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

17 minutes ago, Deucey said:

@RR503, or anyone else who gets routings on a higher level than "I wish", why couldn't you free up DeKalb capacity - even if you get rid of the videoscreen switching, by running (Q) on West End, (N) on Sea Beach, and (B)(D) on Brighton?

Brighton riders will not tolerate the loss of the (Q).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, RR503 said:

If we were to do Dekalb deinterlining, though, I'd advocate for (N)(Q) Brighton, (B)(D) 4th express. Then you have (assuming Broadway also gets deinterlined) an isolated route from CI-96 via Brighton and a pair of lines that branch on either end on 6th, which in turn the potential to make weekend/late night routings simpler to work out. Also keeps West End-Chinatown going, as well as Broadway-Brighton

I was gonna argue, but looking at the track map, makes somewhat more sense since it preserves a cross-platform transfer between 6 Av and Broadway Local, but I was kinda thinking keep (B)(D) on the non-stop track so all the Broadway services run together in Bk. But doing any de-interlining eliminates Brighton-6Av transfers unless doing that long-ass walk at Barclays under the IRT, or at New Utrecht.

I get now why (MTA) hasn't done it already.

 

Share this post


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

I was gonna argue, but looking at the track map, makes somewhat more sense since it preserves a cross-platform transfer between 6 Av and Broadway Local, but I was kinda thinking keep (B)(D) on the non-stop track so all the Broadway services run together in Bk. But doing any de-interlining eliminates Brighton-6Av transfers unless doing that long-ass walk at Barclays under the IRT, or at New Utrecht.

I get now why (MTA) hasn't done it already.

Yup. 

The argument that many make here is that, save for USQ/W4, Broadway and 6th are roughly interchangeable...but I think that exception here is relatively important, to say nothing of the fact that such pronouncements ignore folks going through, rather than to, the core. I guess if studies show that it wouldn't be that bad, I'd be open to it, but I'd want to see that baselined against a properly operated Dekalb interlocking, not today's disaster.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

If the choice was between the (brownM) and the (M) without any other variables, you'd be right, but that wasn't the choice. There was a wee little financial crisis, and they had a deficit to fill. The original proposal to that end was cutting the (brownM) to Chambers and leaving the (V) alone, meaning that SBK was getting shafted either way.

Actually, the (V) was already planned to be extended to Church Ave. whenever the Culver Viaduct work was finished. That would have helped that area of SBK, as they would have a full fledged service serving the local stations, with the (F) from further south, going express, instead of having to use every other  (F)  which is now the idea they've had to fall back on, but is apparently in limbo because of some opposition from the locals.

Edited by Eric B

Share this post


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

Yup. 

The argument that many make here is that, save for USQ/W4, Broadway and 6th are roughly interchangeable...but I think that exception here is relatively important, to say nothing of the fact that such pronouncements ignore folks going through, rather than to, the core. I guess if studies show that it wouldn't be that bad, I'd be open to it, but I'd want to see that baselined against a properly operated Dekalb interlocking, not today's disaster.

I suppose you could mitigate it by building an In-System Transfer between Prince and B-way/Lafayette, but even that's just local-to-express and walking an east-west block to change trains. 

Only advantage is it connects to (6) and could relieve USQ, but it still yanks an express transfer in Bk.

Basically, de-interlining in Bk is not really a smart idea for the BMT stations.
 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RR503 said:

If we were to do Dekalb deinterlining, though, I'd advocate for (N)(Q) Brighton, (B)(D) 4th express. Then you have (assuming Broadway also gets deinterlined) an isolated route from CI-96 via Brighton and a pair of lines that branch on either end on 6th, which in turn the potential to make weekend/late night routings simpler to work out. Also keeps West End-Chinatown going, as well as Broadway-Brighton. 

Doesn't that shaft the off-hours Sea Beach riders? Unless you're also advocating full-time (B) service to/from Manhattan, aren't you relegating them to those West End-style shuttles that were the bane of everyone's commutes back in the day?

Share this post


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

Actually, the (V) was already planned to be extended to Church Ave. whenever the Culver Viaduct work was finished. That would have helped that area of SBK, as they would have a full fledged service serving the local stations, with the (F) from further south, going express, instead of having to use every other  (F)  which is now the idea they've had to fall back on, but is apparently in limbo because of some opposition from the locals.

True, but again, that wasn’t going anywhere with the finances of the day. 

I also think it’s a valid Q as to whether or not <F> is a more important service than (M)...moot now, as splitting out 7tph of express isn’t gonna work for so many reasons. 

47 minutes ago, Lance said:

Doesn't that shaft the off-hours Sea Beach riders? Unless you're also advocating full-time (B) service to/from Manhattan, aren't you relegating them to those West End-style shuttles that were the bane of everyone's commutes back in the day?

Upon further thought, this is very complicated. Dekalb shouldn’t be deinterlined except as a last resort, so in my mind it’s a safe assumption to make that the rest of the system will be following a less-interlined service pattern. If we accept reformed flagging/GO rules (either track barriers or true reform), then we can run >3 services/corridor and this is all fine, but if we can’t, it becomes messy. 

Deinterlining on the rest of the system is IMO best done as follows:

-6th local-63-QB express-179/Archer

-6th express-CPW express-205/207

-Broadway local-60-Astoria

-Broadway express-2nd ave

-8th local (from WTC)-CPW local-BPB/168

-8th express (from Fulton)-53-QB local.  

Problem is that when you try to reduce service levels to satisfy the 3 lines/corridor while also preserving utility, you get an issue on 6th. Both Queens Boulevard and CPW need both of their 6th Avenue services to run weekend service — it’s doubtful that any of their 4 outer branches will accept weekend local service...but that forces 4 services on 6th. You could swap local/exp on CPW, but that sends important capacity (Queens) to a bad terminal (WTC), and closed 50 UL. 

Less deeply annoying is 8th. You need both your 8th express services on weekends to preserve local/express on Fulton, but if you send both on their full route to Queens Boulevard, you end up with 4 services on that corridor. Luckily you can short turn one at Queens Plaza.

Broadway seems to work under any scenario, save for the one where 11th st cut interlining needs to be preserved, and needs to be preserved too on weekends. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2/11/2019 at 9:20 PM, RR503 said:

Yup. 

The argument that many make here is that, save for USQ/W4, Broadway and 6th are roughly interchangeable...but I think that exception here is relatively important, to say nothing of the fact that such pronouncements ignore folks going through, rather than to, the core. I guess if studies show that it wouldn't be that bad, I'd be open to it, but I'd want to see that baselined against a properly operated Dekalb interlocking, not today's disaster.

I think they are interchangable, but only the northern half. North of 34th St the two lines are never more than 1000 feet away from each other, which is why I don't think the 11th St connection is very important in a world where we have four tracks of Manhattan-QBL. Although we probably need the 59-63 connection to not make 51-53 a total shitshow

 

15 hours ago, RR503 said:

Deinterlining on the rest of the system is IMO best done as follows:

-6th local-63-QB express-179/Archer

-6th express-CPW express-205/207

-Broadway local-60-Astoria

-Broadway express-2nd ave

-8th local (from WTC)-CPW local-BPB/168

-8th express (from Fulton)-53-QB local.

Just curious, how would this work with the various flavors of weekend/off-peak we have today? It's hard to envision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Just curious, how would this work with the various flavors of weekend/off-peak we have today? It's hard to envision.

This is where I’m getting lost. You need 3 services on QB and 3 on CPW. With deinterlining, and 6th being express on both corridors, that means 4 on 6th, unless you’re willing to send a local service to Concourse, Inwood, 179 or Parsons.

I’d be fine sending a local to 179, especially if the expectation is that there’ll be constant trackwork, but all the same... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deinterlining should be done where trains currently switch between local and express tracks, because having a train occupy two tracks at once is always a loss of capacity. To me these are

  • The (N) going from express to local btwn Times Sq and Herald Sq
    • Keep the (N) on the express tracks
  • The (5) going from the Eastern Parkway express tracks to the Nostrand Ave line via the EP local tracks
    • During peak hours, all (2) trains should run to Flatbush Ave as today. (3) trains should also go down Nostrand as much as possible, with the excess continuing to New Lots Ave. All (4) and (5) trains continue on the express trains to Utica, with the (5) terminating at Utica and the (4) continuing to New Lots Ave.
    • Off-peak, the (2)(3) run to Flatbush Ave, the (4) goes local after Franklin Ave to New Lots Ave, and the (5) continues to Utica. 
  • The (M) running via 53 St
    • A special case, but in practice 63 St is only running at half capacity. The (M) going via 53 St also results in loss of capacity at 7 Ave / 53 St and the 8 Ave line
    • Send the (M) via 63 St, it can stay local on QB
      • Frees up a slot for the (K) train
  • The (C) going from the express tracks to the local tracks north of WTC
    • Keep all Cranberry Tube trains express in 8 Ave
    • This is minor because 8 Ave doesn't currently have 4 services, but it's absolutely necessary if the (K) comes to 8 Ave
4 hours ago, RR503 said:

This is where I’m getting lost. You need 3 services on QB and 3 on CPW. With deinterlining, and 6th being express on both corridors, that means 4 on 6th, unless you’re willing to send a local service to Concourse, Inwood, 179 or Parsons.

I’d be fine sending a local to 179, especially if the expectation is that there’ll be constant trackwork, but all the same... 

On weekends, 6 Ave, Broadway, and 8 Ave ideally should have 3 services each. I think the (L) is going to be shut down every weekend for the foreseeable future because one-track service will be a disaster, so the (M) will be effectively the third off-peak service along 6 Ave. At the south end of these trunks, one 8 Ave local train terminates at WTC, and the other 8 services continue into Brooklyn along Bay Ridge, Sea Beach, West End, Culver, Brighton, Fulton x2, and Myrtle Ave like they do today.

The northern end is trickier, but it seems that the optimal service is 3 CPW, 2 SAS, 1 Astoria, and 3 QB - note that the MTA does this today by sending the (M) to 96 St. To implement the deinterlining, both Broadway expresses should be running to SAS and the Broadway local should be running to Astoria. Then this leaves

  • (A) CPW Express, 8 Ave Express, Fulton Express
  • (C) CPW Local, 8 Ave Local, Fulton Local
  • (E) QB Express, 53 St, 8 Ave Local (terminates at WTC)
  • (D) CPW Express, 6 Ave Express, West End
  • (F) QB Express, 63 St, 6 Ave Local, Culver
  • (M) QB Local, 53 St, 6 Ave Local, Myrtle Ave
  • (N) SAS / Bway Express, Sea Beach
  • (Q) SAS / Bway Express, Brighton
  • (R) Astoria, Bway Local, Bay Ridge

So not perfect deinterlining, but better than what we come before. The biggest issue right now is that the (R) doesn't have a yard servicing it and so its base of operations has to be moved to CI. However, CI yard should be big enough to accommodate the (R) as necessary.

On weekdays, you keep these lines, and add in the (B) (unchanged from today) and a (W) train between Whitehall St and Forest Hills. If the (M) goes to 63 St, replace the (W) train with more (R) trains on Broadway and the new (K) QB local / 53 St / 8 Ave service.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The above is a very defensible plan. The only operational, non “we don’t like delay cascades”-type objection I’d field is that a merge between the derivatives of the 26tph on 8th local (that’s the terminal cap at WTC) and those of the 30 on 8th express/6th express may not be the easiest thing to schedule. One unspoken cause of service gaps today is the fact that many of them are actually scheduled to make merges work; I’d be cautious carrying that over into a new svc design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 10:24 AM, RR503 said:

Broadway seems to work under any scenario, save for the one where 11th st cut interlining needs to be preserved, and needs to be preserved too on weekends. 

Broadway works well because it was shoehorned onto the Queens Blvd line via the 11th Street connection. Remove that connection and you've essentially reverted back to the pre-1955 semi-streamlined services, where the Sea Beach/West End express lines ran to 57 Street and the 4th Avenue local line to Astoria, which was the original intention of the Broadway line, minus the never-built extension to the Upper West Side. The IND doesn't lend itself all that well to streamlined services without over-serving at least one branch because of the half-assed way the lines were built. We're literally missing half of the trackage intended to make such a solution viable and without new construction, we'll continue to run into this same dilemma.

19 hours ago, Caelestor said:

The biggest issue right now is that the (R) doesn't have a yard servicing it and so its base of operations has to be moved to CI.

That's going to be an issue for a few of these "fix the 4th Avenue line" ideas as this particular branch does not lend itself well moving trains to a subway maintenance yard. Whether it's the (R) to Astoria, an extension of the (J) or some other Nassau St line that would serve 4th Avenue, at least one service will require a lot of dead-heading to get back to their home yard. Under the plan to restore (R) service back to its pre-1987 route, this would be the service that would have trains run to Coney Island out of service all the time. If we extend the (J) to 95 Street and cut the (R) back to Manhattan with its current route otherwise (and this assumes the oft-proposed "all Broadway express lines run to 96 Street" plan also goes into effect), whatever serves Astoria will have to dead-head down to Coney Island from whatever southern terminal said Astoria service ends at. If the 4th Avenue-Nassau St line is not the (J), but rather a completely separate line that does not run the entire length of the Broadway-Brooklyn line, that will also have to run light to East New York yard, along with the aforementioned Astoria line. It's quite a conundrum that will not be resolved unless a new maintenance yard is built along 4th Avenue. Too bad the MTA is reluctant to expand 38th Street into a maintenance yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lance said:

Broadway works well because it was shoehorned onto the Queens Blvd line via the 11th Street connection. Remove that connection and you've essentially reverted back to the pre-1955 semi-streamlined services, where the Sea Beach/West End express lines ran to 57 Street and the 4th Avenue local line to Astoria, which was the original intention of the Broadway line, minus the never-built extension to the Upper West Side. The IND doesn't lend itself all that well to streamlined services without over-serving at least one branch because of the half-assed way the lines were built. We're literally missing half of the trackage intended to make such a solution viable and without new construction, we'll continue to run into this same dilemma.

See, I actually feel that with the exception of the Culver/Crosstown/Myrtle matrix, IND deinterlining does well. But that's me. 

17 minutes ago, Lance said:

That's going to be an issue for a few of these "fix the 4th Avenue line" ideas as this particular branch does not lend itself well moving trains to a subway maintenance yard. Whether it's the (R) to Astoria, an extension of the (J) or some other Nassau St line that would serve 4th Avenue, at least one service will require a lot of dead-heading to get back to their home yard. Under the plan to restore (R) service back to its pre-1987 route, this would be the service that would have trains run to Coney Island out of service all the time. If we extend the (J) to 95 Street and cut the (R) back to Manhattan with its current route otherwise (and this assumes the oft-proposed "all Broadway express lines run to 96 Street" plan also goes into effect), whatever serves Astoria will have to dead-head down to Coney Island from whatever southern terminal said Astoria service ends at. If the 4th Avenue-Nassau St line is not the (J), but rather a completely separate line that does not run the entire length of the Broadway-Brooklyn line, that will also have to run light to East New York yard, along with the aforementioned Astoria line. It's quite a conundrum that will not be resolved unless a new maintenance yard is built along 4th Avenue. Too bad the MTA is reluctant to expand 38th Street into a maintenance yard.

I've never totally bought into the concern about yard access for the 4th plan(s). The Broadway local tracks are fronted by a lot of layup space. From south to north, you can store trains at 86th Spur, 4th Ave express, City Hall Yard, 11th St Cut, and the Astoria express track. You're not gonna want to use all of those, but between them, put-ins at 36th, and relays from CI to north of 36 to Bay Ridge, I think you're covered. Is it the most efficient use of train miles? No, of course not, and that's why 38th needs expansion. But is it something that should be looked at regardless? Yes. 

Re: the (J). Much as the (N) drops most of its runs at CI, this (J)-4th Ave service would do the same -- trains would all just begin and end at ENY. Given that such a pattern tracks with the service route, I don't see that as being a big impediment. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the thing. 4th Av was built to have a necessary for 2-3 lines at all times. Also, Broadway today is taking on way more than it should be. So cutting and rerouting is going to be a bit hectic. Based on data gathered we can assume the following:

The (D) should stay on West end for a connection to Chinatown and 6 Av

Sea beach needs to retain express service on 4th Av.

Second Avenue is a line that needs priority

Astoria also needs to fit in as much service as possible.

 

Based on the track connections at DeKalb and Broadway, one service pattern can be the following:

(N) is rerouted from Astoria and moved to 2 Av, operating express at all times except nights, where it takes the (Q) route north of DeKalb Avenue.

(Q) operates via Montague at all times and runs to Astoria. The downside on this is Manhattan bridge and direct express service in Manhattan is cut, almost ensuring complaints from Brighton riders.

(R) replaces the (Q) as the express between DeKalb Ave and 63rd st, then operates over the (F) to 21 st, where it will then resume regular service to Forest Hills. Downside to this plan is that Queens Plaza will not be served by the (R) and customers from QBL who wish to use the Lexington avenue line have to use the oos transfer at 63 st or transfer at 57th st for uptown service to 59 st. There may also be minor merging issues at the 36 st interlocking but it shouldn't really have as much effect as the merge at 34th st. There may also be a new issue when the (R) switches to Manhattan bridge tracks at DeKalb Ave. Late night service unchanged.

(W) will be merged into the new (Q) and will just be rush hour short turn (Q) s between Astoria and Whitehall St. 

 

Share this post


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

If the 4th Avenue-Nassau St line is not the (J), but rather a completely separate line that does not run the entire length of the Broadway-Brooklyn line, that will also have to run light to East New York yard, along with the aforementioned Astoria line. 

I mean does it have to run light? If for example the (R) ends at Essex Street, why not just run those trains in service to/from Broadway Junction, like the (Z) does every rush hour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you can run it in service. You can make the same argument for any route's intervals that presently run empty to the yards afterwards. That wasn't my point, though. The train still has to go from Essex St to the East New York yard; whether it does so in service or out of service is completely up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2019 at 11:08 PM, RR503 said:

No reason you couldn't -- this would actually raise your maximum possible throughput by a little bit -- question is much more shouldn't; is the marginal increase in potential capacity worth the cost to riders. Also unsure if the signal system on 4th is designed well enough to make the cap difference between interlined, well operated Dekalb and deinterlined Dekalb matter. 

If we were to do Dekalb deinterlining, though, I'd advocate for (N)(Q) Brighton, (B)(D) 4th express. Then you have (assuming Broadway also gets deinterlined) an isolated route from CI-96 via Brighton and a pair of lines that branch on either end on 6th, which in turn the potential to make weekend/late night routings simpler to work out. Also keeps West End-Chinatown going, as well as Broadway-Brighton. 

(B)(D) via 4th Avenue express and (N)(Q) via Brighton is the option I’d favor if we were to have no choice but to de-interline DeKalb. Pretty much, for the same reasons you described. Really it’s too bad there’s no way to build an infill station north of DeKalb at Myrtle Avenue/Tillary Street. Then the issue of Atlantic being flooded with riders transferring would be moot. I’d really like to see Transit figure out a way to get Bridge-bound trains through the interlocking without having to stop at it first for identification. 

On 2/12/2019 at 9:13 AM, Deucey said:

I suppose you could mitigate it by building an In-System Transfer between Prince and B-way/Lafayette, but even that's just local-to-express and walking an east-west block to change trains. 

Only advantage is it connects to (6) and could relieve USQ, but it still yanks an express transfer in Bk.

Basically, de-interlining in Bk is not really a smart idea for the BMT stations.
 

A Prince-Broadway/Lafayette transfer would probably be quite helpful (if not necessary) with a de-interlined DeKalb. 

On 2/12/2019 at 9:18 AM, Lance said:

Doesn't that shaft the off-hours Sea Beach riders? Unless you're also advocating full-time (B) service to/from Manhattan, aren't you relegating them to those West End-style shuttles that were the bane of everyone's commutes back in the day?

Even if the (B) ran seven days a week to/from Manhattan like it used to prior to 2001? Though I’d turn the (B) shuttle back at Atlantic, not 36th like it used to. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

(B)(D) via 4th Avenue express and (N)(Q) via Brighton is the option I’d favor if we were to have no choice but to de-interline DeKalb. Pretty much, for the same reasons you described. Really it’s too bad there’s no way to build an infill station north of DeKalb at Myrtle Avenue/Tillary Street. Then the issue of Atlantic being flooded with riders transferring would be moot. I’d really like to see Transit figure out a way to get Bridge-bound trains through the interlocking without having to stop at it first for identification. 

Easy: trust the punchboxes, and move the cameras to the stations before the entrances. Done. 

I mean, if we're playing rebuild, one thing I've heard suggested before is that we sink the tunnel tracks to a level below their current position, and build the platforms across from the Brighton tracks to the bypass tracks at Dekalb. Maybe worth looking into...

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.