Jump to content

Rutgers Tunnel Shutdown


Union Tpke

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I doubt it, but in these crazy times, you never know. Though it’s hard to see them doing away with a busy service like the (F).

That’s why I think they’d do it - it’s a busy line and expensive, but could be replaced fairly easier than scrapping (C) - since a 24/7 local (A) with three branches would require the same number of trains as keeping (C) - whereas running (V) and (M) to replace (F) and extending (E) (and maybe (G)) could be a big savings. Only trade off is that WTC closes.

Thats what I think could be looked at with this GO.

I suppose (Q) could be eliminated as well with a full-time (B) to 145th or 168th, but then either (N) or (R) would have to go to 96th (and the other to Astoria 24/7), but then costs go up because (R) now has deadheads to the yard(s).

Or @Wallyhorse could have part of his dream: (J) now goes to Bay Ridge, (W) does the Astoria to Whitehall run, and (R) disappears (assuming QBL becomes (E)(M)(V) with rush hour (G).

It’s all speculation, but I think this could be a viable scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The MTA could be looking at extending the (E) into Brooklyn, but it would be to eliminate the current (A)(C) pattern. Here's an extreme COVID-19 service reduction:

  • (A) 168 St - Euclid Ave: 8 Ave / Fulton local.
  • (E) Jamaica Center - Lefferts Blvd / Far Rockaway: 53 St/8 Ave local, Fulton express.
  • (B) 207 St - Brighton Beach: CPW express, 6 Ave / Brighton express. (This means that the (D) would run local north of 145 St)
  • (C) eliminated.
  • Rockaway Park becomes a shuttle-only service.
  • On the weekends when the (B) isn't running, the (A) is extended to 207 St.

The logic is that the 8 Ave express only skips 3 stops and thus express service could be discontinued south of 59 St. The 8 Ave local, which currently "ends" at WTC, can be extended into Brooklyn with those slots freed up. 8 Ave already had fewer trains than the other trunk lines, and in times of lower ridership, there could be savings associated with getting rid of one service entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Deucey said:

That’s why I think they’d do it - it’s a busy line and expensive, but could be replaced fairly easier than scrapping (C) - since a 24/7 local (A) with three branches would require the same number of trains as keeping (C) - whereas running (V) and (M) to replace (F) and extending (E) (and maybe (G)) could be a big savings. Only trade off is that WTC closes.

Thats what I think could be looked at with this GO.

I suppose (Q) could be eliminated as well with a full-time (B) to 145th or 168th, but then either (N) or (R) would have to go to 96th (and the other to Astoria 24/7), but then costs go up because (R) now has deadheads to the yard(s).

Or @Wallyhorse could have part of his dream: (J) now goes to Bay Ridge, (W) does the Astoria to Whitehall run, and (R) disappears (assuming QBL becomes (E)(M)(V) with rush hour (G).

It’s all speculation, but I think this could be a viable scenario.

Well it wouldn't be bad to lose WTC as a station, having a full-time (B) would be a good idea to help with service along CPW. It should run to Bedford Park in my opinion, but run to 168th St during the night. However, I did have the idea of keeping the (A) express on CPW and switching at 59th St to a local track, but that would just cause extra delays and interlining problems over there, not to mention I was hoping to keep the (A) express on 8th Av as well, but there aren't any switches that would switch local at West 4th so it could access Spring St. I was also trying to have it switch at 34th St, but I hit another road block because no switches there either.

The loss of the (Q) wouldn't really hurt much if the (N) were to replace it to 96th St-2nd Av. At least in this scenario, there would be less merge and splitting at Dekalb Av. Although, the loss an express service on Brighton would be bad, if anything do what the (Q) did back in 2001 with the <B> instead of being rush hour extension, its rush hour express which also could be the train running to Bedford and keeping the (B) to 168th St.

7 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

The MTA could be looking at extending the (E) into Brooklyn, but it would be to eliminate the current (A)(C) pattern. Here's an extreme COVID-19 service reduction:

  • (A) 168 St - Euclid Ave: 8 Ave / Fulton local.
  • (E) Jamaica Center - Lefferts Blvd / Far Rockaway: 53 St/8 Ave local, Fulton express.
  • (B) 207 St - Brighton Beach: CPW express, 6 Ave / Brighton express. (This means that the (D) would run local north of 145 St)
  • (C) eliminated.
  • Rockaway Park becomes a shuttle-only service.
  • On the weekends when the (B) isn't running, the (A) is extended to 207 St.

The logic is that the 8 Ave express only skips 3 stops and thus express service could be discontinued south of 59 St. The 8 Ave local, which currently "ends" at WTC, can be extended into Brooklyn with those slots freed up. 8 Ave already had fewer trains than the other trunk lines, and in times of lower ridership, there could be savings associated with getting rid of one service entirely.

If the (B) isn't running on weekends, it would basically make CPW not really reliable because its just 1 local and 1 express while service today on the weekends is just 1 local and 2 express. Since the (B) to 207th St means it should be full time because it is running on its own line instead of being a redundant service that is there as a supplement express service. The idea of extending WTC into Brooklyn isn't a bad idea, but the curve from WTC platform is too sharp to merge with the (A) as shown below.512b9a3fa5b72bd1ecd24bdc91b09d2c.png

Are you also planning on keeping the (E) full-time express on Fulton as well along with keeping the (A) full-time, but running local? How about having the (A) express in Manhattan to at least skip a few stops on 8th Av as well as running express on CPW with the (D) along with the (B) basically running weekends as well, but not late nights and have the (E) switch with the (A) in Brooklyn running express? Both have to merge regardless running via Cranberry Tunnel to access Fulton, it wouldn't be a bad idea unless there is something bad about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Caelestor said:

The MTA could be looking at extending the (E) into Brooklyn, but it would be to eliminate the current (A)(C) pattern. Here's an extreme COVID-19 service reduction:

  • (A) 168 St - Euclid Ave: 8 Ave / Fulton local.
  • (E) Jamaica Center - Lefferts Blvd / Far Rockaway: 53 St/8 Ave local, Fulton express.
  • (B) 207 St - Brighton Beach: CPW express, 6 Ave / Brighton express. (This means that the (D) would run local north of 145 St)
  • (C) eliminated.
  • Rockaway Park becomes a shuttle-only service.
  • On the weekends when the (B) isn't running, the (A) is extended to 207 St.

The logic is that the 8 Ave express only skips 3 stops and thus express service could be discontinued south of 59 St. The 8 Ave local, which currently "ends" at WTC, can be extended into Brooklyn with those slots freed up. 8 Ave already had fewer trains than the other trunk lines, and in times of lower ridership, there could be savings associated with getting rid of one service entirely.

One nice thing about the suggestion is that it not only reduces service, but it also deinterlines Columbus Circle.  CPW to be served by (B) and (D) expresses and (A) local.  We sacrifice the Concourse rush hour express.

I agree with the other suggestion that this would necessitate (B) runs on the weekend.  For budget purposes, this may mean some cuts or reroutes of some sort on the Brooklyn side.  We may not be able to afford two services on the Brighton line, so the (B) may have to run elsewhere, perhaps to the Sea Beach line --. with no (N) service on weekends and (R) service from Astoria to Bay Ridge via the tunnel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riders will definitely be confused with the (E) and (F) swap. I remember a few years ago, a G.O caused the (F) to run via 8th Ave via 53rd and the (E) went to 2nd Ave via 6Av/63rd street and I remember hearing some passengers expressing how stupid it was to be on the (E) and it’s making (F) stops when they needed service along 8th Ave. A lot of people are not like us when it comes to these service changes. We would see this and be like oh okay the (E) is the (F) and vise versa. The average person will be like “where the f*** am I going”. We all know that the average person doesn’t even read the signs even on a NTT and will still ask, “Is this the (insert train route)?” I simply shake my head when the announcement is playing they look up at the FIND and still ask what train they are on. 

I thought it would be easier to have the (E) run between Jamaica and Coney Island via 53rd street & 8th Ave and have the (F) run from 179th street and terminate at Delancey via 6th Ave of course. That way people would know that the two trains run on their regular routes but because of construction the (E) would be extended to replace the (F). People would simply need to transfer at West 4th like they already would have to under the MTA’s own service change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

Riders will definitely be confused with the (E) and (F) swap. I remember a few years ago, a G.O caused the (F) to run via 8th Ave via 53rd and the (E) went to 2nd Ave via 6Av/63rd street and I remember hearing some passengers expressing how stupid it was to be on the (E) and it’s making (F) stops when they needed service along 8th Ave. A lot of people are not like us when it comes to these service changes. We would see this and be like oh okay the (E) is the (F) and vise versa. The average person will be like “where the f*** am I going”. We all know that the average person doesn’t even read the signs even on a NTT and will still ask, “Is this the (insert train route)?” I simply shake my head when the announcement is playing they look up at the FIND and still ask what train they are on. 

I thought it would be easier to have the (E) run between Jamaica and Coney Island via 53rd street & 8th Ave and have the (F) run from 179th street and terminate at Delancey via 6th Ave of course. That way people would know that the two trains run on their regular routes but because of construction the (E) would be extended to replace the (F). People would simply need to transfer at West 4th like they already would have to under the MTA’s own service change. 

That's right.  A service change should change the routing as little as possible to avoid confusion.  Between Queens and W4th, under your proposal, the trains would be exactly the same and would confuse less riders.  As it is, E Queens passengers have to concern themselves with the reconstruction on the Archer Ave line, they shouldn't have to concern themselves with Rutgers which is a Brooklyn problem.

Brooklyn passengers would focus on taking the (E) instead of the (F), but by doing so, they know that their train is going to run on 8th Ave and if they want 6th Ave they need to transfer.  For Brooklyn passengers to Manhattan, there is little confusion as there is only one train to choose from anyway.  For Mahnattan passengers heading to Brooklyn, they will need to focus on this and the announcements will be geared to them:  (E) will not be terminating at WTC, next stop is Fulton, (E) train to Coney Island.  (F) train to 2nd Ave station, transfer at W4th for (E) train to Coney Island.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2020 at 12:17 AM, Deucey said:

That’s why I think they’d do it - it’s a busy line and expensive, but could be replaced fairly easier than scrapping (C) - since a 24/7 local (A) with three branches would require the same number of trains as keeping (C) - whereas running (V) and (M) to replace (F) and extending (E) (and maybe (G)) could be a big savings. Only trade off is that WTC closes.

Thats what I think could be looked at with this GO.

I suppose (Q) could be eliminated as well with a full-time (B) to 145th or 168th, but then either (N) or (R) would have to go to 96th (and the other to Astoria 24/7), but then costs go up because (R) now has deadheads to the yard(s).

Or @Wallyhorse could have part of his dream: (J) now goes to Bay Ridge, (W) does the Astoria to Whitehall run, and (R) disappears (assuming QBL becomes (E)(M)(V) with rush hour (G).

It’s all speculation, but I think this could be a viable scenario.

It definitely could be a viable scenario (assuming 40 percent cuts to all existing services proves to be not enough). But if the (E) is extended to Stillwell via the Rutgers Tunnel and the Culver el, then it would be on the same tracks with the (M) and (V). Even with each line running with 40 percent fewer tph, I wonder if that might still be a tight squeeze between West 4th and Broadway-Lafayette (assuming 60 percent of rush hour service is still more frequent than weekend service). 

 

On 9/8/2020 at 1:22 AM, Caelestor said:

The MTA could be looking at extending the (E) into Brooklyn, but it would be to eliminate the current (A)(C) pattern. Here's an extreme COVID-19 service reduction:

  • (A) 168 St - Euclid Ave: 8 Ave / Fulton local.
  • (E) Jamaica Center - Lefferts Blvd / Far Rockaway: 53 St/8 Ave local, Fulton express.
  • (B) 207 St - Brighton Beach: CPW express, 6 Ave / Brighton express. (This means that the (D) would run local north of 145 St)
  • (C) eliminated.
  • Rockaway Park becomes a shuttle-only service.
  • On the weekends when the (B) isn't running, the (A) is extended to 207 St.

The logic is that the 8 Ave express only skips 3 stops and thus express service could be discontinued south of 59 St. The 8 Ave local, which currently "ends" at WTC, can be extended into Brooklyn with those slots freed up. 8 Ave already had fewer trains than the other trunk lines, and in times of lower ridership, there could be savings associated with getting rid of one service entirely.

I assume in this scenario, the (F) stays. Otherwise, there would be no service to Culver via the Rutgers Tunnel. As for Fulton St service in Brooklyn, I think it should be the (E) that runs local and the (A) express to/from Lefferts/Far Rockaway. 

On 9/8/2020 at 12:53 PM, NewFlyer 230 said:

Riders will definitely be confused with the (E) and (F) swap. I remember a few years ago, a G.O caused the (F) to run via 8th Ave via 53rd and the (E) went to 2nd Ave via 6Av/63rd street and I remember hearing some passengers expressing how stupid it was to be on the (E) and it’s making (F) stops when they needed service along 8th Ave. A lot of people are not like us when it comes to these service changes. We would see this and be like oh okay the (E) is the (F) and vise versa. The average person will be like “where the f*** am I going”. We all know that the average person doesn’t even read the signs even on a NTT and will still ask, “Is this the (insert train route)?” I simply shake my head when the announcement is playing they look up at the FIND and still ask what train they are on. 

I thought it would be easier to have the (E) run between Jamaica and Coney Island via 53rd street & 8th Ave and have the (F) run from 179th street and terminate at Delancey via 6th Ave of course. That way people would know that the two trains run on their regular routes but because of construction the (E) would be extended to replace the (F). People would simply need to transfer at West 4th like they already would have to under the MTA’s own service change. 

I think so too. It would only be the Culver Line that would see a different service. The MTA’s plan will confuse many more people in many more high-traffic locations. If the (E) replaced the (F) in Brooklyn, it wouldn’t be the first time Brooklyn (F) service got replaced by another line. How many times was the (G) extended to CI in place of the (F) while the (F) itself replaced the (C) on Fulton?

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

45 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I think so too. It would only be the Culver Line that would see a different service. The MTA’s plan will confuse many more people in many more high-traffic locations. If the (E) replaced the (F) in Brooklyn, it wouldn’t be the first time Brooklyn (F) service got replaced by another line. How many times was the (G) extended to CI in place of the (F) while the (F) itself replaced the (C) on Fulton?

I don't think replacing the (F) with the (E) in Brooklyn would really matter as much because at the end of the day, people want access to Brooklyn for those living on Culver. I mean we see practically like every weekend something replacing the (D) or extra service added on West End like it's nothing. I feel the same is said for this scenario so it wouldn't be as bad. But like others have said, it's what is happening in Manhattan that really makes the difference. If the (MTA) decide to go with the route of cutting the (F) and replacing it with the (E), it wouldn't be all that bad, just ends up confusing people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2020 at 1:47 AM, Vulturious said:

Well it wouldn't be bad to lose WTC as a station, having a full-time (B) would be a good idea to help with service along CPW. It should run to Bedford Park in my opinion, but run to 168th St during the night. However, I did have the idea of keeping the (A) express on CPW and switching at 59th St to a local track, but that would just cause extra delays and interlining problems over there, not to mention I was hoping to keep the (A) express on 8th Av as well, but there aren't any switches that would switch local at West 4th so it could access Spring St. I was also trying to have it switch at 34th St, but I hit another road block because no switches there either.

The loss of the (Q) wouldn't really hurt much if the (N) were to replace it to 96th St-2nd Av. At least in this scenario, there would be less merge and splitting at Dekalb Av. Although, the loss an express service on Brighton would be bad, if anything do what the (Q) did back in 2001 with the <B> instead of being rush hour extension, its rush hour express which also could be the train running to Bedford and keeping the (B) to 168th St.

If the (B) isn't running on weekends, it would basically make CPW not really reliable because its just 1 local and 1 express while service today on the weekends is just 1 local and 2 express. Since the (B) to 207th St means it should be full time because it is running on its own line instead of being a redundant service that is there as a supplement express service. The idea of extending WTC into Brooklyn isn't a bad idea, but the curve from WTC platform is too sharp to merge with the (A) as shown below.512b9a3fa5b72bd1ecd24bdc91b09d2c.png

Are you also planning on keeping the (E) full-time express on Fulton as well along with keeping the (A) full-time, but running local? How about having the (A) express in Manhattan to at least skip a few stops on 8th Av as well as running express on CPW with the (D) along with the (B) basically running weekends as well, but not late nights and have the (E) switch with the (A) in Brooklyn running express? Both have to merge regardless running via Cranberry Tunnel to access Fulton, it wouldn't be a bad idea unless there is something bad about it?

It's too bad in 1966 or 2001 the NYCTA/(MTA) did not consider building a short extension of the WTC tracks that would have allowed them to be connected to the Broadway line.  That would have allowed for flexibility between the lines that included an 8th Avenue service being able to run via the Court Street Tunnel for example and perhaps for instance now allowed the (C) or (E) to run to Bay Ridge.  In a situation like this, that would be very handy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

It's too bad in 1966 or 2001 the NYCTA/(MTA) did not consider building a short extension of the WTC tracks that would have allowed them to be connected to the Broadway line.  That would have allowed for flexibility between the lines that included an 8th Avenue service being able to run via the Court Street Tunnel for example and perhaps for instance now allowed the (C) or (E) to run to Bay Ridge.  In a situation like this, that would be very handy. 

It would provide redundancy as well as a new way of operating trains.  If all 8th Ave locals ran from Queens to Whitehall or Bay Ridge, that would be one less reason to have the (R) train on the QBL.  

Once SAS opens (to Downtown), you could have 15 TPH (Q) and 15 TPH (N) trains that start at 2nd ave or Astoria.  (Q) express and (N) local along Broadway, and then both lines merge together to the Manhattan Bridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mrsman said:

Once SAS opens (to Downtown), you could have 15 TPH (Q) and 15 TPH (N) trains that start at 2nd ave or Astoria.  (Q) express and (N) local along Broadway, and then both lines merge together to the Manhattan Bridge.

I can already hear the capacity hawks wailing like dying chickens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

It's too bad in 1966 or 2001 the NYCTA/(MTA) did not consider building a short extension of the WTC tracks that would have allowed them to be connected to the Broadway line.  That would have allowed for flexibility between the lines that included an 8th Avenue service being able to run via the Court Street Tunnel for example and perhaps for instance now allowed the (C) or (E) to run to Bay Ridge.  In a situation like this, that would be very handy. 

Wow I didn't even think about that. That is actually a pretty good idea. If anything, they can maybe, just maybe, create that tunnel somehow replacing the (R) to Bay Ridge which would be a much better service because it at least runs express. If the (C) were to continue towards Bay Ridge, it wouldn't be all that bad because people on 4th Av usually transfer to an express train regardless so keeping the (C) to 8 cars wouldn't really hurt riders which would also mean there wouldn't be a need to have another line running on 4th Av either. However, that would lead to the question, what is going to replace the (C) on Fulton Local. Probably better to send the (E) down since it already is express on QBL. 

8 hours ago, mrsman said:

It would provide redundancy as well as a new way of operating trains.  If all 8th Ave locals ran from Queens to Whitehall or Bay Ridge, that would be one less reason to have the (R) train on the QBL.  

Once SAS opens (to Downtown), you could have 15 TPH (Q) and 15 TPH (N) trains that start at 2nd ave or Astoria.  (Q) express and (N) local along Broadway, and then both lines merge together to the Manhattan Bridge.

Well yes and no, yes it would just get rid the (R) which is barely used in Brooklyn period, no because then you have the late night problem to encounter. If the (E) were to go towards Bay Ridge, then you have it being just another and even longer (R). I think keeping the (R) around would at least make sure (E) trains are operating express on QBL and not have it useless during late nights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Wow I didn't even think about that. That is actually a pretty good idea. If anything, they can maybe, just maybe, create that tunnel somehow replacing the (R) to Bay Ridge which would be a much better service because it at least runs express. If the (C) were to continue towards Bay Ridge, it wouldn't be all that bad because people on 4th Av usually transfer to an express train regardless so keeping the (C) to 8 cars wouldn't really hurt riders which would also mean there wouldn't be a need to have another line running on 4th Av either. However, that would lead to the question, what is going to replace the (C) on Fulton Local. Probably better to send the (E) down since it already is express on QBL. 

Well yes and no, yes it would just get rid the (R) which is barely used in Brooklyn period, no because then you have the late night problem to encounter. If the (E) were to go towards Bay Ridge, then you have it being just another and even longer (R). I think keeping the (R) around would at least make sure (E) trains are operating express on QBL and not have it useless during late nights.

The thinking would have been operational flexibility.  The main thing is you could have if nothing else extended the (E) to Whitehall or ran it or the (C) via Montague and then via 4th Avenue and Bay Ridge, Sea Beach, Brighton or West End.  It now would come in handy on GO's where City Hall needed to be closed but the line south of there could operate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw it up close and personal last night(since i work on the Fox)..

No delays no nothing CR made announcements and people got on the right train..

Went down 8th ave from Lex to Jay..

Northbound From Jay to Queens plaza..

Easy Peasy..

So  all of those other "options" i see  some folks post aren't needed thanks..

Edited by RTOMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RTOMan said:

Saw it up close and personal last night(since i work on the Fox)..

No delays no nothing CR made announcements and people got on the right train..

Went down 8th ave from Lex to Jay..

Northbound From Jay to Queens plaza..

Easy Peasy..

So  all of those other "options" i see  some folks post aren't needed thanks..

I agree. Some of that stuff is way over the top....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2020 at 12:53 PM, NewFlyer 230 said:

Riders will definitely be confused with the (E) and (F) swap. I remember a few years ago, a G.O caused the (F) to run via 8th Ave via 53rd and the (E) went to 2nd Ave via 6Av/63rd street and I remember hearing some passengers expressing how stupid it was to be on the (E) and it’s making (F) stops when they needed service along 8th Ave. A lot of people are not like us when it comes to these service changes. We would see this and be like oh okay the (E) is the (F) and vise versa. The average person will be like “where the f*** am I going”. We all know that the average person doesn’t even read the signs even on a NTT and will still ask, “Is this the (insert train route)?” I simply shake my head when the announcement is playing they look up at the FIND and still ask what train they are on. 

I thought it would be easier to have the (E) run between Jamaica and Coney Island via 53rd street & 8th Ave and have the (F) run from 179th street and terminate at Delancey via 6th Ave of course. That way people would know that the two trains run on their regular routes but because of construction the (E) would be extended to replace the (F). People would simply need to transfer at West 4th like they already would have to under the MTA’s own service change. 

What makes this even more funny is the fact that (MTA) tries to keep lines on their main corridors as much as they can ( (F) and (D) swap come to mind) during planned work but this is definitely confusing for no reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2020 at 1:29 AM, Wallyhorse said:

It's too bad in 1966 or 2001 the NYCTA/(MTA) did not consider building a short extension of the WTC tracks that would have allowed them to be connected to the Broadway line.  That would have allowed for flexibility between the lines that included an 8th Avenue service being able to run via the Court Street Tunnel for example and perhaps for instance now allowed the (C) or (E) to run to Bay Ridge.  In a situation like this, that would be very handy. 

Since WTC is level with Chambers Street, and the tunnel south of Chambers begins  at the platform's end, wouldn't connecting BMT Broadway tracks with WTC require rebuilding the Chambers St tunnel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2020 at 3:17 PM, Vulturious said:

Wow I didn't even think about that. That is actually a pretty good idea. If anything, they can maybe, just maybe, create that tunnel somehow replacing the (R) to Bay Ridge which would be a much better service because it at least runs express. If the (C) were to continue towards Bay Ridge, it wouldn't be all that bad because people on 4th Av usually transfer to an express train regardless so keeping the (C) to 8 cars wouldn't really hurt riders which would also mean there wouldn't be a need to have another line running on 4th Av either. However, that would lead to the question, what is going to replace the (C) on Fulton Local. Probably better to send the (E) down since it already is express on QBL. 

Well yes and no, yes it would just get rid the (R) which is barely used in Brooklyn period, no because then you have the late night problem to encounter. If the (E) were to go towards Bay Ridge, then you have it being just another and even longer (R). I think keeping the (R) around would at least make sure (E) trains are operating express on QBL and not have it useless during late nights.

 

22 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

The thinking would have been operational flexibility.  The main thing is you could have if nothing else extended the (E) to Whitehall or ran it or the (C) via Montague and then via 4th Avenue and Bay Ridge, Sea Beach, Brighton or West End.  It now would come in handy on GO's where City Hall needed to be closed but the line south of there could operate.  

Ok, so the suggestion then is that the 8th Ave local tracks will merge into the Broadway BMT local tracks south of WTC.  This may mean some track improvements along both lines such that some 8th Ave trains can still terminate at WTC and some Broadway trains can terminate at City Hall, but that the remaining trains will merge together and continue into the Montague tunnel.  This may mean the addition of some bypass tracks at WTC and City Hall and some switch upgrades.

In some ways this seems analagous to some older service patterns that had some Broadway trains terminate at Whitehall and some Nassau trains terminate at Broad and the remainder joining together into the Montague tunnel.  So it could probably also work for 8th and Broadway trains as well.  Obviously, if such were done Nassau trains can't also be scheduled to run through the tunnel, except in emergency.

But the benefit seems to be to allow for more trains to run through midtown on both the 8th Ave and Broadway trunk lines.

It may also allow us to obviate the need for the  (N) to switch from local to express tracks at 34th street (or Prince street).  (R) from 71 to Whitehall, 15 TPH (W) from Astoria to the tunnel to either Sea Beach or West End to reach CI yards.  (K) and (E) from QBL servicing the 53rd street tunnel and 8th Ave local, with (K) terminating at WTC and (E) to Bay Ridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mrsman said:

 

Ok, so the suggestion then is that the 8th Ave local tracks will merge into the Broadway BMT local tracks south of WTC.  This may mean some track improvements along both lines such that some 8th Ave trains can still terminate at WTC and some Broadway trains can terminate at City Hall, but that the remaining trains will merge together and continue into the Montague tunnel.  This may mean the addition of some bypass tracks at WTC and City Hall and some switch upgrades.

In some ways this seems analagous to some older service patterns that had some Broadway trains terminate at Whitehall and some Nassau trains terminate at Broad and the remainder joining together into the Montague tunnel.  So it could probably also work for 8th and Broadway trains as well.  Obviously, if such were done Nassau trains can't also be scheduled to run through the tunnel, except in emergency.

But the benefit seems to be to allow for more trains to run through midtown on both the 8th Ave and Broadway trunk lines.

It may also allow us to obviate the need for the  (N) to switch from local to express tracks at 34th street (or Prince street).  (R) from 71 to Whitehall, 15 TPH (W) from Astoria to the tunnel to either Sea Beach or West End to reach CI yards.  (K) and (E) from QBL servicing the 53rd street tunnel and 8th Ave local, with (K) terminating at WTC and (E) to Bay Ridge.

Well when you put it like that, basically yeah. I wouldn't mind not having any Nassau lines going further down south towards South Brooklyn because at least in this scenario, trains like the (E) in Brooklyn would be way more reliable because it is running express in Queens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, mrsman said:

But the benefit seems to be to allow for more trains to run through midtown on both the 8th Ave and Broadway trunk lines.

It may also allow us to obviate the need for the  (N) to switch from local to express tracks at 34th street (or Prince street).  (R) from 71 to Whitehall, 15 TPH (W) from Astoria to the tunnel to either Sea Beach or West End to reach CI yards.  (K) and (E) from QBL servicing the 53rd street tunnel and 8th Ave local, with (K) terminating at WTC and (E) to Bay Ridge.

Trade-off is you've now torpedoed the entire B-division's capacity since (C) now has to wait for (E) and (K) to make their merges at 50th St. Which means:

(B) is delayed waiting for (C) to clear 59th St, which could make (D) hold at either 145th or 59th St - which backs up (A) on CPW or at Spring Street, and/or at DeKalb Junction, which in turn delays (B)(N) and (Q) at the same location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2020 at 6:36 AM, mrsman said:

 

Ok, so the suggestion then is that the 8th Ave local tracks will merge into the Broadway BMT local tracks south of WTC.  This may mean some track improvements along both lines such that some 8th Ave trains can still terminate at WTC and some Broadway trains can terminate at City Hall, but that the remaining trains will merge together and continue into the Montague tunnel.  This may mean the addition of some bypass tracks at WTC and City Hall and some switch upgrades.

In some ways this seems analagous to some older service patterns that had some Broadway trains terminate at Whitehall and some Nassau trains terminate at Broad and the remainder joining together into the Montague tunnel.  So it could probably also work for 8th and Broadway trains as well.  Obviously, if such were done Nassau trains can't also be scheduled to run through the tunnel, except in emergency.

But the benefit seems to be to allow for more trains to run through midtown on both the 8th Ave and Broadway trunk lines.

It may also allow us to obviate the need for the  (N) to switch from local to express tracks at 34th street (or Prince street).  (R) from 71 to Whitehall, 15 TPH (W) from Astoria to the tunnel to either Sea Beach or West End to reach CI yards.  (K) and (E) from QBL servicing the 53rd street tunnel and 8th Ave local, with (K) terminating at WTC and (E) to Bay Ridge.

 

10 hours ago, Deucey said:

Trade-off is you've now torpedoed the entire B-division's capacity since (C) now has to wait for (E) and (K) to make their merges at 50th St. Which means:

(B) is delayed waiting for (C) to clear 59th St, which could make (D) hold at either 145th or 59th St - which backs up (A) on CPW or at Spring Street, and/or at DeKalb Junction, which in turn delays (B)(N) and (Q) at the same location.

Which further the argument to deinterline even more of the system so that more of these merges do not take place, simply because they only have the effect of slowing people down with little benefit to ridership as a whole.

Take the Broadway line.  Most of us agree that (N) switching between local and express tracks in Manhattan severely limits the capacity for both local and express trains and helps induce backups on every line that interacts with (N) [all trains on Broadway, Queens Blvd, and all trains through DeKalb].  So we know that the better approach is to avoid the (N) switch and have all Broadway locals run from the 60th street tunnel to City Hall/Montague tunnel and the express trains from 96 st to the Manhattan bridge.  The devil is in the details, of course, and issues like yard space for Astoria-Bay Ridge runs do need to be addressed.

That being said, the same analysis should also apply for the 8th Ave line.  Currently, the 8th Ave line is limited by the turnback at WTC from running 4 services.  MTA has long decided that instead of running one service on the local and two on the express (continuing into the Cranberry tunnel), they should have the (C) merge from local to express tracks at Canal so that the local stations at Spring, 23, and 50 get maximum service.  But if 8th Ave trains are not limited by WTC (with the proposed extension into the Montague tunnel, which should still require some turnbacks at WTC so as not to hamper Broadway service), then we can operate two local services and two express services on 8th Ave.  Run the locals from 53rd street to WTC/Montague and the expresses from CPW express tracks to the Cranberry tunnel.*  This in turn would force the CPW local tracks to exclusively serve 6th Ave express.  Deinterlining DeKalb would also be helpful, but probably not necessary here.  While DeKalb does produce its own delays, if CPW and 8th Ave are deinterlined, DeKalb's current setup would not introduce any new delays.

The point is that while some merging is necessary, most merging in Manhattan, where trains on both local and express tracks are generally frequent, can be avoided where possible in order to run maximum loads through Manhattan.

* Alternatively, the tracks are set up to have the expresses run from 53rd street to Cranberry, the locals from CPW local to WTC/Montague, and having the CPW express exclusively serve 6th Ave express trains 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrsman said:

 

Which further the argument to deinterline even more of the system so that more of these merges do not take place, simply because they only have the effect of slowing people down with little benefit to ridership as a whole.

Take the Broadway line.  Most of us agree that (N) switching between local and express tracks in Manhattan severely limits the capacity for both local and express trains and helps induce backups on every line that interacts with (N) [all trains on Broadway, Queens Blvd, and all trains through DeKalb].  So we know that the better approach is to avoid the (N) switch and have all Broadway locals run from the 60th street tunnel to City Hall/Montague tunnel and the express trains from 96 st to the Manhattan bridge.  The devil is in the details, of course, and issues like yard space for Astoria-Bay Ridge runs do need to be addressed.

That being said, the same analysis should also apply for the 8th Ave line.  Currently, the 8th Ave line is limited by the turnback at WTC from running 4 services.  MTA has long decided that instead of running one service on the local and two on the express (continuing into the Cranberry tunnel), they should have the (C) merge from local to express tracks at Canal so that the local stations at Spring, 23, and 50 get maximum service.  But if 8th Ave trains are not limited by WTC (with the proposed extension into the Montague tunnel, which should still require some turnbacks at WTC so as not to hamper Broadway service), then we can operate two local services and two express services on 8th Ave.  Run the locals from 53rd street to WTC/Montague and the expresses from CPW express tracks to the Cranberry tunnel.*  This in turn would force the CPW local tracks to exclusively serve 6th Ave express.  Deinterlining DeKalb would also be helpful, but probably not necessary here.  While DeKalb does produce its own delays, if CPW and 8th Ave are deinterlined, DeKalb's current setup would not introduce any new delays.

The point is that while some merging is necessary, most merging in Manhattan, where trains on both local and express tracks are generally frequent, can be avoided where possible in order to run maximum loads through Manhattan.

* Alternatively, the tracks are set up to have the expresses run from 53rd street to Cranberry, the locals from CPW local to WTC/Montague, and having the CPW express exclusively serve 6th Ave express trains 

A nearly de-interlined subway would look something like this (for the B division)

(A) - switches from express to local service between Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Euclid Av; Late night express service on 8 Av/Central Park West Remains

(B) - discontinued

(C) - discontinued

(D) - switched from express to local service from 59 St-Columbus Circle to 145 St (and rush hour express service in the peak direction to Bedford Park Blvd switched to local too)

(E) - local service on Queens Blvd

(F) - unchanged (or express service in both directions between Jay St-MetroTech and Church Av, but community opposition has halted this plan many times)

(G) - unchanged

(J)  (Z)  - unchanged

(L) - unchanged

(M) - shuttle service from Myrtle Av to Metropolitan Av

(N) - shuttle service from 59 St to Stillwell Av

(Q) - unchanged (except late night service would remain express on Broadway)

(R) - Bay Ridge-95 St to Astoria-Ditmars Blvd all times (or shuttle service to 59 St-4 Av, with (N) service running fully local from Coney Island to Astoria)

(W) - discontinued

 

- For the A division, the Rogers Avenue Junction is the real issue (in particular, the (5) train), so the solution would be to send all 7 Av trains to Flatbush, the (5) to Utica Av, and the (4) to New Lots (with switches permitting the (4) to switch to local PAST the Rogers Junction. or just terminate the (5) at Bowling Green at all times except late nights

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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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