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

12 minutes ago, mrbrklyn said:

 

so you eliminate broadway access from the brighton line?

 

Umm... Can't you transfer at Dekalb or CI? It would be a quick transfer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is CI?  Stillwell Avenue?  that is a non-starter.

No, because you removed the Q from Delalb - remember?  Remember, BTW that the express at Pacific can't go to Dekalb, FWIW.  That was the problem with the N (Sea Beach) train and the N without an express is a very long and slow ride.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it clear up the issue at Dekalb if (Q) ran via Montague full-time and only (N) went over the bridge?

Edited by Deucey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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. 

I mean, all Broadway riders today are taking the (R). Those would now get the (F) and (M), a boost in services.

In fact, it boosts total Manhattan-Queens capacity overall, and my proposed split reduces demand for expresses and boosts demand for local. If the 63 St line was just as good of a substitute, then there would've been no need to switch the (E)/(F) balance from 12/18 to 15/15 in 2001.

Edited by bobtehpanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Would it clear up the issue at Dekalb if (Q) ran via Montague full-time and only (N) went over the bridge?

I think the N (and the R) can't run through dekalb unless is it running through the tunnel and from the local pacific street track.  In order to imrpove the N service after the Manhattan Bridge was finished, they made the N super express, 38th Street, Pacific, and over the bridge to Canal Street.  That bumped the Q to the Broadway line express via Atlantic Avenue, Dekalb and Canal Street, otherwise there was no Bway access from the Brighton Line.   The B was then added to 6th Avenue daytime and evenings.  But when there is no B train, there is no 6th Avenue Access at all from Dekalb Avenue. 

I like W4th Street.  This is the biggest reason why late night I end up taking a cab home from  the Village.

 

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/trackmap/pm_southeast_1.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, mrbrklyn said:

I think the N (and the R) can't run through dekalb unless is it running through the tunnel and from the local pacific street track.  In order to imrpove the N service after the Manhattan Bridge was finished, they made the N super express, 38th Street, Pacific, and over the bridge to Canal Street.  That bumped the Q to the Broadway line express via Atlantic Avenue, Dekalb and Canal Street, otherwise there was no Bway access from the Brighton Line.   The B was then added to 6th Avenue daytime and evenings.  But when there is no B train, there is no 6th Avenue Access at all from Dekalb Avenue. 

I like W4th Street.  This is the biggest reason why late night I end up taking a cab home from  the Village.

 

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/trackmap/pm_southeast_1.png

You should try re-reading my question and looking at that track map since your answer was unrelated to the question and the track map is why the question exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Deucey said:

Would it clear up the issue at Dekalb if (Q) ran via Montague full-time and only (N) went over the bridge?

That introduces another issue, though, at 34 St, because the (Q) has to get back to the express to get to 96th, and it has to do that before the (N) merges into the local to serve 49th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y’all are forgetting about the (W). Forget the merge up Broadway, there’s no way you can run the (Q)(R)(W) together through Lower Manhattan with all those timers between Cortlandt and City Hall. 

Once again, the best way to solve Dekalb is through removal of some of those timers, and a few simple technological upgrades. NYCT has a block occupancy/Bluetooth beacon tracker known as iTrack, and if instead of lighting up a button in a tower, punchboxes edited the train adjacent to them’s designation in iTrack, you would never have to stop in the junction. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

That introduces another issue, though, at 34 St, because the (Q) has to get back to the express to get to 96th, and it has to do that before the (N) merges into the local to serve 49th.

So (N) to 96th as the full-time B-way Express, and and (Q) to Astoria as the Brighton Express and B-way Local via Whitehall, and eliminating (W) wouldn’t ease Dekalb - since the only merge would be (N) and (D) to 4th Av?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Deucey said:

So (N) to 96th as the full-time B-way Express, and and (Q) to Astoria as the Brighton Express and B-way Local via Whitehall, and eliminating (W) wouldn’t ease Dekalb - since the only merge would be (N) and (D) to 4th Av?

That cuts total Astoria service, which is unacceptable due to overcrowding from transfers at QBP.

Share this post


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

You still have interlining in your plan; it's just on the local tracks.

Interlining doesn't bother me since I like the idea of areas having one-seat rides to multiple corridors.

But there's a logical way to interline and be efficient at it, and given a lot of problems stem from choke points, it should be possible to maintain the current rationale while mitigating the choke points.

I just don't think the IND rationale of Expresses being interborough and locals staying intraborough is the best way forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deinterlining QBL will cut down the delays but will do little to improve crowding. The fundamental issue is that there is much more demand for express service than local trains. At Jackson Heights, all the (7)(M)(R) riders get off and transfer over to the (E)(F). Ultimately, the 63 St and 53 St lines should both be running ~30 tph, all express, meaning additional tracks needs to be built in Queens.

Once the QBL bypass is built to at least Woodside, I think the (M) should start running via 63 St and the (C) should go express on 8 Ave, allowing the (E) to take over the 53 St corridor full-time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

Deinterlining QBL will cut down the delays but will do little to improve crowding. The fundamental issue is that there is much more demand for express service than local trains. At Jackson Heights, all the (7)(M)(R) riders get off and transfer over to the (E)(F). Ultimately, the 63 St and 53 St lines should both be running ~30 tph, all express, meaning additional tracks needs to be built in Queens.

Once the QBL bypass is built to at least Woodside, I think the (M) should start running via 63 St and the (C) should go express on 8 Ave, allowing the (E) to take over the 53 St corridor full-time.

You don't need additional tracks in Queens to boost service. There are three pairs of tracks under the East River, and three pairs of tracks between Astoria and QBL.

Splitting services into their logical couplets will sufficiently spread out enough demand:

60th <> Astoria

63rd <> QBL express

53rd <> QBL local

In this scenario you can either pick East Side service or express service to Manhattan, but not both, and IMO that's enough of a compelling filter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I just don't think the IND rationale of Expresses being interborough and locals staying intraborough is the best way forward.

Has anyone actually proposed that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Has anyone actually proposed that?

I read that on some docs about IND planning under Hylan.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 8:29 PM, Lawrence St said:

This plan is just absurd...

You want to get rid of the only 8th Av express service on QBL, screw over people on Hillside.....

 

His plan still has the (F) unchanged so Hillside is fine.

In any case, while I see the logic, the main issue I have with any plan that removes the (R) from the QBL is that that's your easiest transfer to the Lexington Avenue Line. You just go up or down a flight of stairs depending on whether you want the local or express. The transfer from 53rd/Lexington involves more stairs & escalators, and of course, the Lexington/63rd Street transfer is even more cumbersome. Of course, the saving grace is that the (Q) heads east as you go Downtown, so if you're heading to Union Square or Canal Street, the travel time isn't too much longer via Broadway instead of Lexington Avenue (it's probably quicker when accounting for the delays on Lexington). But of course, that leaves out Lower Manhattan (the (E) is more circuitous and doesn't go as far south as the (R) or Lexington Avenue Line).

12 hours ago, mrbrklyn said:

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.

1

The (D) stops at DeKalb overnights.

11 hours ago, mrbrklyn said:

What is CI?  Stillwell Avenue?  that is a non-starter.

No, because you removed the Q from Delalb - remember?  Remember, BTW that the express at Pacific can't go to Dekalb, FWIW.  That was the problem with the N (Sea Beach) train and the N without an express is a very long and slow ride.

Yes it can. The (D) does it overnights, and the (N) even has a few trips that do it. During rush hour, it would involve a lot of crossing over and would probably cause more congestion than it's worth (which is the whole point of this thread).

Keep in mind that before 2001 (back when I was growing up in Brighton Beach) the Brighton Line was only covered by 6th Avenue-bound trains and we still managed. We either took the (D) or orange (Q) directly or transferred to the (R) at DeKalb.

10 hours ago, mrbrklyn said:

I think the N (and the R) can't run through dekalb unless is it running through the tunnel and from the local pacific street track.  In order to imrpove the N service after the Manhattan Bridge was finished, they made the N super express, 38th Street, Pacific, and over the bridge to Canal Street.  That bumped the Q to the Broadway line express via Atlantic Avenue, Dekalb and Canal Street, otherwise there was no Bway access from the Brighton Line.   The B was then added to 6th Avenue daytime and evenings.  But when there is no B train, there is no 6th Avenue Access at all from Dekalb Avenue. 

I like W4th Street.  This is the biggest reason why late night I end up taking a cab home from  the Village.

https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/trackmap/pm_southeast_1.png

5

If you want to waste money on a cab because you don't want to take the (D) to the (Q) at DeKalb or walk over to 8th or Prince Streets, that's your choice.

Edited by checkmatechamp13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Keep in mind that before 2001 (back when I was growing up in Brighton Beach) the Brighton Line was only covered by 6th Avenue-bound trains and we still managed. We either took the (D) or orange (Q) directly or transferred to the (R) at DeKalb.

Service previously being worse than it currently is, is not a reason to revert to the worse state.

Edited by P3F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

Yes it can. The (D) does it overnights, and the (N) even has a few trips that do it.

The D is running local over night in Brooklyn and that makes it possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, P3F said:

Service previously being worse than it currently is, is not a reason to revert to the worse state.

that was better, actually. The two lines overlap and the D goes to the Museum of Natual History and at Dekalb you can get anything but who would take the broadway line if the 6th avenue line is available :)

The main reason to transfer to at Dekalb was to go to Downtown or downtown Brooklyn..

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zYrPLXdvFwg/U4T0CsLIAQI/AAAAAAAARP4/Lu3Wec8ZU8s/s1600/vignelli_new_york_subway_map_1972.jpg

 

You see on this subway map there is no Sea Beach express between 38th and Pacific.  There is no west end express either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mrbrklyn said:

that was better, actually. The two lines overlap and the D goes to the Museum of Natual History and at Dekalb you can get anything but who would take the broadway line if the 6th avenue line is available :)

The main reason to transfer to at Dekalb was to go to Downtown or downtown Brooklyn..

 

 

"who would take the broadway line if the 6th avenue line is available"

Maybe somebody whose destination is on the Broadway Line? Not everything is located on the 6th Avenue line, y'know.

The Broadway and 6th Avenue lines both get their share of ridership directly from the line; neither service is empty heading north from DeKalb.

Regarding the (R), it is unreliable and on top of that, 10 minutes slower than the (Q) between DeKalb Av and Canal Street. Taking it for that entire segment is a waste of time.

Edited by P3F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2018 at 7:55 PM, Deucey said:

I read that on some docs about IND planning under Hylan.

Oh, for sure, I meant that no one in 2018 seriously thinks that's a good idea.

The half-baked solution of connecting 60th St to the (R) is what has led us to the current day's mess. The actual real solution would've been either building out 53rd St as a four-track line east of Sixth Av, or pulling a Chrystie St and link the (F) to the 11th St connection and dump the (R), and adding connections between QBP and Queens Plaza. But the government-owned agencies that have taken over the subway like overcomplicated solutions to problems (see: history of QB Bypass planning)

Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/5/2018 at 5:38 PM, RR503 said:

Once again, the best way to solve Dekalb is through removal of some of those timers, and a few simple technological upgrades. NYCT has a block occupancy/Bluetooth beacon tracker known as iTrack, and if instead of lighting up a button in a tower, punchboxes edited the train adjacent to them’s designation in iTrack, you would never have to stop in the junction. 

So is there any physical reason that’s preventing NYCT implementing this iTrack feature at DeKalb? If not, then put it in place so they can eliminate the required stop in the junction.  

On 5/5/2018 at 10:16 PM, bobtehpanda said:

Has anyone actually proposed that?

Not exactly, but when the IND first opened up, they did sort of have that as part of their service operations. Eighth Avenue local AA trains ran exclusively in Manhattan, while the Queens Blvd local stops were originally served only by the GG train. The CC ran between the Bronx and Manhattan making local stops, but it was the only one that did that until the IND got further into Brooklyn and opened up the 6th Avenue Line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

So is there any physical reason that’s preventing NYCT implementing this iTrack feature at DeKalb? If not, then put it in place so they can eliminate the required stop in the junction.  

No, just hella institutional inertia. 

On 5/7/2018 at 12:09 AM, bobtehpanda said:

Oh, for sure, I meant that no one in 2018 seriously thinks that's a good idea.

The half-baked solution of connecting 60th St to the (R) is what has led us to the current day's mess. The actual real solution would've been either building out 53rd St as a four-track line east of Sixth Av, or pulling a Chrystie St and link the (F) to the 11th St connection and dump the (R), and adding connections between QBP and Queens Plaza. But the government-owned agencies that have taken over the subway like overcomplicated solutions to problems (see: history of QB Bypass planning)

Remember that before 11th St and post QBP rebuild, 60th street was running well below capacity. I agree that it has led to problems in the now, but back then it was a really clever way of increasing capacity utilization while making QB a better corridor. Yes, building out 53rd st would have been nice, but do keep in mind that 6th avenue as it was then was at capacity -- no express tracks -- thus such a project would have entailed improvements there too. 

Finally, you have to understand that back in the day, massive interlining was totally normal. I mean look at a subway map from that era -- the sheer number of service permutations is obscene. And yet they managed to run that plan pretty damn well because the operational constraints that make interlining such a PITA today simply did not exist. Let me remind you that the heavily interlined Dekalb avenue of that era handled almost 90 trains per hour. 

What we've lost isn't good service planning. It's good service execution. 

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

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.