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.

Bay Ridge area politicians call for split R train


Around the Horn
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, vioreen said:

Why make the (R) end at Whitehall along with the (W), instead extend either the (J) or (Z) or both to Bay Ridge.

How can 2 services relay on 1 middle track at Whitehall?  Plus who were you responding to in the first place when the post before yours was made over a year ago?

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 710
  • Created
  • Last Reply
22 hours ago, vioreen said:

Why make the (R) end at Whitehall along with the (W), instead extend either the (J) or (Z) or both to Bay Ridge.

I don’t why people always talk about the (J) being extended into South Brooklyn. The (J) is already long enough and there was a reason why the MTA did away with all the  service past Broad Street.

I wonder if it is possible for the MTA to connect 4th Ave from the South (Manhattan bound track) to the Sea Beach Line allowing easier access to Coney Island Yard. Or perhaps having a connection from the Manhattan bound track to the west end line to access the 36th street yard. Wasn’t the reason the (N) and (R) swapped because of the yard situation. If the MTA could get a hold of some land they can build a small tunnel to allow yard access from the Manhattan bound platform.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I don’t why people always talk about the (J) being extended into South Brooklyn. The (J) is already long enough and there was a reason why the MTA did away with all the  service past Broad Street.

I wonder if it is possible for the MTA to connect 4th Ave from the South (Manhattan bound track) to the Sea Beach Line allowing easier access to Coney Island Yard. Or perhaps having a connection from the Manhattan bound track to the west end line to access the 36th street yard. Wasn’t the reason the (N) and (R) swapped because of the yard situation. If the MTA could get a hold of some land they can build a small tunnel to allow yard access from the Manhattan bound platform.
 

So what you're saying is from Bay Ridge Av connecting to Sea Beach or West End from 45th St? I mean, it wouldn't be a bad idea, just how feasible would it be or if the (MTA) ever plans on doing that is the better question? However, the problem is that the distance from either directions would be pretty long just to get to CIY.

Edited by Vulturious
Forgot to mention distance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I don’t why people always talk about the (J) being extended into South Brooklyn. The (J) is already long enough and there was a reason why the MTA did away with all the  service past Broad Street.

I wonder if it is possible for the MTA to connect 4th Ave from the South (Manhattan bound track) to the Sea Beach Line allowing easier access to Coney Island Yard. Or perhaps having a connection from the Manhattan bound track to the west end line to access the 36th street yard. Wasn’t the reason the (N) and (R) swapped because of the yard situation. If the MTA could get a hold of some land they can build a small tunnel to allow yard access from the Manhattan bound platform.
 

Actually, unlike the (R), the (J) does not interline with 4 other services which actually makes it reliable.

One of the main problems on the 4th Av corridor is the fact that the (R) always ends up being delayed because of an issue on Broadway or Queens Blvd. Having the (J), which has a better on time preformence, replace the (R) on 4th Av actually boosts on time preformence and reliability.

The (R) to Chambers St, which is proposed by others, won't work simply because there's no place to relay it without delaying the (J) . You can't relay it at Essex St either since all three tracks are in use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Actually, unlike the (R), the (J) does not interline with 4 other services which actually makes it reliable.

One of the main problems on the 4th Av corridor is the fact that the (R) always ends up being delayed because of an issue on Broadway or Queens Blvd. Having the (J), which has a better on time preformence, replace the (R) on 4th Av actually boosts on time preformence and reliability.

The (R) to Chambers St, which is proposed by others, won't work simply because there's no place to relay it without delaying the (J) . You can't relay it at Essex St either since all three tracks are in use.

(J) extension to Bay Ridge would make the route too long IMO.  Interestingly enough though, the old Nassau <R> you mention used to have certain put-ins that ran from Metropolitan Ave to 95th-4th.  I actually see that as one of the bigger missed opportunities of the mid-to-late '80s service changes; they could've made the (R) a 71st-Whitehall only service and just replaced it with the (brownM) down 4th Avenue.

Of course now, 30+ years later, ridership patterns have changed and that window of opportunity has long closed, but nevertheless it makes me wonder about the roads not taken.  I certainly think the (R) in it's current setup does not work well- the concerns of Brooklyn riders are a testament to that, and at some point the transit authority will have to reckon with them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

(J) extension to Bay Ridge would make the route too long IMO.  Interestingly enough though, the old Nassau <R> you mention used to have certain put-ins that ran from Metropolitan Ave to 95th-4th.  I actually see that as one of the bigger missed opportunities of the mid-to-late '80s service changes; they could've made the (R) a 71st-Whitehall only service and just replaced it with the (brownM) down 4th Avenue.

Of course now, 30+ years later, ridership patterns have changed and that window of opportunity has long closed, but nevertheless it makes me wonder about the roads not taken.  I certainly think the (R) in it's current setup does not work well- the concerns of Brooklyn riders are a testament to that, and at some point the transit authority will have to reckon with them.

Well, let's hope it's sooner rather than later. They really should look at some proposal's to fix the (R) rather than waste their time trying to fix something that doesn't necessarily need fixing for a while. Vanshnook's proposal has to be one of the best ideas when it comes to fixing the (R) or at least fixing South Brooklyn's problem (even though I still don't like the fact that West End takes all the problems that 4th Av Local has) that is service. I do agree that there are a lot of things the (MTA) in general could've taken advantage say for example keeping some of the EL's around rather than completely demolishing them like the Culver Shuttle, Myrtle Av EL, 3rd Av EL, you get the point. However, things are going to keep on getting worse if they do nothing to fix the (R) in Brooklyn, something needs to happen soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

 (MTA) in general could've taken advantage say for example keeping some of the EL's around rather than completely demolishing them like the Culver Shuttle, Myrtle Av EL, 3rd Av EL, you get the point. However, things are going to keep on getting worse if they do nothing to fix the (R) in Brooklyn, something needs to happen soon.

FWIW I think that after the South Ferry portion of Third and the Brooklyn Bridge portion of Myrtle closed, they both became lost causes to be honest.

The Culver Shuttle, though, is something that could've stuck around, I agree.  One of the reasons the Franklin Shuttle survived and the Culver died is because the community in Crown Heights was a lot more organized about fighting for retention of service.  The community in Borough Park, on the other hand, just didn't push back hard enough against the (TA), so they lost theirs. 

Edited by R10 2952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Vulturious said:

So what you're saying is from Bay Ridge Av connecting to Sea Beach or West End from 45th St? I mean, it wouldn't be a bad idea, just how feasible would it be or if the (MTA) ever plans on doing that is the better question? However, the problem is that the distance from either directions would be pretty long just to get to CIY.

If it connects to the West End line it could connect with the 36-38th Yard if it ever gets converted. That would mean that the (R) and (W) can swap southern terminals without having to worry about one of them not having a yard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

FWIW I think that after the South Ferry portion of Third and the Brooklyn Bridge portion of Myrtle closed, they both became lost causes to be honest.

The Culver Shuttle, though, is something that could've stuck around, I agree.  One of the reasons the Franklin Shuttle survived and the Culver died is because the community in Crown Heights was a lot more organized about fighting for retention of service.  The community in Borough Park, on the other hand, just didn't push back hard enough against the (TA), so they lost theirs. 

Especially considering the fact that the Culver Shuttle was reduced to one track when it had three, im surprised it wasn't discontinued a lot earlier.

But, if the Culver shuttle were to come back, is there still a ROW to restore it on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

If it connects to the West End line it could connect with the 36-38th Yard if it ever gets converted. That would mean that the (R) and (W) can swap southern terminals without having to worry about one of them not having a yard. 

That is probably a much better option. Since the (MTA) isn't going to have Second Av Phase 3 built anytime soon, might as well have it for the (R) and (W).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/28/2020 at 11:15 PM, Vulturious said:

I don't think it would be a huge problem actually. For starters, it's just an interlocking that is being added which I don't think is all that complicating. It's certainly much cheaper than having to create new tunnels that's for sure. But think of it like this, this is Bay Ridge we are talking about, people over there will 100% have access to Express service on both 4th Av as well as service into Midtown. Regardless of politics, I'm pretty sure people will mostly be on board with this idea. The only people that would really not benefit as much is West End riders, I say this again because they are taking every problems that 4th Av local had. However, with people saying the benefits of having more trains running per hour on both West End as well as 4th Av in general, people might not mind having to transfer at 36th St. It wouldn't matter either if it was a (B) or (D) train either because it's going to be full time express. Hell, I think there can be full time express service on 4th Av because of this. Again, this whole idea is really debatable, but it isn't hurtful to at least try.

I think if the (R) is rerouted to Astoria and West End, then it would be a virtually self-contained route, along the lines of the (6) and (1) lines, both of which are on their own tracks from start to finish, but on four-track alignments in much of Manhattan. It would have the flexibility to be rerouted to the express tracks if there's a service problem or via Sea Beach if there's a problem on West End. An Astoria-West End (R) could operate up to 21 tph, which would be more frequent service for Astoria than the combined (N) / (W) pre-Covid. 

16 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

(J) extension to Bay Ridge would make the route too long IMO.  Interestingly enough though, the old Nassau <R> you mention used to have certain put-ins that ran from Metropolitan Ave to 95th-4th.  I actually see that as one of the bigger missed opportunities of the mid-to-late '80s service changes; they could've made the (R) a 71st-Whitehall only service and just replaced it with the (brownM) down 4th Avenue.

Of course now, 30+ years later, ridership patterns have changed and that window of opportunity has long closed, but nevertheless it makes me wonder about the roads not taken.  I certainly think the (R) in it's current setup does not work well- the concerns of Brooklyn riders are a testament to that, and at some point the transit authority will have to reckon with them.

1990-91 probably would have the best opportunity to do that, when the MTA faced having to make service cuts. They ultimately left the (brownM) alone and cut the late night (R) to 36th Street in 1990 to connect with the (N) there. I've suggested further back in this thread to have a service operate from Broadway Junction to Bay Ridge to take over the Brooklyn segment of the (R), either keeping the letter ( R ) in a brown Nassau St circle or using a different letter, while truncating the (R) service at Whitehall (possibly using a different letter).

22 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I don’t why people always talk about the (J) being extended into South Brooklyn. The (J) is already long enough and there was a reason why the MTA did away with all the  service past Broad Street.

I wonder if it is possible for the MTA to connect 4th Ave from the South (Manhattan bound track) to the Sea Beach Line allowing easier access to Coney Island Yard. Or perhaps having a connection from the Manhattan bound track to the west end line to access the 36th street yard. Wasn’t the reason the (N) and (R) swapped because of the yard situation. If the MTA could get a hold of some land they can build a small tunnel to allow yard access from the Manhattan bound platform.

This should be another solution worth looking at. That would make it possible to keep the current Brooklyn segment of the (R) as is and would make it much easier to get a train to the yard for repairs or storage without interfering with 4th Ave express service. Then the (D) and (R) lines wouldn't have to change in Brooklyn and then we can focus more on what to do about the delays at DeKalb.

 

15 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Well, let's hope it's sooner rather than later. They really should look at some proposal's to fix the (R) rather than waste their time trying to fix something that doesn't necessarily need fixing for a while. Vanshnook's proposal has to be one of the best ideas when it comes to fixing the (R) or at least fixing South Brooklyn's problem (even though I still don't like the fact that West End takes all the problems that 4th Av Local has) that is service.

To be fair, @R10 2952's suggestion might have worked if they did it back in 1990, instead of giving us the current overnight (R) shuttle (which improved a bit when they extended it from 36th to Whitehall), whose equipment is a long way off from its home base in Queens. Though the (brownM) would have needed more trains to operate full time between Metro and Bay Ridge, so they likely would have had to keep those R30 Redbirds they retired in 1992. But that ship sailed 30 years ago and splitting the (M) back into its former services is a non-starter due to its popularity. I like the idea of the connecting track to 38th St Yard from the northbound 4th Ave local track, because it would largely insulate the West End Line from the local's problems.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Especially considering the fact that the Culver Shuttle was reduced to one track when it had three, im surprised it wasn't discontinued a lot earlier.

But, if the Culver shuttle were to come back, is there still a ROW to restore it on?

No not really, houses were built over the areas the shuttle ran above. It’s a shame because this shuttle and the 3rd Ave El in the Bronx could have served well in today’s NYC.

 

At the time elevated structures were frowned upon, which is part of the reason various structure got torn down. I see where they were coming from but in some cases it left areas with less service and in some cases like 3rd Ave in the Bronx, no service. Some subways were built to replace some of the former elevate tracks like the Fulton Ave line and the Jamaica line in  Jamaica. However the messed up thing with the Archer Ave line is that it did not go to 168th street to fill in the gap over there when the (J) elevated structure was torn down. I do think tearing down the elevated line in the heart of Jamaica was worth it but I will always say that it should have went to 168th street.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
On 2/20/2019 at 5:00 PM, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

This is definitely something that should be up for consideration, I don't know many (R) riders using the line from Brooklyn to Queens (and vice versa) anyways. Why didn't we at least try something like this (not counting 2013-2014 Montague) years ago? 

Hopefully the (MTA) catches on to this idea, they could be the biggest roadblock in these plans...

They should split the R Train, The R Train between Bay Ridge 95th Street Brooklyn & Essex Street via Nassau Street in Manhattan (Renamed the P Line). The rest of the R line should be Between 71st Continental Ave in Queens & 9th Ave via West End, Brooklyn (except nights)  with R Trains going far as Bay Parkway, Brooklyn doing Rush hours

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bread6000 said:

They should split the R Train, The R Train between Bay Ridge 95th Street Brooklyn & Essex Street via Nassau Street in Manhattan (Renamed the P Line). The rest of the R line should be Between 71st Continental Ave in Queens & 9th Ave via West End, Brooklyn (except nights)  with R Trains going far as Bay Parkway, Brooklyn doing Rush hours

 

In other words, the Queens (R) would end up being almost as long as the current (R) is (and even longer during rush hours), and there would be a Nassau Street (RJ) superimposed over it. That's not a "split" — it's a reroute plus a totally a new route. The (R) would end up using the same trains and crews that it already has, and the (RJ) would need its own 8x60 fleet. 

 

Where would all those extra trains and crews come from?

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2021 at 4:57 PM, bread6000 said:

They should split the R Train, The R Train between Bay Ridge 95th Street Brooklyn & Essex Street via Nassau Street in Manhattan (Renamed the P Line). The rest of the R line should be Between 71st Continental Ave in Queens & 9th Ave via West End, Brooklyn (except nights)  with R Trains going far as Bay Parkway, Brooklyn doing Rush hours

Hi @bread6000, welcome to the forums. For a second, I thought you had some news about whether or not the Bay Ridge area politicians who proposed splitting the (R) well over two years ago (when this thread was started) were following up with the MTA on their proposal (even though Max Rose is no longer in Congress, having unfortunately been replaced by Trump yes-woman Nicole Maliotakis). 

While I’m certainly open to splitting the (R) and have offered my own proposal for doing so way back in the beginning of this thread, I do have to say, in agreement with @Gotham Bus Co. that the Queens-Manhattan (R) would be almost as long as current (R) if it were rerouted to 9th Avenue via the (D) line. Not to mention the very real possibility of delays at 36th St with southbound (D) express trains having to merge with (R) locals.

Also, Essex St is a lousy place to turn trains coming from the south, especially since both tracks on the northbound are used by the (J) and (M)

On 9/12/2021 at 6:13 PM, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

In other words, the Queens (R) would end up being almost as long as the current (R) is (and even longer during rush hours), and there would be a Nassau Street (RJ) superimposed over it. That's not a "split" — it's a reroute plus a totally a new route. The (R) would end up using the same trains and crews that it already has, and the (RJ) would need its own 8x60 fleet. 

 

Where would all those extra trains and crews come from?

Agreed. My idea from earlier in the thread was to run the (R) from 71st-Continental to Whitehall St at all times except overnights, while extending the (W) to 86th St/4th Ave turning on the existing middle track between 86th and 95th streets (with new switches installed south of 86th), while running a new full-time P service between 95th Street and Broadway Junction. Though I am fully aware that plan would limit the (J), (M) and P services to a maximum of 8 tph apiece, which would likely be a problem if they ever decide to run additional (M) trains along busy Queens Blvd. Or if 4th Ave local service becomes more popular, having only eight P trains per hour would likely be insufficient and a supplemental service like the (W) would be needed. 

On the other hand, they could build those two switches south of 36th St and run this service pattern…

https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2020/10/deinterlining-with-one-switch/ 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/12/2021 at 4:57 PM, bread6000 said:

They should split the R Train, The R Train between Bay Ridge 95th Street Brooklyn & Essex Street via Nassau Street in Manhattan (Renamed the P Line). The rest of the R line should be Between 71st Continental Ave in Queens & 9th Ave via West End, Brooklyn (except nights)  with R Trains going far as Bay Parkway, Brooklyn doing Rush hours

The way I now would do it would have the (R) split like this:

The current Canal Street and Bowery (J) / (Z) stations would go back to having both platforms open as it was prior to 2004 or so (the old northbound platforms worked on and rehabbed for this).  This would allow the (R) coming from Chambers to terminate at Canal Street on the northbound "express" track, then relay to what would become the southbound "express" track to begin the other way, esentially running the old "bankers special" (RJ)/<RR> route in this case between 95th Street and Canal (which used to actually be a terminal for some trains back in the day), eliminating the issue of using Essex Street for a terminal (late nights, the (R) would be extended to Metropolitan Avenue to replace the (M) while there would also be in-service yard runs on this (R) from and to Broadway Junction).  These tracks at Canal and Bowery could also be used by the (J) / (Z) in an emergency situation as well this way.

The (W) becomes the full-time Broadway Local to Astoria, running from either the 9th Avenue or Bay Parkway (D) station with some (W) trains terminating at Whitehall as they do now.  There would be a same platform transfer anywhere between 36th Street and Court Street for those on the (R) looking for the Broadway line stations in lower Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

The way I now would do it would have the (R) split like this:

The current Canal Street and Bowery (J) / (Z) stations would go back to having both platforms open as it was prior to 2004 or so (the old northbound platforms worked on and rehabbed for this).  This would allow the (R) coming from Chambers to terminate at Canal Street on the northbound "express" track, then relay to what would become the southbound "express" track to begin the other way, esentially running the old "bankers special" (RJ)/<RR> route in this case between 95th Street and Canal (which used to actually be a terminal for some trains back in the day), eliminating the issue of using Essex Street for a terminal (late nights, the (R) would be extended to Metropolitan Avenue to replace the (M) while there would also be in-service yard runs on this (R) from and to Broadway Junction).  These tracks at Canal and Bowery could also be used by the (J) / (Z) in an emergency situation as well this way.

The (W) becomes the full-time Broadway Local to Astoria, running from either the 9th Avenue or Bay Parkway (D) station with some (W) trains terminating at Whitehall as they do now.  There would be a same platform transfer anywhere between 36th Street and Court Street for those on the (R) looking for the Broadway line stations in lower Manhattan.

This actually seems to be pretty good.  In some ways, this is almost a re-creation of the old service pattern with <M> to Bay Parkway and (R) to 95th, except that you are switching the terminals.  

So a Brown-R train from Chambers to 95th and a (W) train from Astoria to Bay Parkway.

If that is the case, will there also be a service from QBL local to Broadway or not?  Would (W) be the only train on the Broadway local?  What would service the Queens Blvd local?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, mrsman said:

This actually seems to be pretty good.  In some ways, this is almost a re-creation of the old service pattern with <M> to Bay Parkway and (R) to 95th, except that you are switching the terminals.  

So a Brown-R train from Chambers to 95th and a (W) train from Astoria to Bay Parkway.

If that is the case, will there also be a service from QBL local to Broadway or not?  Would (W) be the only train on the Broadway local?  What would service the Queens Blvd local?

That's what I'd like to know!

I mean, one possible work-around might be to "partially de-interline" QBL by having the (E) and (M) run local on QBL via 53rd (with both terminating at 71st Ave) and the (F) and either the (N) or (Q) running express on QBL via 63rd (replacing the (E) to/from Parsons-Archer while the other Broadway Express service runs on 2nd Ave). Then you could have the ( R ) run from Lower Manhattan to 95th and the (W) from Astoria to Bay Parkway, although I really don't think it's necessary or desirable to run the (W) alongside the (D) in Borough Park and Bensonhurst. Either run one or the other, but not both.

23 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

The way I now would do it would have the (R) split like this:

The current Canal Street and Bowery (J) / (Z) stations would go back to having both platforms open as it was prior to 2004 or so (the old northbound platforms worked on and rehabbed for this).  This would allow the (R) coming from Chambers to terminate at Canal Street on the northbound "express" track, then relay to what would become the southbound "express" track to begin the other way, esentially running the old "bankers special" (RJ)/<RR> route in this case between 95th Street and Canal (which used to actually be a terminal for some trains back in the day), eliminating the issue of using Essex Street for a terminal (late nights, the (R) would be extended to Metropolitan Avenue to replace the (M) while there would also be in-service yard runs on this (R) from and to Broadway Junction).  These tracks at Canal and Bowery could also be used by the (J) / (Z) in an emergency situation as well this way.

The (W) becomes the full-time Broadway Local to Astoria, running from either the 9th Avenue or Bay Parkway (D) station with some (W) trains terminating at Whitehall as they do now.  There would be a same platform transfer anywhere between 36th Street and Court Street for those on the (R) looking for the Broadway line stations in lower Manhattan.

Unless the (W) replaces the (D), there is really no reason to run a full-time (W) from Astoria to 9th Ave or Bay Parkway. Running both the (D) and (W) on the same line will only cause delays at 36th St on both lines, as well as the (N) and proposed ( R ). Also not helping is that you've got the (W) missing the higher-ridership 4th Ave Local stations below 36th St, which would be served by the ( R ) only. And wasn't the idea to split the current (R)? What would serve the current (R) route from 71st Ave to Whitehall? 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/14/2021 at 6:58 PM, mrsman said:

This actually seems to be pretty good.  In some ways, this is almost a re-creation of the old service pattern with <M> to Bay Parkway and (R) to 95th, except that you are switching the terminals.  

So a Brown-R train from Chambers to 95th and a (W) train from Astoria to Bay Parkway.

If that is the case, will there also be a service from QBL local to Broadway or not?  Would (W) be the only train on the Broadway local?  What would service the Queens Blvd local?

Sorry, have not been on for a bit:

As I would do it, the (N) would be unchanged except it would go local after coming in off the Manhattan Bridge at Canal Street.  If need be, the (N) can return to being the QBL local while the (W) becomes the full-time Astoria local (with at certain times, a limited number of (N) trains running express in Manhattan and running via 63rd Street to/from 36th Street in Queens and running QBL local otherwise).  The (N) in this scenario can run to 71-Continental 24/7, allowing the (E) to return to being an express train or running as a second local late-nights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wanted to add:

As I would do it, only overflow (W) trains would terminate at Bay Parkway or 9th Avenue (all yard runs would end and begin at Bay Parkway), and that would ONLY be where there more trains than Whitehall can handle termimating.  That could be alievated, however by setting up where at Whitehall, the southbound T/O of a train ASAP after terminating and so forth walks up to the north end of the station while the T/O of the prior S/B train, gets ready to go AQAP and as soon as both the T/O who brought the train into Whitehall is out and walking on the platform to the north end while the T/O who is operating that train northbound is ready to go, that train departs and the cycle is repeated for all subsequent trains, limiting the number of (W) trains that have to go to 9th Avenue or Bay Parkway to terminate.  The bulk of the (W)s would terminate at Whitehall.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Wanted to add:

As I would do it, only overflow (W) trains would terminate at Bay Parkway or 9th Avenue (all yard runs would end and begin at Bay Parkway), and that would ONLY be where there more trains than Whitehall can handle termimating.  That could be alievated, however by setting up where at Whitehall, the southbound T/O of a train ASAP after terminating and so forth walks up to the north end of the station while the T/O of the prior S/B train, gets ready to go AQAP and as soon as both the T/O who brought the train into Whitehall is out and walking on the platform to the north end while the T/O who is operating that train northbound is ready to go, that train departs and the cycle is repeated for all subsequent trains, limiting the number of (W) trains that have to go to 9th Avenue or Bay Parkway to terminate.  The bulk of the (W)s would terminate at Whitehall.  

Or...maybe we can not extend an already problematic and delayed line down 4th Av?

If (MTA) didn't go changing the entirety of the Broad St Line to only use one platform, the (R) could've ran on the inner tracks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2021 at 7:07 AM, Lawrence St said:

Or...maybe we can not extend an already problematic and delayed line down 4th Av?

If (MTA) didn't go changing the entirety of the Broad St Line to only use one platform, the (R) could've ran on the inner tracks.

Well if the current (R) is split, then the (W) has to be extended to Brooklyn. You can’t turn both the (R) and (W) at Whitehall and City Hall Lower isn’t an optimal place to turn an entire line’s worth of trains. However, if the (W) is extended to Brooklyn, it should be all the way down the 4th Ave line to Bay Ridge. It definitely shouldn’t duplicate the (D), nor delay the (D)(N) and Nassau ( R ) at 36th St.

And yes, you really do need the old Nassau St track configuration if you want to run an R there. That may be a factor in why they wouldn’t want to if talk of splitting the (R) ever gains serious traction.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole idea of a split (R) train is, IMO, bogus from the start. Simple solution is to run the (R) from Astoria to 95th St  days and evenings with a shuttle service midnights in Brooklyn. Give the (W) the Queens Blvd local service weekdays and be done with it. The (E) and (F) bracket the (R) line through most of Manhattan anyway. We have some people and the (MTA) gushing over the new connections in Midtown so why not use it ? This way I think the (R) gets more reliable in Brooklyn and ties in with the (N) line while the (W) becomes a part of the Jamaica yard. Before some people start crying about this thing remember that QBL connection was only a weekday thing when the Brighton local line ran out to Forest Hills. Even when the BMT-IND combination came into being it was the (EE) that provided weekday service only. Just my opinion. Carry on.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then, what would replace the (R) during midnights? The (N)? I'd prefer a 24/7 (R) between Bay Ridge and Astoria and have the (N) to continue to 2nd Ave via the (Q). Then we can get rid of that insufferable (N)(R)(W) merge at 34th St. For me, the point of the Astoria  (R) / Forest Hills (W) is to have the northbound (N) no longer merge with them at 34 (or Prince St on weekends) and clogging up the Broadway Line. 

The (M) would have to run to 71st-Continental on weekends if the (W) replaces the (R) on QBL unless the (W) is expanded to weekend service. I would be fine with that.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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