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.
dng2000

Subway Yard Capacity

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Does anyone in this forum know if all subway yards are at capacity or are there still some more room for the MTA to purchase more subway cars at any point in the future?  I feel this is something the MTA wouldn't answer if I ask them.  I've always dreamed that the MTA can extend (R) trains all the way to Jamaica/179 St (via lcl of course) when (M) trains are running, which can also mean there should be enough room again at the Jamaica turnback tracks to restore the (G) back to QBL.

Edited by dng2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2019 at 10:26 PM, dng2000 said:

Does anyone in this forum know if all subway yards are at capacity or are there still some more room for the MTA to purchase more subway cars at any point in the future?  I feel this is something the MTA wouldn't answer if I ask them.  I've always dreamed that the MTA can extend (R) trains all the way to Jamaica/179 St (via lcl of course) when (M) trains are running, which can also mean there should be enough room again at the Jamaica turnback tracks to restore the (G) back to QBL.

For the 36-38th Street yard, they are trying to reconfigure it for revenue service on the (T) train. It means that there would be a significant capacity for future service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 4 via Mosholu said:

For the 36-38th Street yard, they are trying to reconfigure it for revenue service on the (T) train. It means that there would be a significant capacity for future service.

I wouldn't be surprised to find those trains starting/ending on the (Q)...

Share this post


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

For the 36-38th Street yard, they are trying to reconfigure it for revenue service on the (T) train. It means that there would be a significant capacity for future service.

I feel they should reconfigure that yard for (R) train revenue service. We’re a very long way off from seeing a revenue service (T) train, so why not do the reconfigurations sooner and utilize the yard for the (R) to help make 4th Ave local service more reliable? Then when the (T) finally comes on line, we can use the yard for the (T) as well... that is, of course, assuming there is a plan to run it into South Brooklyn.

@dng2000 You don’t have to dream it. The MTA already did it in December 1988. They extended the (R) to 179th St to replace the (E), when the extension to Jamaica Center opened. Unfortunately, because the (R) ran local all the way through Queens, Hillside riders bailed on the (R) in favor of the (F) the first chance they got. Eventually, the (R) was trimmed, then cut back entirely to 71st Ave because the fully local service was so unpopular with Hillside riders. I don’t think that would change if it were brought back.

Restoring the (G) back to QBL would be equally as unpopular. And it would put a heavy strain on the local tracks in order to fit with the (M) and (R).

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of room at Pitkin. Corona needs to be expanded. They are only making due because of the layup tracks south of Hudson Yards. Jamaica could use additional tracks. East New York needs more tracks. See here: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/plans/transportation/broadway_junction_complete.pdf.

On 9/2/2019 at 12:23 AM, 4 via Mosholu said:

For the 36-38th Street yard, they are trying to reconfigure it for revenue service on the (T) train. It means that there would be a significant capacity for future service.

If Phase 3 is built, which I don't think should be done in its current state.

Edited by Union Tpke
grammars
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2019 at 11:22 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I feel they should reconfigure that yard for (R) train revenue service. We’re a very long way off from seeing a revenue service (T) train, so why not do the reconfigurations sooner and utilize the yard for the (R) to help make 4th Ave local service more reliable? Then when the (T) finally comes on line, we can use the yard for the (T) as well... that is, of course, assuming there is a plan to run it into South Brooklyn.

I'm pretty sure the plan for 36-38 with SAS Ph. 3 was to have it serve (R) trains while (T)s came out of Jamaica. Garbage IMO, but it isn't like SAS3 will ever happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Plenty of room at Pitkin. Corona needs to be expanded. They are only making due because of the layup tracks south of Hudson Yards. Jamaica could use additional tracks. East New York needs more tracks. See here: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/plans/transportation/broadway_junction_complete.pdf.

If Phase 3 is built, which I don't think should be done in its current state.

To add on, Unionport underwent a major expansion in the 1990s, and Stillwell Yard was expanded in the 1990s as well. I don't think there is any need to expand 240th, especially with the 1989 flyover to 207th. Maybe it would be needed if the (1) ran 24 TPH, but I think the middle track and 137th could cover that. Livonia, I guess could use an expansion, but the real solution is a yard south of Flatbush Avenue, providing more than enough room to reallocate two tracks for an extension of the (3). 148th is good. They are making due with some tracks out of service for flood walls. Some tracks were removed at Fresh Pond for an inspection facility, and I cannot see how it could be expanded. The solution is to use eminent domain and expand ENY. I don't think Westchester needs to be expanded, but given that it is used for the C Division, I don't know. East 180th received upgrades relatively recently, and if expansion were needed, it could make use of the center tracks on Dyre, or an expanded Unionport. I am not sure whether an expansion of 239th is feasible. Canarsie Yard was expanded in the 1990s. I suppose it could be expanded, but I think expanding ENY should suffice. @RR503 Do you see any need here? No need to expand Rockaway Park Yard. I don't think Jerome and Concourse need expanding, but I would guess that they might need to if service frequency are upped to the max of what is possible with CBTC. 207th could use expansion as well. This is my summary of the outlook of yards, but perhaps some more knowledgable people could provide some insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

technically speaking, yard storage capacity is not as big a factor as it might seem on the subway when compared to other systems.  The MTA can easily get away with more trains than the yards could possibly store all at once, since under ideal circumstances, there will always be trains out running. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Kamen Rider said:

technically speaking, yard storage capacity is not as big a factor as it might seem on the subway when compared to other systems.  The MTA can easily get away with more trains than the yards could possibly store all at once, since under ideal circumstances, there will always be trains out running. 

Thing is, some yards have higher requirements than others. Jamaica and Coney Island are possibly the worst offenders, as they have high needs and little space to work with. For the former, they could potentially increase the amount of space for train storage, but the latter would pretty much require a separate yard (like the one up West End).

Share this post


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

I'm pretty sure the plan for 36-38 with SAS Ph. 3 was to have it serve (R) trains while (T)s came out of Jamaica. Garbage IMO, but it isn't like SAS3 will ever happen.

It does really sound like a garbage plan. SAS 3 (and 4) have a very tiny chance of happening. Not to mention the MTA’s plans don’t show the (T) going to Brooklyn at all. Or Queens, for that matter, and that gives me another reason to question the MTA’s plans beyond SAS 2. Because if the plan is to base the (T) at Jamaica, then why is no Queens-SAS service being planned? Why not have plans for such a service if SAS trains have to use that line to get to their maintenance yard anyway? 

@Lex Jamaica does indeed have limited space to work with for its needs. Maybe moving the (R) to 36-38 in Brooklyn (and rerouting the line to Astoria) would free up some space in Jamaica in the short term. Though I’m surprised to read CI yard would be short on space given its immense size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Union Tpke my thoughts on yard cap are really that we should just futureproof wherever we can. It's exceedingly difficult to predict where demand is going to spike more than a few years in advance -- none of us would have foreseen the (L)'s ascendance in 1990, and as such it's imperative that we at the very least buy land to provision key yards for expansion. It is not gonna get easier to expand these facilities with time.

I personally see ENY expansion, Canarsie expansion, Jamaica expansion, 

55 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

It does really sound like a garbage plan. SAS 3 (and 4) have a very tiny chance of happening. Not to mention the MTA’s plans don’t show the (T) going to Brooklyn at all. Or Queens, for that matter, and that gives me another reason to question the MTA’s plans beyond SAS 2. Because if the plan is to base the (T) at Jamaica, then why is no Queens-SAS service being planned? Why not have plans for such a service if SAS trains have to use that line to get to their maintenance yard anyway? 

If I had to guess, there is some assumption of a SAS-63-Queens service baked into Ph. 3. Otherwise you'd be running some horrifying amount of dead miles.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

@Union Tpke my thoughts on yard cap are really that we should just futureproof wherever we can.

DingDingDingDing, we have a winner. 

 @Union Tpke, in the book of the BMT on page 19 there is a picture of a BMT Standards, only taking up a tiny portion of the station platform. Can you imagine if people just shrugged and just threw in 2-5 car platforms on the Sea Beach line, we'd have an enormous hole to dig ourselves out of.

As far as yard capacity goes, trains lay up on Hillside Express for a reason. There are (2)(4)(5) to and from New Lots for a reason (some of that is money, the other is that the yards in the Bronx can't sustain the service on its own), the same is true of the (R) train layups on 4th ave for years.

Edited by Jsunflyguy
undeleted a sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jsunflyguy said:

DingDingDingDing, we have a winner. 

 @Union Tpke, in the book of the BMT on page 19 there is a picture of a  can you imagine if people just shrugged and just threw in 2-5 car platforms on the Sea Beach line, we'd have an enormous hole to dig ourselves out of.

As far as yard capacity goes, trains lay up on Hillside Express for a reason. There are (2)(4)(5) to and from New Lots for a reason (some of that is money, the other is that the yards in the Bronx can't sustain the service on its own), the same is true of the (R) train layups on 4th ave for years.

There is a picture of a what? I agree that we should futureproof, and was justing giving a runaround of our current yard situation. For some yards, I can't see how they could expand. 239th Street is surrounded by a residential neighborhood on all sides. Livonia is pretty constrained, but I guess you could use eminent domain on the property between Linwood and Essex. Jamaica has space to be expanded. At Unionport, if you use eminent domain, you would be able to tightly fit in two additional tracks for 10-car trains, and a few more for 5-car trains. Concourse Yard could be easily expanded by using the parking facility along Jerome Avenue. There is room around 207th Street, but I am not sure how it would fit in with the rest of the yard layout. 240th looks pretty constrained. 148th is a non-starter. I mentioned ENY before. There is plenty of room at Canarsie to add at least five tracks.

I know that there are layups for a reason, but at some point, yard capacity has to be increased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

There is a picture of a what? I agree that we should futureproof, and was justing giving a runaround of our current yard situation. For some yards, I can't see how they could expand. 239th Street is surrounded by a residential neighborhood on all sides. Livonia is pretty constrained, but I guess you could use eminent domain on the property between Linwood and Essex. Jamaica has space to be expanded. At Unionport, if you use eminent domain, you would be able to tightly fit in two additional tracks for 10-car trains, and a few more for 5-car trains. Concourse Yard could be easily expanded by using the parking facility along Jerome Avenue. There is room around 207th Street, but I am not sure how it would fit in with the rest of the yard layout. 240th looks pretty constrained. 148th is a non-starter. I mentioned ENY before. There is plenty of room at Canarsie to add at least five tracks.

I know that there are layups for a reason, but at some point, yard capacity has to be increased.

I undeleted the sentence, must have highlighted it by mistake.

I think you mistake my point however, those on-line layups are evidence that the storage space in the yards is *currently * insufficient. MTA would love nothing more than to have T/Os running every minute of their shift instead of budgeting time for them to go to a terminal and then walk to their train. But that's what the current situation forces, tough to fix now because it wasn't future-proofed in the past. 

I suspect getting any new yard space is going to require increasing lay-up tracks elsewhere, such as building more lay-up tracks east of Parsons and moving (E) trains back there to open up Jamaica. I'm not sure someone Jamaica can be expanded, apparent space aside, due to the area being a nature preserve (IINM) and I think any green space built over has to be replaced with equivalent green space elsewhere.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jsunflyguy said:

I undeleted the sentence, must have highlighted it by mistake.

I think you mistake my point however, those on-line layups are evidence that the storage space in the yards is *currently * insufficient. MTA would love nothing more than to have T/Os running every minute of their shift instead of budgeting time for them to go to a terminal and then walk to their train. But that's what the current situation forces, tough to fix now because it wasn't future-proofed in the past. 

I suspect getting any new yard space is going to require increasing lay-up tracks elsewhere, such as building more lay-up tracks east of Parsons and moving (E) trains back there to open up Jamaica. I'm not sure someone Jamaica can be expanded, apparent space aside, due to the area being a nature preserve (IINM) and I think any green space built over has to be replaced with equivalent green space elsewhere.

I understand. Expanding Jamaica would eliminate the need for layups on QBL like this:

37684254522_84abc28e8a_k.jpgTrain Layups Diagram at Continental by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

37667842306_25470ca4f0_k.jpgIMG_1519 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

37667845036_7c30a8c8f0_k.jpgIMG_1518 by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

There were plans to expand Jamaica, but they were killed due to local opposition and a lack of funds.

  • 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.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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