Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
W4ST

Redesign a Line

Recommended Posts

This is a game in which you can redesign a line of your choosing. You can redesign any line in the system today, like CPW, 7th Avenue, 6th Avenue, or Queens Blvd. You can move express stations, add tracks, or remove tracks. The only rule in the redesign is that you have to keep the geographic route of the line the same. You can add extensions but the existing part has to remain.

As an example this is how I would redesign the 7th Avenue Line in Manhattan / NW Bronx:

  • I would move the express station from 72 street to 59 street
  • I would make the Lenox Avenue line a 4 track line, with (2) trains going express and (3) trains going local. An express stop would be at 135th Street. The other stops would be local.
  • I would make the (1) line from 96 Street to 242 Street have 3 tracks along its entire route. The (1) and (9) would run.
  • The (1) would run local, and terminate at Dyckman Street, while the (9) would run peak direction express, and terminate at 242 Street. It would run express south of Dyckman Street, with express stops at Dyckman Street, 168 Street, and 137 Street.
  • The (1) would have provisions to be extended eastward along Fordham Road.
  • In Manhattan south of 96 Street, the (1)(3) would be local and the (2)(9) would be express.

This couldn't actually happen but it is fun to make plans. How would you redesign a line?

  • Thumbs Up 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the purpose of these arbitrary rules for proposals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W4ST said:

This is a game in which you can redesign a line of your choosing. You can redesign any line in the system today, like CPW, 7th Avenue, 6th Avenue, or Queens Blvd. You can move express stations, add tracks, or remove tracks. The only rule in the redesign is that you have to keep the geographic route of the line the same. You can add extensions but the existing part has to remain.

As an example this is how I would redesign the 7th Avenue Line in Manhattan / NW Bronx:

  • I would move the express station from 72 street to 59 street
  • I would make the Lenox Avenue line a 4 track line, with (2) trains going express and (3) trains going local. An express stop would be at 135th Street. The other stops would be local.
  • I would make the (1) line from 96 Street to 242 Street have 3 tracks along its entire route. The (1) and (9) would run.
  • The (1) would run local, and terminate at Dyckman Street, while the (9) would run peak direction express, and terminate at 242 Street. It would run express south of Dyckman Street, with express stops at Dyckman Street, 168 Street, and 137 Street.
  • The (1) would have provisions to be extended eastward along Fordham Road.
  • In Manhattan south of 96 Street, the (1)(3) would be local and the (2)(9) would be express.

This couldn't actually happen but it is fun to make plans. How would you redesign a line?

The whole (1) and (9) thing seems unnecessary. The (1) does fine as-is and a merge at 96th won't go well. The express stop on Lenox should be at 125th and if you want you can add one at 110th too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd redesign the junction where 6 Avenue by having the junction North of Rockfeller Center to be redesigned . Then 47-50 Streets and 42 Street would be (instead) a stop between 48-44 (transfer to the (7) is still provided. (Under a scenario where 53 Street was 4 tracks instead of 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, CenSin said:

I don't understand the purpose of these arbitrary rules for proposals.

These aren't actual proposals but rather if you were to redesign the subway system, how would you do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

if you were to redesign the subway system, how would you do it.

Isn’t that what every proposal on this site is?

  • LMAO! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would redo the (3) and (4) as follows:

Harlem-145th is abandoned. 

A new two track line is built over the river and connects with the (4) at 161st St-Yankee Stadium.

The (3) operates between New Lots Av (Times Square late nights) and 161st St-Yankee Stadium (weekend and latenight terminus) and Burnside Av (all other times.)

The (4) operates some peak-direction <4> express trains between Bedford Park Blvd and 125th St.

For the (5):

Rebuild the junction at 138th St into a flying junction so that merging (5) trains automatically go into the express track to not clog up the (4) on the local.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When CBTC on the Queens Blvd line is up and running, have the (M) go express in Queens to Forest Hills and go local all the way to 179th St with the (F). I haven’t done the math but the (M) doesn’t run so frequently that CBTC on the express track wouldn’t be able to handle it, right? It makes no sense to run more trains on the local track if they’re just going to be backed up going into Forest Hills. But increase the headway on the (R) to a reasonable amount for the time of day to pick up the slack from the (M). I don’t see the (M) too crowded anyway, even in rush hour! 179th St is set up to be the best terminal in the system for turning around trains and they only use it for one line yet Forest Hills is backed up every day and they’re using it for two lines 🤔

Edited by LexAveExp5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LexAveExp5 said:

When CBTC on the Queens Blvd line is up and running, have the (M) go express in Queens to Forest Hills and go local all the way to 179th St with the (F). I haven’t done the math but the (M) doesn’t run so frequently that CBTC on the express track wouldn’t be able to handle it, right? It makes no sense to run more trains on the local track if they’re just going to be backed up going into Forest Hills. But increase the headway on the (R) to a reasonable amount for the time of day to pick up the slack from the (M). I don’t see the (M) too crowded anyway, even in rush hour! 179th St is set up to be the best terminal in the system for turning around trains and they only use it for one line yet Forest Hills is backed up every day and they’re using it for two lines 🤔

If you are going to do something to fix the conga, send the (M) and (R) to 179th and have the (F) run express on Hillside. The local lines may have lower ridership, but at least the conga and the merge at 75th is eliminated.

CBTC will also only add 2-3 express trains. The (M) runs 6 tph. If we are to redo QBL, send the (M) via the express to Jamaica Center and via 63rd, while the (E) runs local via 53rd to Forest Hills. Riders can have 53rd or express, but not both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't understand this fascination with 179. Yes, it has 8 relay tracks, but relay capacity has rarely been the limiter in such operations -- it's usually fumigation that kills capacity. As such, while its 2 pairs of tracks should be able to turn up to 40tph, I don't see it being some saving grace for 71st. Between the fumigation delays inherent in turning the (F)(M)(R) and the merge delays resultant from efforts to mitigate them, I see little benefit in extending both those locals out there -- especially given the already grotesque length of the (R).

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will have (2) trains stay express in manhattan and have (1) (3) serving the lcl to South Ferry...

(5) trains will get extended to 149-Grand Late nights...

I'll also extend (6) service to bowling green late nights...

Share this post


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

I really don't understand this fascination with 179. Yes, it has 8 relay tracks, but relay capacity has rarely been the limiter in such operations -- it's usually fumigation that kills capacity. As such, while its 2 pairs of tracks should be able to turn up to 40tph, I don't see it being some saving grace for 71st. Between the fumigation delays inherent in turning the (F)(M)(R) and the merge delays resultant from efforts to mitigate them, I see little benefit in extending both those locals out there -- especially given the already grotesque length of the (R).

But Forest Hills has to be the worst terminal to have trains terminating at. You obviously can't send them to Jamiaca Center, so 179th is the only viable option. What we can do is have some rush hour (M) And (R) trains extended to 179th St, which is when the delays at Forest Hills start happening.

Share this post


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

But Forest Hills has to be the worst terminal to have trains terminating at. You obviously can't send them to Jamiaca Center, so 179th is the only viable option. What we can do is have some rush hour (M) And (R) trains extended to 179th St, which is when the delays at Forest Hills start happening.

Or:

(R) - 71st/Continental to Whitehall

(W) - Astoria to Bay Ridge

(M) - Queens Plaza to Middle Village

(F) - QBL express to 179th St

(G) - QBL local, 179th St to Bk 7th Av (needs new crossovers at 7th Av)

Share this post


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

Or:

(R) - 71st/Continental to Whitehall

 (W) - Astoria to Bay Ridge

 (M) - Queens Plaza to Middle Village

(F) - QBL express to 179th St

 (G) - QBL local, 179th St to Bk 7th Av (needs new crossovers at 7th Av)

You sure you really want fumigation delays at Queens Plaza on the express tracks? Remember the turning procedure for QP is via the layup track (D5) beyond the station. Also remember that by extending the (G), you're cutting 1 seat local access to Queens Boulevard stops which'll almost certainly result in even more crowding on the expresses. 

What I would do at least in the short term is what Lawrence st proposes -- just send some (M) trips (esp. those that lay up on Hillside anyway) to 179. Gives 71 some time to regroup at least. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

You sure you really want fumigation delays at Queens Plaza on the express tracks? Remember the turning procedure for QP is via the layup track (D5) beyond the station. Also remember that by extending the (G), you're cutting 1 seat local access to Queens Boulevard stops which'll almost certainly result in even more crowding on the expresses. 

What I would do at least in the short term is what Lawrence st proposes -- just send some (M) trips (esp. those that lay up on Hillside anyway) to 179. Gives 71 some time to regroup at least. 

Point taken on (M) - that was basically a "how to avoid a switching delay between express and locals so (E) isn't held up waiting for (R) to decide to show up" idea.

But I'm confused by your comment on (G) and a one-seat ride since my thinking was forcing folks to transfer at QPLZ would make the local be utilized more while relieving crowding - due to (M) not waiting, (R) being more reliable by reducing the route length 30-40% and having it supplemented by (G) (under the assumption that additional consists on (R) would become available by redirecting R46s to (W) and (G) ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

But Forest Hills has to be the worst terminal to have trains terminating at. You obviously can't send them to Jamiaca Center, so 179th is the only viable option. What we can do is have some rush hour (M) And (R) trains extended to 179th St, which is when the delays at Forest Hills start happening.

I find the worst delays to be after the rush hour when they’re trying to lay up everything so maybe send them to 179 an hour after the rush too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2018 at 1:27 AM, brakethrow said:

The whole system needs to be blown up and start from scratch. 

What's your plan to restart the whole system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the7train said:

What's your plan to restart the whole system?

Hypothetically speaking the whole system would have welded rail, Els would be sound resistant, better drainage systems, timers only in areas to protect possible train derailment.

Alao the Nostrand Ave line would extend to Marine Park with express tracks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I would definitely do is Reconstructure the (A)(C) lines in Queens. The (C) would go to Leffords Blvd and The (A) would go to Far Rockaway full time. (There will still be Rush hour (A) trips to Rockaway Park. This should reduce the 20+ min headways in the Rockaways/Lefferts during off-peak hours. Late nights, The (C) would become a shuttle from Broadway Junction to/from Leffers Blvd.

Edited by Lil 57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would redesign the Sea Beach (N) line. I would like to rebuild each station and the express tracks.

I would like to reintroduce express service along the Sea Beach (N) line.

I am not certain where express stations would be except one would be New Utrecht Avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Q Broadway Express said:

I would redesign the Sea Beach (N) line. I would like to rebuild each station and the express tracks.

I would like to reintroduce express service along the Sea Beach (N) line.

I am not certain where express stations would be except one would be New Utrecht Avenue.

If anything, I think Sea Beach would do just good with 3 tracks. But going off your idea, you should add the following: 

Rebuild the Junction at 59th Street to allow for minimal interlining as possible. The express tracks stay Express and the local tracks will Branch off to Bay Ridge as it currently does. Let’s say for example, the (J) or (R) is Local #1 heads to Bay Ridge. Local #2 is the (W) and heads with the (N)

Your Express Stops should be New Urchet Avenue, Bay Parkway, and 86th Street. To create minimal interlining, you could have 86th Street as your terminal for Local trains which will head Straight to Coney Island Yard. Local riders would be short of one stop to Coney Island, but this is to not to pass the capacity limit at Coney Island. 

Preferrably, id make Sea Beach 3 tracks instead of 4: 

All platforms are Extended/Expanded. 

(New Urchet, Bay Parkway, and 86th Street get rebuilt into 3 track, 2 Island Platforms, all ADA compliant) 

New interlockings are installed just before 86th for terminating (W) trains, which head straight to CIY. 

The middle track is mainly just for testing, but runs a special Summertime peak run (the <N>) for Coney Island Bound passengers. 

Share this post


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

If anything, I think Sea Beach would do just good with 3 tracks. But going off your idea, you should add the following: 

Rebuild the Junction at 59th Street to allow for minimal interlining as possible. The express tracks stay Express and the local tracks will Branch off to Bay Ridge as it currently does. Let’s say for example, the (J) or (R) is Local #1 heads to Bay Ridge. Local #2 is the (W) and heads with the (N)

Your Express Stops should be New Urchet Avenue, Bay Parkway, and 86th Street. To create minimal interlining, you could have 86th Street as your terminal for Local trains which will head Straight to Coney Island Yard. Local riders would be short of one stop to Coney Island, but this is to not to pass the capacity limit at Coney Island. 

Preferrably, id make Sea Beach 3 tracks instead of 4: 

All platforms are Extended/Expanded. 

(New Urchet, Bay Parkway, and 86th Street get rebuilt into 3 track, 2 Island Platforms, all ADA compliant) 

New interlockings are installed just before 86th for terminating (W) trains, which head straight to CIY. 

The middle track is mainly just for testing, but runs a special Summertime peak run (the <N>) for Coney Island Bound passengers. 

Makes more sense to do Bay Pkwy, Utrecht and 8th based on ridership and connections- 86th can remain local given its lower ridership.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure the Sea Beach Line even needs an express, given that it only has nine stops and the (N) starts going express after 59th Street. But those three would make sense to be the “express” stops...well, at least Bay Pkwy and 8th Avenue, which are the busiest Sea Beach stops by far.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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