CPW Deinterline: 8 Av vs 6 Av: Which should go Express? + Bonus Information

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 11/13/2021 at 3:12 PM, R32 3838 said:

 

sending the past Euclid would create another choke point east of Euclid. It's better if the ends at Euclid since it's already coming from the Bronx. Rock Pk riders would prefer an express vs a local.

But then you'd have to reduce service on the three  branches severely. At the very least, Rock Park  service would have to be sacrificed. How else can you run the current forked  service, plus the  and  on the CPW express tracks without reducing  service, even with the  on its current miserable headways? 

This is why I suggest either do  local /  express or  local /  express for deinterlining CPW.

Edited November 15, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue
Clarity

[mrsman]

27 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

This is why I suggest either do  local /  express or  local /  express for deinterlining CPW.

Yes.  It is simple because it works.  Implelmenting one of the above will eliminate the merges that occur on 59th.  It is a fairly easy service to implement and can still provide significant travel improvements, without adjusting travel patterns too much.

Assuming that nothing else changes on the B division, either of thses plans would work fine.  For my own plans, I prefer BD express and AC local because it works better with my plans for Queens Blvd.  But if you don't make adjustments at other parts of the system, here are the pros and cons that I have discovered:

For Deinterlining generally (either plan):

PRO: Smoother service patterns

PRO: Fewer delays due to merging

PRO: More ability to fully utilize the subway line's capacity

CON: More transferring and/or walking by passengers to get to their destination

CON: Passengers at express stations along the CPW trunk (125 and 145) would have a choice of either 8th or 6th express, but not both

CON: Passengers at stations along the CPW trunk (between 145 and 59) would have a choice of either 8th or 6th local, but not both

Furthermore, when evaluating between 1) AC exp and BD local vs. 2) AC local and BD exp, keep in mind that going with #1 will prevent AC access to 50th street, but will provide almost no other changes to other lines.  E can more or less run in the exact same way.  #2 will force E to be the 8th Ave express, but it does have access to 50th on the lower level.  #2 will also allow for a local train to run on both CPW and 8th Ave, effectively the same street.

But is important to keep in mind that once you've picked between #1 and #2, you have to stick with it.  Other than late night service and GOs, it would not make sense to have a general pattern of 8th Ave express and 6th Ave local and then add in a new train that is either a 6th express or 8th local (or both).  Doing that is not deinterlining.  It basically reinforces the existing pattern, with perhaps a small change in the nomenclature.

North of 145th, the existing pattern that each branch (Inwood, Concourse) has of one local and one express works very well.  While it does induce some merging on the switches at 145th, a careful examination of the switches there will indicate that there will be less merging than at 59th.  This is because the Concourse line that is 3-track merges in with local to local and express to express.  The only interference occurs in the reverse peak, where both the Concourse-CPW express and the Concourse-CPW local will share the same track along Grand Concourse.  Since it is only a problem in the reverse peak, it simply does not afffect that many people or trains.

[R32 3838]

18 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But then you'd have to reduce service on the three  branches severely. At the very least, Rock Park  service would have to be sacrificed. How else can you run the current forked  service, plus the  and  on the CPW express tracks without reducing  service, even with the  on its current miserable headways? 

This is why I suggest either do  local /  express or  local /  express for deinterlining CPW.

You don't have to reduce anything, CPW can handle it, You forgetting about CBTC which will also be on CPW.  You don't need to Deinterline CPW and with the going express, You screw over people going to and from 50th st forcing them to take the and backtrack.

Edited November 16, 2021 by R32 3838

[Vulturious]

51 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

You don't have to reduce anything, CPW can handle it, You forgetting about CBTC which will also be on CPW.  You don't need to Deinterline CPW and with the going express, You screw over people going to and from 50th st forcing them to take the and backtrack.

I don't remember CBTC coming to CPW. When was that ever mentioned? The next CBTC implementation is 8 Av between either 59 St-Columbus Circle or 50 St to High St. 

[biGC323232]

53 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

You don't have to reduce anything, CPW can handle it, You forgetting about CBTC which will also be on CPW.  You don't need to Deinterline CPW and with the going express, You screw over people going to and from 50th st forcing them to take the and backtrack.

I can recall when the  and the  all ran together on 6 av between the dekalb av merge and the 47-50 st split without a problem at all...So i agree that 3 lines can run together without cutting anything...

[R32 3838]

52 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

I don't remember CBTC coming to CPW. When was that ever mentioned? The next CBTC implementation is 8 Av between either 59 St-Columbus Circle or 50 St to High St. 

It's planned, Not official yet. after 8th ave, It's going to be 6th ave. I assume they'll do CPW between 168th and 59th eventually 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

3 hours ago, biGC323232 said:

I can recall when the  and the  all ran together on 6 av between the dekalb av merge and the 47-50 st split without a problem at all...So i agree that 3 lines can run together without cutting anything...

But the  and trains were not bifurcated services like the is. Yes, the  had different northern terminals at that time. But it didn't serve them at the same time like the . The served 168th St (later BPB) on weekdays and Queensbridge on weekends; that's the difference between it and the .  

4 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

You don't have to reduce anything, CPW can handle it, You forgetting about CBTC which will also be on CPW.  You don't need to Deinterline CPW and with the going express, You screw over people going to and from 50th st forcing them to take the and backtrack.

I just looked up the schedule. Wow...I did not realize the  ran on such garbage headways (4-6 tph apiece on Lefferts and Far Rock during rush?) past Rockaway Blvd. But even so, when you add the three branches together, isn't that roughly 15 tph on the  in peak direction rush? Plus the 8-9 tph of the . I guess we'd be leaving the  on the same garbage headways (6, maybe 7 tph in rush) it has now. Still think that's going to be a tight squeeze on the CPW express. Maybe CBTC will let the trains run closer together, but the merging at 145 and 59 still isn't helping.

The  don't have to go express. I agree doing that screws over CPW local riders who need to ride straight down to get to 50th/8th.

[MTA Researcher]

Well how about this:

   207 - Coney: CPW/6 Av Exp - Brighton Lcl

 Bedford - Brighton Beach: Concourse Lcl - CPW/6 Av Exp - Brighton Exp

 205 - Bay Ridge: Concourse Exp RH - CPW/6 Av Exp - 4 Av Lcl

 

But then we need to figure how the   would run….

 - 168 St - WTC
 - BPB - WTC

 

???
 

At this point 

 JC - Rockaways: QBL/8 Av Exp - Fulton St Exp

 Jamaica 179 St - Lefferts: QBL/8 Av Exp - Fulton St Lcl

 

I have a hunch someone here will object….

My answer to you is:

Do you prefer direct access with delays or compromise for a smoother service? 

[Vulturious]

7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But the  and trains were not bifurcated services like the is. Yes, the  had different northern terminals at that time. But it didn't serve them at the same time like the . The served 168th St (later BPB) on weekdays and Queensbridge on weekends; that's the difference between it and the .  

I just looked up the schedule. Wow...I did not realize the  ran on such garbage headways (4-6 tph apiece on Lefferts and Far Rock during rush?) past Rockaway Blvd. But even so, when you add the three branches together, isn't that roughly 15 tph on the  in peak direction rush? Plus the 8-9 tph of the . I guess we'd be leaving the  on the same garbage headways (6, maybe 7 tph in rush) it has now. Still think that's going to be a tight squeeze on the CPW express. Maybe CBTC will let the trains run closer together, but the merging at 145 and 59 still isn't helping.

The  don't have to go express. I agree doing that screws over CPW local riders who need to ride straight down to get to 50th/8th.

  I have to agree on this one tbh. There really is no way to run service better without making sacrifices to other lines which would probably just end up making things worse. I did think of one way that didn't make anything worse, but did go a step in the right direction. It involved using the West 4 St switches with one of the 6 Av local service (which would be the  in this case) to run along 8 Av and to either 145 St/Bedford Park Blvd or 168 St. Regardless, it would be cutback during weekends and late nights so nothing much is changing with that.

I also decided to include Vanshnook's Dekalb De-interline idea with the  to Bay Ridge through a new switch to allow for express service along 4 Av and the  to Coney via Sea Beach. The  would extend back to Coney Island running like it originally did, but all local with the  terminating at a rehabilitated lower Level City Hall. Brighton would be an all Broadway line with the  and , the  in this case would be entirely de-interlined.

QBL also gets de-interlined to an extent, the  would reroute back towards 57 St and run via 63 St and QBL local to Forest Hills (with maybe the chance of rush hour extensions to Jamaica-179 St since it also runs express for the most part). The  and  doesn't really get much of a boost even with both of them running together again via 53 St since the  would interfere with both services still, unfortunately. 

On the plus side, the  and  gets a boost in service since both run express on 8 Av and CPW with the  and  along CPW local.

I'm not exactly sure how late nights and weekends would work in this scenario for CPW. The issue is the  shouldn't run during late nights and the  would run back to Norwood. Unfortunately, the  is local and doesn't make sense to run back along express since that would confuse passengers. I tried having the  express, but that left 50 St upper level empty. 

QBL would most likely run like it usually does during late nights with the  back on 63 St whenever the  isn't around and the  local the whole way. The  for the most part is just gone during late nights, maybe the  during weekends doesn't run all the way to Forest Hills and stays at 21 St-Queensbridge. QBL would still run more reliably with the  cut back and only having to deal with just the .

The in Brooklyn would run like it did before it was swapped to Brighton which is shuttle service. Service can be extended to Atlantic Av, but it might just be best to keep it at 36 St. A new relay switch would be created so  trains can stay express to 36 St with the  continuing express north of 36 St so the  doesn't have this weird merging issue at Dekalb.  trains obviously wouldn't run late nights and weekends so for the most part, the  is just on it's own and nothing would delay service on it whatsoever except when in Manhattan running local with the . 

It's not the best idea obviously, but I have put a lot of thought into it. It's definitely far from being the worst proposal in my honest opinion, but there are definitely things that just might not work in practice. I had another idea that involved having a new tunnel connection between Cortlandt St and WTC taking WTC platform out of service and another connection using the provisions at 57 St-7 Av connecting to CPW. Again, it might not be the best, but this is something that should be looked at if possible. This would definitely be a good investment as this can provide alternatives which is something we need more of tbh.

4 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

Well how about this:

   207 - Coney: CPW/6 Av Exp - Brighton Lcl

 Bedford - Brighton Beach: Concourse Lcl - CPW/6 Av Exp - Brighton Exp

 205 - Bay Ridge: Concourse Exp RH - CPW/6 Av Exp - 4 Av Lcl

 

But then we need to figure how the   would run….

 - 168 St - WTC
 - BPB - WTC

 

???
 

At this point 

 JC - Rockaways: QBL/8 Av Exp - Fulton St Exp

 Jamaica 179 St - Lefferts: QBL/8 Av Exp - Fulton St Lcl

 

I have a hunch someone here will object….

My answer to you is:

Do you prefer direct access with delays or compromise for a smoother service? 

Most of it has been proposed before, I didn't really have much of an issue with it aside from the  getting shafted in this scenario. However, I really don't like the  being there since it's just unnecessary to have another 6 Av and CPW service. The only reason it existed was because service along Broadway lost the Manhattan Bridge access and bringing it back just personally doesn't make sense. You end up having to reduce one of the services to compensate for the other which just isn't worth the effort. On top of that, Dekalb would definitely keep it hindered.

Good question, I think having some sort of compromise for smoother service would be better. Vanshnook's idea for Dekalb is probably the best in terms of a service boost. Currently, I take the , mainly taking it in Brooklyn to like somewhere in midtown Manhattan or anywhere below it. Every single time I try to get on one, I somehow just end up getting shafted because it just doesn't run often enough. I've had times where the   and   appear more often than the  which is just straight up annoying. I've also had issues where a battery run passes by me or I'm on one because it was running behind (most of the time it had to help out the piece of shit  ). If you don't know, a battery run is when it makes express service to it's destination, most of the time the train would be on the local tracks. I would know if the train is bypassing if the operator was honking their horn twice and keeps honking as it passes by. It was so bad I had to wait like an hour and a half for one train to come by because 3 other trains bypassed me. I wish I was joking, but it was true. The current  is just so bad, even before COVID, it just doesn't want to show up. When I'm on the train, it can go quick, but waiting for one, you can forget about it. 

Back on topic though, even with Vanshnook making West End only accessed by local service, I wasn't really all that mad because I had a guaranteed shot at catching an express train which was either a  or  on 4 Av. Especially since they both run express, both running via 6 Av, and stick together for a good long stretch compared to before. Dekalb wouldn't be an issue anymore either, only other issue was not having direct access to a Broadway express service from 4 Av, but the  would be running more reliably so transferring wouldn't be an issue either. 

Unfortunately in your case, some of your "compromises" just don't work. The latest proposal kind of proves my point. I can't really say what makes a "good compromise" since I am not perfect at my proposals either. Take a look at my proposal for a CPW de-interline plan, it still has flaws and is far from perfect. I don't think there is ever going to be a perfect system without making some physical changes like infrastructure and whatnot.

Edited November 17, 2021 by Vulturious

[mrsman]

It is true that given the constraints of the existing system and limited budgets, deinterlining can only get us so far.  Some untangling is necessary to control the merging delays, but deciding where to do the untangling is key.

Vulturious, I am trying to see if I understand what your plans are for Broadway, 6th, and 8th based on your previous post.  Please correct me if I lay this out incorrectly:

 96th/2nd - Broadway express - Brighton local

 96th/2nd - Broadway express - Brighton express

 Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - 4 Av local (north of 36th) - West End

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 60th - Broadway local - City Hall

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 63rd - 6 Av express - 4 Av express - Sea Beach

 BPB (or 145th) - Concourse/CPW local - 6 Av express - 4 Av express - 4 Av local (south of 36th via new switch) - Bay Ridge

 179 - QBL express - 53rd - 6 Av local - Culver

 207 - CPW express - 8 Av express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton express to Lefferts or Rockaways

 205 - Concourse/CPW express - 8 Av express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton local to Euclid     

  JC - QBL express - 53rd - 8 Av local - WTC

BLUE M  168th - CPW local - 8 Av local - W4 switch - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle

 

There are a few things I like about this and a few that I don't.  The service in south Brooklyn is very clean by utilizing the Vanschnook plan to deinterline DeKalb.   is fully deinterlined.  A and C should run relatively smoothly as well.  There is no longer merging between A and C around Canal.

Some of the  and  interference with M can be alleviated if the two trains switch their southern terminals.  Having F serve WTC and E serve Culver would mean that there would be no merging going on at W4th, just switching each line's traditional southern section. *

We aren't really doing much to improve QBL.  That being said, it is difficult to untangle QBL given how it affects the rest of the system.

Almost every configuration will have some merging in the 6th/53rd area, but this seems to alleviate it to a degree, since we no longer have M southbound merging with F as it diverges from E (and vice versa northbound).  Instead, E and F merge together, while trains from 63rd are running in the 6th Ave express tracks instead of the local.  Doing this may justify not fully deinterlining CPW at 59th.  It may overall work better, if we are stuck with a constraint of having QBL expresses serving both 6th and 8th.

All in all, this seems to be a good effort, and is certainly better for the system overall than the current configuration.

 

* E and F are largely interchangeable in many ways.  If you do use the W4 switches for M service, then the other 6th and 8th locals will also have to use the switches to prevent entanglements.  F: 179 - 6th - WTC paired with E: JC - 8th - Culver   OR   E: 179 - 8th - Culver paired with F: JC - 6th - WTC.  If the nomenclature of F to culver and E to WTC is important, you can run blue F's and orange E's to make it fit.  

[mrsman]

The above discussion has led me to the following idea:

96th/2nd - Broadway express - Brighton local 

96th/2nd - Broadway express - Brighton express 

Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - 4 Av local (north of 36th) - West End 

 JC - QBL express - 63rd - 6 Av express - 4 Av express - Sea Beach

 168th - CPW local - 6 Av express - 4 Av express - 4 Av local (south of 36th via new switch) - Bay Ridge

 179 - QBL express - 63rd - 6 Av local - W4 switch - WTC  

207 - CPW express - 8 Av express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton local to Euclid 

 Concourse trains - CPW express - 8 Av express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton express to Lefferts/ Far Rockaway 

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd - 8 Av local - W4 switch - Culver

BLUE M  Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd- 8 Av local - W4 switch - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle

 

The attempt here is to separate Broadway trains from QBL.  Then have all of the QBL expresses use 63rd and all of the locals use 53rd.  [The reason for this is to provide that any passenger from QBL local stops west of Jackson Heights can get to LIC without having to backtrack through Manhattan.  Any QBL express passenger heading to LIC can transfer to a local at Roosevelt.]  If the expresses are using 63rd, I want to be sure that none of the QBL expresses would be limited in car length, so none of those trains will go to Myrlte Ave.  Instead, B will merge with D as 6th Ave expresses headed to south Brooklyn and F will remain as the 6th Ave local to WTC.

The QBL local trains will run on the 8th Ave local and the W4 switches to provide access to either Culver or Myrtle routes.

As QBL is very busy, it will have 4 services: BF express and EM local.  Given the other constraints, if I insist that none of my QBL trains heads down Broadway (which I do) that would mean that only 3 services can service CPW.  AC express and D local.  This restriction willl allow B and D to merge in front of Rockefeller Center while not overloading WTC or creating a merge of trains in the Canal St area on the 8th Ave line.  C will serve as the Inwood-CPW express and D will serve as the 168-CPW local.  

The A train, as is the case now, will be a dual aspect train.  As in the current case there will be many A trains, some running to Lefferts and some running to the Rockaways.  (I'll step aside from the topic of whether Lefferts trains deserve a separate designation from Rockaway trains).  All A trains will run express along 8th Ave and CPW and will head to the Bronx.  There is still the possibiliy of running both express and local service along Grand Concourse during rush hours, but the key is that all Concourse trains (independent of how they run in the Bronx) will connect directly to the CPW express and not the local.  The A train will be even longer than before and will run in four boroughs.

[Vulturious]

3 hours ago, mrsman said:

It is true that given the constraints of the existing system and limited budgets, deinterlining can only get us so far.  Some untangling is necessary to control the merging delays, but deciding where to do the untangling is key.

Vulturious, I am trying to see if I understand what your plans are for Broadway, 6th, and 8th based on your previous post.  Please correct me if I lay this out incorrectly:

 96th/2nd - Broadway express - Brighton local

 96th/2nd - Broadway express - Brighton express

 Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - 4 Av local (north of 36th) - West End

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 60th - Broadway local - City Hall

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 63rd - 6 Av express - 4 Av express - Sea Beach

 BPB (or 145th) - Concourse/CPW local - 6 Av express - 4 Av express - 4 Av local (south of 36th via new switch) - Bay Ridge

 179 - QBL express - 53rd - 6 Av local - Culver

 207 - CPW express - 8 Av express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton express to Lefferts or Rockaways

 205 - Concourse/CPW express - 8 Av express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton local to Euclid     

  JC - QBL express - 53rd - 8 Av local - WTC

BLUE M  168th - CPW local - 8 Av local - W4 switch - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle

 

There are a few things I like about this and a few that I don't.  The service in south Brooklyn is very clean by utilizing the Vanschnook plan to deinterline DeKalb.   is fully deinterlined.  A and C should run relatively smoothly as well.  There is no longer merging between A and C around Canal.

Some of the  and  interference with M can be alleviated if the two trains switch their southern terminals.  Having F serve WTC and E serve Culver would mean that there would be no merging going on at W4th, just switching each line's traditional southern section. *

We aren't really doing much to improve QBL.  That being said, it is difficult to untangle QBL given how it affects the rest of the system.

Almost every configuration will have some merging in the 6th/53rd area, but this seems to alleviate it to a degree, since we no longer have M southbound merging with F as it diverges from E (and vice versa northbound).  Instead, E and F merge together, while trains from 63rd are running in the 6th Ave express tracks instead of the local.  Doing this may justify not fully deinterlining CPW at 59th.  It may overall work better, if we are stuck with a constraint of having QBL expresses serving both 6th and 8th.

All in all, this seems to be a good effort, and is certainly better for the system overall than the current configuration.

 

* E and F are largely interchangeable in many ways.  If you do use the W4 switches for M service, then the other 6th and 8th locals will also have to use the switches to prevent entanglements.  F: 179 - 6th - WTC paired with E: JC - 8th - Culver   OR   E: 179 - 8th - Culver paired with F: JC - 6th - WTC.  If the nomenclature of F to culver and E to WTC is important, you can run blue F's and orange E's to make it fit.  

Yeah, in short that is exactly what I was trying to go for overall. I completely understand your point of view of how this would work since I even pointed out those very same issues. There's only so much you can do to de-interline QBL since it originally was built to have Crosstown running local with 53 St as the express for it.

I personally never liked the idea as a whole and 63 St getting mixed in didn't help at all. If anything, it kind of made it a little worse. Sure, you could say that with the  serving 63 St helps a lot since it gets rid of that confusion of which train runs at which time. Especially during the construction of it which had seen two different shuttle service running full time, one being the  and the other being the Yellow S (why is this not an emote and the same with a few others?). Then later on, the  served it during weekdays only, the  during weekends, and the  during late nights to 21 St-Queensbridge. It was definitely a confusing time. Don't get me wrong, the connection is cool and all, but it was executed poorly, I still don't really know why they couldn't have converted 36 St to be an express station. 

2 hours ago, mrsman said:

The above discussion has led me to the following idea:

96th/2nd - Broadway express - Brighton local 

96th/2nd - Broadway express - Brighton express 

Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - 4 Av local (north of 36th) - West End 

 JC - QBL express - 63rd - 6 Av express - 4 Av express - Sea Beach

 168th - CPW local - 6 Av express - 4 Av express - 4 Av local (south of 36th via new switch) - Bay Ridge

 179 - QBL express - 63rd - 6 Av local - W4 switch - WTC  

207 - CPW express - 8 Av express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton local to Euclid 

 Concourse trains - CPW express - 8 Av express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton express to Lefferts/ Far Rockaway 

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd - 8 Av local - W4 switch - Culver

BLUE M  Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd- 8 Av local - W4 switch - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle

 

The attempt here is to separate Broadway trains from QBL.  Then have all of the QBL expresses use 63rd and all of the locals use 53rd.  [The reason for this is to provide that any passenger from QBL local stops west of Jackson Heights can get to LIC without having to backtrack through Manhattan.  Any QBL express passenger heading to LIC can transfer to a local at Roosevelt.]  If the expresses are using 63rd, I want to be sure that none of the QBL expresses would be limited in car length, so none of those trains will go to Myrlte Ave.  Instead, B will merge with D as 6th Ave expresses headed to south Brooklyn and F will remain as the 6th Ave local to WTC.

The QBL local trains will run on the 8th Ave local and the W4 switches to provide access to either Culver or Myrtle routes.

As QBL is very busy, it will have 4 services: BF express and EM local.  Given the other constraints, if I insist that none of my QBL trains heads down Broadway (which I do) that would mean that only 3 services can service CPW.  AC express and D local.  This restriction willl allow B and D to merge in front of Rockefeller Center while not overloading WTC or creating a merge of trains in the Canal St area on the 8th Ave line.  C will serve as the Inwood-CPW express and D will serve as the 168-CPW local.  

The A train, as is the case now, will be a dual aspect train.  As in the current case there will be many A trains, some running to Lefferts and some running to the Rockaways.  (I'll step aside from the topic of whether Lefferts trains deserve a separate designation from Rockaway trains).  All A trains will run express along 8th Ave and CPW and will head to the Bronx.  There is still the possibiliy of running both express and local service along Grand Concourse during rush hours, but the key is that all Concourse trains (independent of how they run in the Bronx) will connect directly to the CPW express and not the local.  The A train will be even longer than before and will run in four boroughs.

You know, this isn't bad. Although, I too have to disagree with some of this.

I decided to keep a Broadway service on QBL for the sole purpose of keeping Culver with express service or at the very least, a route that is long to stay express. Obviously, I also kept the  express which just so happen to be a short route as well because it made more sense than running a Myrtle Av service. But every route going to QBL in my proposal was able to run better service to an extent. The  definitely gaining extra service because it doesn't run into Brooklyn anymore and runs a shorter route. 

I don't think running the  into the Bronx is a bad idea, I'm not sure how well it can handle compared to running to Inwood. However, there is no 2nd Service that is running along Concourse which would basically make riders living along or near that line lose that express rush hour service. Sure you could have some <A> express service running around, but like I said before, I don't know how well they can handle it. And speaking of 2nd Service, CPW also losing that 2nd local service. I don't know how to feel about it nor know if the  can handle CPW local all by itself. Sure, nothing is getting in the way of the  except for the , but I get the feeling that it's going to get pretty crowded. I just realized something, there's no service running to 50 St upper level anymore.

Now onto the , while that is taking over Astoria, Broadway local, and West End all for itself, and much like the CPW and Concourse issue, I do not know how well it can handle Broadway all on it's own. I mean don't get me wrong, literally nothing is getting in the way of the  and they could run some <R> service on both Astoria and West End. Some trains would have to short turn and there isn't any short turning available along Astoria for express service. I kept the  around with the  sticking around on QBL because of those issues. 50 St losing that upper level service to and from CPW would hurt riders in a way. The transfers would definitely be annoying to those that are getting on at 50 St trying to transfer directly to an express train at Columbus. The  sticking around would have this Blue M continue up north, this way there would be extra service for CPW and Concourse since they for a long time has had 4 services and 2 splitting to each branch. 

Overall, it isn't a bad idea. Personally, if I were to take your idea about the extra West 4 St switching, this is how service would run for me:

•  Inwood-207 St to Rockaways/Lefferts Blvd [CPW/8 Av Express, via Cranberry St, Fulton St Express]
•  Forest Hills-71 Av to Coney Island [QBL Local, via 63 St, 6 Av Express, via Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Express, Sea Beach Local]
•  Norwood-205 St to Euclid Av [Concourse Express, CPW/8 Av Express, via Cranberry St, Fulton St Local]
•  Bedford Park Blvd/145 St to Bay Ridge-95 St [Concourse Local, CPW Local, 6 Av Express, via Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Express/Local]
•  Jamaica-179 St to Coney Island [QBL Express, via 53 St, 8 Av Local, via Rutgers St, Culver Local]
•  Jamaica Center to WTC [QBL Express, via 53 St, 6 Av/8 Av Local]
•  Metropolitan Av to 168 St [Myrtle Av Local, Brooklyn-Broadway Local, 8 Av Local, CPW Local]
•  Coney Island to 96 St-2 Av [Brighton Local, via Manhattan Bridge, Broadway Express, 2 Av Local]
•  Brighton Beach to 96 St-2 Av [Brighton Express, via Manhattan Bridge, Broadway Express, 2 Av Local]
•  Forest Hills-71 Av to City Hall [QBL Local, via 60 St, Broadway Local]
•  Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island [Astoria Local, via 60 St, Broadway Local, via Montague St, 4 Av Local, West End Local]

Basically, the  would still run to 168 St with the  still running via 8 Av but switching at West 4 St. This way, the  runs by itself on 6 Av to WTC while not having issues with the . Thus, less merging involved.

The  might run less because the  is around, but people on QBL still have direct Broadway service and is still more reliable than the current one. The  also runs more reliably and might get some express service when running on it's own branches.

Still probably not the best idea, but far from being a terrible one either.

[mrsman]

It is actaully quite a good idea.  If you compare the above to the current service patterns  there are many merges that are eliminated, while not drastically changing too many commutes.

Untangle Broadway by having all expresses to 2nd Ave and all locals to 60th.  

Untangle DeKalb by following the Vanshnook plan.  

Untangle the current EM and EF merges in LIC, maintaining the EM merge at 6th/53rd as the new EF merge.  Introduce a new BD merge at 6th/53rd, but removing the current FM merge.  What is nice about this and what should be clearly mentioned is that your proposed BD merge is independent of your EF merge, even though they are near each other.  The current system has the EM and FM merges that actually conflict greatly with each other.  In your plan, at least every train that merges with another runs alone for at least a few blocks, making the merges far less delay-prone.

Untangle merges on the CPW express.  The current BC merge at 59th is maintained with DM and the current CE merge at 50th is maintained with EM.  So at Columbus Circle area, the expresses are untangled, but the locals still merge in a similar pattern to the current system.  This is a partial deinterlining of CPW.

Untangle the merge at Canal on the 8th Ave line:  All expresses (AC) continue to Cranberry and the local F terminates at WTC.

 

Maintain QBL express service to both 8th and 6th and maintain QBL local service to both Broadway and 6th.

Maintain CPW local service to both 8th and 6th.  CPW express no longer connects directly with 6th, but a transfer is available at 59th.

Introduce a 6th Ave service into Lower Manhattan (F to WTC).  Introduce 8th Ave service into Coney Island (E to Culver).  Straighten out the M routing from a backward "C" shape to more of a "J".  This is better because very few passengers will backtrack and while there aren't many M riders who continue north of Midtown, far more are likely going to upper west side then heading back to Queens.

 

[mrsman]

Another idea.  Maintaining a Broadway connection to QBL, Full deinterlining of CPW, and keeping everything else as separate as much as possible.  Doing so would keep the QBL routes largely identical to what they are today as they enter Manhattan from Queens, but then a few adjustments, as follows:

Inwood-207 St to Rockaways/Lefferts Blvd [CPW/8 Av Express, via Cranberry St, Fulton St Express] 

 168th St to Coney Island [CPW Local, 6 Av Express, via Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Express, Sea Beach Local] 

Norwood-205 St to Euclid Av [Concourse Express, CPW/8 Av Express, via Cranberry St, Fulton St Local] 

Bedford Park Blvd/145 St to Bay Ridge-95 St [Concourse Local, CPW Local, 6 Av Express, via Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Express/Local] 

Jamaica-179 St to Coney Island [QBL Express, via 53 St, 8 Av Local, W4 switch, via Rutgers St, Culver Local] 

Jamaica Center to WTC [QBL Express, via 63 St, 6 Av Local, W 4 switch to lower 6 Av] 

 [M] Forest Hills-71 Av to Metropolitan Av [QBL local, via 53 St, 8 Av local, W 4 switch, via Brooklyn-Broadway Local, Myrtle Ave Local]

96St- 2 Av to Coney Island [2 Av Local, Broadway Express, via Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Local] 

96 St - 2 Av to Brighton Beach [2 Av Local, Broadway Express, via Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Express] 

Forest Hills-71 Av to City Hall [QBL Local, via 60 St, Broadway Local] 

Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island [Astoria Local, via 60 St, Broadway Local, via Montague St, 4 Av Local, West End Local] 

 

Here, AC stay together from 145th through the 8th Ave express, Cranberry Tunnel to Hoyt-Schermerhorn.  BD stays together from 145th to 36th in Brooklyn.  The QBL routes are largely how they are now from back in Queens to Manhattan.  Then,  and [M} stay together from west of Queens Plaza to the 8th Ave local and W4 switch to then reach Culver and Myrtle.  This avoids all manner of merging in the area of 53rd/6th.   is by itself on 63rd and by itself on the 6th Ave local ending at WTC.  Q,R, and W are largely how Vulturious had them, although if demand requires,  could extend into Brooklyn to 9th Ave or Bay Parkway.  We still separate Broadway expresses from Broadway locals, even while maintaining a QBL connection to the Broadway local in the form of an R train.

[Amiri the subway guy]

On 11/16/2021 at 7:59 PM, MTA Researcher said:

Well how about this:

   207 - Coney: CPW/6 Av Exp - Brighton Lcl

 Bedford - Brighton Beach: Concourse Lcl - CPW/6 Av Exp - Brighton Exp

 205 - Bay Ridge: Concourse Exp RH - CPW/6 Av Exp - 4 Av Lcl

 

But then we need to figure how the   would run….

 - 168 St - WTC
 - BPB - WTC

 

???
 

At this point 

 JC - Rockaways: QBL/8 Av Exp - Fulton St Exp

 Jamaica 179 St - Lefferts: QBL/8 Av Exp - Fulton St Lcl

 

I have a hunch someone here will object….

My answer to you is:

Do you prefer direct access with delays or compromise for a smoother service? 

Turning the A train into a one borough line makes it useless and pointless what’s the point of having a subway line that won’t travel to outer boroughs
And the E will become too long since the E short route is why it’s popular as it’s more likely to show up than the F train

 

[Amiri the subway guy]

On 11/17/2021 at 12:11 AM, Vulturious said:

  I have to agree on this one tbh. There really is no way to run service better without making sacrifices to other lines which would probably just end up making things worse. I did think of one way that didn't make anything worse, but did go a step in the right direction. It involved using the West 4 St switches with one of the 6 Av local service (which would be the  in this case) to run along 8 Av and to either 145 St/Bedford Park Blvd or 168 St. Regardless, it would be cutback during weekends and late nights so nothing much is changing with that.

I also decided to include Vanshnook's Dekalb De-interline idea with the  to Bay Ridge through a new switch to allow for express service along 4 Av and the  to Coney via Sea Beach. The  would extend back to Coney Island running like it originally did, but all local with the  terminating at a rehabilitated lower Level City Hall. Brighton would be an all Broadway line with the  and , the  in this case would be entirely de-interlined.

QBL also gets de-interlined to an extent, the  would reroute back towards 57 St and run via 63 St and QBL local to Forest Hills (with maybe the chance of rush hour extensions to Jamaica-179 St since it also runs express for the most part). The  and  doesn't really get much of a boost even with both of them running together again via 53 St since the  would interfere with both services still, unfortunately. 

On the plus side, the  and  gets a boost in service since both run express on 8 Av and CPW with the  and  along CPW local.

I'm not exactly sure how late nights and weekends would work in this scenario for CPW. The issue is the  shouldn't run during late nights and the  would run back to Norwood. Unfortunately, the  is local and doesn't make sense to run back along express since that would confuse passengers. I tried having the  express, but that left 50 St upper level empty. 

QBL would most likely run like it usually does during late nights with the  back on 63 St whenever the  isn't around and the  local the whole way. The  for the most part is just gone during late nights, maybe the  during weekends doesn't run all the way to Forest Hills and stays at 21 St-Queensbridge. QBL would still run more reliably with the  cut back and only having to deal with just the .

The in Brooklyn would run like it did before it was swapped to Brighton which is shuttle service. Service can be extended to Atlantic Av, but it might just be best to keep it at 36 St. A new relay switch would be created so  trains can stay express to 36 St with the  continuing express north of 36 St so the  doesn't have this weird merging issue at Dekalb.  trains obviously wouldn't run late nights and weekends so for the most part, the  is just on it's own and nothing would delay service on it whatsoever except when in Manhattan running local with the . 

It's not the best idea obviously, but I have put a lot of thought into it. It's definitely far from being the worst proposal in my honest opinion, but there are definitely things that just might not work in practice. I had another idea that involved having a new tunnel connection between Cortlandt St and WTC taking WTC platform out of service and another connection using the provisions at 57 St-7 Av connecting to CPW. Again, it might not be the best, but this is something that should be looked at if possible. This would definitely be a good investment as this can provide alternatives which is something we need more of tbh.

Most of it has been proposed before, I didn't really have much of an issue with it aside from the  getting shafted in this scenario. However, I really don't like the  being there since it's just unnecessary to have another 6 Av and CPW service. The only reason it existed was because service along Broadway lost the Manhattan Bridge access and bringing it back just personally doesn't make sense. You end up having to reduce one of the services to compensate for the other which just isn't worth the effort. On top of that, Dekalb would definitely keep it hindered.

Good question, I think having some sort of compromise for smoother service would be better. Vanshnook's idea for Dekalb is probably the best in terms of a service boost. Currently, I take the , mainly taking it in Brooklyn to like somewhere in midtown Manhattan or anywhere below it. Every single time I try to get on one, I somehow just end up getting shafted because it just doesn't run often enough. I've had times where the   and   appear more often than the  which is just straight up annoying. I've also had issues where a battery run passes by me or I'm on one because it was running behind (most of the time it had to help out the piece of shit  ). If you don't know, a battery run is when it makes express service to it's destination, most of the time the train would be on the local tracks. I would know if the train is bypassing if the operator was honking their horn twice and keeps honking as it passes by. It was so bad I had to wait like an hour and a half for one train to come by because 3 other trains bypassed me. I wish I was joking, but it was true. The current  is just so bad, even before COVID, it just doesn't want to show up. When I'm on the train, it can go quick, but waiting for one, you can forget about it. 

Back on topic though, even with Vanshnook making West End only accessed by local service, I wasn't really all that mad because I had a guaranteed shot at catching an express train which was either a  or  on 4 Av. Especially since they both run express, both running via 6 Av, and stick together for a good long stretch compared to before. Dekalb wouldn't be an issue anymore either, only other issue was not having direct access to a Broadway express service from 4 Av, but the  would be running more reliably so transferring wouldn't be an issue either. 

Unfortunately in your case, some of your "compromises" just don't work. The latest proposal kind of proves my point. I can't really say what makes a "good compromise" since I am not perfect at my proposals either. Take a look at my proposal for a CPW de-interline plan, it still has flaws and is far from perfect. I don't think there is ever going to be a perfect system without making some physical changes like infrastructure and whatnot.

The  is redundant just leave it as the  makes things easier to tell the Locals and express apart. But agreed with dekalb deinterlining plan

[Amiri the subway guy]

18 minutes ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Turning the A train into a one borough line makes it useless and pointless what’s the point of having a subway line that won’t travel to outer boroughs
And the E will become too long since the E short route is why it’s popular as it’s more likely to show up than the F train

 

Lemme edit it my thought. Turning the A train into a one borough line makes it useless and pointless what’s the point of having a subway line that won’t travel to outer boroughs
The E short route is probably why it’s popular as it’s more likely to show up than the F train. If anything the E should be extended to Utica Avenue instead since that route would be shorter

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 11/20/2021 at 6:29 PM, mrsman said:

Another idea.  Maintaining a Broadway connection to QBL, Full deinterlining of CPW, and keeping everything else as separate as much as possible.  Doing so would keep the QBL routes largely identical to what they are today as they enter Manhattan from Queens, but then a few adjustments, as follows:

Inwood-207 St to Rockaways/Lefferts Blvd [CPW/8 Av Express, via Cranberry St, Fulton St Express] 

 168th St to Coney Island [CPW Local, 6 Av Express, via Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Express, Sea Beach Local] 

Norwood-205 St to Euclid Av [Concourse Express, CPW/8 Av Express, via Cranberry St, Fulton St Local] 

Bedford Park Blvd/145 St to Bay Ridge-95 St [Concourse Local, CPW Local, 6 Av Express, via Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Express/Local] 

Jamaica-179 St to Coney Island [QBL Express, via 53 St, 8 Av Local, W4 switch, via Rutgers St, Culver Local] 

Jamaica Center to WTC [QBL Express, via 63 St, 6 Av Local, W 4 switch to lower 6 Av] 

 [M] Forest Hills-71 Av to Metropolitan Av [QBL local, via 53 St, 8 Av local, W 4 switch, via Brooklyn-Broadway Local, Myrtle Ave Local]

96St- 2 Av to Coney Island [2 Av Local, Broadway Express, via Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Local] 

96 St - 2 Av to Brighton Beach [2 Av Local, Broadway Express, via Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Express] 

Forest Hills-71 Av to City Hall [QBL Local, via 60 St, Broadway Local] 

Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island [Astoria Local, via 60 St, Broadway Local, via Montague St, 4 Av Local, West End Local] 

 

Here, AC stay together from 145th through the 8th Ave express, Cranberry Tunnel to Hoyt-Schermerhorn.  BD stays together from 145th to 36th in Brooklyn.  The QBL routes are largely how they are now from back in Queens to Manhattan.  Then,  and [M} stay together from west of Queens Plaza to the 8th Ave local and W4 switch to then reach Culver and Myrtle.  This avoids all manner of merging in the area of 53rd/6th.   is by itself on 63rd and by itself on the 6th Ave local ending at WTC.  Q,R, and W are largely how Vulturious had them, although if demand requires,  could extend into Brooklyn to 9th Ave or Bay Parkway.  We still separate Broadway expresses from Broadway locals, even while maintaining a QBL connection to the Broadway local in the form of an R train.

I liked your earlier proposal better. In this one, you’re preserving all three of the merges that plague the QBL with delays. QBL is basically the same as now except for the M via 8th Ave Local. That’s not a good solution to QBL’s consistent delays (not all of which is due to MTA’s poor service planning and crappy infrastructure).

Since this topic is about untangling the CPW line, I’ll be brief about how to untangle QBL while keeping a Broadway connection. I’ve previously suggested running the and local to/from 71st Avenue via the 53rd St Tunnel while running the and express to/from Jamaica via the 63rd St Tunnel. However, that would require either the to run express in Manhattan (if the and are the CPW locals) or for the 50th/8th upper level to be left unused if the stays local in Manhattan (and the run as CPW expresses).

[Theli11]

16 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I liked your earlier proposal better. In this one, you’re preserving all three of the merges that plague the QBL with delays. QBL is basically the same as now except for the M via 8th Ave Local. That’s not a good solution to QBL’s consistent delays (not all of which is due to MTA’s poor service planning and crappy infrastructure).

Since this topic is about untangling the CPW line, I’ll be brief about how to untangle QBL while keeping a Broadway connection. I’ve previously suggested running the and local to/from 71st Avenue via the 53rd St Tunnel while running the and express to/from Jamaica via the 63rd St Tunnel. However, that would require either the to run express in Manhattan (if the and are the CPW locals) or for the 50th/8th upper level to be left unused if the stays local in Manhattan (and the run as CPW expresses).

If the are running local from 71 St, I think the should be local in Manhattan and we either create a switch right before 50th St on both sides or we extend the Platform over the local, out to the express track. That way there's still 50th St access by Upper and Lower 8th Avenue. 

[Amiri the subway guy]

On 11/15/2021 at 4:16 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But then you'd have to reduce service on the three  branches severely. At the very least, Rock Park  service would have to be sacrificed. How else can you run the current forked  service, plus the  and  on the CPW express tracks without reducing  service, even with the  on its current miserable headways? 

This is why I suggest either do  local /  express or  local /  express for deinterlining CPW.

Any plans to extend the to Lefferts and divert the to Fulton will have to be done with a connection to Fulton street 

[Vulturious]

10 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Any plans to extend the to Lefferts and divert the to Fulton will have to be done with a connection to Fulton street 

Sorry, but this sentenced was phrased very weird and I have no idea what you're trying to say. What I assume you're trying to say is having the  extended running along Fulton St Local and the  express with the . Again, I have no idea if this is what you're referring to.

While I agree that the SAS extension into Brooklyn should run along Fulton Local through a new connection to the Old Court St station, these ideas are talking about how to fix the current system and not about what should happen once SAS phase 4 is built. Unfortunately, I don't think there will be a time where we see Phase 4 built especially with how we're currently dealing with Phase 2 and haven't started yet. There's just no way that we'll be seeing Phase 2 completed any time soon. 

[Amiri the subway guy]

3 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Sorry, but this sentenced was phrased very weird and I have no idea what you're trying to say. What I assume you're trying to say is having the  extended running along Fulton St Local and the  express with the . Again, I have no idea if this is what you're referring to.

While I agree that the SAS extension into Brooklyn should run along Fulton Local through a new connection to the Old Court St station, these ideas are talking about how to fix the current system and not about what should happen once SAS phase 4 is built. Unfortunately, I don't think there will be a time where we see Phase 4 built especially with how we're currently dealing with Phase 2 and haven't started yet. There's just no way that we'll be seeing Phase 2 completed any time soon. 

I was just stating how the  could truly be sent to Lefferts Blvd. since under the current pattern the  being sent to lefferts will result in another merge conflict with the  at Euclid Avenue so Fulton Street should remain the same. I in favor of 8th Avenue express and 6th Avenue local. The  would remain the same. The  would run to 168th Street Central Park West local The  would run to Bedford Park Blvd Central Park West Express. The  would to Norwood 205th Street Central Park West Local. During Weekends the  would stop at 163rd Street and 155th Street and run all local during late nights since the  is a weekday route only. The  still wont operate during late nights. 

[Vulturious]

1 hour ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

I was just stating how the  could truly be sent to Lefferts Blvd. since under the current pattern the  being sent to lefferts will result in another merge conflict with the  at Euclid Avenue so Fulton Street should remain the same. I in favor of 8th Avenue express and 6th Avenue local. The  would remain the same. The  would run to 168th Street Central Park West local The  would run to Bedford Park Blvd Central Park West Express. The  would to Norwood 205th Street Central Park West Local. During Weekends the  would stop at 163rd Street and 155th Street and run all local during late nights since the  is a weekday route only. The  still wont operate during late nights. 

Ah okay, but there's a slight issue with this plan.

You're going to need to swap the  and  in terms of terminals so you don't have crossover merging involved. You didn't say which line is running express along Concourse. If  trains are express, 145 St won't have any merging unless  trains are running express which shouldn't. Bedford Park Blvd was built to have express trains continue further past it because express tracks only have access to the outer tracks with the middle track mainly used either a short-turn or a terminal. There is no other way to relay on the outer tracks unless trains use the yard leads to Concourse Yard. 

[Amiri the subway guy]

16 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Ah okay, but there's a slight issue with this plan.

You're going to need to swap the  and  in terms of terminals so you don't have crossover merging involved. You didn't say which line is running express along Concourse. If  trains are express, 145 St won't have any merging unless  trains are running express which shouldn't. Bedford Park Blvd was built to have express trains continue further past it because express tracks only have access to the outer tracks with the middle track mainly used either a short-turn or a terminal. There is no other way to relay on the outer tracks unless trains use the yard leads to Concourse Yard. 

The thing is that the  doesn’t operate overnight so I figured that having like that would be simply things maybe the  could share terminals

[Vulturious]

4 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

The thing is that the  doesn’t operate overnight so I figured that having like that would be simply things maybe the  could share terminals

Sharing isn't a bad idea, unfortunately that can't happen. Norwood is a 2 tracks island platform, only one line can terminate there because of how limited the capacity to turn trains around. You're right about the  not operating during late nights, but you can run service similar to how the  and  currently runs in Brooklyn with  to Norwood everyday except for late nights and the  taking over during that time. It might be confusing, but people will catch on and regardless, most people will usually take  trains anyway most of that time so it wouldn't matter much.