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

On 5/3/2018 at 9:06 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

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

For the 3 to be able to go to Flatbush, the terminal needs to be redesigned to be able to function as a real terminal. If not, an extension of the tracks needs to be looked at.

If either of these don't happen, the 3 shall continue to go to New Lots for access to the Livonia maintenance shop. That means any effort at deinterlining Rogers Junction would take a lot longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, 4 via Mosholu said:

For the 3 to be able to go to Flatbush, the terminal needs to be redesigned to be able to function as a real terminal. If not, an extension of the tracks needs to be looked at.

If either of these don't happen, the 3 shall continue to go to New Lots for access to the Livonia maintenance shop. That means any effort at deinterlining Rogers Junction would take a lot longer.

I'm glad to see that someone besides me sees the fallacy of all Seventh Avenue trains being sent to the Brooklyn College-Flatbush terminal. I worked the (3) when the terminal swaps were originally introduced.  The major reason given was barn access for the (3) line. Prior to that Lenox trains were serviced at 239th st and/or 240th st barns depending on the equipment needing service.  Our consists back then had 9 cars with 2 or 3 different SMEE types thrown together. I recall the Lenox transfer crews made mucho dinero back then dragging bad order cars from the (3) line all over the Bronx and to 207th street for repairs. The other reason given was the later introduction of all-day Lexington express service in Brooklyn which meant that any blockage on the Seventh Avenue line wouldn't cause massive delays or a suspension of all Brooklyn service which used to be the case before the changes came about.  Just my recollection of why IRT service in Brooklyn was structured to what we have today.  Carry on. 

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 4 via Mosholu said:

For the 3 to be able to go to Flatbush, the terminal needs to be redesigned to be able to function as a real terminal. If not, an extension of the tracks needs to be looked at.

If either of these don't happen, the 3 shall continue to go to New Lots for access to the Livonia maintenance shop. That means any effort at deinterlining Rogers Junction would take a lot longer.

As a long-term plan deinterlining Rodgers would occur once Nostrand is extended to Av X (stops at Av J, Av N- Kings Highway, Av S, Av U and Av X). This terminal would be designed like 168th and Broad, but fumigation would only be used if the train was to be taken out of service, given that a second operator boarded at the back when the train arrived. Once it is deinterlined, work on Utica can begin (if it has not started yet).

As for the yard access issue, you could replace the x-crossover by Brooklyn Museum with a pocket track accessible from both ends (like the one at Crescent) to turn the trains from the yard without blocking others in service. While yard access is an issue, having trains turn around would be much more preferable to having the inefficient and capacity-crunching layout at Rogers now with all the lines crossing over each other.

Just a reminder, deinterling Rogers also would involve building a track from the SB local track to the SB Nostrand track.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 7:06 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.

 

 

Wait a second. The (R) used to run to Astoria as the (RR) and did not have a yard. That's why the (N) and the (R) were switched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Q Broadway Express said:

Wait a second. The (R) used to run to Astoria as the (RR) and did not have a yard. That's why the (N) and the (R) were switched.

That’s true but it doesn’t mean that (R) trains can’t be cut to Whitehall with another service taking its place in Bay Ridge (cough, maybe a Nassau service). Also, since 36-38th Street Yard is planned for Conversion to store Passenger Trains, this shouldn’t be an issue.

Also, I see that you’re a new member here, so please try to refrain yourself from replying to Necroposting (aka replying to old posts). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Q Broadway Express said:

Wait a second. The (R) used to run to Astoria as the (RR) and did not have a yard. That's why the (N) and the (R) were switched.

Under this scenario the (R) would be moved to the 36th-38th St yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if (B) and (D) ran down Brighton, and (N)(Q)(R) ran down 4th Av, would that make Dekalb a non-issue?

Share this post


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

So, if (B) and (D) ran down Brighton, and (N)(Q)(R) ran down 4th Av, would that make Dekalb a non-issue?

Pretty much. The only thing is that people would be transferring a lot more than Usual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Pretty much. The only thing is that people would be transferring a lot more than Usual

Broadway and 6 Av are pretty close together... it shouldn't be THAT big of an issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bay Ridge Express said:

Broadway and 6 Av are pretty close together... it shouldn't be THAT big of an issue

Funny how I keep saying that to one of my Brooklynite Friends (who lives along West End) and he’d be counter-arguing me on this subject. 

To Be Honest, before Dekalb Avenue is deinterlined, it’s operational inefficiencies should be solved first. Broadway and Rogers should be Prioritized for Deinterlining. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Funny how I keep saying that to one of my Brooklynite Friends (who lives along West End) and he’d be counter-arguing me on this subject. 

To Be Honest, before Dekalb Avenue is deinterlined, it’s operational inefficiencies should be solved first. Broadway and Rogers should be Prioritized for Deinterlining. 

I agree with prioritizing Broadway and Rogers (more simple to do). What does your friend say? As someone who lives along 4 Av I don't see how it would be that big of an issue, given that these stations are close together:

(B)(D) Grand St and (N)(Q)(R)(W) Canal St (KIND of close)

(B)(D)(F)(M)  Broadway-Lafayette St and (R)(W) Prince St (very close)

(F)(M) 23 St and (R)(W) 23 St

(B)(D)(F)(M)(N)(Q)(R)(W) 34 St - Herald Sq (same station)

(B)(D)(F)(M) Bryant Park and (N)(Q)(R)(W) Times Sq

(B)(D)(F)(M) Rockefeller Center and (N)(R)(W) 49 St

(F) 57 St and (N)(Q)(R)(W) 57 St - 7 Av

Only issues I see in coverage would be around W 4 and 14 Sts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

I agree with prioritizing Broadway and Rogers (more simple to do). What does your friend say? As someone who lives along 4 Av I don't see how it would be that big of an issue, given that these stations are close together:

(B)(D) Grand St and (N)(Q)(R)(W) Canal St (KIND of close)

(B)(D)(F)(M)  Broadway-Lafayette St and (R)(W) Prince St (very close)

(F)(M) 23 St and (R)(W) 23 St

(B)(D)(F)(M)(N)(Q)(R)(W) 34 St - Herald Sq (same station)

(B)(D)(F)(M) Bryant Park and (N)(Q)(R)(W) Times Sq

(B)(D)(F)(M) Rockefeller Center and (N)(R)(W) 49 St

(F) 57 St and (N)(Q)(R)(W) 57 St - 7 Av

Only issues I see in coverage would be around W 4 and 14 Sts

My friend (like others in this forum) bring up ridership preferences when it comes to Dekalb. Particularly, he says that West End riders prefer 6th Avenue while the Majority of Brighton Riders prefer Broadway. But then again, Broadway and 6th Avenue are pretty close to each other, but Deinterlining Dekalb won’t mean anything if you can’t solve the operational deficiencies first. I know someone can shed more light on this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dekalb's tracks were designed to handle 30tph per track with full interlining. I can't speak to the signal system installed in the '90s (some of the CLs seem long, GTs excessive, and STs weird but I'm not a signal engineer) but the big issue is perennially getting train assignments right. The capacity constraint at the junction is the need for trains to halt at the homeballs governing the interlocking entrances to be assigned lineups through the area, a function not of some inherent failure in diverging/merging, but instead of the way it is done at Dekalb -- through cameras mounted above said signals. Fix that, study the signals, and you've arrived at a whole new ballgame. 

Generally, deinterlining shouldn't be a mantra. There are a whole range of factors that influence decisions about train routing -- switch speeds, terminal capacities, schedule evenness, system capacity impacts, ridership dynamics, etc -- and it's only once you've analyzed those factors that you can/should make a decision. There are areas of the system where maximizing capacity and spreading loads is paramount (Queens or Rogers) and there are areas where cap stress (and thus the need to deinterline) is less (think Dekalb). I'm a big proponent of looking at things from a systemic POV (if you're not looking at the whole system, you're doing something wrong) but you also need to be cognizant of local nuances. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can get away with having the (F) be the QB Express if you build the connection between 63/Lex and 59/Lex. That allows the (E) to be the QB Local and the (R) to run 30tph to Astoria as the sole Broadway Local ( (N) sent to SAS)

(B) should become full time CPW express to 207th with non-weekday service going to Prospect Park. (A)(C) are the CPW/8th locals from 168th. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Generally, deinterlining shouldn't be a mantra. There are a whole range of factors that influence decisions about train routing -- switch speeds, terminal capacities, schedule evenness, system capacity impacts, ridership dynamics, etc -- and it's only once you've analyzed those factors that you can/should make a decision. There are areas of the system where maximizing capacity and spreading loads is paramount (Queens or Rogers) and there are areas where cap stress (and thus the need to deinterline) is less (think Dekalb). I'm a big proponent of looking at things from a systemic POV (if you're not looking at the whole system, you're doing something wrong) but you also need to be cognizant of local nuances. 

I'm glad you said this. Way too often, I'm seeing calls for streamlined services simply to avoid using switches, which can be quite counterproductive at times. Some ideas, like the oft-mentioned Broadway for example, are prime ideas that would be immensely beneficial with few downsides as long as the replacement services are operated correctly. On the other hand, I've seen several ideas that obviously do not take ridership patterns into consideration at all and assumes everyone would be willing to transfer to another line as long as there is sufficient service. Sometimes it's much more efficient to simply keep the riders on the trains instead of forcing them to transfer, especially when it's the bulk of the train's load doing the transferring.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just realized that without a Broadway or SAS-Fulton connection, Deinterlining 8th Avenue becomes very tough! (Especially if you deinterline Queens First) That is, you do the following:

(E) 8th Express/53rd Street -QBL Local 

(A)(C) 8th Local/ WTC to 168/BPK

(B)(D) 6th Express to Norwood 205th/207th for the sole Purpose of creating a Lex Relief line. 

(F)(M) 6th Local/63rd Street -QB Express 

Under this scenario, I’d guess you’d have to short turn select trains at Penn Station, or Maybe, you’d have to do (E)(F)(K)(M) in Queens (or (C)(E)(F)(M))  

I can’t be the only one that thinks this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

I think you can get away with having the (F) be the QB Express if you build the connection between 63/Lex and 59/Lex. That allows the (E) to be the QB Local and the (R) to run 30tph to Astoria as the sole Broadway Local ( (N) sent to SAS)

(B) should become full time CPW express to 207th with non-weekday service going to Prospect Park. (A)(C) are the CPW/8th locals from 168th. 

 

Any Queens deinterlining plan is contingent on two capital investments: that transfer you mentioned, and the reconstruction of the Astoria terminal. 

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I just realized that without a Broadway or SAS-Fulton connection, Deinterlining 8th Avenue becomes very tough! (Especially if you deinterline Queens First) That is, you do the following:

(E) 8th Express/53rd Street -QBL Local 

(A)(C) 8th Local/ WTC to 168/BPK

(B)(D) 6th Express to Norwood 205th/207th for the sole Purpose of creating a Lex Relief line. 

(F)(M) 6th Local/63rd Street -QB Express 

Under this scenario, I’d guess you’d have to short turn select trains at Penn Station, or Maybe, you’d have to do (E)(F)(K)(M) in Queens (or (C)(E)(F)(M))  

I can’t be the only one that thinks this. 

WTC has historically turned as much as 26tph, which is plenty for CPW (provided that such levels are restorable, either under current signals or 8th CBTC). You can keep those lines totally separate then.

Otherwise, yes, A5 at 34 is gonna have to start playing a big role. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I just realized that without a Broadway or SAS-Fulton connection, Deinterlining 8th Avenue becomes very tough! (Especially if you deinterline Queens First) That is, you do the following:

(E) 8th Express/53rd Street -QBL Local 

(A)(C) 8th Local/ WTC to 168/BPK

(B)(D) 6th Express to Norwood 205th/207th for the sole Purpose of creating a Lex Relief line. 

(F)(M) 6th Local/63rd Street -QB Express 

Under this scenario, I’d guess you’d have to short turn select trains at Penn Station, or Maybe, you’d have to do (E)(F)(K)(M) in Queens (or (C)(E)(F)(M))  

I can’t be the only one that thinks this. 

My main concern with this is that unless there is subsequent platform reconstruction on the Jamaica and Myrtle Ave lines, one of those Jamaica / Queens Blvd express lines will get the shaft with shortened trains due to the Eastern Division constraints. It would be even worse if the (M) became the line that ran to Jamaica Center as that branch is already restricted to a lower output due to the line's construction and poor switch placement. Sure, this problem can be resolved quite easily by resurrecting the (V) (running it along the proposed (M) route through 2 Avenue), thus removing the length restriction, and restoring the old (brownM) service, but then we'd eliminate direct midtown service for Myrtle Ave riders, forcing them back onto the much-overcrowded (L) trains.

Tis the issues of a half-built line...

Also, isn't the Williamsburg Bridge another restricted stretch of track? Can the bridge handle the combined output of the (J) and expanded (M) service? I recall that during the planned Canarsie shutdown, (J) service was going to have to be reduced to fit the additional (M) trains that would run to/from Manhattan during the closure. Wouldn't this restriction still apply? Obviously this is not as big of an issue as the first point since 2 Avenue can easily turn around the overflow that could not run across the bridge, but it's still something to consider.

Re: Ditmars Blvd - I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but what's the current terminal capacity here?

Share this post


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

My main concern with this is that unless there is subsequent platform reconstruction on the Jamaica and Myrtle Ave lines, one of those Jamaica / Queens Blvd express lines will get the shaft with shortened trains due to the Eastern Division constraints. It would be even worse if the (M) became the line that ran to Jamaica Center as that branch is already restricted to a lower output due to the line's construction and poor switch placement. Sure, this problem can be resolved quite easily by resurrecting the (V) (running it along the proposed (M) route through 2 Avenue), thus removing the length restriction, and restoring the old (brownM) service, but then we'd eliminate direct midtown service for Myrtle Ave riders, forcing them back onto the much-overcrowded (L) trains.

To be fair, you can fit 9 cars onto the E division platforms. But yes, running 12 fewer cars per hour than today on QB express isn't exactly optimal, even with the load balancing. 

Generally though, I think the issue with deinterlining Essex isn't so much the ridership dynamic changes (the bulk of the growth has happened in areas that aren't terribly easy to replace with (L) service) but the impact on platform and stair crowding. Essex and Canal have skinny plats with narrow, poorly placed staircases. Those facilities are already overwhelmed with (J) riders -- I shudder to think what'd happen if you deinterlined there. (Now, of course, you can reopen the other side of Canal, but that solves Canal and not Essex). 

13 minutes ago, Lance said:

Also, isn't the Williamsburg Bridge another restricted stretch of track? Can the bridge handle the combined output of the (J) and expanded (M) service? I recall that during the planned Canarsie shutdown, (J) service was going to have to be reduced to fit the additional (M) trains that would run to/from Manhattan during the closure. Wouldn't this restriction still apply? Obviously this is not as big of an issue as the first point since 2 Avenue can easily turn around the overflow that could not run across the bridge, but it's still something to consider.

WillyB can only handle 24tph with today's signals, yes. If you modify the signal spacing and station time cutbacks at the bridge exists (the exact chokepoints are the entrance to Marcy e/b and to Essex w/b) then you should be fine, but that may be too much brainpower for our poor MTA... 

Otherwise, matching (M) throughput to Jamaica Center's terminal capacity (so 12tph; (F) would run 18) would allow it and the (J) to coexist without reductions in either.  

15 minutes ago, Lance said:

 Re: Ditmars Blvd - I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but what's the current terminal capacity here?

15-18tph. Latter figure basically guarantees you'll have a little conga action. 

At times, I've toyed with the idea of deinterlining ASAP and turning whatever can't go to DItmars at QBP (relay to middle track) for the (7) crowds, but...eh. I think if you're gonna do it, you should do it right. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

WillyB can only handle 24tph with today's signals, yes. If you modify the signal spacing and station time cutbacks at the bridge exists (the exact chokepoints are the entrance to Marcy e/b and to Essex w/b) then you should be fine, but that may be too much brainpower for our poor MTA... 

Otherwise, matching (M) throughput to Jamaica Center's terminal capacity (so 12tph; (F) would run 18) would allow it and the (J) to coexist without reductions in either.  

Is the merge between local and express at Marcy (and the station itself) also a choke point?

If we rebuilt it as a three track, two island platform station over the bus terminal, would that have any capacity improvement? I'd imagine that being able to have an express (J) or (Z) and a local (M) platform at the same time would speed things up a bit...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Is the merge between local and express at Marcy (and the station itself) also a choke point?

 If we rebuilt it as a three track, two island platform station over the bus terminal, would that have any capacity improvement? I'd imagine that being able to have an express (J) or (Z) and a local (M) platform at the same time would speed things up a bit...

Possibly, yes. Those are 20mph switches and tangent track, though, so unless they really messed up the STs there, I wouldn't think it'd be terrible..

Yes, you would. Back when they ran 27-28 tph over the bridge, service levels were achieved by having expresses and locals separated at Marcy -- basically, expresses skipped as the middle was connected to the bridge -- which rendered any dwell/slow curve/poor signal design issue moot. 

The other area that'd need some TLC is Myrtle. You can, in theory, schedule 30tph ops there with no conflicts, but that'd cut it real close. They really need to bite the bullet and do that rebuild.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand this...

 

One second people want more interlining, more services going more places.

 

and then suddenly they want less.

 

Make up your minds.

 

That being said, a lot of these ideas still don't take capacity, storage, or dead miles into account.

 

What use is having the M and F share the same tracks from Broadway-Layfette all the way to Briarwood? you're removing 6th avenue service west of Roosevelt Avenue, the very reason the V was created. Passengers will ether need to backtrack to Roosevelt or transfer at 7th onto already crowded B and D trains.

 

then again, I'm still opposed to the existence of the Orange M because of it's capacity loss on Queens Blvd and 6th (shorter trains) and 4th avenue (only the R running local) and the fact, regardless of what people who can't do math say, it harmed more than it helped. (22,000 riders were using it for midtown vs 27,000 for Nassau from both ends of Brooklyn. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

What use is having the M and F share the same tracks from Broadway-Layfette all the way to Briarwood? you're removing 6th avenue service west of Roosevelt Avenue, the very reason the V was created. Passengers will ether need to backtrack to Roosevelt or transfer at 7th onto already crowded B and D trains.

The (V) was created to provide more Manhattan-bound *anything* on Queens Boulevard. Beyond it serving 53 while half of expresses went to 63, its destination was unimportant. 

The reason deinterlining like that makes sense is twofold: the only way to increase cap to/from Queens w/o new tunnels is by pairing 8th and 53, Broadway and 63, and 6th and 63. With that taken as given, you can still interline at 36th, but as @shiznit1987 pointed out in earlier discussions, that guarantees load imbalance, whereas full deinterlining ensures all cap is used well. Yeah, riders will have to transfer from local stations, but the (B)(D) are neither at train or track capacity, so a non-issue. IMO the only really valid 

8 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

then again, I'm still opposed to the existence of the Orange M because of it's capacity loss on Queens Blvd and 6th (shorter trains) and 4th avenue (only the R running local) and the fact, regardless of what people who can't do math say, it harmed more than it helped. (22,000 riders were using it for midtown vs 27,000 for Nassau from both ends of Brooklyn. 

Capacity exists in context. Running 300' RPK shuttles is a capacity loss too...but we don't need 600' of train there. QB local and 6th can be handled on 480' trains just fine, Whether or not QB express can be handled thus (or w/ 540' trains) is an open question, but generally, it's time for platform extensions out there...

Now, the orange (M) and math. You're wrong. 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. The calculation was thus "are more Myrtle riders going to Midtown or to Downtown" one to which the answer was resoundingly Midtown.

But even beyond that, evaluating the (M)(brownM) solely in the context of the ridership back then is quite reductive. The (M) spurred massive growth and development along its line, while also pulling riders from the (L) -- things that would not have happened had it remained the (brownM). I'd bet good money that those changes alone would swing even total (brownM) ridership to Midtown. 

One last note: people who cite the loss of the (brownM) as something that prevents more 4th local service are also flat out wrong. You have the (J) and (W) pointing at Montague, and cars to expand their service to boot. Just find the money and the political will, and you're golden. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 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?

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. 

Edited by RR503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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