (Q) for no reason, have the (B) be the Brighton Local would just be useless, have Astoria Only have the (W) in which Astoria Resident's will be having a literal fit outside 2 Broadway, swap the (C) and (B) only screws people over, moving the (M) to 63rd St only causes less service on 53rd St and you will crowd the hell out of the (E).

Whew.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only places that should be de-interlined are Rogers and DeKalb. Here is my plan for that:
 

Rogers:

(2) unchanged, but a straight track is build to connect the SB local track and SB Nostrand track

(3)  148th to Flatbush

(4)  to New Lots via local east of Franklin

(5) to Utica, express east of Franklin

DeKalb:

(B)  Norwood to CI (via Brighton), local everywhere except 6th. Operates 24/7.

(D) Norwood or BPB to Brighton Beach or Ocean Parkway via peak express on Concourse the whole way (including Brighton). Operates weekdays 6 AM- 12 AM.

(N) 96th/125th to CI via Broadway and 4th express and Sea Beach. Operates weekdays 6 AM- 12 AM.

(Q) 96th/125th to CI via Broadway and 4th express and West End. Operates 24/7.

(R)  is rerouted to Astoria to provide a second service on Astoria. The (M) gets a service increase (18/7 to Forest Hills) and a free transfer between the Queenses (Plaza and Boro) is provided. Late nights cut back to either Whitehall or 34th since the express tracks are not used between 34th interlocking and Prince interlocking overnight.

 (W) replaces the (N) as the primary Astoria-Brooklyn line via Broadway and 4th local and also Sea beach. Operates 24/7.

 

Now to address some points Lawrence made:

The southern Brooklyn swap is to eliminate the issues at DeKalb (cough cough the (Q)  crawling through and stopping frickin everywhere).

If the (R) can be removed from QBL and the (M) can make up for it, then let that be in place.

The (B) here would become the primary CPW/6th line so it would be reasonable to have it run local on Brighton.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

(R)  is rerouted to Astoria to provide a second service on Astoria. The (M) gets a service increase (18/7 to Forest Hills) and a free transfer between the Queenses (Plaza and Boro) is provided. Late nights cut back to either Whitehall or 34th since the express tracks are not used between 34th interlocking and Prince interlocking overnight.

You don't need to do this. Because the (N) isn't merging in at 34 anymore, the (W) can run up to 15tph (current N/W combined frequency +1), allowing it to serve Astoria alone. Yes, half of trains would need to be sent to South Brooklyn, but that's a plus in my book -- more service to 4th avenue.

In that case, I'd make the (N) 19/5, with the (W) adding supplemental service on Sea Beach weekdays, and taking over for it weekends/nights.

 

Regardless, I think deinterlining should only be done where it adds capacity in the scenario where everything is perfectly run. Using it to remediate operational issues is -- what was it @P3F said -- "putting out a dumpster fire with a nuclear bomb"? Dekalb once operated a very interlined set of service patterns at a combined 90tph, so I see no reason we should reduce flexibility there -- its delays and capacity restrictions are functions of poor ops management and bad discipline, not some innate issue with complex services. This needs to be understood when regarding all capacity-neutral service changes. If you're structuring your service to account for rampant delays and their cascades, you should drop whatever you're doing and fix the damn delays. Otherwise you're just beautifying a steaming pile of horsesh*t. This is especially true in NYC where, once again, our delays are self inflicted managerial wounds, not the act of some invisible hand (state funding, natural disasters, etc). 

Under this precept -- deinterline where it adds perfect-condition capacity -- I see two line sets that qualify for restructuring: Broadway (using the service pattern above, which gains the corridor about 9-10tph), and Rogers (where eliminating the (5) use local track in crossing over would allow (2)(3)(5) service to be increased). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swapping the (B) and (C) would only make sense if you were to keep only north of 145 DE interlined. I would've made an interlining thread if I felt like it (which I didn't due to the fear of it being locked or unpopular). And @Lawrence St DE interlining won't screw up the subway system since if you need to transfer, it'll only be a minute and a delay will only affect one service. Though if I were to deinterline the subway I'd do this. (This is not a 100% DE interlined system) 

Rogers Junction 

(2)(3) local to Nostrand 

(4)(5) express to Utica and New Lots

Dekalb Avenue 

(N)(Q) as the 4 Avenue express

(B)(D) Brighton all to thems elves

If not then rearrange the tracks south of Dekalb to swap the places of the  (B)(D) and (R) to keep Brighton interlined. 

Broadway to stop the (N) merge at 34 street allowing each track to have 30TPH each. This will be easy until SAS phase 3 rolls around. 

CPW south of 145 Street would be 6 Av local and 8 Av express with keeping north of 145 interlined. With one 8 Avenue service on one branch and one on the other. 50 Street would be adjusted. 

(A) - Inwood

(B) - 168 Street 

(C) - Norwood

(D) - Bedford Park Blvd

Queens Blvd. *sigh* rearrange the tunnels between Court Sq and Queens Plaza to make the (E) have the local track and the (G) to terminate in the middle. The (R) goes to Astoria with the first and last 3TPH terminating at Queens Plaza or Forest Hills. The (F) and (M) run express and the (E) runs local from 179 - WTC, giving it a good 20 TPH. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The only places that should be de-interlined are Rogers and DeKalb. Here is my plan for that:
 

Rogers:

(2) unchanged, but a straight track is build to connect the SB local track and SB Nostrand track

(3)  148th to Flatbush

(4)  to New Lots via local east of Franklin

(5) to Utica, express east of Franklin

DeKalb:

(B)  Norwood to CI (via Brighton), local everywhere except 6th. Operates 24/7.

(D) Norwood or BPB to Brighton Beach or Ocean Parkway via peak express on Concourse the whole way (including Brighton). Operates weekdays 6 AM- 12 AM.

(N) 96th/125th to CI via Broadway and 4th express and Sea Beach. Operates weekdays 6 AM- 12 AM.

(Q) 96th/125th to CI via Broadway and 4th express and West End. Operates 24/7.

(R)  is rerouted to Astoria to provide a second service on Astoria. The (M) gets a service increase (18/7 to Forest Hills) and a free transfer between the Queenses (Plaza and Boro) is provided. Late nights cut back to either Whitehall or 34th since the express tracks are not used between 34th interlocking and Prince interlocking overnight.

 (W) replaces the (N) as the primary Astoria-Brooklyn line via Broadway and 4th local and also Sea beach. Operates 24/7.

 

Now to address some points Lawrence made:

The southern Brooklyn swap is to eliminate the issues at DeKalb (cough cough the (Q)  crawling through and stopping frickin everywhere).

If the (R) can be removed from QBL and the (M) can make up for it, then let that be in place.

The (B) here would become the primary CPW/6th line so it would be reasonable to have it run local on Brighton.

 

 

Just for starters: You can't increase frequency on the M without seriously messing with the F, and 6tph is insufficient for QBL local by a country mile. 

5 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

 

Queens Blvd. *sigh* rearrange the tunnels between Court Sq and Queens Plaza to make the (E) have the local track and the (G) to terminate in the middle. The (R) goes to Astoria with the first and last 3TPH terminating at Queens Plaza or Forest Hills. The (F) and (M) run express and the (E) runs local from 179 - WTC, giving it a good 20 TPH. 

 

+1 for sigh. 

rearranging the tunnels you speak of would be an unbelievable undertaking. 

I'm assuming in this scenario the F and M are both going up 63? So the only two services at queens plaza are the G and the E? I dunno about all that. 

Contrarian opinion alert:

I don't think interlining itself is the problem. 

While the installation of system-wide CBTC is a whole thing on its own, it will be completed long before - and with less disruption, than even the "rearrange the tunnels" portion of that proposal. 

With system-wide CBTC, a well-designed system can intelligently modulate the speed of the trains so that there are no merging delays. They go together seamlessly, like a zipper. 

If you wanted to throw some construction into the mix, swap out the really slow interlocking to 20mph switches. 90% of the remaining interlining delays are gone.

Some day I'll plug all this into agent based modeling software and just demonstrate it. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to fully utilize every pair of tracks in Queens with Manhattan-bound service, you need to de-interline.

What that would look like:

(N)(Q) - 96 St

(R)(W) - Astoria

(F)(M) - QB express via 63rd to 179 St and JC, respectively, (F) local after Forest Hills

(E) - WTC - 8 Av local - QB local via 53rd to Forest Hills

And to make room for the (E) running as high as it can go (probably 20-24TPH, similar to projected capacity at New South Ferry)

(A)(C) - 8 Av express - CPW express - Concourse

(B)(D) - 6 Av express - CPW local - 207/168

This would be very aggressive, but get the job done, though I don't know what terminal capacity on the Astoria Line is. But this would enable a huge spike in Queens-Manhattan services and significantly reduce merges and unreliability. The current setup results in only 50% of 63 St used, so this results in tunnels utilized close to capacity.

I actually think that QB might wind up with a better distribution of riders; you can either pick express service or 53rd but not both. And the (E) still has a relatively seamless transfer to the (B)(D) at 53rd. Though I would also recommend a link from 7th Av to 57th St (N)(Q)(R)(W) under this plan.

Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

I said 20TPH for QBL local, where is 6 from? 

That was a response to the other post I quoted which suggested the M be sole route on QBL local. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, itmaybeokay said:

That was a response to the other post I quoted which suggested the M be sole route on QBL local. 

What is the max TPH for the (M) ? You could could probably keep it as the sole QBL local if it ran 12-15 TPH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

What is the max TPH for the (M) ? You could could probably keep it as the sole QBL local if it ran 12-15 TPH.

53 limits to 15, 6th to 15, Williamsburg Bridge to 12, Myrtle Junction to 13, Metro to 12. So pick your poison, really. 

And trust me. 15tph is not enough for QB local — 20 minimum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, RR503 said:

53 limits to 15, 6th to 15, Williamsburg Bridge to 12, Myrtle Junction to 13, Metro to 12. So pick your poison, really. 

And trust me. 15tph is not enough for QB local — 20 minimum. 

I see. That probably means that if you ever wanted the (R) rerouted, you'd have to something like have the (M) express to Jamaica Center and the (E) local to Forest Hills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

I see. That probably means that if you ever wanted the (R) rerouted, you'd have to something like have the (M) express to Jamaica Center and the (E) local to Forest Hills.

It's actually perfectly doable to run that kind of service under my setup.

Express - 18 (F) to 179th, 12 (M) to Jamaica Center

Local - 20-24TPH (E) from WTC to Forest Hills

Which basically was the service split to the various destinations prior to the 63rd St tunnel opening.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 10:10 PM, LGA Link N train said:

 

Queens Blvd. *sigh* rearrange the tunnels between Court Sq and Queens Plaza to make the (E) have the local track and the (G) to terminate in the middle. The (R) goes to Astoria with the first and last 3TPH terminating at Queens Plaza or Forest Hills. The (F) and (M) run express and the (E) runs local from 179 - WTC, giving it a good 20 TPH. 

 

The sigh summarized how irate QBL patterns make us all. Since most QBL riders take the Archer service that has to be express. 179s can be local. Why do you have the (E)(F)(M) all to 179th? What serves Archer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For everyone who wants a different service on Archer: It's what made the (E) the big talk so you have to treat the new Archer service like the (E) and make sure it can handle the capacity.

just a quick note

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

For everyone who wants a different service on Archer: It's what made the (E) the big talk so you have to treat the new Archer service like the (E) and make sure it can handle the capacity.

just a quick note

Which is the big issue with having the (M) be the Queens Boulevard Exp/Archer Ave service. It's a 20% capacity cut versus the (E) given the (M) is only 8 cars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

The sigh summarized how irate QBL patterns make us all. Since most QBL riders take the Archer service that has to be express. 179s can be local. Why do you have the (E)(F)(M) all to 179th? What serves Archer?

The (E) and (F) serves 179.

 The (M) is serving Archer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Which is the big issue with having the (M) be the Queens Boulevard Exp/Archer Ave service. It's a 20% capacity cut versus the (E) given the (M) is only 8 cars. 

Could you make (M) more frequent and (E) a tad bit less? or would that choke (J) trains to death at Myrtle 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Could you make (M) more frequent and (E) a tad bit less? or would that choke (J) trains to death at Myrtle 

Archer can’t turn more than 12tph, and the Williamsburg Bridge can handle more than that number either. 

Regardless, the larger issue here is with train length, not frequency. Yes, riders looking for 53 would take the local, but all your Broadway riders would take the express to the (Q), and a good number would substitute 57/6 and 50/6 for 53/5 and 53/7. So you’re reducing physical train capacity on an extremely high demand market...not a good idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Archer can’t turn more than 12tph, and the Williamsburg Bridge can handle more than that number either. 

Regardless, the larger issue here is with train length, not frequency. Yes, riders looking for 53 would take the local, but all your Broadway riders would take the express to the (Q), and a good number would substitute 57/6 and 50/6 for 53/5 and 53/7. So you’re reducing physical train capacity on an extremely high demand market...not a good idea. 

True. Keeping a frequent service at a popular area would be best so we should keep the (E) there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 9:06 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

The only places that should be de-interlined are Rogers and DeKalb. Here is my plan for that:
 

Rogers:

(2) unchanged, but a straight track is build to connect the SB local track and SB Nostrand track

(3)  148th to Flatbush

(4)  to New Lots via local east of Franklin

(5) to Utica, express east of Franklin

DeKalb:

(B)  Norwood to CI (via Brighton), local everywhere except 6th. Operates 24/7.

(D) Norwood or BPB to Brighton Beach or Ocean Parkway via peak express on Concourse the whole way (including Brighton). Operates weekdays 6 AM- 12 AM.

(N) 96th/125th to CI via Broadway and 4th express and Sea Beach. Operates weekdays 6 AM- 12 AM.

(Q) 96th/125th to CI via Broadway and 4th express and West End. Operates 24/7.

(R)  is rerouted to Astoria to provide a second service on Astoria. The (M) gets a service increase (18/7 to Forest Hills) and a free transfer between the Queenses (Plaza and Boro) is provided. Late nights cut back to either Whitehall or 34th since the express tracks are not used between 34th interlocking and Prince interlocking overnight.

 (W) replaces the (N) as the primary Astoria-Brooklyn line via Broadway and 4th local and also Sea beach. Operates 24/7.

 

Now to address some points Lawrence made:

The southern Brooklyn swap is to eliminate the issues at DeKalb (cough cough the (Q)  crawling through and stopping frickin everywhere).

If the (R) can be removed from QBL and the (M) can make up for it, then let that be in place.

The (B) here would become the primary CPW/6th line so it would be reasonable to have it run local on Brighton.

 

 

You eliminated the Bright Beach Express and misidentified the problems at Dekalb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mrbrklyn said:

You eliminated the Bright Beach Express and misidentified the problems at Dekalb.

It says "including Brighton" when I mention that (D) runs express the entire route.

I also revised my view and supported a plan that would reroute the (N) to 96th, have the (W) to CI via Montague, 4th LCL, and Sea Beach 24/7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 10:28 PM, itmaybeokay said:

With system-wide CBTC, a well-designed system can intelligently modulate the speed of the trains so that there are no merging delays. They go together seamlessly, like a zipper. 

HAHAHAHAHAH

 

never in out lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

It says "including Brighton" when I mention that (D) runs express the entire route.

 

so you eliminate broadway access fromt he brighton line?

 

The problem at Dekalb is that when they switched the D and the B the station no longer functioned as a transport point for all routes, which is how it was designed to work before they decided to give the N train prioirty.  You can't get a 6th Avenue train from there when there is no B train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.