De-interlining: Problem or Solution?

[Vulturious]

10 minutes ago, pringle5095 said:

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.

The same issue would result in a capacity issue for terminating the  and  at Coney Island, you can't exactly terminating them without having to at least short-turn every other train somewhere else like Kings Highway or Church Av, keeping the and  at Church would be the better option while  trains between Church Av and Bergen St run express in both directions. Church Av should have enough capacity to allow for such.

Unfortunately, there isn't any way to having the  without bottlenecking at Williamsburg with the , but even with the higher ridership on the , it shouldn't really force trains to be cut. The point is to provide and alternative to the  which can get very congested.

I got no problem with that station being converted, however at least one more station needs to be converted along that line. Either Kings Highway or Bay Parkway or both needs to be converted. Going straight for the , I don't see a reason in short-turning it at 57 St, with all of this happening especially since you didn't drop the whole reconstruction of Jamaica Av/Myrtle Av el (probably because I didn't mention it, although I never had a problem with it since it is very necessary), I think it would be safe to assume that you could get away with making SAS 4 tracks. 

As for the "radical proposals", I see what you mean. It was my mistake, the wording can made me confused.

[Mtatransit]

2 hours ago, pringle5095 said:

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.

The problem is that you are cutting service to local station on the  by half. Those local stations, have high ridership. It is why  failed

  

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

There is no need for anything to run express on Dyre Avenue. Ridership is low already

I do see what you are trying to do with the    . You are keeping 7th Ave service on WPR, and Lex Av on Jerome. Likewise in Brooklyn, 7th to Flatbush and Lex to New Lots Ave

I don't know much about that area, but it could work, if 149th- GC can handle the transferring passengers

 

You are adding more interlining, by having both   all run in Brooklyn. 8th Av south of WTC only has two tracks, so  will have to merge with the  and there

My solution is to simply run the  to Lefferts Blvd and the  to Far Rockaway, and keeping the shuttle. All your other proposal may be implemented

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

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

I am okay with this. Off peak,  will terminate at 145th Street I assume.

 Court Sq-Bergen St via Crosstown Line.

You are essentially eliminating service to Carroll, Smith-9th Street with this move. If you are keeping  confined to the lower level (express tracks). Keep the  at Church Avenue.

 

It already run express in Brooklyn during peak directions

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

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

If you are running the  to duplicate the  in Lower Manhattan, might as well have it head up 6th Avenue and run your  proposal with one train instead of two.

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

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

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

 eliminated, replaced by  

I'm more apt in keeping the  as a supplement to the  between Ditmars and Whitehall, and rerouting the  to 96th, or like someone said, rerouting the  to Queens through 63rd St Tunnel

Furthermore there is no need for anything to run express on the West End and Sea Beach. Just because an express track is there doesn't mean it need to be used. Especially if you are bypassing stations with high ridership

 eliminated, replaced by <J>

That would literally be the same thing wouldn't it? How would you do this?

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

Not sure if there is a point for this shuttle. It wouldn't carry much

OTHER NOTES

• 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 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. 36th Street would be converted into an express station as well to facilitate better transfers. 
• A number of stations would be converted to express stations to facilitate better transfers between certain lines.

These are really radical plans. Knowing the track record of the MTA its probably going to cost 100 trillion to build all of these so lets assume there will be no new construction.

Notes/Replies above in bold

[Mtatransit]

30 minutes ago, pringle5095 said:

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.

 

Quite frankly, I can support  express reverse peak to Coney Island if the  gets extended down there. I don't know how Stillwell Ave will fit more trains however, since trains are delayed at West 8th Street already today.

The Williamsburg Br Bottleneck has nothing to do with  merging, but the speed restrictions on both sides of the bridge as well as Marcy Avenue.

 can not terminate at Bergen St without a couple of local stations losing service. And they are losing service not for a good reason too.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 7/4/2021 at 11:02 PM, pringle5095 said:

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

MAIN ROUTINGS

(proposal)

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.

It's not clear what's changed from your previous proposal.

What serves Carroll St and Smith & 9th if the  terminates on Bergen Upper?

Widening the  line to four tracks would be an insanely expensive project that will cause headaches everywhere downtown, both Manhattan and Brooklyn.

DeKalb doesn’t need to be changed in any way to keep the  and  together. I still prefer  on Brighton and  on 4th Ave express. Might be less transferring at Atlantic that way. 

 

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

^^^^^

 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).

 

I wouldn’t either. But there may very well be demand for a Broadway-QB service. At least here, the QB local stations wouldn't be cut off from LIC if the  and  are express. But I still think the merging could be an issue here. Would 179 be able to relay the  and  services?

Edited July 7, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Vulturious]

21 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

It's not clear what's changed from your previous proposal.

What serves Carroll St and Smith & 9th if the  terminates on Bergen Upper? Widening the  line to four tracks would be an insanely expensive project that will cause headaches everywhere downtown, both Manhattan and Brooklyn.

 

At least here, the QB local stations wouldn't be cut off from LIC. But I still think the merging could be an issue here. Would 179 be able to relay the  and  services?

Agreed, if this were to happen, they might as well focus that money on some other project say widening SAS, extending it into the Bronx, extending the  and  towards Co-Op City, the list could go on. 

As for relaying the , , and  relaying at 179 St, I believe it'll be enough. There are 8 layup tracks, one level designed mainly for an extension while the other stays as a layup yard. The lower level would be meant for terminating the  and  while the  would have the upper level to itself. If an extension further into East Queens were to happen, eventually the local lines would have to be extended to accommodate the missing local service along Hillside seeing as the  would become very long and needs to run express service (probably).

[bobtehpanda]

9 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I wouldn’t either. But there may very well be demand for a Broadway-QB service. At least here, the QB local stations wouldn't be cut off from LIC if the  and  are express. But I still think the merging could be an issue here. Would 179 be able to relay the  and  services?

To a degree I think this need is wildly overstated.

If you take a 6th Av 63rd train from QB, you have transfers to all Broadway trains at Herald Square anyways and that transfer is fairly simple. You also have a cross-platform to the Broadway Express at Lex-63rd.

The only Broadway Line stations between Herald Square and the East River are

• Lex-59, a short walk from Lex-63
• 5 Av-59, a short walk from 6 Av-57 St
• 57th St-7 Av, a short walk from 6 Av-57 St
• 49 St, a short walk from 47-50 Sts
• 42 St, a short walk from Bryant Park, to the point where there is going to be an in-system transfer built as part of the Shuttle works

[mrsman]

Part of the problem that my messages (and all relevant replies) have been trying to address has been a way to deinterline the B division, and particularly the QBL.  At first blush, it would seem that this could be accomplished by sending a full load of 8th Ave trains to 53rd street and the full 6th Ave local to 63rd street and then have the QBL locals tied in to 53 and the QBL expresses tied in to 63 (or vice versa).  One obvious benefit of doing so would be to maximize the utilization of the 53rd and 63rd tunnels and also not gumming up the works on QBL with the Broadway line.

The problem is in how this is to be accomplished.  If you tie the QBL expresses to 53rd and the QBL locals to 63rd, you run into the problem of passengers on the QBL local stations west of Roosevelt not having access to the LIC area (Queens Plaza, Court Square) without some backtracking.  If you tie the QBL expresses to 63rd and the QBL locals to 53rd, you run the problem of making  an express train.  B ecause of the limitations on the Eastern Division stations,  is a shorter train and won't have enough room for the high demand QBL express.

So my solution to the issue was to run 3 services on the QBL local.  The QBL express will emanate from either  Parsons/Hillside (18 TPH) or  Parsons/Archer (12 TPH) and will then continue through the 53rd tunnel, 8th Ave express, and service the  Fulton local and the  Fulton express.  The QBL local will also be run at capacity.  Now, we have 20 TPH emanating from Forest Hills.  I propose 30 TPH emanating from 179th instead.  I think this is possible, given that the Hillside expresses will terminate at Parsons/Hillside and the unique layout of 179th does allow it to have more turning capacity than Forest Hills.  The locals will consist of  (10 TPH),  (10 TPH) and a third train (*) (10 TPH).   and  will of course use the 63rd tunnel to the 6th Ave local tracks.  The (*) service will not use 63rd -- its purpose is to connect the QBL locals to Queens Plaza.  The question then becomes where will this (*) train go west of Queens Plaza?  Three possibilities:

1) 53rd street tunnel.  I don't like this as it will limit the ability of having an exlusive unimpeded QBL express.  It also means fewer QBL express trains. 

2) 60th street tunnel.  (*) train will run like the current  .  I don't like the idea because we see that doing this does bring QBL delays to Broadway and Broadway delays to QBL

3) BQ Crosstown line.  (*) train will be an extension of  .  We know that relatively few QBL passengers are gcurrently going any place other than Manhattan, so to divert 1/3 of the service away from Manhattan will certainly have to be justified.  It may be given an increase in jobs in the LIC area and that the  train will provide a connection at Queens Plaza for any QBL local passenger west of Roosevelt to the  trains if 53rd or 8th Ave service is desired.  Plus, I'm not diverting any of the current QBL locals to , the  will represent a service increase along the QBL local from 20 TPH to 30 TPH.  And of course, the sytemwide beneft of not interlining Broadway trains to QBL is also significant.

So my preference is  but if that is really not feasible, then  .  Sigh.  It is still better than waht exists curerntly, but I do not like to see this  interlining continue.

I agree with comments that indicate that Broadway service is not needed per se with respect to QBL, since there is a 6th Ave local or a Lex station close to every Broadway local station in Manhattan.  With a QBL local-6th Ave local train, you can reach everywhere that the Broadway line reaches either directly, or with transfers at either Lex/63rd or Herald Sqaure.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I just wouldn’t want to bring back the . I’m not opposed to running the  further into Queens, but just not on QBL, the second busiest line in the system. It wasn’t a popular service when it last ran there. If anything, the  would likely be even less popular with QBL riders if it were to be put back. 

Also unfortunate is that 36th Street wasn’t designed to be easily converted to an express station, like Woodhaven Blvd was. Otherwise, the choice to run the  local via 63rd and the  express via 53rd would be easy. This was a big reason why I favor  local via 53rd and  express via 63rd.

Edited July 10, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[mrsman]

^^^^^^

 local and  express is probably more likely to happen under current MTA*, but it is unfortunate because it will keep some of the merges that still plague the system.  I do agree that it is better than current practice.

If one were to isolate the "reverse merges" from the forward merges, (because the reverse merges are far more likely the cause of propogation of system wide delays) you will notice the following:

Current MTA:

 reverse merge at 53rd/6 Av

 reverse merge near 36th

 reverse merge near Queens Plaza

The often proposed plan to move  to 53rd and  to 63rd is an improvment as it removes one of these merge points:

 reverse merge at 53rd/ 6 Av

 reverse merge near 36th

Your plan also has two reverse merges:

 reverse merge at 53rd/6 Av

 reverse merge on 63rd in Manhattan

My plan only has one reverse merge, and it only affects the locals:

 reverse merge near 36th [or  at 36th in my alternate]

The QBL expresses on my plan do not face any merges at all between Union Turnpike and Hoyt-Schermerhorn.

---------------

Another way of looking at it is to identify merges where one track has two services before the merge and the parallel track has one service before the merge and then after the merge there is a switch as the first track has one service and the second track has two services.  An example of this is  near Canal [in both directions]  -   north of the merge and  -  after the merge.  In effect, this merge has the  trains shifting from local to express and vice versa.  Another example (derided by nearly everyone on this forum) is the NQ-RW to Q-NRW merge near Herald Sqaure. 

I don't see how a  merge along 63rd is substantially different from the two mentioned above, since you have  -  on one side and  -  on the other side.  You still have the  shifting tracks, but instead of shifting between the Broadway express and Broadway local, you shift between the Broadway express and the 6th Ave local.  At least, the 6th Ave local has more room to accept the , since  trains already diverted at 53rd.  But the  trains are also making a similar move,  -  to the south of 53rd/6 Av and  -  to the north.

So while your plan is definitely an improvement over the existing operation, since you eliminate QBL expresses merging with QBL locals, allow better utilization of the three East River tunnels, and reduce the number of reverse merges from 3 to 2, it still may not be enough of an improvement in the operation of the QBL expresses to significantly increase the service there.

 

* From the creation of a 6th Ave subway, there seems to have always been one 8th Ave - 53rd service and one 6th Ave - 53rd service running.  My plan is very radical to force all 53rd trains to 8th Ave in order to completely eliminate merging on the QBL expresses, but it will force transferring for any QBL express passenger needing to access 6th Ave.

[RR503]

FWIW: in the world where we don't have 10 car s or an express station at 36 St, I think the best QBL deinterlining plan is the light touch / swap. Lex-63 is an awful place to merge services -- you're making a 34 St copy at the beginning of the 30+ tph QBL trunk -- and you can realize a good bit of reliability and speed benefits by fixing CPW and Dekalb while you wait. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

13 hours ago, RR503 said:

FWIW: in the world where we don't have 10 car s or an express station at 36 St, I think the best QBL deinterlining plan is the light touch / swap. Lex-63 is an awful place to merge services -- you're making a 34 St copy at the beginning of the 30+ tph QBL trunk -- and you can realize a good bit of reliability and speed benefits by fixing CPW and Dekalb while you wait. 

Fair enough. I can live with that. I seem to recall rumors that the MTA were actually considering it back in late 2019 for early 2020, but then the pandemic forced the MTA to refocus its priorities elsewhere. Doing permanent service changes on QBL, DeKalb, CPW or anywhere else in the system still seems to be way down on their priorities list.

14 hours ago, mrsman said:

^^^^^^

 local and  express is probably more likely to happen under current MTA*, but it is unfortunate because it will keep some of the merges that still plague the system.  I do agree that it is better than current practice.

If one were to isolate the "reverse merges" from the forward merges, (because the reverse merges are far more likely the cause of propogation of system wide delays) you will notice the following:

Current MTA:

 reverse merge at 53rd/6 Av

 reverse merge near 36th

 reverse merge near Queens Plaza

The often proposed plan to move  to 53rd and  to 63rd is an improvment as it removes one of these merge points:

 reverse merge at 53rd/ 6 Av

 reverse merge near 36th

Your plan also has two reverse merges:

 reverse merge at 53rd/6 Av

 reverse merge on 63rd in Manhattan

My plan only has one reverse merge, and it only affects the locals:

 reverse merge near 36th [or  at 36th in my alternate]

The QBL expresses on my plan do not face any merges at all between Union Turnpike and Hoyt-Schermerhorn.

---------------

Another way of looking at it is to identify merges where one track has two services before the merge and the parallel track has one service before the merge and then after the merge there is a switch as the first track has one service and the second track has two services.  An example of this is  near Canal [in both directions]  -   north of the merge and  -  after the merge.  In effect, this merge has the  trains shifting from local to express and vice versa.  Another example (derided by nearly everyone on this forum) is the NQ-RW to Q-NRW merge near Herald Sqaure. 

I don't see how a  merge along 63rd is substantially different from the two mentioned above, since you have  -  on one side and  -  on the other side.  You still have the  shifting tracks, but instead of shifting between the Broadway express and Broadway local, you shift between the Broadway express and the 6th Ave local.  At least, the 6th Ave local has more room to accept the , since  trains already diverted at 53rd.  But the  trains are also making a similar move,  -  to the south of 53rd/6 Av and  -  to the north.

So while your plan is definitely an improvement over the existing operation, since you eliminate QBL expresses merging with QBL locals, allow better utilization of the three East River tunnels, and reduce the number of reverse merges from 3 to 2, it still may not be enough of an improvement in the operation of the QBL expresses to significantly increase the service there.

 

* From the creation of a 6th Ave subway, there seems to have always been one 8th Ave - 53rd service and one 6th Ave - 53rd service running.  My plan is very radical to force all 53rd trains to 8th Ave in order to completely eliminate merging on the QBL expresses, but it will force transferring for any QBL express passenger needing to access 6th Ave.

The  merge (  southbound) at 63rd certainly could be a potential choke point, but barring a way to easily convert 36th St in LIC into an express station, I can’t really go for either version of the oft-mentioned  plan. An infill station on the 63rd St would at least keep QB local riders from being cut off from LIC if the  are local, but it would still be some distance away from the heart of LIC and would be just out of reach for a connection with the  at the existing Queens Plaza and possibly the  at Queensboro Plaza.

[Theli11]

19 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The  merge (  southbound) at 63rd certainly could be a potential choke point, but barring a way to easily convert 36th St in LIC into an express station, I can’t really go for either version of the oft-mentioned  plan. An infill station on the 63rd St would at least keep QB local riders from being cut off from LIC if the  are local, but it would still be some distance away from the heart of LIC and would be just out of reach for a connection with the  at the existing Queens Plaza and possibly the  at Queensboro Plaza.

Would it be out of reach of the 39th Av station, that way you'd have service to trains/LIC.

[darkstar8983]

Some of the main problems with ANY de-interlining plain I see is that

1. The current subway system (even with rebuilding of Rogers Av Junction) has inefficient terminal operations that cap the number of trains that can run on the entire line.

2. If we try to circumvent issue 1, then interlining begins, either through merges, or short-turn trains. With short-turns, you are forcing a station that typically doesn't operate as a terminal to operate as one. If there are going to be merges, then it defeats the purpose of de-interlining, which would just add confusion

3. You would be forcing the subway to YES operate at near max capacity, yet MORE riders will not be taken to their destination on a single line. This would force transfers, or additional walking time to get to/from their destination, which could re-shape the rush hour (making it start earlier and ending it later). The problem with transfers is that within the system there are some stations (even in popular complexes) that have narrow pathways that wouldn't be able to handle the foot traffic.

4. De-interlining the system would drive up the cost of providing daily service because many more train crews would be needed to operate each line - which would therefore translate into needing government grants to make up the deficit because you can be sure that doubling the subway fare will be a non-starter.

[LGA Link N Train]

18 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

Some of the main problems with ANY de-interlining plain I see is that

1. The current subway system (even with rebuilding of Rogers Av Junction) has inefficient terminal operations that cap the number of trains that can run on the entire line.

2. If we try to circumvent issue 1, then interlining begins, either through merges, or short-turn trains. With short-turns, you are forcing a station that typically doesn't operate as a terminal to operate as one. If there are going to be merges, then it defeats the purpose of de-interlining, which would just add confusion

3. You would be forcing the subway to YES operate at near max capacity, yet MORE riders will not be taken to their destination on a single line. This would force transfers, or additional walking time to get to/from their destination, which could re-shape the rush hour (making it start earlier and ending it later). The problem with transfers is that within the system there are some stations (even in popular complexes) that have narrow pathways that wouldn't be able to handle the foot traffic.

4. De-interlining the system would drive up the cost of providing daily service because many more train crews would be needed to operate each line - which would therefore translate into needing government grants to make up the deficit because you can be sure that doubling the subway fare will be a non-starter.

Well #4 answers a question that I've been asking for a long time on these forums (I've been asking how deinterlining would affect operating costs since 2018 IIRC). However, with all of this taken into account. I'm assuming the best way to make ANY Deinterlining proposal work is to tackle issue #1 before any rerouting begins which is terminal operations and Capacity wether that'd be through changing up fumigating practices or adding switches/layups where ever possible? I can get behind that. 

After Terminal Operations practices are changed and capacity is increased, the next course of action after that should be to increase station capacity at major transfer points (issue #3) through any means necessary? Stations such as 149th Street-Grand Concourse , Delancey-Essex , Canal Street  (never been a fan of the Bridge Platforms, hate being there cause I feel unsafe walking/waiting there and I know for a fact that I'm not the only one that feels that way), Atlantic-Barclays , 7th Avenue , and whatever other stations that I missed? (Mind you, I'm not counting locations where new transers could be added or where station conversions could takeplace).

Then once all of this is taken into account/solved, THEN would Deinterlining be more feasible?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 7/12/2021 at 6:50 PM, Theli11 said:

Would it be out of reach of the 39th Av station, that way you'd have service to trains/LIC.

It would be out of reach, even more so than Queensboro or Queens plazas. Though after looking at the neighborhood map, I wonder if an underground connection from Queensboro Plaza to the hypothetical  station on Crescent St and 41st Avenue might be feasible. At least then you can have the transfer to the subways there. 

On 7/12/2021 at 7:56 PM, darkstar8983 said:

Some of the main problems with ANY de-interlining plain I see is that

1. The current subway system (even with rebuilding of Rogers Av Junction) has inefficient terminal operations that cap the number of trains that can run on the entire line.

2. If we try to circumvent issue 1, then interlining begins, either through merges, or short-turn trains. With short-turns, you are forcing a station that typically doesn't operate as a terminal to operate as one. If there are going to be merges, then it defeats the purpose of de-interlining, which would just add confusion

3. You would be forcing the subway to YES operate at near max capacity, yet MORE riders will not be taken to their destination on a single line. This would force transfers, or additional walking time to get to/from their destination, which could re-shape the rush hour (making it start earlier and ending it later). The problem with transfers is that within the system there are some stations (even in popular complexes) that have narrow pathways that wouldn't be able to handle the foot traffic.

4. De-interlining the system would drive up the cost of providing daily service because many more train crews would be needed to operate each line - which would therefore translate into needing government grants to make up the deficit because you can be sure that doubling the subway fare will be a non-starter.

Providing one-seat rides may be more convenient, but what good are they if they get delayed all the time and run less frequently? I don’t think we should just accept it as a part of taking the subway. We should be targeting the major bottlenecks in the system (there’s been a lot of past discussion on the forums about this over the years) and figuring out how to undo them. And lines like QBL, where pre-pandemic, we had trains that were bursting at the seems and will again as subway ridership continues to bounce back, can’t continue to go on with the current setup. Not with three merges in the Long Island City area - 36th St , Queens Plaza  ( southbound) and 11th St Cut . We can do better than that.

And saying it’s too expensive to de-interline isn’t really helpful because that gives the MTA incentive not to consider it because they will justify the current patterns by saying, “But it’s cheaper!”  You get what you pay for. If you want to run subway service on the cheap, then expect there to be problems. Including signal and switch problems. Don’t tell me that the constant overuse of signals and switches doesn’t cause them to break down and need fixing constantly. Or replacing. And that costs money too.
 

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[mrsman]

17 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Well #4 answers a question that I've been asking for a long time on these forums (I've been asking how deinterlining would affect operating costs since 2018 IIRC). However, with all of this taken into account. I'm assuming the best way to make ANY Deinterlining proposal work is to tackle issue #1 before any rerouting begins which is terminal operations and Capacity wether that'd be through changing up fumigating practices or adding switches/layups where ever possible? I can get behind that. 

After Terminal Operations practices are changed and capacity is increased, the next course of action after that should be to increase station capacity at major transfer points (issue #3) through any means necessary? Stations such as 149th Street-Grand Concourse , Delancey-Essex , Canal Street  (never been a fan of the Bridge Platforms, hate being there cause I feel unsafe walking/waiting there and I know for a fact that I'm not the only one that feels that way), Atlantic-Barclays , 7th Avenue , and whatever other stations that I missed? (Mind you, I'm not counting locations where new transers could be added or where station conversions could takeplace).

Then once all of this is taken into account/solved, THEN would Deinterlining be more feasible?

I think this discussion is brilliant because it gets to the heart of what deinterlining is and what it can accomplish.  In short, the purpose of deinterlining is to run the system in a much more efficient way so that more trains can run without the need for larger capital projects.  The whole goal is to enable a service increase, running more frequent trains, around the system, as well as running them more efficiently by minimimizing the delay-inducing merges, and to the extent that merges do exist, limit their impact within specific areas of the system.

It is undoubetdly true that part of the way of getting each trunk line to run at its maximum is by improving terminal operations.  And it is also understood that a general move toward deinterlining would mean that most passengers would be transferring more and/or walking a bit more outside of the system.  And to enable this, yes, there probably should be some money spent on track switches, station improvements, platrform widenings, new station exits and entrances.  These  types of constructions are far cheaper than a brand new line to enable additional capacity in the existing system.

In my mind, I view what is happening along the Broadway BMT as being a terrible use of the available capacity.  Bringin in a driving analogy, it seems equivalent to having  drivers in the left lane,  and  drivers in the right lane and  basically being a road hog and driving on both lanes at the same time.  If  were restricted to the left lane (by not merging from express to local), the road's capacity is better utilized.  But the Broadway BMT isn't the only place this is happening, it's just the worst example because it happens right in the heart of Midtown so it effects a majority of the line's passengers.

So I don't view issue #4 as a deinterlining problem -- running more service is the goal.  Running more service without the need to build multiple new lines.

 

[RR503]

On 7/12/2021 at 7:56 PM, darkstar8983 said:

Some of the main problems with ANY de-interlining plain I see is that

1. The current subway system (even with rebuilding of Rogers Av Junction) has inefficient terminal operations that cap the number of trains that can run on the entire line.

2. If we try to circumvent issue 1, then interlining begins, either through merges, or short-turn trains. With short-turns, you are forcing a station that typically doesn't operate as a terminal to operate as one. If there are going to be merges, then it defeats the purpose of de-interlining, which would just add confusion

3. You would be forcing the subway to YES operate at near max capacity, yet MORE riders will not be taken to their destination on a single line. This would force transfers, or additional walking time to get to/from their destination, which could re-shape the rush hour (making it start earlier and ending it later). The problem with transfers is that within the system there are some stations (even in popular complexes) that have narrow pathways that wouldn't be able to handle the foot traffic.

4. De-interlining the system would drive up the cost of providing daily service because many more train crews would be needed to operate each line - which would therefore translate into needing government grants to make up the deficit because you can be sure that doubling the subway fare will be a non-starter.

Pretty much all of these issues boil down to "we'd need to run more trains to implement plan x." That isn't always true! Let's run through the common proposals:

- / swap: you really should bump up  service by 1-2tph given how popular the connection at Lex-63 has become with the , but you don't have to, and the running time differences btwn the two routes are like 1 minute.

- CPW: again, you should increase service, but it's totally feasible without that. Assuming  - 168 local,  - BPB local,  - 207 exp and  - 205 exp, essentially swap  and  service levels for the CPW peaks (so s/b AM and n/b PM). The  is about 10 mins shorter than the  (comparing 59-EUC to 59-STL), but some of that is made up for by the fact that s relay and s don't. Either way, minimal changes in overall service-hours spent 

- Dekalb: all of the S. Brooklyn Manhattan Bridge routes have, to a first approximation, the same service profile in the Brooklyn peaks. So that's an easy one. 

Now for the harder ones:

- 34 St: you basically need to add 7.5tph of  service to make up for lost s. Some of the service-hours you need for that can come from the fact that 96 St is 11 mins closer to 34 than Astoria, but you'll end up spending money there. 

- Rogers: Peak hour  service levels are close enough to the  that you could probably get away with not adding service here, but the whole point of this investment is that the IRT express routes run well below need, especially for Brooklyn peaks and on the West Side. 

- Something more extensive in Queens: I think the need to add service when you do  and  to Astoria is pretty self evident? 

Also note: for most merges, you'll likely achieve some running time savings through merge elimination. Nothing earth shattering, but with knock on effects in reduced OT, dispatcher workload, switch maintenance...it's money!

[LGA Link N Train]

Just to focus on CPW for a bit. I noticed that any proposal that does the 8th Express/6th Local alignment (while optimal under the current system) seems to have a few gaps in them. One's that have been discussed before and some that haven't. But just to get the pros out of the way even though everyone here knows:

• They keep consistency with the current service patterns. 
• 10 car (600' length)  trains, thus resulting in a 10% Capacity increase for all lines on CPW
• 8th and 6th Service is evenly allocated to Washington Heights and Inwood above 145th Street wether that'd be an / or / alignment. The former keeps familiarity on both Branches.
• Removing the Merge at Canal Street with the and thus resulting in removing 2 bottlenecks instead of one.

And the Cons:

• 50th Street Upper Level loses service unless a G.O. or Delay were to happen
• Bedford Park Blvd Terminal Operations might mess with Service under this alignment. IIRC, it can only handle turning 6-7 TPH which is not good for West End Service assuming that we go with the Swap for DeKalb Junction.

I was discussing this with a friend of mine and this is a concern that @T to Dyre Avenue has brought up in the past is the fact that 50th Upper Level would see no regular service and could end up becoming like Bergen Street's lower level. I may be one of the people who sees this as a non-issue because of the stations very close proximity to 59th Street , 42nd Street and 7th Avenue but still something to take into account regardless. But say that this alignment is implemented, then wouldn't making 7th Avenue and 50th Street ADA-Accessible in addition to adding entrances at the 52nd Street end of 50th Street mitigate this issue?  Also, whats the most number of TPH that Bedford Park can Really turn?

[Amiri the subway guy]

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 

: 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 

: Eliminated, replaced by <J>

 

This would go along with a few station adjustments, namely converting a few stations to express stations.

59th Street-Columbus Circle  

50th Street  

Franklin Avenue  

Rockaway Boulevard  

I would said use Z train instead of <J> it reduces confusion. And I would said reroute the N train to 96 st and reroute the W train to forest hills. Best to leave IRT the way it is. I doubt that cranberry st tunnel could handle 3 SERVICES at once. I strongly disagree with rerouting the M train back to downtown Manhattan and Nassau st. Williamburg uses the M train to get to midtown so rerouting it down midtown is a bad idea.  Orange M train has proven to be a very popular alternative to the L train. And to be perfectly honest the Brown M train was very useless I mean it was basically J train running via Myrtle ave line. Back then The majority of riders often transfer to delanacy st Essex st for F train service to get to midtown. Well the only major downside of the M rerouting is that M train riders did lose one seat ride to lower Manhattan and during rush hours southern Brooklyn , and even that isn’t really a loss especially when you consider the fact that Williamsburg and Bushwick is demanding more midtown service and not many people go to lower Manhattan amd in southern Brooklyn basically no one went EVEN DURING rush hours the trains were nearly empty and if they really want to get to lower Manhattan they can just transfer to the J/Z train. But good proposal 

[ActiveCity]

We're going to need the K train back if we're gonna de-interline central park west.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

13 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

We're going to need the K train back if we're gonna de-interline central park west.

We are? Why wouldn't  local /  express work?

[ActiveCity]

6 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

We are? Why wouldn't  local /  express work?

That could work temporarily, but assuming that the E and K will run local on Queens Blvd with the F and M being express, it would have to take over the Fulton and Rockaway lines which doesn't sit well with me. That's the reason why we need a new spur from the 8th avenue local line so that we can avoid abandoning 50 St all together.

Edited July 30, 2021 by ActiveCity

[LGA Link N Train]

Who says you need to abandon 50th Upper under an  Express;  Local alignment and vice versa? Wouldn’t that be shortsighted thinking because lets say a G.O. Or delay requiring reroutes happens. You’ll still need those platforms ready for use in case something happens.

[mrsman]

On 7/30/2021 at 4:52 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Who says you need to abandon 50th Upper under an  Express;  Local alignment and vice versa? Wouldn’t that be shortsighted thinking because lets say a G.O. Or delay requiring reroutes happens. You’ll still need those platforms ready for use in case something happens.

THose tracks should not be abandoned, for the reasons you state.

I wonder if anyone knows how feasible it is to install track switches to do the following:.  (I.e. could any of these alternates operate without interfering with the operations of  or  )

1) Run AC as express at Columbus Circle, switch to the local tracks to service 50th, switch back to the express tracks by 42nd.  In this case BD will be CPW locals and E trains will be the sole 8th Ave local and will terminate at WTC.

2) Run AC as express at Columbus Circle, swith to the local tracks to service 50th, continue on the local tracks down 8th Ave.  In this case, BD will be CPW locals and E will be the 8th Ave express service.  Depending upon service patterns, you could limit AC to the turning capacity of WTC and run a full load of Queens-53rd-8th express trains into the Cranberry turnnel.  Alternatively, if you maintain  or  patterns on 53rd, then  will not run at full capacity on the 8th Ave express, and very likely A will merge in with E to service Cranberry tunnel and C will terminate at WTC.

3) Run AC as local at Columbus Circle, sevice 50th, and then switch to the express tracks before 42nd.  In this case, BD will be CPW expresses and E trains will be the 8th Ave local service.  

 

I would think that if you wanted to de-interline QBL, and decided that the QBL locals will service 53rd and the QBL expresses will service 63rd, the following will need to be done:

Extend platforms along the  line so that both F and M can run full length QBL express - 6th Ave local trains

Run  as a Forest Hills - QBL local - 53 - 8th Ave local train that terminates at WTC.

Run  as express and hope that alternate 1 is feasible so that 50th can be served.

 

I think a better plan, though, would be as follows:

Extend platforms along the  line so that both F and M can run full length QBL express - 6th Ave local trains*

Run both  and  service as the QBL local, but the QBL local will depart form 179th, not Forest Hills.  This will allow for more trains on the local tracks.  The  service will run through 53rd to the 8th Ave express and continue to the Cranberry Tunnel.

This would force  as 8th Ave locals that terminate at WTC and  as the CPW expresses

 

* As an alternative along the Broadway-Brooklyn line, what if the rush hour service were rearranged as follows:

6 TPH Brown M service Metropolitan to Chambers

8 TPH  service from JC to Broad (4 J and 4 Z)

6 TPH  service from QBL express-63rd-6th Ave local - Broadway Brooklyn to terminate at Broadway Junction.   will run express in the dominant direction.  A train like this would have fewer platforms to extend and essentially will be a train where JMZ passengers can transfer to reach Midtown.  

 

 

 

[mrsman]

And based on all of the above, I now seem to be in favor of a plan that will run as follows:

 CPW local - 8th Ave  local - WTC

 QBL express - 53rd - 8th Ave express - Cranberry - Fulton line

 CPW express - 6th Ave express - South Brooklyn

 QBL local (from 179) - 63rd - 6th Ave local - Culver line or Myrtle line

 96th/2nd - Broadway express - South Brooklyn

 Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - Montague Tunnel - South Brooklyn

 would serve as a bit of a hybrid, but only 6 TPH runs during rush hour.  QBL local emanating from Forest Hills - servicing Queens Plaza - 60th - Broadway local - Whitehall.   would force interlining on the 6th local and Broadway local, but keep interference away from every other trunk line.

 will run as they do now, but they will also be within the interference zone as there are sections where these trains do interact with  an  trains.

 would be a little bit of a train to be used as needed.  Ideally, most QBL local customers would just use  .  Most 6th Ave stations in Midtown are close enough to Broadway, and an easy transfer to  would be provided at 63rd/Lex.  (An improved transfer to 456 would also be critical.  THe QBL folks who need to go to LIC will have a limited R service that can service that need.  R certainly introduces an interference between Broadway and 6th Ave lines, but only affecting the local tracks.