De-interlining: Problem or Solution?

[pringle5095]

4 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

The orange  will do the same thing as the  , so I don't think the  is necessary. It will also force Myrtle Av Line riders and Williamsburg riders back onto the  . In short I can not support bring back the  . If 4th Ave need additional service it should be the  being extended.

I chose the  to run to 179th Street because it will provide a similar service level compared to today's  , while the  will provide supplemental service to 179th Street. 

 

Running the  as the permanent express won't work because Astoria-Ditmars only have two tracks. What goes in, have to go out, so if you run the  and  , you will overload the Astoria Line, therefore something have to go to 96th Street. Furthermore, Astoria local stations have high ridership, so skipping any of them may potentially overload the local. 

 

Regarding the  are you proposing to add  shuttles between Coney Island and Bergen Lower?  can not access Bergen Lower from the Queens, the tracks go into Jay Street. If  do opened Bergen Lower, an argument could be made to run more  service. In that case you don't need to short turn any  . You can simply run more  express and force people to transfer at Bergen Lower

I do honestly believe the  is necessary because  it makes a far more intensive service over the Williamsburg bridge possible, thus alleviating some congestion from the . I firmly believe the reason that the  hasn't really decongested since the introduction of the  is because of gentrification clustering near the  and not near the . 

Due to the whole  being local and being express, the  could run to Archer at a similar service level to the current  with the easily able to provide the supplemental service you describe.

I have already stated twice now that my proposal would eliminate the entirely in favor of the  so Astoria overload need not be an issue even if the  continues to run local. This would enable higher frequencies and thus increased service to 4th Avenue, combined with the fact the  would be swapped off it in favor of the .

As for the Bergen Lower situation, the could be allowed to stop at Bergen Lower while Bergen Upper could become exclusively for  trains, setting up the permanent   express thing along Culver if quadruple tracking measures are taken along the rest of the line, thus allowing the  to become the permanent local and the  the express without forcing riders along Culver to backtrack to 7th. If not that, you are correct in that more  service could be run with that arrangement.

[Mtatransit]

25 minutes ago, pringle5095 said:

I do honestly believe the  is necessary because  it makes a far more intensive service over the Williamsburg bridge possible, thus alleviating some congestion from the . I firmly believe the reason that the  hasn't really decongested since the introduction of the  is because of gentrification clustering near the  and not near the . 

Due to the whole  being local and being express, the  could run to Archer at a similar service level to the current  with the easily able to provide the supplemental service you describe.

I have already stated twice now that my proposal would eliminate the entirely in favor of the  so Astoria overload need not be an issue even if the  continues to run local. This would enable higher frequencies and thus increased service to 4th Avenue, combined with the fact the  would be swapped off it in favor of the .

As for the Bergen Lower situation, the could be allowed to stop at Bergen Lower while Bergen Upper could become exclusively for  trains, setting up the permanent   express thing along Culver if quadruple tracking measures are taken along the rest of the line, thus allowing the  to become the permanent local and the  the express without forcing riders along Culver to backtrack to 7th. If not that, you are correct in that more  service could be run with that arrangement.

There are people living close to both  and the  and . These riders who may now take the  will opt for the  . In addition, Ridgewood riders who instead of staying on the  will transfer to the  at Myrtle-Wyckoff. In addition, I believe you can add probably one or two more trains across Willy B even if the  ran into Brooklyn or Broad Street

If extended into S Bklyn, the  will be completely empty on its trip in both directions between Atlantic Avenue and Essex Street

 

Regarding  /  I guess as long as Archer keeps 12 tph it gets today, it's fine

 

Unless you are running the  via Lower Manhattan, you are introducing a merge point between the  and  at Prince Street hence reducing capacity. Which in the ideal system, both  and  should run to 96 St to eliminate any merges on Broadway.

I assume you will have the  and  serve Brighton, and  and  serve 4th Avenue? Now thinking about it, what if you have every train run as the  at double the frequency between 205th St and Coney Island, with half the train running express in Brooklyn ending at Brighton Beach. I would essentially eliminate Concourse Express, and run all the 6th Av trains local on CPW

 

I don't think we will see any new construction on the  in our entire lifetime, so we can forget about adding tracks to the Culver Line. Regarding having the  as the permanent local, it will overload the  . I support rerouting more  to be express, and only between Church Avenue and Jay Street, but not all of it. That is only IF Bergen St Lower Opens, so passengers can transfer to the  

[pringle5095]

7 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

There are people living close to both  and the  and . These riders who may now take the  will opt for the  . In addition, Ridgewood riders who instead of staying on the  will transfer to the  at Myrtle-Wyckoff. In addition, I believe you can add probably one or two more trains across Willy B even if the  ran into Brooklyn or Broad Street

If extended into S Bklyn, the  will be completely empty on its trip in both directions between Atlantic Avenue and Essex Street

 

Regarding  /  I guess as long as Archer keeps 12 tph it gets today, it's fine

 

Unless you are running the  via Lower Manhattan, you are introducing a merge point between the  and  at Prince Street hence reducing capacity. Which in the ideal system, both  and  should run to 96 St to eliminate any merges on Broadway.

I assume you will have the  and  serve Brighton, and  and  serve 4th Avenue? Now thinking about it, what if you have every train run as the  at double the frequency between 205th St and Coney Island, with half the train running express in Brooklyn ending at Brighton Beach. I would essentially eliminate Concourse Express, and run all the 6th Av trains local on CPW

 

I don't think we will see any new construction on the  in our entire lifetime, so we can forget about adding tracks to the Culver Line. Regarding having the  as the permanent local, it will overload the  . I support rerouting more  to be express, and only between Church Avenue and Jay Street, but not all of it. That is only IF Bergen St Lower Opens, so passengers can transfer to the  

I'm thinking the  would run to Broad Street, no South Brooklyn extensions, as that would create possible choke points. Your points about the  and rider imbalance are certainly plausible and should be taken into account.

I see now why running the  to 96th Street would work, keeping the  as the sole line to Astoria. 

I do not see a need to eliminate the  though the  relationship would essentially be that of today's , so I see where you are coming from.

As for new construction, I suppose we can dream about it, at least. That's what these threads are for.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 6/26/2021 at 12:36 PM, pringle5095 said:

It has been quite some time since this thread has seen really any use, but allow me to share my own proposals, if somewhat impractical.

: Unchanged

: 241st-Flatbush via White Plains Road Local, Lenox Avenue Line, 7th Avenue Express, Eastern Parkway Local, Nostrand Avenue Line

: Dyre-Flatbush via Dyre Avenue Local, White Plains Road Express, Lenox Avenue Line, 7th Avenue Express, Eastern Parkway Local, Nostrand Avenue Line

<3>: Dyre-Flatbush via Dyre Avenue Express, White Plains Road Express, Lenox Avenue Line, 7th Avenue Express, Eastern Parkway Local, Nostrand Avenue Line

: Woodlawn-New Lots via Jerome Avenue Line, Lexington Avenue Express, Eastern Parkway Express, New Lots Line

: Pelham-Utica via Pelham Express, Lexington Avenue Express, Eastern Parkway Express, New Lots Line

: Unchanged

: Eliminated, replaced by 5

: Unchanged

: Unchanged

: 207th-Far Rockaway via CPW Express, 8th Avenue Express, Fulton Street Express, Rockaway Line

: Bedford-Brighton via Concourse Local, CPW Local, 6th Avenue Express, Brighton Express

: 168th-Lefferts via CPW Express, 8th Avenue Local, Fulton Street Local

: 168th-Lefferts via CPW Express, 8th Avenue Local, Fulton Street Local (Express east of Rockaway Boulevard)

: 205th-Coney via Concourse Express, CPW Local, 6th Avenue Express, Brighton Local

: 71st-Rockaway Park via QBL Local, 8th Avenue Local, Fulton Street Local, Rockaway Line

: Unchanged

: Court-Bergen via Crosstown Line

: Unchanged

<J>: Jamaica Center-Broad via Jamaica Express, Nassau Street Line

: Unchanged

: Metropolitan-Broad via Myrtle Avenue Line, Jamaica Local, Nassau Street Line

: Astoria-Coney via Astoria Express, Broadway Express, 4th Avenue Express, Sea Beach Local

: Astoria-Coney via Astoria Express, Broadway Express, 4th Avenue Express, Sea Beach Express

: 96th-Coney via SAS/Broadway Express, 4th Avenue Express, West End Local

: 96th-Coney via SAS/Broadway Express, 4th Avenue Express, West End Express

: Astoria-95th via Astoria Local, Broadway Local, 4th Avenue Local

: Rockaway Park Shuttle eliminated, with the possibility of one being introduced between 135th and 148th on the Lenox Avenue Line if we really cannot afford to eliminate those two stations entirely.

: Jamaica Center-2nd via Archer Avenue Line, QBL Express, 63rd Street Line, 6th Avenue Local

: Eliminated, replaced by R

: Eliminated, replaced by <J>

 

 

Sorry, but there's a lot that's impractical about these proposals. For one thing, you've still got a substantial amount of interlining. The only difference is it's on the main trunks themselves. You've got the  and  merging at Canal to go into Brooklyn. That will cause an overload in the Cranberry St Tunnel. Not to mention the delays you'll get by having the  express on CPW and local on 8th (remember, CPW is the uptown extension of the 8th Ave Subway). Further, you've got the  and  demerging and remerging at Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Euclid Ave. That's going to be one hell of a shitshow. You've got the  merging with  at 125th St. How is that any better than the current  service? They still merge, but now it's in a worse place that will also delay northbound  trains. Same with the  and  at 57th, since you've got them both going to/from Astoria. That's going to be a real bottleneck (unless it's done at 34th, which won't be any better). And you've got extra  service on top of it. How do you expect Ditmars-Astoria to handle all that service, when it already has enough trouble handling the  and ? 

Speaking of the , both it and the  will be carrying more air than people. Bringing back the  will carry slightly more people than than the  and , whereas the current  gets good ridership from both ends. The  will definitely carry air below 34th St.

At least you've got a deinterlined QB line with the  local and the  express. But with the  demerging and remerging with the  and  trains a dozen times - including into the same tunnel between Manhattan and Brooklyn, how can you possibly expect to run anything resembling a frequent service on the ? Also, you've got the  and  deinterlined. But what good is that if there's a new bottleneck at 125th?

Also, I don't like running the  as the CPW locals and the  as the expresses. That cuts off the CPW local stops from the 8th Avenue local stops. You have to detour to 7th Ave/53rd St and transfer. Much less convenient than the current setup, especially on weekends and overnight. Better to have the  local and the  express. Over in Brooklyn, Brighton Line riders prefer Broadway over 6th Ave in significant numbers, so I'd much rather have the  serve Brighton vs the  and .

Edited June 28, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[pringle5095]

3 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Sorry, but there's a lot that's impractical about these proposals. For one thing, you've still got a substantial amount of interlining. The only difference is it's on the main trunks themselves. You've got the  and  merging at Canal to go into Brooklyn. That will cause an overload in the Cranberry St Tunnel. Not to mention the delays you'll get by having the  express on CPW and local on 8th (remember, CPW is the uptown extension of the 8th Ave Subway). Further, you've got the  and  demerging and remerging at Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Euclid Ave. That's going to be one hell of a shitshow. You've got the  merging with  at 125th St. How is that any better than the current  service? They still merge, but now it's in a worse place that will also delay northbound  trains. Same with the  and  at 57th, since you've got them both going to/from Astoria. And you've got extra  service on top of it. How do you expect Ditmars-Astoria to handle all that service, when it already has enough trouble handling the  and ?

Speaking of the , both it and the  will be carrying more air than people. Bringing back the  will carry slightly more people than than the  and , whereas the current  gets good ridership from both ends.

At least you've got a deinterlined QB line with the  local and the  express. But with the  demerging and remerging with the  and  trains a dozen times - including into the same tunnel between Manhattan and Brooklyn, how can you possibly expect to run anything resembling a frequent service on the ? Also, you've got the  and  deinterlined. But what good is that if there's a new bottleneck at 125th?

Also, I don't like running the  as the CPW locals and the  as the expresses. That cuts off the CPW local stops from the 8th Avenue local stops. You have to detour to 7th Ave/53rd St and transfer. Very inconvenient. Better to have the  local and the  express. Over in Brooklyn, Brighton Line riders prefer Broadway over 6th Ave in significant numbers, so I'd much rather have the  serve Brighton vs the  and .

Yeah, I did mention that the entire section between Chambers and Hoyt, as well as between Euclid and Lefferts would likely need to be quadruple tracked to resolve those respective bottlenecks in earlier queries. I also discussed moving the  to the express on 8th to alleviate those delays. 

For the  problem, perhaps running it up Jerome Avenue as the permanent express instead of Pelham and keeping the  would solve that issue. They would still possibly merge, but at least without delays to the . 

I have in the end decided to eliminate any prospects of an express on Astoria as the local would be overloaded if an express was introduced. Astoria will be served local at all times by the . Keeping the  local on Broadway could possibly resolve this, though that possibly creates a new bottleneck at Canal Street if the  is not rerouted via Montague. 

Someone did mention that  coming back may force Williamsburg riders onto the , so the logic for keeping the current  does make sense, though how do we fix the Williamsburg Bridge choke point if we keep , unless it's a benign enough issue to not warrant fixing? 

I knew there would be some objections to my arrangement on CPW, and I have earlier discussed the reasons I chose the layout I did. 

As for the  on Brighton, that could work if the became the 4th Avenue expresses, with the  running to Sea Beach and the  keeping its current routing. I'm not entirely sure if this arrangement would resolve the DeKalb bottleneck in all honesty, but it is certainly an idea.

[LGA Link N Train]

Coming to think of it, I've noticed that many factors come into play when it comes to coming up with the most optimal De-Interlinging solutions, making the idea of simplifying the system MUCH harder than it sounds. Before I list the ares of concern, I'll list the benefits of De-Interlining:

• Less Bottlenecks. The main goal of Deinterlining is to reduce the number of bottlenecks with the premise of improving passenger service. 
• Increased Capacity. With reduced bottlenecks, deinterlining is set to increase capacity on certain lines/corridors as they're no longer mergine with one anohter. 
• Reduced Dwell Times. In addition to having increased capacity (more TPH) that means that Dwell times can be decreased. This also means that run times will improve on certain routes as they will not have to be waiting for a line up to share tracks with another route. Which leads me to my next point: 
• More Consistent Scheduling. With the first 3 points in mind, this means that train schedules are now more consistent, meaning that timed connections would now be easier to factor in and would increase Train Operator Confidence as they would not have to wait for a lineup in certain locations unless a G.O. or Delay were to happen.
• Greater Flexibility. Since Most Junctions where bottlenecking takes place, with deinterlined services, some of those junctions would end up being reserved for Emergency or G.O. purposes. Thus if a delay were to happen, trains could still easily be rerouted if necessary.

Now to address the general concerns when it comes to any deinterlining proposal that I've noticed:

Passenger Preferences - Probably the biggest thing that I've noticed here. While the routes are designed for the benefit of the passengers, I'm still under the notion that routing services based on passenger preferences become moot if they have a direct negative impact in the route's reliability. For Example, those living along Dyre/White Plains Road and Nostand Avenue to an extent prefer Lexington Avenue Service. The provides Said service, but because of it being a supplemental line and because the and have priority over it at Rogers and 149th Street Junction, its not as reliable as it could be, now thats not to say that supplemental Lines are bad. However, I think the infrastructure should either be up to date, or effective enough to supplemental routes to run without issues. Rogers Junction and 142/149th, are not up to date or designed to handle the level of service that is required for the Lexington and 7th Avenue Lines.

Transfers - Another concern that I've noticed with Deinterlining is the added transfers that would be put in place as a result. Now in areas where cross-platform transfers are possible, this wouldn't be too much of an issue unless its Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Avenue. Some have made the argument that Deinterlining would do more harm than good if it requires passengers meanuvering through passageways and would negate the benefits of having reduced wait times. Seems to me that this issue is more of a matter about infrastructure, which in that case. The infrastructure should be 

Politics - An obstacle thats unavoidable when it comes to any transit plan is Politics. As seen with proposals such as swapping the  and between East 180th Street and 3rd Avenue and the "LaGuardia Link Train" (no pun intended on my name), proposals that have too much opposition to them (no matter how beneficial it might be) are shot down and the doesn't put too much or any efort at all in fighting back. While I firmly believe that Deinterlining will improve Service overall, it'll be one hell of a battle to fight for, and one that would require some careful rhetoric in order so successfully convince passengers that they will benefit from such changes. Of course, there are always people who will never be pleased with anything so not much can be done about them. 

There are more factors that come into play such as Terminal Capacity, potential Negative Impacts on Schdeuling Services (which I think the latter is more of an issue with the IRT as opposed to the IND or BMT) and what would happen to Certain Platforms Such as the 50th Street Upper Level on the (Late Nights  and) , however, this analysis is long enough as is.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

3 hours ago, pringle5095 said:

Yeah, I did mention that the entire section between Chambers and Hoyt, as well as between Euclid and Lefferts would likely need to be quadruple tracked to resolve those respective bottlenecks in earlier queries. I also discussed moving the  to the express on 8th to alleviate those delays. 

For the  problem, perhaps running it up Jerome Avenue as the permanent express instead of Pelham and keeping the  would solve that issue. They would still possibly merge, but at least without delays to the . 

I have in the end decided to eliminate any prospects of an express on Astoria as the local would be overloaded if an express was introduced. Astoria will be served local at all times by the . Keeping the  local on Broadway could possibly resolve this, though that possibly creates a new bottleneck at Canal Street if the  is not rerouted via Montague. 

Someone did mention that  coming back may force Williamsburg riders onto the , so the logic for keeping the current  does make sense, though how do we fix the Williamsburg Bridge choke point if we keep , unless it's a benign enough issue to not warrant fixing? 

I knew there would be some objections to my arrangement on CPW, and I have earlier discussed the reasons I chose the layout I did. 

As for the  on Brighton, that could work if the became the 4th Avenue expresses, with the  running to Sea Beach and the  keeping its current routing. I'm not entirely sure if this arrangement would resolve the DeKalb bottleneck in all honesty, but it is certainly an idea.

Quad-tracking the entire section between Chambers and Hoyt will be a Herculean task, to say the least. You're digging two new underground tracks alongside the existing ones, dodging properties and other subway lines in Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn in the process. You've also got to build two new tubes under the East River. And Jay Street is already quad-tracked with the  on the outside tracks and Hoyt-Schermerhorn is six-tracked with the  on the center tracks. I don't know how much it would all cost, but I imagine it would be cheaper to finish the 2nd Ave Subway to Lower Manhattan and extend it to The Bronx - which likely would benefit a greater number of riders. It's just not worth it. 

What would be worth doing, is to run more trains in the existing Cranberry Tubes. They are not maxed out, so it's possible. Clearing up the current  setup on CPW/8th Ave is key to running more trains in Cranberry. You can run  CPW local/  8th Ave Local and  express to accomplish this, but I just don't like that it forces CPW local riders to go east and transfer in order to continue going south on 8th.  CPW/8th Ave local eliminates that awkward detour. However, it would require the  to go express and would thus require either the  or  to merge with the  at Canal, because you need two services for Fulton St local and express. But I don't think that's the worse thing because the other merges the current CPW/8th Ave line has (59th and 50th) would be eliminated. 

I don't think the  needs to be local. Run the  as the sole Astoria service. Run the  fully express in Manhattan up to Lex-63rd, where it will join the . The  and  will run express in Queens, while the  and  will run local. The  will replace the  to Jamaica Center. Yes, there would be a merge at Lex-63rd, but there seems to be plenty of demand for a QB-to-Broadway service, and you can't have one without it merging somewhere - whether it's the current local  with the  or an express  merging with the  at Lex.

The Williamsburg Bridge's issues are with the sharp curves before and after the bridge and that the middle track merges in with the Manhattan-bound local track before entering Marcy Ave instead of after. If Marcy was a proper dual-island station, like Myrtle Ave-Broadway, that would help immensely. The flat junction at Myrtle isn't great, but it does get the job done. And whatever issues the junction has would still be there if the  went back to being the old .

The  going via Jerome is better, but at the same time it can only be a one-way express because the Jerome Ave el has only three tracks. I don't think Woodlawn can turn both the  and , so one of them will have to short-turn. Burnside Ave is the only dual-island station between Woodlawn and 149th St, so having trains short-turn there may not benefit the majority of passengers on the line.

Why wouldn't the  via Brighton resolve the DeKalb bottleneck? This track map seems to beg to differ. 

https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/docs/NYC_full_trackmap.pdf?_t=1616123964

 

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue
Link wouldn’t post properly on computer

[Theli11]

9 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The Williamsburg Bridge's issues are with the sharp curves before and after the bridge and that the middle track merges in with the Manhattan-bound local track before entering Marcy Ave instead of after. If Marcy was a proper dual-island station, like Myrtle Ave-Broadway, that would help immensely. The flat junction at Myrtle isn't great, but it does get the job done. And whatever issues the junction has would still be there if the  went back to being the old .

 

Most of Jamaica's problems stem from it's horrible layout, sharp turns, trains crossing over  trains each other, skip stop being shortened more and more without any real replacement for the service, missing that transfer.. The best way to deinterline that is just rebuilding it piece by piece: Add in a flying junction at Myrtle Av (on the Westbound side) and consolidate Hewes and Flushing to make a  transfer at Union, make a Jamaica line or bypass. It really just needs to be its own project. And they need to lengthen all the stations. Jamaica needs serious remodeling, it limits the train and subsequently the Queens Blvd Line.

I'd be down to take the  off and run it to 96th St and just have trains run local and  trains run express (via 63)  can also be express, with trains on the CPW Local. DeKalb you just needs Brighton Express and Local, Sea Beach, West End, 95th-Astoria, Eliminate the . 
 

[LGA Link N Train]

8 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Most of Jamaica's problems stem from it's horrible layout, sharp turns, trains crossing over  trains each other, skip stop being shortened more and more without any real replacement for the service, missing that transfer.. The best way to deinterline that is just rebuilding it piece by piece: Add in a flying junction at Myrtle Av (on the Westbound side) and consolidate Hewes and Flushing to make a  transfer at Union, make a Jamaica line or bypass. It really just needs to be its own project. And they need to lengthen all the stations. Jamaica needs serious remodeling, it limits the train and subsequently the Queens Blvd Line.

I'd be down to take the  off and run it to 96th St and just have trains run local and  trains run express (via 63)  can also be express, with trains on the CPW Local. DeKalb you just needs Brighton Express and Local, Sea Beach, West End, 95th-Astoria, Eliminate the . 
 

For the part in Bold, you do this and now you have a new merge at Lexingont-63rd which will mess up both 6th Avenue and Broadway service. And Speaking of Modernizing the Jamaica Line, I have 2 projects currently in the works, albeit its slightly beyond the scope of this thread:
 

Jamaica Line Upgrades - https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1len8Pe9UFEkHuFGIbxvp6YA9qGILXHx_&usp=sharing

 

East New York Yard Expansion Alternatives - https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1x1IKEVRzPmekdO40Xo65fGO22r3L5T-E&usp=sharing

 

[JeremiahC99]

12 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

For the part in Bold, you do this and now you have a new merge at Lexingont-63rd which will mess up both 6th Avenue and Broadway service. And Speaking of Modernizing the Jamaica Line, I have 2 projects currently in the works, albeit its slightly beyond the scope of this thread:
 

Jamaica Line Upgrades - https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1len8Pe9UFEkHuFGIbxvp6YA9qGILXHx_&usp=sharing

 

East New York Yard Expansion Alternatives - https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1x1IKEVRzPmekdO40Xo65fGO22r3L5T-E&usp=sharing

 

These expansions will help serve longer  trains, right?

[mrsman]

When looking at deinterlining, I prefer to utilize a systematic approach.  Given the existing system, a lot of the decision making is already made, given existing track geometries and layouts.

You start with the 6 midtown track pairs of the B division:

1) Broadway local

2) Broadway express

3) 6th Ave local

4) 6th Ave express

5) 8th Ave local

6) 8th Ave express

Next, see where these track pairs connect to, first on the uptown/Queens approaches. Keeping in mind to connect one midtown track pair to one uptown approach, as much as possible:

1) 60th st tunnel to Astoria

2) 2nd Ave line to 96/2

3) 63rd st tunnel to QBL [express or local]

4) CPW express OR CPW local

5) CPW local OR 53rd st tunnel to QBL [local or express]

6) 53rd st tunnel to QBL [local or express] OR CPW express

Here, we see that there are only two choice questions to make: a) whether the 6th Ave express connects to CPW express or to CPW local - the answer will dictate how 5 and 6 are to be connected and b) whether the 53rd tunnel connects to QBL express and 63rd tunnel to QBL local or vice versa.  A hybrid approach on question b) is also possible, but it would be significantly less efficient.

Once uptown approaches are decided, one then has to consider the downtown/Brooklyn approaches.  Within the confines of the current configuration, there are only 5 tunnels/bridge track pairs to Brooklyn that connect to B division trunk lines.  This will mean that one of the lines will get terminated in lower Manhattan, which will impact capacity.  Also, the Williamsburg Bridge line also adds complexity to the analysis- which should be given proper consideration.

1) Montague tunnel to 4th Ave local

2) Manhattan Bridge south tracks to 4th Ave express OR Brighton

3) Rutgers tunnel [and possibly divert some trains to Williamsburg Bridge]

4) Manhattan Bridge north tracks to Brighton OR 4th Ave express

5) WTC terminal for the 8th Ave local trains

6) Cranberry tunnel to Brooklyn's Fulton line

For the analysis on the south side, once some of the biq questions are addressed, like whether 6th Ave express goes to Brighton or 4th Ave, then you will need to consider the issues with regard to all of the different branches.  4th Ave trains branch to West End, Sea Beach, and Bay Ridge.  Fulton trains can terminate at Euclid or branch to Lefferts, FR, or Rockaway Park.  Rutgers tunnel trains can terminate at Church or go all the way down the Culver line.  Williamsburg Bridge trains can go to Middle Village or Jamaica.

-----

Given the above, I present my ideas:

1)  Astoria - 60th st tunnel - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - West End line - Coney Island.  Coney Island yard will service this train.

2)  96th/2nd - via existing 2nd Ave line - Broadway express - M Br S - Brighton line - Coney Island.    will also service this line as a Brighton express that terminates at Brighton Beach.   will not operate nights or weekends.

3)  Jamaica Center - QBL express -63rd st tunnel- 6th Ave local - Rutgers tunnel - Culver line - Coney Island. 

     179th - Hillside express - QBL express- 63rd st tunnel - 6th Ave local - Rutgers tunnel - Culver line.  The  operates as a Culver line short, with some trains terminating at 2nd/Houston and some terminating at Church Ave.   will not operate nights or weekends.  A connection from 63rd/Lex to 59th/Lex stations needs to be constructed to enable  to have an easier connection to .

4)  168th St - CPW local - 6th Ave express - M Br N - 4th Ave express - 4th Ave local south of 36th - Bay Ridge. 

     Bedford Park Blvd - Concourse line - CPW local - 6th Ave express - M Br N - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach line - Coney Island.

   trains will be serviced by yards in upper Manhattan. New switches from local to express needs to be constructed on the 4th Ave line south of where the West End line diversts from the line, so that  can switch from express to local without interfering with . 

5)  179th - Hillside local - QBL local - 53rd st tunnel - 8th Ave local - WTC terminal.  Some trains may terminate in Forest Hills.

6)   Inwood/207th St - CPW express - 8th Ave express - Cranberry tunnel - Fulton express - Far Rockaway OR Lefferts.

     Norwood - Concourse line - CPW express - 8th Ave express - Cranberry tunnel - Fulton local - Euclid.  Alternatively, Lefferts  trains could be designated by its own letter like  . 

The service on the A,B,C, and D lines is a little tricky.  During rush hours, it is as shown above, with  servicing as Concourse express and  as the Concourse local.  Off-peak weekdays,  will service all Concourse stops and  will terminate at 145th.  On weekends,  will only operate as a shuttle in Brooklyn from 36th to Bay Ridge,  will service all Concourse stops and  will terminate at 145th.  On late nights,  will service its full route to FR as a local, there will be a Euclid-Lefferts shuttle,  will only operate as a shuttle in Brooklyn from 36th to Bay Ridge,  will not operate at all, and  will be extended to Norwood.

We bring back the brown M, so everyone from the Williamsburg Bridge lines will need to transfer to make it to Midtown.

I also envision track switches to enable  and  to service the upper level of 50th without interfering with  or  trains as  those trains merge into the 8th/CPW local tracks.

 

[JeremiahC99]

10 minutes ago, mrsman said:

5)  179th - Hillside local - QBL local - 53rd st tunnel - 8th Ave local - WTC terminal.  Some trains may terminate in Forest Hills.

Why would some trains need to turn at Forest Hills? Can't Jamaica-179th Street turn around 30 trains per hour on both local and express relay tracks, or do the train fumigation rules play a part on here?

12 minutes ago, mrsman said:

3)  Jamaica Center - QBL express -63rd st tunnel- 6th Ave local - Rutgers tunnel - Culver line - Coney Island. 

     179th - Hillside express - QBL express- 63rd st tunnel - 6th Ave local - Rutgers tunnel - Culver line.  The  operates as a Culver line short, with some trains terminating at 2nd/Houston and some terminating at Church Ave.   will not operate nights or weekends.  A connection from 63rd/Lex to 59th/Lex stations needs to be constructed to enable  to have an easier connection to .

With both the and  operating on the 4-track Culver Line sector to Church Avenue, would it make sense to have the  be local with the  and the  be express to Coney Island? Also, I like the idea of making a in-system transfer at Lex-59th and Lex-63rd. They need do do this regardless of deinterlining or not. In fact, going a little bit off topic, there should be more in-system transfers built, especially in Midtown and Downtown Manhattan (i.e, connecting the 50th Street  with 7th Avenue  and 49th Street  station).

[LGA Link N Train]

14 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

These expansions will help serve longer  trains, right?

Correct. Same goes for the . The  doesn’t need 9 or 10 car trains as much as the  and  do but upgrading the infrastructure to allow for such would help a lot for both passengers and service both within and beyond the BMT Eastern Division. Albeit because there are still many 4 car sets, many trains will either have to run as 9 cars so basically a 4 and 5 car set coupled together while left over 4 car sets (8 car trains) can run on the .  But that in of itself requires some capital investment 

[JeremiahC99]

11 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Correct. Same goes for the . The  doesn’t need 9 or 10 car trains as much as the  and  do but upgrading the infrastructure to allow for such would help a lot for both passengers and service both within and beyond the BMT Eastern Division. Albeit because there are still many 4 car sets, many trains will either have to run as 9 cars so basically a 4 and 5 car set coupled together while left over 4 car sets (8 car trains) can run on the .  But that in of itself requires some capital investment 

But at least it's a worthwhile capital investment. 10-car trains on the  and  will help passengers. In all honestly, they should lengthen the Eastern Division platforms regardless of deinterlining (I honestly feel that there's a lot of things that can be done without deinterlining).

[Vulturious]

2 hours ago, mrsman said:

1)  Astoria - 60th st tunnel - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - West End line - Coney Island.  Coney Island yard will service this train.

2)  96th/2nd - via existing 2nd Ave line - Broadway express - M Br S - Brighton line - Coney Island.    will also service this line as a Brighton express that terminates at Brighton Beach.   will not operate nights or weekends.

3)  Jamaica Center - QBL express -63rd st tunnel- 6th Ave local - Rutgers tunnel - Culver line - Coney Island. 

     179th - Hillside express - QBL express- 63rd st tunnel - 6th Ave local - Rutgers tunnel - Culver line.  The  operates as a Culver line short, with some trains terminating at 2nd/Houston and some terminating at Church Ave.   will not operate nights or weekends.  A connection from 63rd/Lex to 59th/Lex stations needs to be constructed to enable  to have an easier connection to .

4)  168th St - CPW local - 6th Ave express - M Br N - 4th Ave express - 4th Ave local south of 36th - Bay Ridge. 

     Bedford Park Blvd - Concourse line - CPW local - 6th Ave express - M Br N - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach line - Coney Island.

   trains will be serviced by yards in upper Manhattan. New switches from local to express needs to be constructed on the 4th Ave line south of where the West End line diversts from the line, so that  can switch from express to local without interfering with . 

5)  179th - Hillside local - QBL local - 53rd st tunnel - 8th Ave local - WTC terminal.  Some trains may terminate in Forest Hills.

6)   Inwood/207th St - CPW express - 8th Ave express - Cranberry tunnel - Fulton express - Far Rockaway OR Lefferts.

     Norwood - Concourse line - CPW express - 8th Ave express - Cranberry tunnel - Fulton local - Euclid.  Alternatively, Lefferts  trains could be designated by its own letter like  . 

The service on the A,B,C, and D lines is a little tricky.  During rush hours, it is as shown above, with  servicing as Concourse express and  as the Concourse local.  Off-peak weekdays,  will service all Concourse stops and  will terminate at 145th.  On weekends,  will only operate as a shuttle in Brooklyn from 36th to Bay Ridge,  will service all Concourse stops and  will terminate at 145th.  On late nights,  will service its full route to FR as a local, there will be a Euclid-Lefferts shuttle,  will only operate as a shuttle in Brooklyn from 36th to Bay Ridge,  will not operate at all, and  will be extended to Norwood.

We bring back the brown M, so everyone from the Williamsburg Bridge lines will need to transfer to make it to Midtown.

I also envision track switches to enable  and  to service the upper level of 50th without interfering with  or  trains as  those trains merge into the 8th/CPW local tracks.

 

1-2.) I personally do not have a problem with the  (although, I prefer having the  around since the  rarely ever runs passenger service along West End and I've seen more 's on that line), it'll definitely make running trains around easier through 60 St tunnel. Although, would it be possible to run at least 1 more service, that being the  from Forest Hills/Jamaica-179 St (whichever you choose) to Whitehall/Canal St/Bay Parkway? This would essentially allow for express service along West End, I highly doubt the  would make any difference if it ran into South Brooklyn and as much as I would love to see that running again, it'll just carry air. You might as well also call the  the  seeing as it is the express version of the .

3.) A connection from Lexington Av-63 St to Lexington Av-59 St, a lot of benefits come from this since 6th Av only makes like one transfer to a Lexington Av line and that's at Broadway-Lafayette St which only connects to the . Having this would definitely allow for direct service for those wanting express service onto Queens Blvd. However, getting rid of the  while also replacing it with the  is definitely going to be a big drawback. I personally have no issue with the  coming back as a short-turn version of the  to Church Av, this basically allows for express service along Culver. 

4/6.) This is something that definitely should happen. Dekalb Av interlock is very annoying, having to wait even for just a second can be very annoying. I wouldn't mind if the switch wasn't built, so long as trains aren't stopped because of another line from Brighton or 4 Av is trying to get through. Having 6 Av trains running on CPW local isn't bad either since now you got the  running express along CPW/8 Av replacing  trains in the Bronx. However,  trains reduced to a shuttle during the weekends shouldn't really happen. I'm going to assume  trains are running local along 4 Av during the weekends because of the  terminating at 36 St which means  trains need to make room for it. Like I said,  trains shouldn't be reduced to a shuttle during the weekends, a lot of service is still needed along 4 Av, especially for express service. Late nights aren't a big deal, what I personally think should happen is swap the  and 's north/south terminals. People are used to seeing the  along Concourse so it might just be better to straight up swap the south terminals. It would be pretty weird for  trains to operating on its own north of 145 St during the weekends.  trains would run along Sea Beach and during late nights, it continues to truncate at 36 St which would definitely be better as it's not interfering with  service at all. Nothing much to say about the  since almost nothing about it has changed, but when it comes to the , there is mainly just one thing I want to talk about, mainly about its late night service. The  replacing the  should be put to more use than just during the weekdays and weekends. It might be best to just keep running the , maybe have the  run to WTC as to not screw up too much with the  in Brooklyn and Queens. Best to keep the Lefferts Shuttle.

Nothing much to say about the  as it's a short line running express while the  was much longer yet also all local. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

 

On 6/29/2021 at 11:35 AM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

For the part in Bold, you do this and now you have a new merge at Lexingont-63rd which will mess up both 6th Avenue and Broadway service. And Speaking of Modernizing the Jamaica Line, I have 2 projects currently in the works, albeit its slightly beyond the scope of this thread:

 

Agreed; it’s either the  or the  switching at Lex-63. It can’t be both switching there or you’ll have a logjam that’s going to be way worse than the current three merging points on the QBL at Queens Plaza and 36th St put together. I prefer to have the  there, so there can still be a Broadway-QB service for riders who take the current . The only trade-off is the new  wouldn’t connect in-system to  at Lex-59. Would that really be a deal breaker? I hope not.

8 hours ago, mrsman said:

Given the above, I present my ideas:

1)  Astoria - 60th st tunnel - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - West End line - Coney Island.  Coney Island yard will service this train.

2)  96th/2nd - via existing 2nd Ave line - Broadway express - M Br S - Brighton line - Coney Island.    will also service this line as a Brighton express that terminates at Brighton Beach.   will not operate nights or weekends.

3)  Jamaica Center - QBL express -63rd st tunnel- 6th Ave local - Rutgers tunnel - Culver line - Coney Island. 

     179th - Hillside express - QBL express- 63rd st tunnel - 6th Ave local - Rutgers tunnel - Culver line.  The  operates as a Culver line short, with some trains terminating at 2nd/Houston and some terminating at Church Ave.   will not operate nights or weekends.  A connection from 63rd/Lex to 59th/Lex stations needs to be constructed to enable  to have an easier connection to .

4)  168th St - CPW local - 6th Ave express - M Br N - 4th Ave express - 4th Ave local south of 36th - Bay Ridge. 

     Bedford Park Blvd - Concourse line - CPW local - 6th Ave express - M Br N - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach line - Coney Island.

   trains will be serviced by yards in upper Manhattan. New switches from local to express needs to be constructed on the 4th Ave line south of where the West End line diversts from the line, so that  can switch from express to local without interfering with . 

5)  179th - Hillside local - QBL local - 53rd st tunnel - 8th Ave local - WTC terminal.  Some trains may terminate in Forest Hills.

6)   Inwood/207th St - CPW express - 8th Ave express - Cranberry tunnel - Fulton express - Far Rockaway OR Lefferts.

     Norwood - Concourse line - CPW express - 8th Ave express - Cranberry tunnel - Fulton local - Euclid.  Alternatively, Lefferts  trains could be designated by its own letter like  . 

The service on the A,B,C, and D lines is a little tricky.  During rush hours, it is as shown above, with  servicing as Concourse express and  as the Concourse local.  Off-peak weekdays,  will service all Concourse stops and  will terminate at 145th.  On weekends,  will only operate as a shuttle in Brooklyn from 36th to Bay Ridge,  will service all Concourse stops and  will terminate at 145th.  On late nights,  will service its full route to FR as a local, there will be a Euclid-Lefferts shuttle,  will only operate as a shuttle in Brooklyn from 36th to Bay Ridge,  will not operate at all, and  will be extended to Norwood.

We bring back the brown M, so everyone from the Williamsburg Bridge lines will need to transfer to make it to Midtown.

I also envision track switches to enable A and C to service the upper level of 50th without interfering with B, D or E trains as  those trains merge into the 8th/CPW local tracks.

 

I guess I’m the only one here that prefers running the  local on CPW and 8th Ave, the  express on CPW and the  express on 8th, so as not to cut off the CPW local stations from their 8th Ave counterparts. I mean, it would allow the  and  to stop at 50th without having to add track switches. 

As part of this, might I suggest running the  to/from 168 (207 overnights), the  to/from 207, the  to/from Bedford Park (145 on weekends) and leaving the  as is, including its peak Bronx express. 

I’m opposed to bringing back the old M service because it will be likely to carry mostly air between Essex and Broad. And without solving the Jamaica-Broadway El’s other shortcomings, bringing back the old M will not be an improvement over the current . In fact, if it is brought back, it may not even be able to go to Broad - at least not during rush hours with the  and  already turning there. I definitely don’t see how bringing back the old #10/Myrtle-Chambers service from pre-Chrystie days would be an improvement over the current . 

I get that people would like to have a full  express in Brooklyn and that the current  precludes it. This is one reason I suggested running the  and  local in Queens via 53 and the  and  express via 63, with the  replacing the  to Jamaica Center. By doing this, it becomes possible to run more  trains - and run them as  express trains in Brooklyn. Yes there could be a potential choke point at Lex-63 as the  switches from the  to the  tracks. But it would be the only merge, aside from the  at 5th Ave and the  at 71st. Although that second one could also be resolved by having the  stay express between 71st and Union Turnpike full time.

Edited July 1, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[mrsman]

19 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Why would some trains need to turn at Forest Hills? Can't Jamaica-179th Street turn around 30 trains per hour on both local and express relay tracks, or do the train fumigation rules play a part on here?

With both the and  operating on the 4-track Culver Line sector to Church Avenue, would it make sense to have the  be local with the  and the  be express to Coney Island? Also, I like the idea of making a in-system transfer at Lex-59th and Lex-63rd. They need do do this regardless of deinterlining or not. In fact, going a little bit off topic, there should be more in-system transfers built, especially in Midtown and Downtown Manhattan (i.e, connecting the 50th Street  with 7th Avenue  and 49th Street  station).

I would like to think that 179th can turn everything, but I'm not sure.  If there is no short-turning at Forest Hills, then all of the QBL locals and all of the QBL expresses (save the 12 TPH going to Jamaica Center) need to turn there under my above plan.  It is a lot of trains (I estimate 18 TPH  and 20 TPH  ), but if 179th can handle it - go for it.

I imagine that with both F and V riding Culver, there would be a higher capability to run a Culver express.  Doing so is not critical with my plan, instead running F and V to the Rutgers tunnel to better utilize it is the main point.  Also, as I have this line connected as the QBL express, full length trains need to be run on this line, so 6th Ave locals are not able to run an  service.

While I'd like to see more transfers as well, I try to focus on the most needed.  A big station complex by Bloomingdale's is one, as it will provide a connection from  and  .  QBL expresses will have a connection to all of the Lexington line, a cross-transfer to the Broadway express, and a regular transfer to the Broadway local.  I believe such a station would obviate the need to run any Broadway service on QBL, which IMO is necessary for effective deinterlining.  A connection from Queens Plaza  and Queensboro Plaza  would also be helpful.

17 hours ago, Vulturious said:

1-2.) I personally do not have a problem with the  (although, I prefer having the  around since the  rarely ever runs passenger service along West End and I've seen more 's on that line), it'll definitely make running trains around easier through 60 St tunnel. Although, would it be possible to run at least 1 more service, that being the  from Forest Hills/Jamaica-179 St (whichever you choose) to Whitehall/Canal St/Bay Parkway? This would essentially allow for express service along West End, I highly doubt the  would make any difference if it ran into South Brooklyn and as as I would love to see that running again, it'll just carry air. You might as well also call the  the  seeing as it is the express version of the .

3.) A connection from Lexington Av-63 St to Lexington Av-59 St, a lot of benefits come from this since 6th Av only makes like one transfer to a Lexington Av line and that's at Broadway-Lafayette St which only connects to the . Having this would definitely allow for direct service for those wanting express service onto Queens Blvd. However, getting rid of the  while also replacing it with the  is definitely going to be a big drawback. I personally have no issue with the  coming back as a short-turn version of the  to Church Av, this basically allows for express service along Culver. 

4/6.) This is something that definitely should happen. Dekalb Av interlock is very annoying, having to wait even for just a second can be very annoying. I wouldn't mind if the switch wasn't built, so long as trains aren't stopped because of another line from Brighton or 4 Av is trying to get through. Having 6 Av trains running on CPW local isn't bad either since now you got the  running express along CPW/8 Av replacing  trains in the Bronx. However,  trains reduced to a shuttle during the weekends shouldn't really happen. I'm going to assume  trains are running local along 4 Av during the weekends because of the  terminating at 36 St which means  trains need to make room for it. Like I said,  trains shouldn't be reduced to a shuttle during the weekends, a lot of service is still needed along 4 Av, especially for express service. Late nights aren't a big deal, what I personally think should happen is swap the  and 's north/south terminals. People are used to seeing the  along Concourse so it might just be better to straight up swap the south terminals. It would be pretty weird for  trains to operating on its own north of 145 St during the weekends.  trains would run along Sea Beach and during late nights, it continues to truncate at 36 St which would definitely be better as it's not interfering with  service at all. Nothing much to say about the  since almost nothing about it has changed, but when it comes to the , there is mainly just one thing I want to talk about, mainly about its late night service. The  replacing the  should be put to more use than just during the weekdays and weekends. It might be best to just keep running the , maybe have the  run to WTC as to not screw up too much with the  in Brooklyn and Queens. Best to keep the Lefferts Shuttle.

Nothing much to say about the  as it's a short line running express while the  was much longer yet also all local. 

 

[mrsman]

I ran out of emojis, let me address Vulturious' comments:

A lot of good points.  Let me address them.

1-2.  The nomenclature itself is largely immaterial to me.  You are correct that under my plan   =  .  I like keeping the N designation with the idea that perhaps an extended SAS in the uptown direction will need to split into two, with one service to W.125th and the other to the Bronx.  In that case the N designation would be needed to differentiate from Q.  I do not want to have a Broadway service on the QBL as that will impact the capacity on the East River tunnels to Queens.  Having some of the Astoria-West End trains run as an express, designated as a   or a <R>  is certainly possible, but keep in mind that to achieve maximum utilization of existing infrastructure all of the West End trains need to run as 4th Ave locals through the Montague tunnel.  If you want a true West End rush hour express, it will have to run as a 6th Ave express.  Designate it as an orange K and run it identically to my D train,  except running a West End express instead of a Sea Beach express.  This might be a needed compromise to get West End folks on board to losing their express train.  Doing so would (slightly) impact the running of the 6th Ave express and would also force some rush hour  trains to terminate at Whitehall and reduce service on the 4th Ave local.  

4-6.) The purpose of the switch is to allow for 4th Ave express trains to run to Bay Ridge - this is done so that Bay Ridge trains will have access to a yard (the IND yards in Upper Manhattan).  If the yard issue wasn't a factor, it would be a lot simpler to simply have  run to Bay Ridge and have  service the West End line.  THe West End folks would prefer keeping their 6th Ave express and will certainly be annoyed by any plan that will force them to transfer to avoid the extra time of running through Lower Manhattan.  However, I don't see how you get around the yard issue as teh Broadway lines do not have access to a yard on the uptown side, unless you run  on QBL, which I really don't want to do. 

Ideally, full service would run at all times, but cost issues make that unfeasible.  I planned this so that except for the Bay Ridge portion,  runs concurrent with another train line.  WHen  is not operating a full line, it can be re-created by transferring to  at 36 St in Brooklyn and then transferring to  at 145th street in Manhattan [which will service all stops between 145th and 168th on weekends, I neglected to mention earlier].  You do raise a good point about running  and  in Brooklyn.  If  were instead run as a 59th to 95th shuttle, parking itself on the express tracks north of 59th to turn around, could the  train run as a local and then use the proposed switch to the express tracks between 36th and Atlantic?  I envisioned a weekend 4th Ave service as basically being  express and  local with a Bay Ridge shuttle - but perhaps the track layout makes that unfeasible.  Or another possibility is to swtich the B and D southern terminals, as you suggested, and then run  express,  local, and a Sea Beach shuttle.  That would give Bay Ridge access to the Concourse yards.

Late nights, I assumed that there is funding for only two lines on CPW.  If that's the case, you need one line for Inwood an one line for Concourse and also one line for 8th Ave and one line for 6th Ave.  It is for this reason that I have  and  running, with  replacing  late nights.  It is a little anomalous that  will run further north late nights than it does at any other time, but that would be the only way to acheive that.  If  can operate in Bronx and Manhattan late nights as well, then great.  But if not, run both  and  as late night locals as I outlined.

 

 

 

[mrsman]

12 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I guess I’m the only one here that prefers running the  local on CPW and 8th Ave, the  express on CPW and the  express on 8th, so as not to cut off the CPW local stations from their 8th Ave counterparts. I mean, it would allow the  and  to stop at 50th without having to add track switches. 

As part of this, might I suggest running the  to/from 168 (207 overnights), the  to/from 207, the  to/from Bedford Park (145 on weekends) and leaving the  as is, including its peak Bronx express. 

I’m opposed to bringing back the old M service because it will be likely to carry mostly air between Essex and Broad. And without solving the Jamaica-Broadway El’s other shortcomings, bringing back the old M will not be an improvement over the current . In fact, if it is brought back, it may not even be able to go to Broad - at least not during rush hours with the  and  already turning there. I definitely don’t see how bringing back the old #10/Myrtle-Chambers service from pre-Chrystie days would be an improvement over the current . 

I get that people would like to have a full  express in Brooklyn and that the current  precludes it. This is one reason I suggested running the  and  local in Queens via 53 and the  and  express via 63, with the  replacing the  to Jamaica Center. By doing this, it becomes possible to run more  trains - and run them as  express trains in Brooklyn. Yes there could be a potential choke point at Lex-63 as the  switches from the  to the  tracks. But it would be the only merge, aside from the  at 5th Ave and the  at 71st. Although that second one could also be resolved by having the  stay express between 71st and Union Turnpike full time.

AC local on 8th Ave would necessilarily mean  and possibly  running as 8th Ave expresses.  Both would run from Queens along the 53rd tunnel, via 8th Ave express, and then service Cranaberry tunnel and the Fulton line.  Would doing so allow us to keep  and  as locals on QBL?  Would it be OK to run an  train as a local from 179th to the 53rd street tunnel and then as an express along 8th Ave and Fulton to terminate at Far Rockaway?  I was afraid that this would be too long of a line to run with a significant local section in Queens.  But if it is feasible, then certainly the switch can be made.  A and C would be CPW locals terminating at WTC, B and D would be CPW expresses running their routes to the 4th Ave express in Brooklyn, and E and K would be long lines serving as QBL locals, 8th Ave expresses, and then running the Fulton line with  as the Fulton express and  as the Fulton local to Euclid.  I do like the idea of having  all servicing 50th without the need for a capital expenditure.

Brown-M is worse for the customers along the Broadway Brooklyn line, the problem is keeping the Orange-M would amount to so many needed merges that will limit QBL capacity.  One way of doing it is the way you outlined above.

Another possibility, not yet discsussed, are the W4th switches that allow 8th Ave locals onto Houston and 6th Ave locals onto the southern 6th Ave towards WTC.  Utilizing this in a full system can be a completely out of the box system change, outlining it quickly.

 & blue-M - CPW local - 8th Ave local - W4 switch -  to Culver and blue-M to Middle Village.  

 : QBL local - 53rd - 8th Ave express  - Cranberry tunnel (limited to 20 TPH so that  can merge into the tunnel)

 : CPW express - 6th Ave express - 4th Ave express

  - QBL express - 63rd - 6th Ave local - W4 switch- F (10 TPH) to merge in to Cranberry tunnel and V (20 TPH) to terminate at WTC.

 

[mrsman]

^^^^^

One more crack at de-interlining while keeping a midtown M train:

 CPW locals - 8th Ave local - WTC

 QBL express - 53rd - 8th Ave express - Cranberry tunnel - Fulton lines

 CPW express - 6th Ave express - 4th Ave express in Brooklyn

 QBL local - 63rd - 6th Ave local -  to Culver,  to Myrtle

Now the obvious issue with this is that QBL locals will no longer service Queens Plaza or 23rd, making it very difficult for anybody who lives at a QBL station west of Roosevelt from reaching Long Island City.  This is why previous iterations had QBL express to 63rd and QBL locals to 53rd.  The only way to solve this problem is to have a partial interlining on the QBL local, I see two possible ways:

 1/3,   1/3,  1/3.   will serve to allow for QBL local traffic to reach Queens Plaza station.  It is also good for  customers to have access into more of Queens again.

 1/3,  1/3,  1/3.  Sigh.  Bringing back the  train to QBL.  Limit it to 1/3 of the line's capacity.  This would necessitate having  2/3 and  1/3 along the Broadway local.   would run as Astoria-Bwy local-West End and  would be 179th - Broadway local - West End (or Bay Ridge).  This may work as we no longer will have  crossing from express to local along the Broadway main, but I'd strongly prefer not mixing the Broadway trains into QBL.  My preference would be for the  train, since it will limit the merging to just one trunk line (6th Ave local) instead of two (6th Ave local and Broadway local).

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 7/1/2021 at 10:35 AM, mrsman said:

AC local on 8th Ave would necessilarily mean E and possibly K running as 8th Ave expresses.  Both would run from Queens along the 53rd tunnel, via 8th Ave express, and then service Cranaberry tunnel and the Fulton line.  Would doing so allow us to keep E and K as locals on QBL?  Would it be OK to run an E train as a local from 179th to the 53rd street tunnel and then as an express along 8th Ave and Fulton to terminate at Far Rockaway?  I was afraid that this would be too long of a line to run with a significant local section in Queens.  But if it is feasible, then certainly the switch can be made.  A and C would be CPW locals terminating at WTC, B and D would be CPW expresses running their routes to the 4th Ave express in Brooklyn, and E and K would be long lines serving as QBL locals, 8th Ave expresses, and then running the Fulton line with E as the Fulton express and K as the Fulton local to Euclid.  I do like the idea of having  all servicing 50th without the need for a capital expenditure.

Brown-M is worse for the customers along the Broadway Brooklyn line, the problem is keeping the Orange-M would amount to so many needed merges that will limit QBL capacity.  One way of doing it is the way you outlined above.

Another possibility, not yet discsussed, are the W4th switches that allow 8th Ave locals onto Houston and 6th Ave locals onto the southern 6th Ave towards WTC.  Utilizing this in a full system can be a completely out of the box system change, outlining it quickly.

 & blue-M - CPW local - 8th Ave local - W4 switch - A to Culver and blue-M to Middle Village.  

 : QBL local - 53rd - 8th Ave express  - Cranberry tunnel (limited to 20 TPH so that F can merge into the tunnel)

 : CPW express - 6th Ave express - 4th Ave express

  - QBL express - 63rd - 6th Ave local - W4 switch- F (10 TPH) to merge in to Cranberry tunnel and V (20 TPH) to terminate at WTC.

 

For me, "  local via 53/  express via 63" is a variation of the "  local /  (or ) express" idea that's been discussed multiple times in the past here on the forums and elsewhere. The difference is that it keeps the Broadway service - although express in Queens and without an in-system transfer at Lexington to the . After looking back at some of my previous posts, I saw that it was proposed in the past by other posters, so it's not a new idea on here. And I think you'd be able to run more tph Yes, the  would run express in Manhattan, so basically the reverse of the current . I also thought it might be too long of a route if the  were to continue into the Rockaways, so I had the idea of having the  merge with the  at Canal St and the  run local to/from Euclid while the  remains as is in Brooklyn and South Queens. I think it would be overkill to have both the  and  terminate at WTC, and with the merges at 50th and 59th eliminated, this one shouldn't be too problematic, although the  and  would likely both run more frequently than the . With the  and  local in Queens, there wouldn't be a need for a  service.

On 7/1/2021 at 11:08 AM, mrsman said:

^^^^^

One more crack at de-interlining while keeping a midtown M train:

 CPW locals - 8th Ave local - WTC

 QBL express - 53rd - 8th Ave express - Cranberry tunnel - Fulton lines

 CPW express - 6th Ave express - 4th Ave express in Brooklyn

 QBL local - 63rd - 6th Ave local -  to Culver,  to Myrtle

Now the obvious issue with this is that QBL locals will no longer service Queens Plaza or 23rd, making it very difficult for anybody who lives at a QBL station west of Roosevelt from reaching Long Island City.  This is why previous iterations had QBL express to 63rd and QBL locals to 53rd.  The only way to solve this problem is to have a partial interlining on the QBL local, I see two possible ways:

 1/3,   1/3,  1/3.   will serve to allow for QBL local traffic to reach Queens Plaza station.  It is also good for  customers to have access into more of Queens again.

 1/3,  1/3,  1/3.  Sigh.  Bringing back the  train to QBL.  Limit it to 1/3 of the line's capacity.  This would necessitate having  2/3 and  1/3 along the Broadway local.   would run as Astoria-Bwy local-West End and  would be 179th - Broadway local - West End (or Bay Ridge).  This may work as we no longer will have  crossing from express to local along the Broadway main, but I'd strongly prefer not mixing the Broadway trains into QBL.  My preference would be for the  train, since it will limit the merging to just one trunk line (6th Ave local) instead of two (6th Ave local and Broadway local).

 

If I had to choose between leaving the  on QBL or bringing back the , I'd take the  every time. The QBL is the second-busiest line in the system after Lex and if it's going to be reverse-branched, then it should be with services that go to where the majority of passengers want to go, which is Midtown Manhattan. I don't disagree that it would be good for  riders to have access into more of Queens, but it shouldn't be at the expense of Manhattan-bound riders on the second-busiest line in the entire system. Overall, my preference would be for the QBL local trains via the less-popular 63rd St Tunnel and the express trains to go via 53rd. But because of where in Queens the junction to 63rd is located (because the MTA insists on continuing to follow the Board of Transportation's 1940s-era policy of reverse-branching everything), I have to go with the locals serving 53rd and the expresses in 63rd. The only true remedy would be to rebuild 36th Street into an express station, but that station wasn't designed to be converted into a dual-island express station (unlike Woodhaven Blvd).

Edited July 2, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue
Clarifying my post

[mrsman]

^^^^^

Right.  If you maintain  service to QBL local, you have some interlining, but it won't muck up the whole system.  You can still achieve a general deinterlining with some exceptions.

Division A is kind of like that.   and  are compeletely deinterlined, even though  are not.  Of course, fixing Rogers Jct and the 149th st area in the Bronx could do wonders for the IRT, it isn't as much of a critical problem because there isn't nearly the same level of merging as with Divison B.

That being said, if I created three services on the QBL local, running them all to 179th, I would have no merging on the QBL local, and only some partial deintelining that will only affect 6th Ave local and Broadway local.  The other trunk lines (8th local, 8th express, 6th express, Bwy express) can still be deitnerlined, and thus run more trains through.

 CPW local-8th local-WTC.  A to Wash Hts, C as the Concourse local and only runs rush hours.   is basically an  variant that goes to Bronx instead of Wash Hts.  Deinterlined.

 CPW express-6th express-4th express.   to Inwood,  to Concourse.   to Sea Beach,  to Bay Ridge.  B and D only interfere with each other.  Deinterlined.

 2nd Ave in the UES - Bwy express - Brighton line, with  express and  local.  N and Q only interfere with each other.  Deinterlined.

 QBL express - 53rd - 8th Ave express - Fulton line.  Given that this is one of the busiest lines in the system, keeping this deinterlined is very important.   Doing this means that E and K only interfere with each other, so they are deinterlined.  QBL express people that want 6th Ave service can transfer at 7 Av or W4.  QBL express that want the  can transfer at Queens Plaza.  I was thinking that  can run from Jam Ctr to Euclid with 12 TPH and the K can run with 18 TPH as the Fulton express, split between Lefferts and Far Rockaway.  One novelty would be to have the Parsons/Hillside station be the terminus of the  train.  Some switches between the two express tracks would be needed, but basically,  can terminate there witout intefering with the locals, which will allow maximum throughput for both expresses and locals.  For passengers, it would be very similar to Brighton Beach - passengers will board a frequent QBL local at 179 or 169 and then transfer at Parsons/Hillside for the express.

WIth that out of the way, the rest of the B division (except  ) is somewhat interlined:

 will run from 179th as QBL locals - 63 - 6th Ave locals.  Each will run at 1/3.   will continue onto Culver with some interlining with  ,  will continue onto Williamsburg Bridge with some interlining with  .  On the north side,  will share tracks with  from 179th to 36th.  1/3 F, 1/3 V, 1/3 R.

 will both run as Broadway locals through the Montague tunnel to 4th Ave local to the West End line (eith construction of new switches).  On the north end  to Astoria and to QBL local.  R will still interline with F and M.  R will also be extended to 179th.  2/3 W to 1/3 R.

So we can maintain some level of interlining on the QBL local and the Williamsburg Bridge line.  Thus, FGMRWJZ are not deinterlined, and any problem on one of those lines could affect the others.  But problems on the FGMRWJZ would not affect any other line as the other four trunks are deinterlined.  Amazing improvements and consistency can occur for the 8th Ave lines, 6th express, and the Broadway express.  And even though the other lines will still have some interference, it is a lot less than what exists today.

[pringle5095]

I have slightly altered what my suggestions for de-interlining would be from the intial.

MAIN ROUTINGS

 Unchanged

<1> follows same route as  except running express between 242nd and 96th during rush hours in the peak direction only.

 Unchanged

<2> follows same route as  except running express between 241st and East 180th during rush hours in the peak direction only.

 Dyre Av-Flatbush Av via Dyre Avenue Line, White Plains Road Express, Lenox Avenue Line, 7th Avenue Express, Eastern Parkway Local, and Nostrand Avenue Line

<3> follows same route as  except running express along the Dyre Avenue Line during rush hours in the peak direction only.

 Unchanged

 Woodlawn-New Lots Av via Jerome Avenue Express, Lexington Avenue Express, Eastern Parkway Express, and New Lots Line. 

 Unchanged

 Unchanged

 Unchanged

 Unchanged

 Lefferts Blvd branch eliminated, otherwise unchanged.

 205th St-Brighton Beach via Concourse Express, CPW Local, 6th Avenue Express, and Brighton Express

 207th St-Rockaway Park via 8th Avenue Express (local between 168th and 145th), Fulton Street Express, and Rockaway Line. 

 205th Street-Coney Island via Concourse Local, CPW Local, 6th Avenue Express, and Brighton Local

 179th St-Lefferts Blvd via Queens Boulevard Local, 8th Avenue Local, and Fulton Street Local.

 179th St-Coney Island via Queens Boulevard Express, 63rd Street Line, 6th Avenue Local, and Culver Line

 follows same route as  except running express in Brooklyn during rush hours in the peak direction only.

 Court Sq-Bergen St via Crosstown Line.

 Unchanged

<J> follows same route as  except running express in Brooklyn during rush hours in the peak direction only.

 Unchanged

 Metropolitan Av-Broad St via Myrtle Avenue Line, Jamaica Local, and Nassau Street Line.

 Ditmars Blvd-Coney Island via Astoria Express, Broadway Local, 4th Avenue Express, and Sea Beach Line.

 follows same route as  except running express along the Sea Beach Line during rush hours in the peak direction only.

 96 St-Coney Island via 2nd Avenue Line, 63rd Street Line, Broadway Express, 4th Avenue Express, and West End Line.

 follows same route as  except running express along the West End Line during rush hours in the peak direction only.

 Ditmars Blvd-95 St via Astoria Local, Broadway Local, and 4th Avenue Local.

 Jamaica Center-2 Av via Archer Avenue Line, Queens Boulevard Express, 63rd Street Line, and 6th Avenue Local.

 eliminated, replaced by  

 eliminated, replaced by <J>

 TRAINS

42nd Street: Unchanged or possibly eliminated and replaced by increased  service.

Franklin Avenue: Unchanged

Rockaway Park: Eliminated, replaced by  

Lenox Avenue: 148th Street-135th Street, all times.

OTHER NOTES

• Rogers Avenue Junction would be completely rebuilt in a way that pairs the local tracks to the Nostrand Avenue Line and the express tracks to the New Lots Line. This unfortunately reduces one seat rides though the transfer between the  and the  at Botanic Garden is cross platform and thus reasonable.
• Jerome Avenue Line would be widened to 4 tracks, and Woodlawn Station would receive proper layup tracks as opposed to bumpers, which would result in increased frequencies on the .
• The were chosen as the CPW Express over the  because while  ridership is higher, those wanting a faster commute from the Bronx can use the  while Washington Heights riders would need an express alternative. It can be argued that the <1> provides this, though those riding outside of peak times and in reverse peak need to be considered as well. Thus, Washington Heights commuters would benefit fairly significantly from the becoming the CPW Express.
• The section between High Street and Jay Street would be widened to 4 tracks to support service continuing to Brooklyn. In addition, Rockaway Blvd would be converted to an express station and Grant Avenue station would be widened to 4 tracks. 
• Queensboro Plaza and Queens Plaza would need to be amalgamated into a single station, or at the very least a free OOS transfer provided between the two to facilitate better transfers between the . 36th Street would be converted into an express station as well to facilitate better transfers between the . 
• Dekalb Junction switch could simply be changed to keep the together on Brighton and the together on 4th Avenue, no need for any radical infrastructural proposals here.
• Bergen's lower level would be opened as the permanent  platforms, and the would terminate on the upper level.
• The Jamaica El and possibly the Myrtle Avenue El would need to be entirely rebuilt to bolster structural strength as well as to eliminate overly sharp curves, with the possibility of supporting R68s if they are still in service when this would happen.
• A number of stations would be converted to express stations to facilitate better transfers between certain lines.

Edited July 5, 2021 by pringle5095

[Vulturious]

40 minutes ago, pringle5095 said:

I have slightly altered what my suggestions for de-interlining would be from the intial.

MAIN ROUTINGS

 Lefferts Blvd branch eliminated, otherwise unchanged.

 205th St-Brighton Beach via Concourse Express, CPW Local, 6th Avenue Express, and Brighton Express

 207th St-Rockaway Park via 8th Avenue Express (local between 168th and 145th), Fulton Street Express, and Rockaway Line. 

 179th St-Lefferts Blvd via Queens Boulevard Local, 8th Avenue Local, and Fulton Street Local.

 follows same route as  except running express in Brooklyn during rush hours in the peak direction only.

 Court Sq-Bergen St via Crosstown Line.

<J> follows same route as  except running express in Brooklyn during rush hours in the peak direction only.

 Metropolitan Av-Broad St via Myrtle Avenue Line, Jamaica Local, and Nassau Street Line.

 follows same route as  except running express along the Sea Beach Line during rush hours in the peak direction only.

 Jamaica Center-2 Av via Archer Avenue Line, Queens Boulevard Express, 63rd Street Line, and 6th Avenue Local.

 eliminated, replaced by  

 TRAINS

42nd Street: Unchanged or possibly eliminated and replaced by increased  service.

OTHER NOTES

• The were chosen as the CPW Express over the  because while  ridership is higher, those wanting a faster commute from the Bronx can use the  while Washington Heights riders would need an express alternative. It can be argued that the <1> provides this, though those riding outside of peak times and in reverse peak need to be considered as well. Thus, Washington Heights commuters would benefit fairly significantly from the becoming the CPW Express.
• The section between High Street and Jay Street would be widened to 4 tracks to support service continuing to Brooklyn. In addition, Rockaway Blvd would be converted to an express station and Grant Avenue station would be widened to 4 tracks. 
• Queensboro Plaza and Queens Plaza would need to be amalgamated into a single station, or at the very least a free OOS transfer provided between the two to facilitate better transfers between the . 36th Street would be converted into an express station as well to facilitate better transfers between the . 
• Dekalb Junction switch could simply be changed to keep the together on Brighton and the together on 4th Avenue, no need for any radical infrastructural proposals here.
• Bergen's lower level would be opened as the permanent  platforms, and the would terminate on the upper level.
• The Jamaica El and possibly the Myrtle Avenue El would need to be entirely rebuilt to bolster structural strength as well as to eliminate overly sharp curves, with the possibility of supporting R68s if they are still in service when this would happen.
• A number of stations would be converted to express stations to facilitate better transfers between certain lines.

I am mainly going to focus on B division since I do not know how many emotes I got left after this:

• The  running to 207 St while also running it local between 145 St and 168 St literally doesn't solve anything. Because instead of having a merge between Hoyt and Canal, it's just moved up north in Manhattan. Then you also got the issue of terminating the  which can't work. Only way for that to work is 207 St is modified to terminate more trains. Although, with the amount of stations being modified as well as the amount lines.
• The same issue is happening with the , while Dekalb is deinterlined as well as CPW, you would need to modify Norwood station to allow trains to terminate.
•  trains running to Lefferts doesn't sound like a bad idea, however there is the issue of having to widen the Liberty Av line as well as the portal area for it. A lot of property is needed to be acquired for such to happen. The line is also pretty long as is while being all local which just makes it just as bad as the , regardless if it's deinterlined or not. Now begs the question, what happened to Jamaica Center?
• Reopening the lower level of Bergen St wouldn't solve anything as there are no switches to allow it to run from Bergen St then local. The  terminating at Bergen would also be worse. How are you going to have  trains based out of Coney Island from such a far distance. The deadhead would be really long, of course the  is currently doing that but that is because of GO's along 4 Av which is needed.
• There's really no point in bringing back the  as no one would want to take it, best to just stick with the .
• Sea Beach is going to be needing some station conversion for this to work. There are no express stops along the line, you'll be going from Coney Island to 59 St.
• If the  is brought back, you might as well just extend it to Church Av running local, the line would be just as useless and people would be angry to not have that one seat ride from Williamsburg into Midtown. 
• Eliminating the 42 St Shuttle would be a big problem as it's used to relieve crowding along the . 
• To bring up the whole "no need for any radical infrastructural proposals here", how does any of this not go into that category? A lot of these proposals are the definition of radical, even more than deinterlining Dekalb Junction. Only a few switches are being added while you got 36 St-QBL conversion to an express station, extending the  while adding another pair of tunnels for the  to run through, Jay St being widened, Jerome Av being widened (even though I didn't go over this), Liberty Av widened as well as Rockaway Blvd being converted into an express stop. I don't exactly see how that's any different from adding a few switches, just my thought. 

All in all, there are just a lot of changes that don't exactly benefit the subway system. A lot of infrastructure is being changed which would cost billions at the very least for even one of these changes, the  extension for certain. If this was to happen, we might as well focus on other projects like the SAS.

[pringle5095]

2 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

I am mainly going to focus on B division since I do not know how many emotes I got left after this:

• The  running to 207 St while also running it local between 145 St and 168 St literally doesn't solve anything. Because instead of having a merge between Hoyt and Canal, it's just moved up north in Manhattan. Then you also got the issue of terminating the  which can't work. Only way for that to work is 207 St is modified to terminate more trains. Although, with the amount of stations being modified as well as the amount lines.
• The same issue is happening with the , while Dekalb is deinterlined as well as CPW, you would need to modify Norwood station to allow trains to terminate.
•  trains running to Lefferts doesn't sound like a bad idea, however there is the issue of having to widen the Liberty Av line as well as the portal area for it. A lot of property is needed to be acquired for such to happen. The line is also pretty long as is while being all local which just makes it just as bad as the , regardless if it's deinterlined or not. Now begs the question, what happened to Jamaica Center?
• Reopening the lower level of Bergen St wouldn't solve anything as there are no switches to allow it to run from Bergen St then local. The  terminating at Bergen would also be worse. How are you going to have  trains based out of Coney Island from such a far distance. The deadhead would be really long, of course the  is currently doing that but that is because of GO's along 4 Av which is needed.
• There's really no point in bringing back the  as no one would want to take it, best to just stick with the .
• Sea Beach is going to be needing some station conversion for this to work. There are no express stops along the line, you'll be going from Coney Island to 59 St.
• If the  is brought back, you might as well just extend it to Church Av running local, the line would be just as useless and people would be angry to not have that one seat ride from Williamsburg into Midtown. 
• Eliminating the 42 St Shuttle would be a big problem as it's used to relieve crowding along the . 
• To bring up the whole "no need for any radical infrastructural proposals here", how does any of this not go into that category? A lot of these proposals are the definition of radical, even more than deinterlining Dekalb Junction. Only a few switches are being added while you got 36 St-QBL conversion to an express station, extending the  while adding another pair of tunnels for the  to run through, Jay St being widened, Jerome Av being widened (even though I didn't go over this), Liberty Av widened as well as Rockaway Blvd being converted into an express stop. I don't exactly see how that's any different from adding a few switches, just my thought. 

All in all, there are just a lot of changes that don't exactly benefit the subway system. A lot of infrastructure is being changed which would cost billions at the very least for even one of these changes, the  extension for certain. If this was to happen, we might as well focus on other projects like the SAS.

I shall concede entirely the first two points as well as the consideration of the 42nd Street shuttle. Best to leave those unchanged.

The Archer Avenue lines in this case are being served by the <J> .

I likely should have accounted for the fact of Bergen's track layout when proposing the terminating there. Assuming these switches are not addressed at all, we'd need to either have the  run to Coney Island as the local and the as the express (which would virtually eliminate deadhead distances for  trains but cause significant loss of one seat rides to Manhattan) or have the run express north of Church and local south of Church at all times, the local to Church at all times, and the  running express south of Church during rush hours in the peak direction only (which is very similar to the current situation, just slightly deinterlined). 

Is there really a viable way to solve the bottleneck created near the Williamsburg Bridge by the  merge other than to bring back the  and ? If so, I'd love to hear it. The  is a great alternative to the  as it stands now though it didn't really do much in terms of decongestion because gentrification clusters near the  and not the . 

I am in complete agreement regarding Sea Beach, and I am eyeing one specific station for this, that being New Utrecht/62nd because of the transfer between the deinterlined . 

I admit that if the terminated at Bergen then the  could become the local for Culver to Coney Island, with the becoming the permanent express. No need for the  in that case. Though if the  continues to terminate at Church, then a  express would be better the whole way down to Coney. Of course a terminating at Coney would allow for the to short turn at Church.

As for "radical proposals" I was referring specifically to the deinterlining of Dekalb Junction, as it is arguably the least radical of any of my proposals.

I could also go on about SAS, as extending it to 125th holds great value even with the deinterlined system. Though if the  were to become a thing if Phases 3 and 4 are ever built, that would result in the  short turning at 57th under my proposals.