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

[mrsman]

22 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I really don’t think this is an issue. I fail to see how it would be, unless maybe there’s a huge percentage of Astoria riders whose destination is Canal Street. The  and  make the exact same stops between Ditmars Blvd and 34th St-Herald Square. Neither one is faster or slower than the other. Even with Union Square, there’s very little time saving, because the  skips only two stops between 34th and 14th. 

I don’t think the third option is all that bad. How would Queens Plaza lose a local train? Run the  and  local via 53rd and the  and  express via 63rd. And the  would replace the  to/from Jamaica Center. The fourth option is kind of confusing, because what train is running local on Broadway if the  is express along with the  and ? The second option is the one I prefer because there is a clean express/local operation on the Broadway Line. The first option - killing the  - can only work with a fully deinterlined QBL with only 8th and 6th Ave services. Maybe also with a future QBL-2 Ave service via the 63rd St Tunnel.

 

I largely agree. Midtown is such a huge jobs center.  Astoria riders will get basically the same service with  as they have with  .  Almost all proposals that push  to 96th include a proposal to significantly increase  service.  For any Astoria rider whose destination is 23rd street or north, the proposal is clearly better as you have increased service without the  interfering with the local tracks.  And as the Broadway express doesn't even serve the Financial District, people heading that way are likely not staying on  to Canal.  The faster ways are likely transfer to 4/5 at Lex/59 or the transfer to 2/3 at Times Square.

I also agree that the third option is the best of the choices that you laid out, since it involves the least amount of intermingling.  Even if the only change you make is to move  to 96th and increase  service, but leave the rest of the subway system the same, you can move so many more people by getting more out of the Broadway line.  It has a lot of untapped capacity.

(Of course, I also support deinterlining CPW and the DeKalb junction for further efficiency.  It is harder to deinterline QBL, as people are wedded to the QBL-Broadway service as well as QBL expresses serving both 6th and 8th Ave.  Such a consensus plan I will post next.)

[darkstar8983]

33 minutes ago, mrsman said:

I largely agree. Midtown is such a huge jobs center.  Astoria riders will get basically the same service with  as they have with  .  Almost all proposals that push  to 96th include a proposal to significantly increase  service.  For any Astoria rider whose destination is 23rd street or north, the proposal is clearly better as you have increased service without the  interfering with the local tracks.  And as the Broadway express doesn't even serve the Financial District, people heading that way are likely not staying on  to Canal.  The faster ways are likely transfer to 4/5 at Lex/59 or the transfer to 2/3 at Times Square.

I also agree that the third option is the best of the choices that you laid out, since it involves the least amount of intermingling.  Even if the only change you make is to move  to 96th and increase  service, but leave the rest of the subway system the same, you can move so many more people by getting more out of the Broadway line.  It has a lot of untapped capacity.

(Of course, I also support deinterlining CPW and the DeKalb junction for further efficiency.  It is harder to deinterline QBL, as people are wedded to the QBL-Broadway service as well as QBL expresses serving both 6th and 8th Ave.  Such a consensus plan I will post next.)

I know it hasn't been mentioned yet, but another advantage of de-interlining is the freeing up of capacity (and NOT using it) to have available in case of emergency reroutes (of which there have been many of lately). 

Example: Lets say Broadway is having an issue and trains need to be rerouted to the local tracks. Clearly the all don't fit on the local tracks during rush hours at once, so a good solution would be to have the extra flexibility due to available capacity and reroute the  via 6 Av and the  via lower Manhattan. 

Example 2: Lets say the Manhattan Bridge North Side is blocked and the cannot get to 6 Av. The can run with the  via the Manhattan Bridge South side and the  rerouted via lower Manhattan (that way, all Queens trains use the tunnel and all 96 St trains are using the Manhattan Bridge (obviously the coming from the south), with the trains coming from the north turning at West 4 St or 34 St. 

In both examples above, the taking up slots in both (which has been mentioned countless times) the local and express tracks detracts from capacity. 

 

Another classic example is the shuffling of trains on Queens Blvd and how to get to Manhattan. The 63 St tunnel has it made with all that spare capacity, being able to handle rerouted and  trains in a pinch (with the  slightly less so because it takes up slots now on 6 Av instead of 8 Av all the way down to West 4 St). Trains can be rerouted in case of issues in any tunnel while preserving some Queens-Manhattan service on all four lines in the trunk. If there's too much traffic, sometimes the  just bypasses Manhattan altogether and runs with the  via Crosstown, and even eliminating a merge at Bergen (except with the few  trains that were still running thru Manhattan). Long as any restructuring of trunk lines leaves behind some leftover capacity for spur-of-the-moment reroutes and we should be good. 

 

It is only when you start stacking trains and maximizing track capacity usage that shit starts hitting the fan when there's the tiniest hiccup (stuck door on a train, sick customer, high school teens fighting on the train) because then trains have to be rerouted in a way that the capacity is not even available and then the trains that are having to share their tracks with suffer from delays (looking at East Side and West Side IRT Expresses). The IRT has the biggest issue with this because their capacity is MAXED out not only due to structural limitations along the line (Lexington Av Express @ Union Square, 7 Av Express @ 142 St Junction, and Rogers Av Junction @ Franklin Av in Brooklyn

 

Edited January 3, 2022 by darkstar8983

[mrsman]

Here is a plan that eliminates merges on Broadway, DeKalb, and CPW, but maintains many other mergers.  QBL service is largely like today's service except that I'm switching the tunnels of the M and F and erminating R at Whitehall.  This is similar to other plans that I have posted before.

207 - Far Rockaway/Lefferts: CPW/8 Av/Fulton St Exp  [same as today]

205 - Euclid: Concourse RH Exp - CPW/8 Av Exp - Fulton St Lcl  

JC-WTC: QBL Exp - 53rd St - 8 Av Lcl  [same as today]

168 St - CI: CPW Lcl - 6 Av Exp - 4th Ave Exp - Sea Beach  

BPB/145 - CI: Concourse RH Lcl (or 145th) - CPW Lcl - 6 Av Exp - 4th Ave Exp - West End    

179 - CI:  QBL exp - 53rd St - 6 Av local - Culver [same as today, except along 53rd tunnel]

 71 Av - Metropolitan:  QBL loc - 63rd St - 6 Av local - Myrtle el [same as today, except along 63rd tunnel]

 96 St/2 Av - Brighton Beach: 2nd Ave - Bway Exp - Brighton Exp   [alternatively, could be named  ]

96 St/2 Av - Coney Island: 2nd Ave - Bway Exp - Brighton Loc  [same as today] 

71 Av - Whitehall:  QBL local - 60th - Bwy local  [same as today, switching southern terminal with W]

Astoria - Bay Ridge: Astoria line - 60th - Bwy local - Montague tunnel - 4 Av local [same as today, switching southern termianl with R].

[Via Garibaldi 8]

All I will say is as an actual commuter that has used the CPW line for years (local and express), both segments could use far more service. The  runs like garbage (you get two trains back to back - first train PACKED, next train enough room to get on), then nothing.  trains run in between there, but are just as bad and come whenever. 

On weekends, the local service is beyond atrocious. The  is too infrequent, and the  should run on weekends to help out. There have been times when I stepped on the train on the Upper West Side, only to realize it was slammed and got off and just made my way with an Uber. 

[mrsman]

1 hour ago, darkstar8983 said:

I know it hasn't been mentioned yet, but another advantage of de-interlining is the freeing up of capacity to have available in case of emergency reroutes (of which there have been many of lately). 

Example: Lets say Broadway is having an issue and trains need to be rerouted to the local tracks. Clearly the all don't fit on the local tracks during rush hours at once, so a good solution would be to have the extra flexibility due to available capacity and reroute the  via 6 Av and the  via lower Manhattan. 

Example 2: Lets say the Manhattan Bridge North Side is blocked and the cannot get to 6 Av. The can run with the  via the Manhattan Bridge South side and the  rerouted via lower Manhattan (that way, all Queens trains use the tunnel and all 96 St trains are using the Manhattan Bridge (obviously the coming from the south), with the trains coming from the north turning at West 4 St or 34 St. 

In both examples above, the taking up slots in both (which has been mentioned countless times) the local and express tracks detracts from capacity. 

 

Another classic example is the shuffling of trains on Queens Blvd and how to get to Manhattan. The 63 St tunnel has it made with all that spare capacity, being able to handle rerouted and  trains in a pinch (with the  slightly less so because it takes up slots now on 6 Av instead of 8 Av all the way down to West 4 St). Trains can be rerouted in case of issues in any tunnel while preserving some Queens-Manhattan service on all four lines in the trunk. If there's too much traffic, sometimes the  just bypasses Manhattan altogether and runs with the  via Crosstown, and even eliminating a merge at Bergen (except with the few  trains that were still running thru Manhattan). Long as any restructuring of trunk lines leaves behind some leftover capacity for spur-of-the-moment reroutes and we should be good. 

 

It is only when you start stacking trains and maximizing track capacity usage that shit starts hitting the fan when there's the tiniest hiccup (stuck door on a train, sick customer, high school teens fighting on the train) because then trains have to be rerouted in a way that the capacity is not even available and then the trains that are having to share their tracks with suffer from delays (looking at East Side and West Side IRT Expresses). The IRT has the biggest issue with this because their capacity is MAXED out not only due to structural limitations along the line (Lexington Av Express @ Union Square, 7 Av Express @ 142 St Junction, and Rogers Av Junction @ Franklin Av in Brooklyn

 

I think you make a very good point.  The system does need some redundancy to handle emergencies as you describe.  If the track's capacity is 30 TPH, then you do make good arguments for running 24-26 TPH instead to allow for those reroutes.  But those reroutes do not have to come at the expenses of providing a good regular service.  Deinterlining is a way to ensure that if there is a problem on one line, it doesn't propogate delays over the whole system.  In other words, you can acheive more reliability at the expense of capacity by simply running fewer trains than the absolute maximum, without the need of introducing more intermingling in the regular service structure.

[MTA Researcher]

Welp, all is lost in de-interlining the system. I emailed the MTA with my suggestions. Here’s what they said:

 

https://share.icloud.com/photos/0f7LNC-Udt9AXpg5zRveFifEQ

 

At least it was worth a try…

[Via Garibaldi 8]

4 minutes ago, MTA Researcher said:

Welp, all is lost in de-interlining the system. I emailed the MTA with my suggestions. Here’s what they said:

 

https://share.icloud.com/photos/0f7LNC-Udt9AXpg5zRveFifEQ

 

At least it was worth a try…

That was the one thing no one in this thread talked about with all of these proposals and I was thinking about it the entire time... No one mentioned anything about usage or ridership patterns that I can recall. I mean that's how service is determined across the board, otherwise arbitrary proposals make no sense.

[P3F]

22 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

Welp, all is lost in de-interlining the system. I emailed the MTA with my suggestions. Here’s what they said:

 

https://share.icloud.com/photos/0f7LNC-Udt9AXpg5zRveFifEQ

 

At least it was worth a try…

Did you expect anything else in reply? No, emailing MTA customer service is not going to make them consider your proposed major service changes...

Edited January 6, 2022 by P3F

[mrsman]

22 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

Welp, all is lost in de-interlining the system. I emailed the MTA with my suggestions. Here’s what they said:

 

https://share.icloud.com/photos/0f7LNC-Udt9AXpg5zRveFifEQ

 

At least it was worth a try…

A typical bureaucratic response by the MTA.  

Thank you for your efforts MTA Researcher.

The real problem is that de-interlining requires a different way of thinking.  Thinking 3 dimensionally, when you are used to 2 dimensions.  Thinking about the system as a whole, rather than on each individual line.  Thinking beyond parochialism, politics, unions to achive an overall improvement of service for all passengers by actually removing preventable delays.

MTA is not willing to try.  Not even an incremental approach.  Not even taking advantage of historic opportunities that will allow them to try.  And we are now at such an opportunity, given that COVID and the resultant increase in working from home will dramatically change travel patterns.  Will service patterns be adjusted to match?

But this wasn't always the case.  in the early 1950's, the following was the service pattern along the Broadway IRT, which ran four services:

Van Cortlandt Park - Broadway/7th express -  Brooklyn

137th St - Broadway/7th local - South Ferry 

Wakefield - Lenox - Broadway/7th Express - Brooklyn

148 St - Lenox - Broadway/7th Local - South Ferry.

They realized that this service pattern was no longer workable as too many trains kept crossing in front of each other around 96th.  They rebuilt the junction and created the service pattern that we more or less know today where the trains from upper Broadway are local between 96th and Canal and the trains from Lenox are express between 96th and Canal.  Much more streamlined service with fewer delays.  A defiinite success that produced a deinterlined  and a much more deinterlined  , notwithstanding the existing issues in Bronx and Brooklyn.  Were their complaints about it?  Yes.  Did passengers from Upper Broadway who wanted express service to Lower Manhattan lose their one seat ride and were forced to transfer at 96th? Yes.  Did Central Harlem passengers who wanted the local lose their one seat ride and became forced to make a corresponding transfer at 96th? Yes.  Was it better overall for all passengers on all three lines? After 70 years of history, undoubetdly and very clearly yes.

I would say that a similar issue to this now exists along the BMT Broadway line.   trains crossing from express to local is highly detrimental to the operation of the line.  A relatively minor step of sending  to 96th and increasing service significantly on  [and corresponding service adjustments to N/Q/R to make it all work] would be a similar monumental service improvement to what was done on the IRT.  Astoria passengers will no longer have the direct ride to express, but everyone on the Broadway line will have smoother service.

With respect to the issues at DeKalb, MTA lost a huge opportunity in 2005 when Manhattan Bridge service was fully restored.  From (approx.) 1990-2002 every rider along the Manhattan Bridge was limited to the 6th Ave express.  From 2002-2005 every rider along the Manhattan Bridge was limited to the Broadway express.  Thus, nearly every Brighton and West End rider (directly) and most Bay Ridge and Sea Beach rider (indirectly via transfer) in 2005 had experience using BOTH 6th Ave and Broadway expresses to get to their jobs.  They only had access to one service at any time for 15 years, but somehow they made it work, even when they were forced to use a 6th Ave train when they really wanted a Broadway train and vice versa.  It would have been so easy to eliminate the DeKalb merges once the Bridge reconstruction was completed, send all Brighton passengers to Broadway, send all West End and Sea Beach passengers to 6th Ave.  Every passenger would have had the experience of using either train to get to their destination.  And for nearly all of Midtown, the two services run a short distance away from each other.  [I do concede that the distances are considerably further between Canal and 14th, but the vast majority of Brooklyn riders who work north of City Hall/FiDi are heading north of 23rd.]  This means that most passengers will not overburden transfers at Atlantic or Herald Square, but would simply walk the extra avenue block to their final destination.  This was truly a lost opportunity.  It is much harder to argue for this change now than it would have been in 2005. 

With respect to possible  and  service pattern changes, with  along 53rd and along 63rd, I know that such a plan is actually something that the MTA is actually considering and may come to fruition when service patterns return to normal following the pandemic.  If nothing else, such a change does eliminate at least one set of mergers overall (E/M inbound and E/F outbound) in the LIC area.

CPW and some of the other possible deinterlinings are a little harder to justify to the MTA, but even if just the thee changes outlined above (N to 96th, DeKalb deinterlining and F/M tunnel switch) were implemented the benefits to riders would be clear and apparent, if they just would try.  That would be the basis to argue for further improvements, including CPW.  But, sadly, they will not listen.

 

5 minutes ago, P3F said:

Did you expect anything else in reply? No, emailing MTA customer service is not going to make them consider your proposed major service changes...

I certainly did not as well.  I don't know how one goes about actually making these types of changes but clearly MTA will not listen to random riders on these matters.  Perhaps if leading academics or known planners were on board,  then perhaps change can come about.  But they certainly are not going to take "advice" from random passengers.

Then again, even with the proper experts transit authorities may ignore all but their own consultants.  SEPTA never fully implemented Prof. Vukan Vuchic's plan for an S-bahn like commuter rail.  There are some elements that are similar, but the shortcomings are significant.

Unverified quote:   Vuchic: "I constantly submit proposals to SEPTA management on a regular basis. Little has been done to increase frequency of service, decrease fares, integrate Regional Rail with city transit.  Does SEPTA want to maximize revenue or ridership?"

The good professor is 86 years old.  Will SEPTA ever listen to his advice while he is still around to give it?

[Eric B]

At 96th St. you had services crisscrossing over each other (on the same switch), not simply merging. At Gold St., the biggest problem as far as slowing down service is them (DeKalb tower) stopping everyone and "spotting" them (i.e. asking for "call letters", which is the line/interval/origin/destination. They don't trust the punches anymore), and that's what takes up all the time. If they could come up with a solution to that, and schedule them better so that trains merging to the same line don't arrive there at the same time, it would work fine. Eventually, CBTC or at least ATS will allow them to know what's there. They already have cameras, but the new LED signs on the 211's will allow the route (letter and color) to be more visible, working just like the old marker lights.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

That’s assuming R211s will be assigned to the  and  lines. So far, it seems like the base order is going to the  and  lines, given that 8th Ave is next in line to get CBTC. That spotting thing at DeKalb Tower ain’t going nowhere for quite some time (even though it should). On the other hand, the  and  already operate with R46s or R68/As - trains with big, visible front route markers (although the speculation mill has the R160s coming back to the  and  when the R211 option orders come in).  

As far as “scheduling them better,” what else can they do with the current service plan? If there was something better, then wouldn’t they have already done it? Heck, I can remember when only the 6th Ave bridge tracks were open and I’d be on a  or  train that got stopped at the junction to let a  pass through. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by T to Dyre Avenue

[mrsman]

14 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That’s assuming R211s will be assigned to the  and  lines. So far, it seems like the base order is going to the  and  lines, given that 8th Ave is next in line to get CBTC. That spotting thing at DeKalb Tower ain’t going nowhere for quite some time (even though it should). On the other hand, the  and  already operate with R46s or R68/As - trains with big, visible front route markers (although the speculation mill has the R160s coming back to the  and  when the R211 option orders come in).  

As far as “scheduling them better,” what else can they do with the current service plan? If there was something better, then wouldn’t they have already done it? Heck, I can remember when only the 6th Ave bridge tracks were open and I’d be on a  or  train that got stopped at the junction to let a  pass through. 

They really can't schedule them any better.  Even if by schedule they plan for trains that could interfere with each other to come at different intervals, those can be disrupted over the very small delays that are common and routine in the system.  Even extra crowding at stops could cause a train to be delayed by a little.  Ordinarily, that's not so bad, but if the delay propagates it can affect the movements at the junction and affect all the bridge routes.  The junction doesn't really work well during the busier times (when the gaps between trains are shorter) and the movements at the junction also limit capacity.

If all Brighton trains were routed to the Broadway express and all 4th Ave express trains were routed to the 6th Ave express, the junction is eliminated.  For those who need the other trains, they can still utilize existing transfers at Atlantic or Herald Square, but very likely most passengers will not need to transfer since 6th Ave and Broadway trains run close together in most of Midtown.

[P3F]

7 minutes ago, mrsman said:

If all Brighton trains were routed to the Broadway express and all 4th Ave express trains were routed to the 6th Ave express, the junction is eliminated.  For those who need the other trains, they can still utilize existing transfers at Atlantic or Herald Square, but very likely most passengers will not need to transfer since 6th Ave and Broadway trains run close together in most of Midtown.

Repeating something a hundred times won't make it true.

The transfer at Atlantic from BMT to BMT is a very long walk, not to mention the stairs and passageways were already crowded even without these supposed service changes.

Removing 6th Av access from either Brooklyn line means that they no longer have easy access to West 4th Street, meaning going to 8th Avenue now requires extra transfers. West 4th Street itself is also a very high ridership station, mind you.

Removing Broadway access means that folks no longer have a simple and timely way of getting to Canal Street or Union Square (without stuffing yourself onto the already crowded  or  anyway). Also, you have now cut off DeKalb Av station (and its connections) from 6th Ave completely?

[Eric B]

I'm looking at the long run, when the new equipment becomes more prominent. (And they could really retrofit the 160's with the color changing signs as well).

One thing they could do as far as the schedules is adopt a "first come, first serve" policy, as much of the wait is because they hold one train because "the other is supposed to go first". If one is already behind, don't hold another just to keep his place on the track. (They do this all the time, everywhere, and I find myself saying if they had let me go first, I would have ben gone and not be in the way of this other train).

[Trainmaster5]

1 hour ago, Eric B said:

I'm looking at the long run, when the new equipment becomes more prominent. (And they could really retrofit the 160's with the color changing signs as well).

One thing they could do as far as the schedules is adopt a "first come, first serve" policy, as much of the wait is because they hold one train because "the other is supposed to go first". If one is already behind, don't hold another just to keep his place on the track. (They do this all the time, everywhere, and I find myself saying if they had let me go first, I would have ben gone and not be in the way of this other train).

Finally I have someone who understands how things used to work before this ATS type technology began to take over the human initiative. We had a great dispatcher at Flatbush on the pm tour. Two or three southbound trains heading his way. He said that he was giving me a push out of the ‘Bush to make room for the arrivals. 16:45 out of Flatbush. Kept my call letters. Arrive at President Street at 16:47 or:48. .Utica tower asks for my call letters. They already know by my voice. No waiting and I’m on the move. ATS is introduced and that train is held by the system. Picked a different job that is scheduled to follow my old interval from Flatbush. I go in service at Bowling Green but because of the ATS system holding trains at the junction I actually leave Bowling Green 8 minutes ahead of time. Great deal for me and my conductor. It caused the Flatbush dispatcher to transfer to the B division and his ATD to move to Main Street. First come first served went bye bye and many of the folks who knew how to keep things together either moved on or retired rather than accept the new way of doing things. My experience. Carry on.

[Eric B]

I wasn't even thinking about ATS, but rather DeKalb and other B Div. locations. Most of them are doing it that way without ATS. Often, it's district politics, as the towers want "their" trains to stay on time (and be as close to time as possible, even when already behind).

[Gotham Bus Co.]

21 hours ago, Eric B said:

I'm looking at the long run, when the new equipment becomes more prominent. (And they could really retrofit the 160's with the color changing signs as well).

One thing they could do as far as the schedules is adopt a "first come, first serve" policy, as much of the wait is because they hold one train because "the other is supposed to go first". If one is already behind, don't hold another just to keep his place on the track. (They do this all the time, everywhere, and I find myself saying if they had let me go first, I would have ben gone and not be in the way of this other train).

Another part of the problem is that signal towers are controlled by Line Superintendents. If the Line Superintendent controls the Columbus Circle tower (and thus signs timesheets for everyone working there), then the tower staff has to be loyal to the  and protect it at all costs, regardless of the impact to  customers.