The G proposal is good too since it gives people a one seat ride to Downtown Brooklyn from Queens, especially since there are a fair number of jobs in Downtown Brooklyn and the area is only getting more and more built up.
Hello from Toronto. I've always admired your subway system, it's very fascinating and unique. I've always thought that the interlining (along with the express trains) was one of the coolest features about it. Watching this video I now see why maybe it isn't the best option. We tried an interlining scheme back in the 1960s but it ended up being very short lived.
Interlining isn't a bad thing, however, in certain parts of the system, it causes delays, due to merging trains. In other parts, like the (2/5) in the Bronx, the interlining is good, and allows people in the Bronx to have access to 2 different trunk lines. I like Toronto's system too, however, IMO, it isn't expansive enough. I do see some of the new projects that are under construction though, like the new Light Rail/Tram route.
Hi, I always admire Toronto Subway. It's simple, understandable, and nice. But now New York Subway restores to full splendor. I've found interlining interesting when I came to NYC from Russia, where metro (subway) systems are pretty simple. However now - interlining exists in some places in Moscow.
I think you should continue to talk about de interlining. Spreading awareness on this topic could actually change alot of railfans minds about the subway we have today. In my opinion, for Broadway de interlining, the (R) (W) should be sent via West End with the (W) doing peak direction express trips. The (W) would become a peak direction express service at this point). The (B) will replace the (R) after 36th Street. The (D) will go via Sea Beach.
I agree with what's being said, despite the bias in letting the 4 run express instead of the 5 (preferences) but this is a good idea. I've also had mixed thoughts on a possible extension from Brooklyn College to kings plaza as the population isn't too great in that area, but it's still a major shopping center. Considering costs, it may not be worthwhile but the busses that run to Kings Plaza are spaced pretty far.
I worked the M when it went thru to Brooklyn. It was a logistical nightmare between Bay Pkwy, Coney Island Yard and Stillwell. 9av also proved to be useless. Only the Brighton line is a good express experience. The others need to be single with an emergency middle track.
The 2,3,4,5 trains should ABSOLUTELY be de-interlined at the “Rogers Junction” There’s constant delays because that junction was under-engineered 100 years ago to reduce construction disruption to the “scenic” Eastern Parkway, a stupidly short-sighted decision. By running all Lexington (ie, 4,5 Express) trains straight through to Utica Av/New Lots, and all 7th Avenue (ie, 2,3 Local) trains down Nostrand Av to Brooklyn College, you’d eliminate a TON of delays at the junction while not meaningfully affecting service. I’ve been using the Manhattan-bound Nostrand Av line daily for 4 years now and every time I catch a 7th Avenue 2 (local) train instead of a Lexington (express) 5 train, I disembark at Franklin Av to catch a cross-platform transfer to the express train. Everyone already does this. De-interlining changes nothing about the ridership patterns. Franklin Av is rarely crowded, it can handle the cross-platform transfers between the Lexington and 7th Ave passengers.
@@Bklynkid52 But when those passengers arrive at Franklin Ave they always have the same choice. Whether they hopped on a 3 or 4 train east of Franklin Av, they have the choice to transfer between them across the platform. Functionally there’s no change to service. You still have the transfer at Franklin Av to ensure you get on whichever Manhattan-bound train you need. I’ve been doing this on the Nostrand trains for 4 years. And I’ve watched commuters get off of the New Lots trains at Franklin Av to make the same transfer as myself, to a Lexington Ave train from a Broadway/7th Av train.
@@zacharytaylor2983 The 3 train to Flatbush is something I can't get behind. Also, every 3 train has to go for a layup and put-in since they don't run to Brooklyn overnight.
@@Bklynkid52 I honestly don’t understand the issue with that. The 5 train doesn’t run to Brooklyn overnight, either, but since it remains in service in Manhattan/Bronx it doesn’t need so much yard space for overnights. Why couldn’t the MTA run the 3 trains to the New Lots shops for overnight in the evenings, after service ends? Or, better yet, do what they should have done years ago and extend the Nostrand line to Voorhies Av, where they could build extra sidings and layup tracks?
@@zacharytaylor2983 If you send 3 trains to Flatbush Avenue, trains would have to go for a layup to New Lots Yard. That would cause a bottleneck with trains having to go to Nevins Spur, and back to get to New Lots Avenue.
@@TheRailLeaguer how would this work? You would have the R service the local stops until 36th St and then continue onto West End? Then have the D take over 4th Ave local service to bayridge? What an unnecessary complication. The R is fine at Forest Hills. By removing the QBL connection from the 60th st tunnel, you are severely underutilizing badly needed transit capacity between queens and Manhattan. You are limiting the 60th st tunnel to a measly 15 TPH to the Astoria Line.
R to Astoria and N uptown would also eliminate having the N switch over to the local tracks between 34th and 42nd, eliminating any conflict if an R or W were stuck at 34th. Or going downtown, a Q having to wait for an N to cross over.
Yeah, I wasn't expecting to see such a big jump in subscribers. I'm amazed at how fast this channel is growing right now. Hopefully it stays this way. I'm glad you, and over 1K people think this is a quality channel, and enjoy the content I put out.
4:12 As of the pandemic, there's less of a demand towards Manhattan and more within and between the outer boroughs as well. So I think this change would help more people at this time.
This video was interesting to this occasional NYC visitor once I figured out what you were referring to. That said, it would be better if you started by saying what you mean by interlining (and de-interlining), and at 0:49, showing a before and after so I can see visually what the change is rather than having to go look at my subway map to see how it differs from yours (that on the last map I downloaded, the 2 and 5 share a track). This is a different concept from, say, bus route 11 reaching downtown wherever and coming out the other side of downtown as bus route 2, which is also called interlining; in that case, de-interlining them would mean that they operate completely independently of one another.
Regarding QBL, the best solution is to swap the F and M and run the G to Queens Plaza, arriving on the local track and then reversing to Court Square before the R arrives. Idk why they would send the R to Astoria since it would lose access to Jamaica Yard. Why would they transfer 8 car R179's from 207th Yard to Jamaica and then replace the R with the G in QBL local? Wouldn't that lead to more people on the M? Additionally, the Jamaica yard is filled to the brim with R160's. There's no room there for 8 car R179's F express service on Culver was done in the past, but it was discontinued since passengers prefer direct service to Manhattan.
When I viewed the video 10min ago the subscriber count was 1.7k now it’s 1.71k. Getting even more popular by the day I see. Keep up the good content and remember I’ll always be watching ur vids like I have since you’ve started
People keeping bring up the yard issue but they forget one of the main reasons the R was moved to Forrest Hills was not just because they needed a yard. It was due to the fact that when the R used R27-R30’s and the few R32’s on the line the 27’s and 30’s suffered through years of deferred maintenance and didn’t hold up like the class that came 3-4 years later in the R32’s. So with the bulk of service being provided by failing R27-R30’s they really needed to get to a yard after a few trips. But this could’ve been solved by sending the R68’s to the R when they came instead of sending the R to Forrest Hills. Any railfan and motorman for that matter will tell you the R from Fort Hamilton-Astoria was a better route and more practical. Extending the Brown R along the BMT Jamaica line was a smart idea in 86 but they wound up using the same worn out equipment that the M had in R27-R30’s. But the R has many spots on the line where short turns can be made and you can mitigate the issue of not having a yard at both ends. Plus the reason the MTA wanted yards at Both ends of lines was because the equipment on the TA was so battered that it necessitated inspection frequently. The N was better as a QBL Local and shouldve been extended to Jamaica instead of The E and the R belongs as service frm Astoria-Bay Ridge
De-interlining is really not my kind of thing. But if we were to de-interline parts of the system, here’s how I would do it: 1. DeKalb Avenue: Have both the B and D run express along 4th Avenue, and the R continue running local down to Bay Ridge-95th Street. We extend the J to run local with the R down to Bay Ridge-95th Street, or along the pre-2010 M rush hour route to Bay Parkway with the D. The D will continue to run along West End while the B will replace the N along Sea Beach to Coney Island. The N will run alongside the Q down Brighton, with the N replacing the B express and the Q still running local, however the Q will terminate at Brighton Beach while the N continues down to Coney Island. With the extension of the J, the Z train will be ultimately killed off. 2. Queens Boulevard: The N can replace the M to Forest Hills-71st Avenue, with the M being re-routed to 96th Street-2nd Avenue with the Q, and the F being re-routed via the 1990’s route along 53rd Street with the E. The N will replace the F along 63rd Street, and the R will still run along the QBL (R trains to Astoria really aren’t my thing to be honest. I see it more of a line destined to run along the QBL) to Forest Hills. The W will run to Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard on its own. 3. Eastern Parkway: Quite easy. Have the 2 and 3 run along Nostrand Avenue towards Brooklyn College-Flatbush Avenue and have the 4 and 5 continue along Eastern Parkway, with the 4 terminating at Crown Heights-Utica Avenue and the 5 continuing towards New Lots Avenue. The 5 will stop at the Nostrand and Kingston Avenue stations but will skip them during rush hours. I almost thought of having the 3 and 4 running express and the 2 and 5 running local but then I realized there were no junction tracks after Borough Hall.
In order to fully understand why every route is structured the way it is today, you'll have to understand the reasonings behind it. - Prior to the 63rd Street extension (December 16th, 2001), the (E) ran 12tph and the (F) ran 18tph through 53rd Street. There were times both (E) and (F)'s bypassed Lexington Avenue-53rd Street. Simply to control crowding. - The (M) via 63rd Street is a major no. The MTA wants a 24/7 line serving that corridor. - The (R) won't ever go back to Astoria. The (R) needing direct yard access was finally rectified on May 24th, 1987. - The (G) isn't ever going past Court Square. The R179's on the (C) are going to the (J)/(Z) lines when the (C) receives its R211's, not the (G). - The (2) and (5) setup works just fine. 149th Street-Grand Concourse is one of the worst stations to transfer at. - Rodger's Junction, yeah. There is a reason we have the setup with the Brooklyn IRT which went into effect in 1983. Logistics, politics, and complicated nature is what plagues the subway system. Nothing will ever be perfect. Delays are the name of the game.
Rogers Ave Junction is a huge holdip on the IRT. I live down the livonia line on the 3, and i have to gamble between taking the 4 at Utica or stay on the 3 to get off at borough hall on each. When 2 trains merge onto Esster Parkway the 3 gets held back from entering Nostrand Ave. When 5 trains merge, both 3 and 4 trains get held back to wait for it to leave the station
Just a reminder everyone we love all of our routes don’t think that just because we remove them from our proposals it does not mean that we hate them (looking at you Jason John)
Queens Blvd M to Rockaways via 63 st tunnel R to jewel avenue branch G to 179 street and F train extension to Springfield Blvd with limited E trains while service to Jamaica center remains unchanged. As for the Bronx, having the 3 train to the dyre avenue would result in having another shuttle serving 135 and 148 st requires the 135 street station conversion which is a pain in the neck to deal with another permanent shuttle and routing the 5 train on the Jerome line would cause crowding on 149 street which makes no sense to do that while the Brooklyn irt deinterlining is like dealing with a similar pattern with the A and the C train
Like really quickly. On the Seneca Avenue video he just reached 1K subscribers and now has 600 more in just a week. That Interborough Express video really helped him lol
Yep, it was the Interborough Express video. before uploading Seneca Avenue, I had around 800 Subs. That vid pushed the numbers up, and then both my History of the R62/A and the Interborough Express video pushed it up even higher.
My problem with de-interlining at rogers junction isn’t mostly about the one seat ride which to me is like not even 20% my problem with this de-interlining it’s how redundant the 3 line would be because and you can correct me if I’m wrong but the 3 clones the 2 every where that isn’t 148st and 145st.
That's true. However, Rodgers Junction is a massive bottleneck for the IRT minus the 7, 6, and 1. Losing several tph for no "redundancy" is not worth it when both the IRT 7th Ave and Lexington Ave lines are the most used lines, not only in New York, but in the whole country. Also, one complaint that should be addressed in the 3 losing its maitience yard at Livonia, meaning Lenox would have to revert back to a maintience yard. Mystic mentions that he doesn't like the plan to send the 3 to Dyre Ave and the 5 via Jerome, but I believe this plan is necessary as this plan is a cheaper alternative to extending the 2nd Ave Subway into the Bronx. I don't think these deinterlining plans should happen at once. The MTA should first do the easiest swaps like for Dekalb Junction (swap the B and N) and the Queens Plaza swap (F and M swap, which seems likely considering that the MTA was planning on doing this before the pandemic and the current F train rerouting is moderately popular with riders) so that they have examples of good deinterlining. Then, do 59th St (make the A and C run local on CPW). IRT deinintelining should be the last deinterling project the MTA should do considering it involves several different projects and are the most expensive (convert 135th St into a 3 track 2-island platform line to provide a shuttle for Lenox riders; expanding 149th St Grand Concourse to allow for easier transferring; fixing Rodgers Junction). In order to fully maximize capacity on the IRT, all of the IRT deinterlining proposals need to be done relatively around the same time.
@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831you can just keep the A on CPW and then send the C on QBL to 179th St it would be express while the F local replaces the R. The C would replace the A East of Euclid while the E goes local in Brooklyn Terminating at Euclid, as 12tph on the E is enough for the Local riders on Fulton St. This also means that instead of 12tph on the current A there would be 24tph on a deinterlined C Train that would run to both Lefferts Blvd and Far Rockaway. TTA proposed the E and K on Fulton but the K mainly defeats the purpose on the A and C lines unless you have it to help label the branches east of Euclid, by having the K only run to 168th St to WTC, but the A is fine doing the K’s old route as the C can take over service as the Express on Fulton and 8th Ave along with Lefferts and the Rockaways. On DeKalb you have the B and N swapped by having the B running 24/7, and the N or Q running Weekdays only. A: 168th St to WTC B: Inwood 207th St to Coney Island (Sea Beach) C: Jamaica 179th St to Lefferts Blvd or Far Rockaway D: Norwood 205th St to Bay Ridge 95th St E: Jamaica Center to Euclid Ave F: Forest Hills to Coney Island N/Q via Brighton R: Astoria to Coney Island (West End) IRT deinterlined 2: Flatbush Ave to Wakefield 241st St 3: Flatbush Ave to Eastchester Dyre Ave 4: Woodlawn to New Lots Av 5: Bedford Pk Blvd to Crown Heights.
That is not an issue since the 3 isn’t really redundant with both routes going to Flatbush Avenue. Rather, it will just make Broadway-7th Avenue service more consistent. There is nothing wrong with two routes sharing a large majority of trackage. By your logic, should we just get rid of late night 3 train service, which operates only to Times Square?
@@TheRailLeaguer Almost 80% of riders transfer to a train to Lexington and what does this prove you ask, well we have White Plains and 7th Avenue and Jerome has Lexington, and Jerome is a dense corridor that needs another line along with it, hence the (5) would be moved up there with the (4), while the (3) joins the (2) at White Plains and from there the (3) would split off to Dyre.
@@TheRailLeaguer I wouldn’t get rid of the 3 late nights but instead extend late night service to South Ferry so that the 2 can continue express to Wakefield. The same track patter is also what I proposed with the C and E routes with the C going Express on Fulton and the E going Local. The E is essentially a slower C Train under my plan because I have the C replace the A to Lefferts and the Rockaways. This is because the A would get cut back to 168th St and WTC requiring the C to take over the service. Plus the C would run double the frequency that the A does now with Deinterling. But back to the 2 and 3 yes they share the same tracks and so what that would help boost frequency on While Plains Rd, and the 3 just splits off to Dyre while the 2 retains its service pattern just with beefed up frequencies.
6:37 Can you not drop the 4 train express tailtracks east of Utica Ave and dive under and swing back westerly to Utica Ave ? More expensive of course. I forgot if the bellmouths were before or after the Utica Ave station; id. If a new Utica Ave line passenger wanted to go to the current Utica Ave stop, could he do it, or would he have to bypass it as Flatbush Ave customers have to skip Nostrand Ave at Eastern Parkway ? Aarre Peltomaa of Mississauga, Ontario
The bell mouths are after the Utica Avenue station and are from the local tracks. It would make more sense to use those for the Utica Avenue subway and have current express service take over the New Lots Line.
Yeah but with other outing options, this argument isn’t much valid for keeping the line on the Queens Blvd Line wasting track capacity there. In fact, just two new switches south of 36th Street would provide some changes. Namely, the R route be rerouted via the West End Line to Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue. From there, the D route would switch to the local tracks south of 36th Street to serve all the remaining stops to 95th Sreet in Bay Ridge. The W would also be rerouted to take advantage of the new routing. With this, the R would now be based out of Coney Island Yard with the D route assignment at Concourse Yard unchanged. Consequently, this also provides some unintended benefits as Staten Island riders coming in on the three Staten Island buses over the Verrazano Bridge to the 86th Street station will now see faster trips overall, while West End and Broadway riders would see more consistent service.
You don't need to have the 5 train to Jerome avenue line construct a third avenue corridor to gun hill Rd in Brooklyn, 2 & 5 will switch back to main line where the 2 would take the Utica avenue branch and the 5 will serve new lots while the 3 and 4 will return to the Nostrand avenue branch. As for the Queens Blvd line, construct a branch at jewel avenue and revive the Rockaway connection to split the M and R off the main line before forest hills leaving the G the only train to serve that terminal. But this requires CBTC to handle up to 40 or 45 trains per hour. The M would have to use the 63 Rd to help the line balance more effectively
Alright…. I agree with the QBL thing to an extent, but as a rider of that line myself, we’re not really for it just yet…. I say let them finish with the Rockaway Highline deactivation study first before we talk about getting the G back there. For now, E and F via 53rd Street weekdays, M via 63rd Street weekdays F via 63rd Street late nights and weekends. As far as the R, the reason why it’s there now is no real yard access. So the lower level of City Hall wouldn’t cut it especially since we’re talking about a line that does more than it’s supplemental local. So if we’re talking about the R, send it maybe to 179 if you want the G and M to end at Continental. Just a thought. As far as IRT is concerned, there are some key switches just west of Hoyt Street-Fulton Mall that could probably fix the whole thing up if they were revitalized. Try having one Lexington line and one 7th Avenue Line go local and express respectfully as well as revamping the Rogiers Junction.
As for Rogers, those switches won’t exactly help, as the trains will have of cross paths (the 5 switching onto the local, and 3 having to switch express). The only real way to fix the issues is to segregate 7th and Lex between New Lots and Nostrand.
@@daniel_teplitsky07 only issue is that Jamaica residents don’t wanna lose that express ride into Manhattan. Bad enough that part of Queens is under scrutiny with the new bus network redesign, I’m not so sure they wanna lose anything else.
@@AC34D Nah I’m having the E end at 71st, with some continuing to 179th. The M will replace the E on Archer Ave, since it is running express, while the F remains at 179th Street as an express.
N City Hall has a lower level plat but those are 6 car platforms and cannot be extended without extensive construction. If the N train is sent uptown to 96 St and the R goes to DITMARS where is the Q terminal? Shared with the R at DITMARS? The W gets cut along with jobs. Track upgrades have been made along with new platforms on the Astoria line. I worked the N Q W for 20 years.
Maybe then you can terminate them at Canal and store them in the lower level of City Hall. With improved terminal Ops, this could be done quickly enough to not harm service on Broadway. Service will run as follows: A: 168th Street to WTC via CPW Lcl/8th Ave Local B: 207th Street to Bay Ridge-95th Street via CPW Express/6th Avenue Express/4th Avenue Express (Local south of 36th Street) C: Bedford Park Blvd to WTC via Concourse Lcl/CPW Lcl/8th Ave Lcl D: 205th Street to Coney Island via Concourse Lcl (Exp Rush Hours)/CPW Exp/6th Avenue Exp/4th Avenue Express/Sea Beach Local E: Jamaica Center to Far Rockaway/Lefferts Blvd via Queens Blvd Express/53rd Street/8th Avenue Express/Fulton Street Express F: Forest Hills to Coney Island via Queens Blvd Lcl/63rd Street/6th Avenue Lcl/South Brooklyn Express/Culver Lcl G: Court Square to Church Avenue via Crosstown Lcl J: Jamaica Center to Broad Street via Jamaica Lcl (Rush Hour Express) K: 179th Street to Euclid Avenue via Queens Blvd Express/53rd Street/8th Avenue Express/Fulton Street Lcl L: 8th Avenue to Canarsie via Canarsie Lcl M: 179th Street to Metropolitan Avenue via Queens Blvd Lcl/63rd Street/6th Avenue Lcl/Jamaica Lcl/Myrtle Avenue Lcl N: 96th Street to Brighton Beach via Broadway Express/Brighton Express Q: 96th Street to Coney Island via Broadway Express/Brighton Local R: Astoria to Coney Island via Broadway Local/4th Ave Local/West End Local Improvements: - Reconstruction of switches at Astoria-Ditmars to turn 30 trains per hour - New switches between the local and express tracks south of 36th Street, allowing locals to serve West End, and expresses to split between Bay Ridge and Sea Beach
The R will never ever come back to Astoria. For one simple fact. It needs a yard and it will use Coney Island yards and it slows down service on the N. This is why they switch terminals. The R uses kew gardens yard so it doesn’t effect the N going to Coney Island. And they will never build a yard in Astoria there’s no room for it
@@daniel_teplitsky07Or we could have another option: build two new switches south of 36th Street. Swap the D and R routes south of there with the R route going via West End to Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue. With this, the R would now have direct access to Coney Island Yard. Meanwhile, the D would switch to the local tracks south of 36th Street to make local stops to 95th Street. Consequently, Staten Island riders will stand to receive the most benefit out of this due to faster service to Midtown Manhattan via the D route since the D operates express north of 36th Street and over the Manhattan Bridge. This should provide an alternative to taking the bus to St. George Ferry Terminal for the ferry ride to Lower Manhattan for the R train there. Brooklyn and Manhattan riders will also receive some benefits as Bay Ridge riders will see faster service while Broadway and West End service will be more consistent and even, reducing delays.
There is another option: build two new switches south of 36th Street. Swap the D and R routes south of there with the R route going via West End to Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue. With this, the R would now have direct access to Coney Island Yard. Meanwhile, the D would switch to the local tracks south of 36th Street to make local stops to 95th Street. Consequently, Staten Island riders will stand to receive the most benefit out of this due to faster service to Midtown Manhattan via the D route since the D operates express north of 36th Street and over the Manhattan Bridge. This should provide an alternative to taking the bus to St. George Ferry Terminal for the ferry ride to Lower Manhattan for the R train there. Brooklyn and Manhattan riders will also receive some benefits as Bay Ridge riders will see faster service while Broadway and West End service will be more frequent.
@@TheRailLeagueryes agreed and that won’t even come close to the length of Line 11 which measures at 53 miles long, and the D sent to Staten Island would be a fraction of that. With that you have the express segments on CPW 6th Ave and 4th Ave up to 36th St to make that route faster, also I would increase speed limits and have CBTC so that the We get 15tph on Concourse on the D and Inwood gets 15tph on the B while retaining express service on both branches. 207th St yard only stores 8 car trains that would be for a deinterlined A that would run between 168th St and WTC, and from there the C would take over the service east of Euclid Ave to both Lefferts and the Rockaways while E Trains join Fulton Local of course to Euclid Ave. Rockaway Residents would see C Trains running every 5 minutes on both branches after Rockaway Blvd giving huge improvements on frequencies and West of the station C Trains would be running every 2.5 minutes or at 24tph. This is because the C would now take QBL as the A B and D lines would make 50+tph combined and Fulton needs more capacity then what it has now, by having the C and E there we have 36tph combined on the Cranberry tubes. Riders would see travel times of at least 30 minutes from Grasmere to Grand St with the D Train. Since the B would be sent on Sea Beach to Coney Island, due to needing Coney Island yard. Which would be for the B, N, Q and R lines. You can also absorb the Q into the (N) and since they run the same route. This allows for smooth flow with R Trains having a yard while also terminating at Astoria.
M via 63rd Street is kinda bad because the M doesn’t run to Forest Hills on weekends, which basically means 63rd Street passengers would have to walk to a Queens Blvd station, but for the ones that use Roosevelt Island they’ll have to use the tram or the Q102 bus to get off the island.
Speaking on de-interlining in Brooklyn, the MTA should make the D and B go to Stilwell ave via brighton, and the Q and N trains go to Stilwell ave via West End, so that there is less commotion at Dekalb ave.
Make the N and Q run via Brighton since riders pefer Broadway over 6th Avenue. Also having 2 services run via West End for the sake of peak direction express is not worth it. Most ridership is from the local stations. So you flush out the benefits of faster trains for an express service that wont even serve the majority of people.
Interlining is when multiple transit services run together with a blended schedule for at least part of their rout. For Example, the A B C and D trains interline along the 8th Ave line under Central Park West.
The way I see it, de-interlining is such a simple concept that it would have already been done if there wasn't more benefit to keeping things interlined. The issues at Rogers Junction, for example, could very easily be cleared up by sending all Lexington trains to Utica/New Lots and all Broadway-7th Avenue trains to Flatbush, but the fact that such routings haven't happened in over 50 years means there's a better reason to keep the trains interlined. Same with DeKalb Ave: segregating Broadway and 6th Ave services in Brooklyn would easily solve all the issues! But this hasn't been implemented in 50+ years (aside from during the Manhattan Bridge reconstruction) so there is obviously a benefit to keeping them interlined. While I do like the idea of swapping the F and M on 53rd and 63rd Sts, I also see huge issues with removing the R from Queens Blvd and replacing it with the G as the G doesn't go where riders want to go: Manhattan. Thus, M trains would be PACKED and G trains significantly less full if they were the only two options on the line. Then there's the issue of the R having no direct yard access, which as others pointed out is the entire reason for the N/R terminal swap. Lastly, though it'd be cool to see the lower level of City Hall opened, why short turn there rather than providing additional service to the Financial District and Whitehall St? There didn't seem to be a real reason for that.
Most people do not use the R to go to Manhattan, in fact, they use it to access Queens Plaza and LIC. I see Astoria as higher priority than some redundant service carrying air on Queens Blvd. I would increase the platform length on the Eastern Division to 10 Cars, allowing the M to run 600’ trains, while the G can use 480’ trains at first, but swap for 600’ trains if the demand arises.
And also, City Hall Lower Level would be a MUCH better terminal than Whitehall Street. City Hall Curve (The S-Curve south of City Hall) results in a 9 train per hour deficit on the Broadway Local’s max capacity. Turning trains at City Hall would allow us to provide more service in Astoria, with areas south still getting a massive boost in frequency. N - 15 tph 96 St to Brighton Beach Broadway/Brighton Exp Q - 15 tph 96 St to Coney Island Broadway Exp/Brighton Lcl R - 9 tph Astoria to City Hall, 21 tph to Coney Island Astoria Lcl/Broadway Lcl/ 4 Av Lcl/West End Lcl
@@TheRailLeaguer I mean, I can understand their hesitancy to try new things given how much blowback they get from the public when any little thing goes differently than normal. Not to mention the costs involved with trying something new, especially if there's risk of having to revert all the changes if it doesn't work. The idea of swapping the D and R in South Brooklyn does make sense, but also does nothing to address the removal of a Manhattan-bound local service from Queens Blvd. I for one find it hard to believe the R is empty going from Queens Plaza to Manhattan, but I'm not a regular rider of the Queens Blvd Line nor have I seen the ridership data. As for City Hall, that makes sense. I didn't hear a reason provided in the video, so I was curious. I'd guess City Hall would have more capacity than Whitehall St as well, given there are more terminal tracks.
@@mvcrailphotos As a former Forest Hills resident, I can confirm the R does carry dead air on Queens Blvd, and is probably worth sending to Astoria as it was intended to be pre-unification.
The (M) Train should run on 63rd Street Tunnel in both directions to The Rockaway's and from The Rockaway's for Queens Link via Queens Boulevard Local at all times, plus to replace The Rockaway Park Shuttle Train. The (F) Train should run on 53rd Street Tunnel at all times with the (E) Train. The (G) Train should return in Queens Boulevard Local to help the (R) Train again except late nights, the (G)/(R) Train's should run to Queens Plaza Station in Queens on late nights. The (G) Train should be 10-Cars at all times and go to Kings Highway Station in Brooklyn at all times, making more stops for Crosstown passengers. The (D) Train should run on Brighton Express to Coney Island Stillwell Surf Avenue's Station in Brooklyn. The (D) Train on the late night service should run Local in Brighton when there's no (B) Train service on the late nights. The (Q) Train should run on the West End, plus run via 4th Avenue Express, except late nights. The (Q) Train on the late night service should run on the 4th Avenue Local via West End. The (B) Train should run Brighton Local to Ocean Parkway Station in Brooklyn except late nights. Ocean Parkway Station in Brooklyn should have the yard for the (B) Train ending at Ocean Parkway Station between the Local and Express Tracks. The (3) should go to The Bronx via Jerome line with the (4), so that the (4) could use R62's. R62's and few R62A's should be in Jerome Yard while the R142's/A's should be transfer to the (2)/(5) Line's. Just saying.
@@MysticTransit Might as well just cut the G back to court square cause queens blvd doesn’t justify having four services during weekends or late nights
Here my thoughts I think the (G)‘s one-seat ride between Brooklyn and Queens was a bit overstated. It was not a hugely popular service when it did run there. And given that the QB Line is the second busiest in the system, with an overwhelming rider preference for Midtown Manhattan service, bringing back the (G) to Queens Blvd would benefit a relatively small number of riders. It would probably be even less popular if it were brought back than it was in 2001 when weekday (G) service was cut back to Court Square to make room for the (V). So what I would recommend is route the W train to queens blvd local to Forest hills. Or reroute the W train to 8th Avenue Local have both F/M via 63rd street and both E/W via 53rd street. Both proposals the M train is the main local operating all times except late nights. And the W train is the supplementary weekday only route
Here's a question about interlining on the White Plains Rd and Dyre Ave lines. If both 7th Ave express trains end at each northern terminals proposed, what subway line will go to 148 Street and Lenox Terminal? If this is the case, I doubt if this one will go through.
@TMC exactly. It would force Harlem riders from 148/145 to have another transfer, along with the shuttle probably providing even less service than the (3) originally was.
@@TheRailLeaguer I’ve also came up with another idea. It’s very expensive, but it also creates a new Regional Hub in the South Bronx. Build a new tunnel under 138th, coming up under Grand Concourse and splitting to run on either side of the existing Jerome line, a new 149th-GC station built south of the existing 149th Street tunnel instead of the current platforms to its north, then a new tunnel under 150th, coming up in the median of Westchester immediately after 3rd Avenue and merging with the existing elevated structure.
Problem with sending the 3 to Flatbush Avenue is that it pretty much makes the 3 a shorter version of the 2. With this service the 3 might as well be rush hour only and just have buses on 145 & 148. Sending the R to Astoria would be great but only with we could get the R to West End. And then with this version of the W what’s the point of it existing if the R is going to mirror its entire route.
Also, every 3 train has to go for a layup and put-in since they don’t run to Brooklyn overnight. Also, find me some people who are okay with losing direct 7th Avenue service between Franklin Avenue and New Lots Avenue.
@@Bklynkid52 The impacts will be very minimal since even with deinterlining and the transfer, the overall trip between the New Lots Line stations and the West Side of Manhattan will be a lot quicker. Nobody would mind losing that direct service.
THE G TRAIN SHOULD RUN ON RUSH HOUR FOREST HILLS TO CONEY ISLAND. IN MY OPINION THERE SHOULD BE A M EXPRESS THE FIRST EXPRESS JUMP WILL BE MIDDLE VILLAGE TO WYXKOF AV THE SECOND JUMP WYCKOF AV TO MYRTLE AV BROADWAY THE LAST ONE MYRTLE AV BROADWAY TO MARCY AVENUE
I wouldn’t remove the W because Broadway commuters would get a less frequent local service. Instead I would extend the W to Central Queens making it a full time local. The N to LaGardia Airport, and The R To To Rockaway Park.
They wouldn't get a less frequent local service. With upgrades to the Astoria Line, it can be upgraded to turn 21 tph, which is about a train every 3 mins.
I searched your channel for a segment on the C train, but didn't find it. My question is when the A line is terrible backed-up, why doesn't the MTA allow the C train to continue beyond 168th street to 207? This would certainly help those who need to catch a bus at 175th street.
The reason for this is that it is easier to terminate (C)'s at 168 St, and it is quicker. Also, having the lines connect north of 168 St would cause delays. Now, if the (A) has a serious delay, I would expect them to route a few (C)'s up to 207 St to relieve customers.
I refer to days when there are 20 minute delays on the uptown A during afternoon rush hours. Since there are no trains at the terminus at that point, the C could make its turn-around there.
For the third ave line It could be a new line ( the (8)) and run with the 6 till it get to the third ave stop Then goes along the original route except underground
I wish they would extend the 2 train to to kings plaza or make a shuttle service from Flatbush ave bklyn college it would improve over crouding on the B46SBS B46LCL and B41
If the M Train rider wants the IRT Eastside line they lose access to the connecting passageways at 51st Street because if you send them to 63rd st then they must do out of system transfer to 59th Street Eastside Line Station.
@@MysticTransit thank you for telling me what regarding transfer stations I just simply end up using the IRT Names since they're simpler to say example is 74th Street Broadway instead of Jackson Heights Roosevelt Avenue this one is 51st Street. Another example I tend to use is Fifth Avenue Bryant Park instead of 42nd Street Bryant Park
You contradict yourself in your reasoning. You oppose the loss of the a 1 seat ride that would be caused by de-interlining the 2/5 in the Bronx but yet you suggest eliminating the queens Blvd connection to the Broadway line by sending the R to Astoria? In what world does that make sense? Plus, the R would also loose access to a rail yard, that was the whole reason it was removed from Astoria in the first place. Please put more thought into these videos. The one good thing you suggested was switching the M and F at 53 and 63rd.
@@TheRailLeaguer except it’s not a good deinterlining. While granted it’s no E or F, the R train is popular on Queens Blvd. it provides a 1 seat connection to the Broadway line, and more importantly, a quick transfer to the 4/5 express at 60th st, which 53rd st lacks. You are also eliminating direct railyard access for the R train, making maintenance and storage more difficult, impacting reliability. While I am not necessarily advocating for the 2/5 de interlining in the Bronx, the overcrowding issue can be remedied by more frequent and reliable service. Of course, with the roger junction limiting service on the IRT, de-interlining in the Bronx should only be considered after the mess that is rogers is fixed. There is no fix for the lack of rail access on a R switch to Astoria. Nor is there a fix for the drastic cut in capacity on the Queens Blvd local by replacing the R with the G. The M train can’t carry that load alone, it’s limited to 8 cars due to running on the BMT eastern division, nor can it handle more TPH as the J and Z limit it. The G train, while nostalgic, was eliminated from forest hills for a reason. People didn’t like it. It’s true that many people on QBL transfer to the express at Roosevelt, but some don’t and you still have the local stations between Roosevelt and queens plaza. a return of the G train guarantees everyone will transfer At either Roosevelt or Queens plaza, to already jam packed E/F trains. It’s ludicrous and not a good detinerlining. Just as is suggesting that the F should run express in Brooklyn, leaving only the G to service some of the most heavily used stations in northern brooklyn on the IND culver line. The only de interlining that made sense was switching the F and M at 53rd and 63rd. The other “good de-interlining” were more ridiculous than the supposed bad de-interlining in the Bronx (which isn’t even that bad if roger junction can be fixed to provide more service.)
@@unknown1201 As a former resident of Forest Hills, I can confirm the R had always carried dead air on Queens Blvd. The G wasn’t eliminated because people didn’t like it, it was cut back when the 63rd Street Tunnel was built, making the G practically useless because it only ran during late-nights. But now, as we’re seeing with the Interboro Express and the growth in the Outer Boroughs, not every service has to go to Manhattan. Most R riders are heading to Queens Plaza. The NYC Subway is over-branched, which makes interlining very impractical to operate the system efficiently, as we see with services that are known to be “slow”.
Counterpoint: Broadway and 6th Ave run fairly close to each other through Midtown, down to SoHo. The biggest loss for Queens would be one-seat rides all the way to Rector St and Whitehall. The E goes to WTC, of course, and the G might be a faster option to various parts of Brooklyn, including Fulton St and Hoyt-Schermerhorn. Also, do check out another comment in this thread by Gabe PL. The specific reason they needed the R to have a rail yard is because the R27s and R30s the line had at the time were, well, lemons, long story short. Nowadays we have cars like the R160 that are very reliable.
So to justify reconnecting the G (and the *possibly* acquired R160s since the R32s and R46s are supposed to be retired) to Forest Hills, he proposed removing the R, requiring anyone going from the Broadway line to Forest Hills to use the 7 (at Queensboro Plaza) or newly swapped M (at 63rd Street)? Further, he wants the R to, not run along side the N in Astoria, but *replace* the N? And have it go to 96th Street? Knowing a new line was to be created when the Second Avenue line is extended south of 72nd Street? Even further, unless for every replaced N is to be 2 Rs, (4:04) why would an upgrade need to be done on the Astoria line to "increase frequency" when he literally proposed [replacing] one line with another? 5:44 - Given the configuration, the only issues include the 4 crossing to the local track to get from Franklin Ave to Nostrand Ave, especially if the 5 terminates at Crown Heights - Utica Avenue. This delays any SB 2/3 heading towards President Street. Similarly, any NB 2/3 heading towards Franklin Ave delays the oncoming 4 unless the interlocking occurs beforehand. (The 3 currently experiences this when a 2/5 converges onto its track.) Now of course I'm going to address the thumbnail... why does that map have the N being switched to the Brighton line and the B to the Fourth Ave line? Shouldn't it be the D (which originally ran on that line pre-2001) and Q being switched instead? This would streamline the B/D between Grand Street and DeKalb Avenue, as well as the N/Q between Canal Street and Atlantic Avenue. There wouldn't need to be changes south of 36th Street or Prospect Park because both already featured convergences/divergences.
The reason he discussed moving the R to Astoria to replace the N and W is simple: The R carries dead air on Queens Blvd, and the fact that the N switches from express to local north of 34th Street in order to run to Astoria limits capacity on the Broadway Line. Having all Broadway Expresses run to 96th Street and all Broadway Locals run to Astoria is the preferred option here. Regarding Phase 3 of the 2nd Avenue Line, it really isn't necessary to build south of 63rd Street, at least in the current plan. The T would cause Broadway service to be limited due to not being able to route both Broadway Expresses up 2nd Avenue Phases 1 & 2. I'd prefer an option where the T uses separate express tracks north of 63rd Street to continue into the Bronx to reduce conflicts. And regarding the upgrade to Astoria, because what we essentially did with de-interlining Broadway was segregating the expresses and locals into separate pairs (Expresses to 96th and locals to Astoria), Astoria-Ditmars wouldn't need to have its interlocking replaced to handle 24 trains per hour, rather than the current max of 15 trains per hour. The proposal at Rogers Junction involves either adding a new crossover from the Eastern Pkwy Express to the local, or a track connecting the local at Franklin to the Nostrand Ave bound track. Here's a diagram for reference: www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/NYC_Utica_track.pdf With the thumbnail, the switch-up at DeKalb actually makes more sense than a simple D/Q swap. The Brighton Line has a stronger preference for Broadway Service, so all Broadway Expresses should go there. On 4th Avenue, running 6th Avenue Expresses on 4th Avenue Express, with Broadway Locals on 4th Avenue Local preserves transfers. At 36th Street, the R reroutes to West End running 2.5 minute headways in order to have access to Coney Island Yard (rerouting to Astoria on the other end removes direct access to Jamaica Yard). New switches south of 36th Street allow the Sea Beach Line to have 4 minute headways and for Bay Ridge customers to have an express from 36th to Atlantic, that also runs more frequently than the current R train. All in all, no one loses out on the BMT Southern Division if de-interlined this way.
@@daniel_teplitsky07 first and foremost, I wasn't challenging the reason behind the discussion; let's get that straight. I find it interesting how it's been decided that local service along Queens Blvd is considered "dead air", especially when that "dead air" is being used to justify reconnecting the G to that line and doubling it's consist length. (Not arguing against the latter, just questioning the former.) Regarding Phase 3, like the schematic you later cite, there's already provisions carved out from Phase 1 heading south of 63rd St, so to say "it really isn't necessary to build south" would require a complete overhaul from the current plan. Likewise, because of the construction method used to build north of 63rd St, the entire infrastructure would have to be refitted (if not redone) for the separate express tracks. On that note, the T would _slow down_ Broadway Express service, but it wouldn't outright prevent the N/Q from being routed. Speaking of slowing down, before the W service was resumed in 2016, the MTA reported that line only seeing ~15 trains per hour, reduced to ~14/hr after. No way eliminating the W (a second time) and having only the R to Astoria is going to boost frequency 60-70%. (This is NYCT... just a _20%_ increase would be a miracle.) I actually agreed with the Rogers Junction proposal... that's why I highlighted it's necessity. (I wasn't mentioning the current configuration's delays for shits and giggles.) My problem was (and still is thanks to the schematic linked) the proposal to (1) have the 4 retain express status despite the obvious intent to run it to New Lots Ave, and (2) to have the 5 run local with the intent to go beyond Utica Ave despite the initial phrasing of the proposal. (I mentioned "the 4 crossing to the local track to get from Franklin Ave to Nostrand Ave" because I thought Utica Ave was going to be the 5's terminus, as it is every now and then during rush hour.) The diagram you referenced has the south wall blown to run the 5 to Kings Plaza as an El south of what appears to be either Foster Ave or Glenwood Rd. Just the newly opened Target makes this seem unlikely, never mind the necessary cut-and-cover (because bi-level) for reinforcing infrastructure. (Seriously, "northern extension provisions" instead of making the line 4-track, thus leaving room for a interlock-free northbound line?) Lastly, there was more popular demand for the R instead of the N to run to Coney Island? I mean unless you're suggesting the N continues beyond Brighton Beach to converge with the Q, that's what would happen in this swap. (Never mind the fact this idea has the N/Q stopping at Dekalb with the B/D bypassing it.) My method didn't require additional switches south of 36th St because the N (Sea Beach) joins 4th Ave as an express without using interlocks, and the Q (West End) could simply use the existing switches. Aside from not changing the D/F/N/Q option at Coney Island, not only is this the cheaper option, NYCT is more likely to implement this method _because_ it's the cheaper option. On that note, is 6th Avenue service disliked, because going by what you said switching the R to Sea Beach (and Coney Island subsequently) would speed up service, conversely slowing down whatever takes it's place at 95th St.
@@TechGroupF430i The R would definitely provide a 60%-70% service increase because unlike today, it would be completely isolated on its own track pair, with the only limits being certain curves, limiting it to 21 trains per hour running on Astoria, Broadway Local, 4th Ave Local, and West End. Compared to present day frequencies on Astoria (15 tph), Broadway Local (16 tph), 4th Ave Local (8-10 tph), and West End, (10 tph). It’s more likely that NYCT would consider a D/Q swap, but that isn’t necessarily the right option. Brighton riders prefer Broadway Service, and that is what’s being increased here. Building those switches wouldn’t be difficult as there are provisions for crossovers between the express and local tracks between 36th Street and 45th Street, meaning that no columns would have to be removed in order to construct them. Also I don’t know where you get the idea that I think people demand the R more than the N to Coney Island. I never switched it to Sea Beach. Here’s the service pattern for reference: B - 4th Ave Express/Sea Beach Local D - 4th Ave Express/Bay Ridge (by way of express/local crossovers south of 36th Street) N - Brighton Express to Brighton Beach Q - Brighton Local to Coney Island R - 4th Ave Local/West End Local
@@daniel_teplitsky07 only one B Division route has ever pulled off a headway of under 3 minutes (and even then that involved two A trains from two different termini), yet you've said the R could be sped up from 4 to 2.5 minutes -- from 15 TPH to 24 TPH (a 60% increase) -- each end using one terminus. (Even the 1 @ 20 TPH and 7 @ 15 TPH couldn't do that, and they each run an unchallenged route.) Such a speed increase would be uncharacteristic of NYCT, which I assume you've noticed given your second comment says 21 TPH, down from the 24 TPH initially claimed. Lastly, there's no need to be disingenuous... I asked if "there was more popular demand for the R instead of the N to run to Coney Island." I never said that *YOU* think people demanded the R more than the N. (You said there was a "stronger preference", implying "popular demand", thus the inquiry.) I literally pointed out that the N (which currently runs to Coney Island) would instead terminate at Brighton Beach, and that the R (which currently runs no where near Coney Island) goes there instead. Now I'd apologize for the mix up on how the R gets there, but you scuttled that by suggesting the B runs to Coney Island instead of the D.
@@TechGroupF430i I meant the Brighton Line has a stronger preference for Broadway Service, so running the B/D down Brighton is a non-starter. 4th Ave would also lose transfers to 6th Ave, making passengers from West End make the long transfer at Atlantic (4th Ave Expresses should always skip DeKalb). At least with my proposal, 6th Ave Service from West End is accessible from a simple cross-platform transfer. We could theoretically run 24 tph down from Astoria to City Hall LL (which would be finished for passenger service), and then 21 tph down to Coney Island (City Hall Curve limits throughput to 21 tph, and 5th Ave-59th Street limits throughput to 24 tph).
I had came up with a idea on splitting up the G line into two separate lines that both go into Manhattan via 34th st and into jersey. So one would run local on the Queens blvd line and the other would run local from church Ave then they could both run via 34th to jersey then go the Rutherford or Secaucus junction or both. But they would both run on separate tracks in Manhattan so Queens blvd would have E,F,M and X trains at all times. Then culver and the Brooklyn portion of the crosstown line would be the G line. Then culver express service would come back at all times.
Extend the G to Coney Island and make the F express along McDonald Avenue and Prospect Park. No capitol improvements needed, just the financial commitment.
IMO, Rogers Junction can only truly be fixed if they dug up the tunnel and rebuilt it similar to south of 36 Street or south of 59 Street-Columbus Circle with flying junctions. Also, find me some people who use stations between Franklin Avenue and New Lots Avenue that wouldn't mind losing direct 7th Avenue service.
I think the sacrifice is worth it for faster service, as Franklin Avenue has a cross-platform transfer between Lex and 7th Ave. 96th Street on Bway-7th Ave handles much more transfers despite having narrower platforms, so I don't think crowding is an issue. The only inconvenience is one that will pass with time, and its the change in a rider's commute.
@@daniel_teplitsky07 Faster service doesn’t always mean better service. Also, a bottleneck will still exist with every 3 needing to go for layups and put-ins since they don’t run to Brooklyn overnight.
@@Bklynkid52 If that’s the case, you can probably build a yard along the Bay Ridge Branch (to store Nostrand Ave trains, and if a Utica Avenue Line is built, a yard can be built alongside Flatbush Avenue near Avenue T.
@@Bklynkid52 Exactly, and the yard will have to be built as part of that project. I think it should be built because Nostrand is already constrained by terminal layout anyway.
How about swapping the (D) and the (Q) in Brooklyn. This could potentially increase the number of 1 seat rides and decrease station congestion. Large portions of the West End line is near large Chinese American populations in Sunset Park and Bensonhurst. Most of these people tend to travel between those neighborhoods and Canal St (home of Manhattan’s Chinatown). Currently, they need to transfer at 36th St to/from an (N) train since the () doesn’t stop at Chinatown. However, if the (D) is replaced with the (Q), they would no longer need to transfer at 36th St, decreasing station congestion.
Brighton Riders would never tolerate the loss of the Q. It’d be better to swap the B and N, and installing 2 switches south of 36th Street. The R, running from Astoria, would be the sole Broadway Local running 24 trains per hour and running via West End to Coney Island. The B would run express on 4 Av replacing the N on Sea Beach to Coney Island. The D would utilize new switches south of 36th Street to run to Bay Ridge on the local tracks.
People on Brighton prefer Broadway service so I would recommend this instead A unchanged B 168 street CPW Local Coney Island via sea beach 4th Avenue express C 205 street CPW express D Bedford Park Blvd CPW Local Bay ridge 95th street 4th Avenue express bay ridge local N Coney Island Brighton local Q Brighton Beach Brighton express R Coney Island 4th Avenue local. The Q train becomes a weekday only route The A train runs local from 207th street 145th street on weekends and Late nights while the B train only runs up to Atlantic Avenue during those times. Since 6th Avenue and Central Park west ridership isn’t high enough to justify having 4 services on weekends and late nights Both the C and D operate on the Bronx all day every day to encourage ridership the D replaces the C to 205th street during late nights
@@daniel_teplitsky07 That's the logical solution. Allow the N to become the weekday-only subway line in CIY and then the B can provide full time service to 168th Street or 145th Street overnight.
@@MysticTransit But don't you want more people to become transit fans who e.g. might not have known up front? It's not like it would take more than a few seconds of the runtime. I don't mean this in a harsh way of course, just a genuine critique.
@@MysticTransit love the content, but I'm not quite sure what de-interlining is either. This subject is pretty new to me and you seem pretty knowledgeable. Maybe a short 5 minutes explanation would help?
The idea of sending the 3 to Flatbush along with the 2 is seriously flawed. People on the Flatbush line want both Lexington Avenue and 7th Avenue service. In addition, you'd eliminate direct yard access from the 3 line, which was a problem before the 1984 Brooklyn terminal flip.
I disagree with your assessment of deinterlining 149 St. It is assumed that deinterlined routes would remove some one seat rides, but we have to weigh that loss against the potential gains: 1) the Lexington Ave and 7 Ave trains would no longer interact with each other (except at Rogers Junction), meaning there'd be fewer potential cascading delays, and higher frequencies along Lexington and Jerome Ave. This could allow us to include a rush hour express between 125 St and Burnside Ave skipping 6 stops, which isn't possible today because Jerome Ave is only a branch. 2) the transfer at 149 St is less an issue of stair capacity, and more an issue of platform capacity. If the (4) ran through the upper level at max capacity, then there'd be less potential for platform crowding, which would thus provide greater throughput on the stairs. 3) there'd be a net *gain* in the total number of trains traveling into Manhattan via 149 St, thereby absorbing all the passengers who would've taken the (5) before, or who would've transferred between the (2) and (4) anyways. This arrangement is no different to how many other transfer stations currently behave, such as 74 St Jackson Heights or 42 St Grand Central. Riders may lose their one seat ride, but they're not actually losing access; they simply trade their one seat ride for a short walk and a 1-minute average wait for the transfer, which would apply in both directions. 4) 149 St is right now in the process of receiving elevators, meaning the (5) will soon no longer be the only ADA Accessible option between WPR and Lexington. 5) the 148 St spur has a solution that doesn't require a single dollop of concrete: treat it as a rush-hour-only commuter service, with 22 trains (the number of slots at Lenox Ave Yard) in the morning and evening, but a midday shuttle bus connecting 145/148 Sts to 135 St, along with the current nighttime shuttle train connecting to Times Sq. This would give 9-to-5 commuters a direct trip, while still preserving access throughout the day. Though I personally advocate for the shuttle train conversion similar to what's been proposed by others, I also understand that deinterlining shouldn't have to wait for such a capital project. We can solve the problem with operations before concrete; if we can't fix 142 St Junction, then we can at least bypass it altogether. 6) it's safe to assume that the number of passengers traveling from the Bronx via either 7 Ave or Lexington would be about a 50/50 split if the services were balanced as such; except today, 7 Ave riders have only half the potential service (and so (2) trains tend to be crowded, which depresses ridership), whereas Lexington riders are split across two different sets of platforms. This in and of itself causes problems at 149 St, with riders shuffling through the station to get to whichever platform has the earlier train, rather than defaulting to a single platform if the routes were deinterlined; in the reverse, Lexington riders would no longer ever depart at the lower level. This simplifies wayfinding and eliminates unnecessary movement via the stairs. 7) Mott Haven Junction is an abomination that should only be used for non-revenue movements and temporary reroutes. Eliminating revenue service through the junction would require less timetable padding and thus dramatically speed up services, meaning trips overall would be shorter than today despite the transfer. 8) deinterlining 149 St would be the logical conclusion to rebuilding Rogers Junction. The MTA would have to maximize the return on investment, and as such should explore all possibilities to increase capacity and reduce the potential for delays across the A Division. The potential gains from fixing and deinterlining Rogers Junction would be lost if we were to continue operating 149 St as currently. 9) when there is only a single route serving a station, then riders only ever board the first train that comes. This would not only reduce platform crowding along all of 7 Ave, Lexington, and WPR, but most importantly at 149 lower level. Simple math dictates that crowding would decrease if riders wait less time for their train. This would improve safety for riders traveling via either trunk. 10) since the (5) would no longer have to cross in front of the (2) at E 180 St, then we could instead simplify the Express service so that Wakefield trains switch to the middle track and become Express, while Dyre Ave trains remain Local, with a timed cross platform transfer at E 180 St. Thus the Express service wouldn't have to default to Lexington, but would instead continue to 7 Ave. This would eliminate crossover delays, decrease travel times for Wakefield riders, and simplify wayfinding. So we're forced to make a trade-off: either we keep the services as-is to preserve certain one seat rides, but continue suffering from delayed trains, imbalanced service provisions, crowded unsafe platforms, and awkward transfers; or we deinterline the routes and gain decreased travel times, reduced platform crowding, improved safety, fewer delays with greater reliability, more capacity between the Bronx and Manhattan, additional Express service on Jerome Ave, simpler Express service on WPR, more logical wayfinding, greater return on investment for an important capital project (Rogers Junction), and an overall more efficient subway. I choose the latter.
I think deinterlining should be considered where it has the potential to eliminate problematic merges, and where any additional transfers would be cross platform. This means the QBL and Astoria deinterlining plan makes sense. From a QBL local station, you can take the M directly to Manhattan, or the G and transfer across the platform to the E or F at Roosevelt Avenue or Queens Plaza. Service on the E and F would be more frequent and have fewer delays. To access the Broadway Line (making up for the loss of the R on QBL), there's the cross platform transfer at Lex/63rd with the express, or an up and down transfer at 34th/Herald Square with the local. By deinterlining Broadway, it eliminates that awful 34th Street merge, so service would be more frequent on both the local and express. The problem with all day Culver express service is that relying on the G as the only local is not going to go over well with residents. It would also require restoring the lower level of Bergen Street so that you can transfer to the F to access Manhattan. Otherwise you're stuck on the G to Hoyt/Schermerhorn and need to transfer to the A or C. The same is true for Rogers Junction. Any new transfers that would be required are across the platform. That merge is so bad that the entire IRT is scheduled backwards from it. It also allows for service increases associated with a future Utica Avenue Line. An area I don't think should be deinterlined is DeKalb Avenue. If it's set up where all 6th Avenue trains go to 4th Avenue Express, and all Broadway express trains go to Brighton, that results in a long trasnfer at Atlantic/Barclays since the 4th Avenue Express skips DeKalb. I also agree that the IRT in The Bronx shouldn't be deinterlined, because doing so would create an inconvenient up and down transfer at 149th Street Grand Concourse, which is already overcrowded as it is.
I agree with your first two paragraphs. If we were to rebuild the lower level at Bergen St and reroute all Rutgers trains via Culver Express, then we'd have isolated the G from every other service: dedicated tracks from Court Sq to Church Ave. I don't think Culver Local riders would complain so much about transferring at Bergen, if the G reliably came every 3-4 minutes. But I take issue with your assessment of 149 St. It's true that the station has poor surface access, but the middle mezzanine, for what it's worth, is actually quite robust: 8 stairs to the lower platforms, and 4 stairs to the upper platforms. That's comparable to the (7) connection to the (4/5/6) at Grand Central. Also, 149 St just recently received elevators, so the transfer is now ADA accessible. The problem is that the two upper platforms are separated by the middle track, which forces transferring riders onto only TWO stairs depending on the direction they're heading. *That's* what causes congestion. Consider this: the middle track isn't used for Express service, it's used so that (4) trains don't have to merge with (5) trains immediately after the station, while the latter are still inching through the curve; instead they merge further south at 138 St through a faster switch. This means that, if we deinterline 149 St, then the (4) could use the outer tracks *at all times.* Therefore, the MTA could *fill in* the middle track, first with temporary platform cars, then later permanently, thereby creating one large island platform with FOUR stairs connecting to the middle mezzanine. This would more evenly distribute riders between the stairs, effectively *doubling* the capacity of the station during the rushes, when riders are predominantly heading in one direction. Filling the middle track also allows the MTA to later install *escalators* within that space that directly connect the upper and lower level platforms. You gotta think of these holistically.
6:00 or they can just make the 5 go express the 4 don't have to go express just because there not gonna make no extra switches just because they want a express train to go to New Lots
@@MysticTransit yay you repleyed to me and when you tell what it is about after that you had the black screen and the moon fall down and go to the side and said MT see what I mean
That's not interlining. The whole point of interlining is to work within the current system, not make grand subway extensions. Also, a cheaper extension to Staten Island to to make the R go beyond Bay Ridge - 95th St to Staten Island.
@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831that’s true but the R sits through a lot of stops and it would be better to deinterline and extend the D to Staten Island, as that would end at 168th St going express on 6th Ave and CPW. I would give the Inwood Branch express service to avoid lengthening the routes to Brooklyn and Staten Island. We have Coney Island (B) via Sea Beach and 95th St (D) for a shorter and more reliable route.
BTW... "Nereid" is pronounced "NEER-ee-id"; in Greek mythology, the Nereids were the sea nymph daughters of Nereus (a very minor sea deity). One of the 50 or so Nereids was Thetis, mother of Achilles. And yes, it's odd that a landlocked street would be named after sea nymphs. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nereids
Your ideas fail to take into account operational difficulties. Removing the conflict of E and F at 36th St in Queens only moves it to Fifth/53rd. Sending the M via 63rd St tube means it now has to run 24/7 OR you have to shift the F there in off hours. Confusing people with two services on one lettered route. That's just one. The others made similar issues. The best one no one talks about is forcing the A and C to share the river tube. Build the intended tube from Court St. to WTC and the E looses it's terminal but the C would have throughput without conflict and the E could be terminated in a new platform using the tunnel space for A5 track at Chambers.
@@TheRailLeaguer But the thing is that both the E and K runs on the same route after Kew Gardens. So your better keeping the E train as the sole 8th Avenue route.
@@MysticTransit You don’t have to. Operate to Essex Street late nights the F train could run to 63rd street and the E train runs local like they do currently
I think the (A) should be extended to The Bronx, Terminate on Riverdale Avenue & West 263rd Street. It would run express on the extended lower level from 168th Street to Dyckman Street, with the diamond (C) going local to Inwood, 215th Street. The local (X) would terminate at Inwood, 207th Street from a new trunk line. The new line would run from 14th Street & 9th Avenue, continuing onto Columbus Avenue until 110th, curving onto Amsterdam Avenue, then turning onto Dyckman Street until finally running under the (C) line, & terminating at the lower level of the Inwood, 207th Street station. The diamond (X) would continue to The Bronx, going under Fordham Road, then continuing under Pelham Parkway & finally terminating at Pelham Bay Park, Burr Avenue. The (R) should instead go on its original Queens Boulevard service, but instead split off at Northern Boulevard, and turn onto College point Boulevard, turning onto 11th Avenue, then terminating at Beechhurst, Little Bay Park.
@@bennythepenny5831 The terrain of Upper Manhattan and the Bronx makes an extension past 207th Street into the Bronx impossible, because of the steep grades. A tunnel from Manhattan would have to be extremely deep and expensive to run through the western portion of the Bronx.
Personally I support Alon Levy's plan for full deinterlining. This would require some small capital projects and create awkward transfers, but would allow all subway infrastructure to be used at full capacity. For instance, right now the 63rd street tunnel is only carrying 15 trains per hour! If you eliminated the M train, and gave the F exclusive use of the QB express tracks, you could run 30 F tph through this tunnel. The E train would get exclusive use of the 8th ave local tracks (the C would become an express in downtown and midtown) and the queens blvd local tracks and could run 20 tph. (2 tph less than the current traffic through 53rd st, but this is made up for by the big increase in F trains) This means 5 extra trains per hour for the queens blvd local. The astoria terminal is upgraded for 24tph, a 9 tph increase over current service, and the R and W trains serve it, with 12 tph each, while the N joins the Q on the 2nd avenue subway, allowing it to have 24tph too. Thus the plan gives Queens 14 extra trains per hour and the 2nd ave subway 12 extra trains per hour!
I'd make both the F and M express via 63rd Street because the M is a hugely popular line. I am also in support of rebuilding Grand Concourse to eliminate the long transfer between the IRT East and West Side Lines. Everything else, I'm also in support for.
The amount of people who would have to change trains would mean transfers like 42st would become way busier. Also a lot of passengers prefer a one seat ride.
What do you mean my interlining? Is it when two subway routes share the same track? Yes, it would be less confusions for tourists and newly arriving immigrants.
Please take this as constructive criticism, especially if you want to increase viewership and grow your channel. Before dividing straight into the pros and cons of something that that very likely not common knowledge, in this instance, de-interlining, please clearly explain what it is. 2 mins into this vid I gave up because nothing you were saying registered with me. In fact, I chose the video mostly because I wanted to know what de-interlining was. And I live, grew up in NYC, and have been ridding the subway for over 3 decades. And secondly, please try to match your statements with visuals that directly support them, not just random or loosely related video. For example, when you mentioned de-interlining the 2 and 5, you showed a map, must no markings on it to explain how de-interlining relates to the map. Then you quickly moved to another example, I think in Brooklyn, this time with no map, just moving trains. Nonetheless, I applaud you for what you are doing, which is way more than me. But I think you can make your videos even more interesting and educational.
De-Interlining is basically getting rid of Interlining, which is when two (or more) lines from different trunks (Lexington, 7th Av, etc.), run along the same track, sometimes causing delays. For Example: The D/N Trains on 4 Avenue, or the B/C Trains on CPW.
@@TheRailLeaguer The video stated that WE WILL MURDER THE W TRAIN and weaken the unity of the BROADWAY LINE and crush the spirt of Astoria RIDERS BY ALL DIRTY WAYS AND MEANS
I like that idea with the Queen's route's but only I would of had the R line run with the F because the R train has to do a whole lot of turning (in that specific tunnel portion) before it comes into Queen's Plz and after leaving Queens Plz as well "heading towards Manhatten". However @ the same time I could see the R going back to it's old pattern by traveling to Astoria because I remember when the N line used to terminate @ 71st "Continental Ave". Speaking of that, "back in the day" the 2 and 3 line's used to terminate @ Flatbush Ave and the 4 and 5 lines terminated @ there respective spot's. So it really wouldn't be any change there with that happening again but I get what your saying though. By the way, love your video's!!!!!
Maybe I suggest That M Train Should Be terminal at 21 Street Queensbridge at All Times Also extending the F train back to 53 Street. And Also Have G Train Be Sent Back 71 Street Forest Hills.
The G proposal is good too since it gives people a one seat ride to Downtown Brooklyn from Queens, especially since there are a fair number of jobs in Downtown Brooklyn and the area is only getting more and more built up.
Hello from Toronto. I've always admired your subway system, it's very fascinating and unique. I've always thought that the interlining (along with the express trains) was one of the coolest features about it. Watching this video I now see why maybe it isn't the best option.
We tried an interlining scheme back in the 1960s but it ended up being very short lived.
Interlining isn't a bad thing, however, in certain parts of the system, it causes delays, due to merging trains. In other parts, like the (2/5) in the Bronx, the interlining is good, and allows people in the Bronx to have access to 2 different trunk lines.
I like Toronto's system too, however, IMO, it isn't expansive enough. I do see some of the new projects that are under construction though, like the new Light Rail/Tram route.
Hi, I always admire Toronto Subway. It's simple, understandable, and nice. But now New York Subway restores to full splendor. I've found interlining interesting when I came to NYC from Russia, where metro (subway) systems are pretty simple. However now - interlining exists in some places in Moscow.
Halariously, the Toronto subway used to be heavily interlined. Then they decided to switch to the two line system. We know today.
I think you should continue to talk about de interlining. Spreading awareness on this topic could actually change alot of railfans minds about the subway we have today. In my opinion, for Broadway de interlining, the (R) (W) should be sent via West End with the (W) doing peak direction express trips. The (W) would become a peak direction express service at this point). The (B) will replace the (R) after 36th Street. The (D) will go via Sea Beach.
That's not such a bad idea. In the future, I might, but I think I'll leave the topic alone for a while.
well at least the R train would go outside for ONCE lol
I agree with what's being said, despite the bias in letting the 4 run express instead of the 5 (preferences) but this is a good idea. I've also had mixed thoughts on a possible extension from Brooklyn College to kings plaza as the population isn't too great in that area, but it's still a major shopping center. Considering costs, it may not be worthwhile but the busses that run to Kings Plaza are spaced pretty far.
@@Illegal0Insanity Only the Utica Avenue Line should go to Kings Plaza imo. The Nostrand Ave Line should serve the housing project near Avenue W.
I worked the M when it went thru to Brooklyn. It was a logistical nightmare between Bay Pkwy, Coney Island Yard and Stillwell. 9av also proved to be useless. Only the Brighton line is a good express experience. The others need to be single with an emergency middle track.
The 2,3,4,5 trains should ABSOLUTELY be de-interlined at the “Rogers Junction”
There’s constant delays because that junction was under-engineered 100 years ago to reduce construction disruption to the “scenic” Eastern Parkway, a stupidly short-sighted decision.
By running all Lexington (ie, 4,5 Express) trains straight through to Utica Av/New Lots, and all 7th Avenue (ie, 2,3 Local) trains down Nostrand Av to Brooklyn College, you’d eliminate a TON of delays at the junction while not meaningfully affecting service.
I’ve been using the Manhattan-bound Nostrand Av line daily for 4 years now and every time I catch a 7th Avenue 2 (local) train instead of a Lexington (express) 5 train, I disembark at Franklin Av to catch a cross-platform transfer to the express train.
Everyone already does this. De-interlining changes nothing about the ridership patterns. Franklin Av is rarely crowded, it can handle the cross-platform transfers between the Lexington and 7th Ave passengers.
But that’s just along Nostrand Avenue. Those ridership patterns are not the same along stations between New Lots Avenue and Franklin Avenue.
@@Bklynkid52
But when those passengers arrive at Franklin Ave they always have the same choice.
Whether they hopped on a 3 or 4 train east of Franklin Av, they have the choice to transfer between them across the platform.
Functionally there’s no change to service. You still have the transfer at Franklin Av to ensure you get on whichever Manhattan-bound train you need.
I’ve been doing this on the Nostrand trains for 4 years. And I’ve watched commuters get off of the New Lots trains at Franklin Av to make the same transfer as myself, to a Lexington Ave train from a Broadway/7th Av train.
@@zacharytaylor2983 The 3 train to Flatbush is something I can't get behind. Also, every 3 train has to go for a layup and put-in since they don't run to Brooklyn overnight.
@@Bklynkid52
I honestly don’t understand the issue with that.
The 5 train doesn’t run to Brooklyn overnight, either, but since it remains in service in Manhattan/Bronx it doesn’t need so much yard space for overnights.
Why couldn’t the MTA run the 3 trains to the New Lots shops for overnight in the evenings, after service ends?
Or, better yet, do what they should have done years ago and extend the Nostrand line to Voorhies Av, where they could build extra sidings and layup tracks?
@@zacharytaylor2983 If you send 3 trains to Flatbush Avenue, trains would have to go for a layup to New Lots Yard. That would cause a bottleneck with trains having to go to Nevins Spur, and back to get to New Lots Avenue.
3:40 the problem with this is that the R would be left with one yard once again. Which was the reason why they sent the R to forest hills
The R could deadhead to Jamaica/CIY during late nights.
I get what your saying but most line's in the system just have one yard. For instance the 1, 6, 7, E, J/Z, L
@@TheRailLeaguer how would this work? You would have the R service the local stops until 36th St and then continue onto West End? Then have the D take over 4th Ave local service to bayridge? What an unnecessary complication. The R is fine at Forest Hills. By removing the QBL connection from the 60th st tunnel, you are severely underutilizing badly needed transit capacity between queens and Manhattan. You are limiting the 60th st tunnel to a measly 15 TPH to the Astoria Line.
@@unknown1201 no just have the D run local in Brooklyn
@@unknown1201 not really.
R to Astoria and N uptown would also eliminate having the N switch over to the local tracks between 34th and 42nd, eliminating any conflict if an R or W were stuck at 34th. Or going downtown, a Q having to wait for an N to cross over.
But no Easy to access depot for the R
@@ninofromkitchennightmares1497 the R could be re assigned to coney island yard
Exactly
Good job. I work in the tunnels every night. I enjoy your videos keep it up
Oh, nice to see an MTA worker here. I'm glad you enjoy the videos. Thanks for commenting!
Welcome aboard. Retired A Division T/O here with 31 years service. Just celebrated 9 years retired yesterday.
@@pbatommy Congrats!
@@pbatommy thanks
Old
You've gained a lot of subscribers, and I can't blame it with the quality content lol
Yeah, I wasn't expecting to see such a big jump in subscribers. I'm amazed at how fast this channel is growing right now. Hopefully it stays this way. I'm glad you, and over 1K people think this is a quality channel, and enjoy the content I put out.
@@MysticTransit no worries man! Keep it up!
4:12 As of the pandemic, there's less of a demand towards Manhattan and more within and between the outer boroughs as well. So I think this change would help more people at this time.
This video was interesting to this occasional NYC visitor once I figured out what you were referring to. That said, it would be better if you started by saying what you mean by interlining (and de-interlining), and at 0:49, showing a before and after so I can see visually what the change is rather than having to go look at my subway map to see how it differs from yours (that on the last map I downloaded, the 2 and 5 share a track). This is a different concept from, say, bus route 11 reaching downtown wherever and coming out the other side of downtown as bus route 2, which is also called interlining; in that case, de-interlining them would mean that they operate completely independently of one another.
Regarding QBL, the best solution is to swap the F and M and run the G to Queens Plaza, arriving on the local track and then reversing to Court Square before the R arrives. Idk why they would send the R to Astoria since it would lose access to Jamaica Yard.
Why would they transfer 8 car R179's from 207th Yard to Jamaica and then replace the R with the G in QBL local? Wouldn't that lead to more people on the M? Additionally, the Jamaica yard is filled to the brim with R160's. There's no room there for 8 car R179's
F express service on Culver was done in the past, but it was discontinued since passengers prefer direct service to Manhattan.
When I viewed the video 10min ago the subscriber count was 1.7k now it’s 1.71k. Getting even more popular by the day I see. Keep up the good content and remember I’ll always be watching ur vids like I have since you’ve started
Lol, yeah, you were here since the beginning.
1.74k
People keeping bring up the yard issue but they forget one of the main reasons the R was moved to Forrest Hills was not just because they needed a yard. It was due to the fact that when the R used R27-R30’s and the few R32’s on the line the 27’s and 30’s suffered through years of deferred maintenance and didn’t hold up like the class that came 3-4 years later in the R32’s. So with the bulk of service being provided by failing R27-R30’s they really needed to get to a yard after a few trips. But this could’ve been solved by sending the R68’s to the R when they came instead of sending the R to Forrest Hills. Any railfan and motorman for that matter will tell you the R from Fort Hamilton-Astoria was a better route and more practical. Extending the Brown R along the BMT Jamaica line was a smart idea in 86 but they wound up using the same worn out equipment that the M had in R27-R30’s. But the R has many spots on the line where short turns can be made and you can mitigate the issue of not having a yard at both ends. Plus the reason the MTA wanted yards at Both ends of lines was because the equipment on the TA was so battered that it necessitated inspection frequently. The N was better as a QBL Local and shouldve been extended to Jamaica instead of The E and the R belongs as service frm Astoria-Bay Ridge
Oh good you agree
So in short, just have reliable cars on the R?
@@samuelitooooo Yes
It still won’t work the yard is the reason why the N and R switched. So the R wouldn’t effect the N going to CI
Hey about the History of the R62/A video I would love if you made a history of the R142/A I grew up on the 4 train so it would be amazing!
I definitely will do so. Actually, that might be the next one. I love the R142A's myself, and I would love to make a video on them.
De-interlining is really not my kind of thing. But if we were to de-interline parts of the system, here’s how I would do it:
1. DeKalb Avenue: Have both the B and D run express along 4th Avenue, and the R continue running local down to Bay Ridge-95th Street. We extend the J to run local with the R down to Bay Ridge-95th Street, or along the pre-2010 M rush hour route to Bay Parkway with the D. The D will continue to run along West End while the B will replace the N along Sea Beach to Coney Island. The N will run alongside the Q down Brighton, with the N replacing the B express and the Q still running local, however the Q will terminate at Brighton Beach while the N continues down to Coney Island. With the extension of the J, the Z train will be ultimately killed off.
2. Queens Boulevard: The N can replace the M to Forest Hills-71st Avenue, with the M being re-routed to 96th Street-2nd Avenue with the Q, and the F being re-routed via the 1990’s route along 53rd Street with the E. The N will replace the F along 63rd Street, and the R will still run along the QBL (R trains to Astoria really aren’t my thing to be honest. I see it more of a line destined to run along the QBL) to Forest Hills. The W will run to Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard on its own.
3. Eastern Parkway: Quite easy. Have the 2 and 3 run along Nostrand Avenue towards Brooklyn College-Flatbush Avenue and have the 4 and 5 continue along Eastern Parkway, with the 4 terminating at Crown Heights-Utica Avenue and the 5 continuing towards New Lots Avenue. The 5 will stop at the Nostrand and Kingston Avenue stations but will skip them during rush hours. I almost thought of having the 3 and 4 running express and the 2 and 5 running local but then I realized there were no junction tracks after Borough Hall.
In order to fully understand why every route is structured the way it is today, you'll have to understand the reasonings behind it.
- Prior to the 63rd Street extension (December 16th, 2001), the (E) ran 12tph and the (F) ran 18tph through 53rd Street. There were times both (E) and (F)'s bypassed Lexington Avenue-53rd Street. Simply to control crowding.
- The (M) via 63rd Street is a major no. The MTA wants a 24/7 line serving that corridor.
- The (R) won't ever go back to Astoria. The (R) needing direct yard access was finally rectified on May 24th, 1987.
- The (G) isn't ever going past Court Square. The R179's on the (C) are going to the (J)/(Z) lines when the (C) receives its R211's, not the (G).
- The (2) and (5) setup works just fine. 149th Street-Grand Concourse is one of the worst stations to transfer at.
- Rodger's Junction, yeah. There is a reason we have the setup with the Brooklyn IRT which went into effect in 1983.
Logistics, politics, and complicated nature is what plagues the subway system. Nothing will ever be perfect. Delays are the name of the game.
Why do you say that 149th Street Grand Concourse is one of the worst transfers in the entite network? Explain please
@@TiagoGomez-hb9tenarrow platforms
Rogers Ave Junction is a huge holdip on the IRT. I live down the livonia line on the 3, and i have to gamble between taking the 4 at Utica or stay on the 3 to get off at borough hall on each. When 2 trains merge onto Esster Parkway the 3 gets held back from entering Nostrand Ave. When 5 trains merge, both 3 and 4 trains get held back to wait for it to leave the station
Just a reminder everyone we love all of our routes don’t think that just because we remove them from our proposals it does not mean that we hate them (looking at you Jason John)
Exactly.
LIES🤬
@@jasonjohn5947 Why do you think they are lying son?
@@jasonjohnsdad3175 Shut the hell up. My so call mother better not come
@@jasonjohn5947 Why are you telling me to shut up? You need to shut up.
Queens Blvd
M to Rockaways via 63 st tunnel
R to jewel avenue branch
G to 179 street and F train extension to Springfield Blvd with limited E trains while service to Jamaica center remains unchanged.
As for the Bronx, having the 3 train to the dyre avenue would result in having another shuttle serving 135 and 148 st requires the 135 street station conversion which is a pain in the neck to deal with another permanent shuttle and routing the 5 train on the Jerome line would cause crowding on 149 street which makes no sense to do that while the Brooklyn irt deinterlining is like dealing with a similar pattern with the A and the C train
your channel grew really quickly, i remember you being at 700 subscribers like two weeks ago.
Like really quickly. On the Seneca Avenue video he just reached 1K subscribers and now has 600 more in just a week. That Interborough Express video really helped him lol
Yep, it was the Interborough Express video. before uploading Seneca Avenue, I had around 800 Subs. That vid pushed the numbers up, and then both my History of the R62/A and the Interborough Express video pushed it up even higher.
My problem with de-interlining at rogers junction isn’t mostly about the one seat ride which to me is like not even 20% my problem with this de-interlining it’s how redundant the 3 line would be because and you can correct me if I’m wrong but the 3 clones the 2 every where that isn’t 148st and 145st.
That's true. However, Rodgers Junction is a massive bottleneck for the IRT minus the 7, 6, and 1. Losing several tph for no "redundancy" is not worth it when both the IRT 7th Ave and Lexington Ave lines are the most used lines, not only in New York, but in the whole country. Also, one complaint that should be addressed in the 3 losing its maitience yard at Livonia, meaning Lenox would have to revert back to a maintience yard. Mystic mentions that he doesn't like the plan to send the 3 to Dyre Ave and the 5 via Jerome, but I believe this plan is necessary as this plan is a cheaper alternative to extending the 2nd Ave Subway into the Bronx. I don't think these deinterlining plans should happen at once. The MTA should first do the easiest swaps like for Dekalb Junction (swap the B and N) and the Queens Plaza swap (F and M swap, which seems likely considering that the MTA was planning on doing this before the pandemic and the current F train rerouting is moderately popular with riders) so that they have examples of good deinterlining. Then, do 59th St (make the A and C run local on CPW). IRT deinintelining should be the last deinterling project the MTA should do considering it involves several different projects and are the most expensive (convert 135th St into a 3 track 2-island platform line to provide a shuttle for Lenox riders; expanding 149th St Grand Concourse to allow for easier transferring; fixing Rodgers Junction). In order to fully maximize capacity on the IRT, all of the IRT deinterlining proposals need to be done relatively around the same time.
@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831you can just keep the A on CPW and then send the C on QBL to 179th St it would be express while the F local replaces the R. The C would replace the A East of Euclid while the E goes local in Brooklyn Terminating at Euclid, as 12tph on the E is enough for the Local riders on Fulton St. This also means that instead of 12tph on the current A there would be 24tph on a deinterlined C Train that would run to both Lefferts Blvd and Far Rockaway. TTA proposed the E and K on Fulton but the K mainly defeats the purpose on the A and C lines unless you have it to help label the branches east of Euclid, by having the K only run to 168th St to WTC, but the A is fine doing the K’s old route as the C can take over service as the Express on Fulton and 8th Ave along with Lefferts and the Rockaways.
On DeKalb you have the B and N swapped by having the B running 24/7, and the N or Q running Weekdays only.
A: 168th St to WTC
B: Inwood 207th St to Coney Island (Sea Beach)
C: Jamaica 179th St to Lefferts Blvd or Far Rockaway
D: Norwood 205th St to Bay Ridge 95th St
E: Jamaica Center to Euclid Ave
F: Forest Hills to Coney Island
N/Q via Brighton
R: Astoria to Coney Island (West End)
IRT deinterlined
2: Flatbush Ave to Wakefield 241st St
3: Flatbush Ave to Eastchester Dyre Ave
4: Woodlawn to New Lots Av
5: Bedford Pk Blvd to Crown Heights.
That is not an issue since the 3 isn’t really redundant with both routes going to Flatbush Avenue. Rather, it will just make Broadway-7th Avenue service more consistent.
There is nothing wrong with two routes sharing a large majority of trackage. By your logic, should we just get rid of late night 3 train service, which operates only to Times Square?
@@TheRailLeaguer
Almost 80% of riders transfer to a train to Lexington and what does this prove you ask, well we have White Plains and 7th Avenue and Jerome has Lexington, and Jerome is a dense corridor that needs another line along with it, hence the (5) would be moved up there with the (4), while the (3) joins the (2) at White Plains and from there the (3) would split off to Dyre.
@@TheRailLeaguer I wouldn’t get rid of the 3 late nights but instead extend late night service to South Ferry so that the 2 can continue express to Wakefield.
The same track patter is also what I proposed with the C and E routes with the C going Express on Fulton and the E going Local. The E is essentially a slower C Train under my plan because I have the C replace the A to Lefferts and the Rockaways. This is because the A would get cut back to 168th St and WTC requiring the C to take over the service. Plus the C would run double the frequency that the A does now with Deinterling.
But back to the 2 and 3 yes they share the same tracks and so what that would help boost frequency on While Plains Rd, and the 3 just splits off to Dyre while the 2 retains its service pattern just with beefed up frequencies.
For my subway map, I deleted the AirTrain JFK and replaced it with a extension of the 3 to JFK and the Z to Federal Circle.
did you add any stops between new lots and the airport?
What is the app TMC uses?
6:37 Can you not drop the 4 train express tailtracks east of Utica Ave and dive under and swing back westerly to Utica Ave ? More expensive of course. I forgot if the bellmouths were before or after the Utica Ave station; id. If a new Utica Ave line passenger wanted to go to the current Utica Ave stop, could he do it, or would he have to bypass it as Flatbush Ave customers have to skip Nostrand Ave at Eastern Parkway ? Aarre Peltomaa of Mississauga, Ontario
The bell mouths are after the Utica Avenue station and are from the local tracks. It would make more sense to use those for the Utica Avenue subway and have current express service take over the New Lots Line.
The R train was sent to Forest Hills because they could be serviced by the Jamaica Yard instead of the Coney Island Yard.
Yeah but with other outing options, this argument isn’t much valid for keeping the line on the Queens Blvd Line wasting track capacity there. In fact, just two new switches south of 36th Street would provide some changes. Namely, the R route be rerouted via the West End Line to Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue. From there, the D route would switch to the local tracks south of 36th Street to serve all the remaining stops to 95th Sreet in Bay Ridge. The W would also be rerouted to take advantage of the new routing. With this, the R would now be based out of Coney Island Yard with the D route assignment at Concourse Yard unchanged. Consequently, this also provides some unintended benefits as Staten Island riders coming in on the three Staten Island buses over the Verrazano Bridge to the 86th Street station will now see faster trips overall, while West End and Broadway riders would see more consistent service.
You don't need to have the 5 train to Jerome avenue line construct a third avenue corridor to gun hill Rd in Brooklyn, 2 & 5 will switch back to main line where the 2 would take the Utica avenue branch and the 5 will serve new lots while the 3 and 4 will return to the Nostrand avenue branch. As for the Queens Blvd line, construct a branch at jewel avenue and revive the Rockaway connection to split the M and R off the main line before forest hills leaving the G the only train to serve that terminal. But this requires CBTC to handle up to 40 or 45 trains per hour. The M would have to use the 63 Rd to help the line balance more effectively
4:30 MY FAVORITE SIEMENS SET
Alright…. I agree with the QBL thing to an extent, but as a rider of that line myself, we’re not really for it just yet…. I say let them finish with the Rockaway Highline deactivation study first before we talk about getting the G back there. For now, E and F via 53rd Street weekdays, M via 63rd Street weekdays F via 63rd Street late nights and weekends. As far as the R, the reason why it’s there now is no real yard access. So the lower level of City Hall wouldn’t cut it especially since we’re talking about a line that does more than it’s supplemental local. So if we’re talking about the R, send it maybe to 179 if you want the G and M to end at Continental. Just a thought.
As far as IRT is concerned, there are some key switches just west of Hoyt Street-Fulton Mall that could probably fix the whole thing up if they were revitalized. Try having one Lexington line and one 7th Avenue Line go local and express respectfully as well as revamping the Rogiers Junction.
The better idea might be to have the E run local via 53rd Street and the F and M running express via 63rd Street.
As for Rogers, those switches won’t exactly help, as the trains will have of cross paths (the 5 switching onto the local, and 3 having to switch express). The only real way to fix the issues is to segregate 7th and Lex between New Lots and Nostrand.
@@daniel_teplitsky07 only issue is that Jamaica residents don’t wanna lose that express ride into Manhattan. Bad enough that part of Queens is under scrutiny with the new bus network redesign, I’m not so sure they wanna lose anything else.
@@AC34D Nah I’m having the E end at 71st, with some continuing to 179th. The M will replace the E on Archer Ave, since it is running express, while the F remains at 179th Street as an express.
Interlining is worst on the BMT Broadway Line in my opinion, especially due to the fact that the N has to crossover after 42nd Street.
N City Hall has a lower level plat but those are 6 car platforms and cannot be extended without extensive construction. If the N train is sent uptown to 96 St and the R goes to DITMARS where is the Q terminal? Shared with the R at DITMARS? The W gets cut along with jobs. Track upgrades have been made along with new platforms on the Astoria line. I worked the N Q W for 20 years.
Maybe then you can terminate them at Canal and store them in the lower level of City Hall. With improved terminal Ops, this could be done quickly enough to not harm service on Broadway.
Service will run as follows:
A: 168th Street to WTC via CPW Lcl/8th Ave Local
B: 207th Street to Bay Ridge-95th Street via CPW Express/6th Avenue Express/4th Avenue Express (Local south of 36th Street)
C: Bedford Park Blvd to WTC via Concourse Lcl/CPW Lcl/8th Ave Lcl
D: 205th Street to Coney Island via Concourse Lcl (Exp Rush Hours)/CPW Exp/6th Avenue Exp/4th Avenue Express/Sea Beach Local
E: Jamaica Center to Far Rockaway/Lefferts Blvd via Queens Blvd Express/53rd Street/8th Avenue Express/Fulton Street Express
F: Forest Hills to Coney Island via Queens Blvd Lcl/63rd Street/6th Avenue Lcl/South Brooklyn Express/Culver Lcl
G: Court Square to Church Avenue via Crosstown Lcl
J: Jamaica Center to Broad Street via Jamaica Lcl (Rush Hour Express)
K: 179th Street to Euclid Avenue via Queens Blvd Express/53rd Street/8th Avenue Express/Fulton Street Lcl
L: 8th Avenue to Canarsie via Canarsie Lcl
M: 179th Street to Metropolitan Avenue via Queens Blvd Lcl/63rd Street/6th Avenue Lcl/Jamaica Lcl/Myrtle Avenue Lcl
N: 96th Street to Brighton Beach via Broadway Express/Brighton Express
Q: 96th Street to Coney Island via Broadway Express/Brighton Local
R: Astoria to Coney Island via Broadway Local/4th Ave Local/West End Local
Improvements:
- Reconstruction of switches at Astoria-Ditmars to turn 30 trains per hour
- New switches between the local and express tracks south of 36th Street, allowing locals to serve West End, and expresses to split between Bay Ridge and Sea Beach
Where do you get the track mapping, I'd like to see if it's available for the CTA as well
Brand New Subway.
the track maps are by vanshnookenraggen I believe, they also have a CTA map
The R will never ever come back to Astoria. For one simple fact. It needs a yard and it will use Coney Island yards and it slows down service on the N. This is why they switch terminals. The R uses kew gardens yard so it doesn’t effect the N going to Coney Island. And they will never build a yard in Astoria there’s no room for it
If you run consistent headways all day, there is no need for direct yard access.
@@daniel_teplitsky07Or we could have another option: build two new switches south of 36th Street. Swap the D and R routes south of there with the R route going via West End to Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue. With this, the R would now have direct access to Coney Island Yard. Meanwhile, the D would switch to the local tracks south of 36th Street to make local stops to 95th Street. Consequently, Staten Island riders will stand to receive the most benefit out of this due to faster service to Midtown Manhattan via the D route since the D operates express north of 36th Street and over the Manhattan Bridge. This should provide an alternative to taking the bus to St. George Ferry Terminal for the ferry ride to Lower Manhattan for the R train there. Brooklyn and Manhattan riders will also receive some benefits as Bay Ridge riders will see faster service while Broadway and West End service will be more consistent and even, reducing delays.
There is another option: build two new switches south of 36th Street. Swap the D and R routes south of there with the R route going via West End to Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue. With this, the R would now have direct access to Coney Island Yard. Meanwhile, the D would switch to the local tracks south of 36th Street to make local stops to 95th Street. Consequently, Staten Island riders will stand to receive the most benefit out of this due to faster service to Midtown Manhattan via the D route since the D operates express north of 36th Street and over the Manhattan Bridge. This should provide an alternative to taking the bus to St. George Ferry Terminal for the ferry ride to Lower Manhattan for the R train there. Brooklyn and Manhattan riders will also receive some benefits as Bay Ridge riders will see faster service while Broadway and West End service will be more frequent.
@@TheRailLeagueryes agreed and that won’t even come close to the length of Line 11 which measures at 53 miles long, and the D sent to Staten Island would be a fraction of that. With that you have the express segments on CPW 6th Ave and 4th Ave up to 36th St to make that route faster, also I would increase speed limits and have CBTC so that the We get 15tph on Concourse on the D and Inwood gets 15tph on the B while retaining express service on both branches.
207th St yard only stores 8 car trains that would be for a deinterlined A that would run between 168th St and WTC, and from there the C would take over the service east of Euclid Ave to both Lefferts and the Rockaways while E Trains join Fulton Local of course to Euclid Ave. Rockaway Residents would see C Trains running every 5 minutes on both branches after Rockaway Blvd giving huge improvements on frequencies and West of the station C Trains would be running every 2.5 minutes or at 24tph. This is because the C would now take QBL as the A B and D lines would make 50+tph combined and Fulton needs more capacity then what it has now, by having the C and E there we have 36tph combined on the Cranberry tubes.
Riders would see travel times of at least 30 minutes from Grasmere to Grand St with the D Train. Since the B would be sent on Sea Beach to Coney Island, due to needing Coney Island yard. Which would be for the B, N, Q and R lines. You can also absorb the Q into the (N) and since they run the same route. This allows for smooth flow with R Trains having a yard while also terminating at Astoria.
2.1k views in 6hrs and a raise in 300 subscribers in 1 hour. I’m checking
lol. Fast Growth.
M via 63rd Street is kinda bad because the M doesn’t run to Forest Hills on weekends, which basically means 63rd Street passengers would have to walk to a Queens Blvd station, but for the ones that use Roosevelt Island they’ll have to use the tram or the Q102 bus to get off the island.
Or make the (M) a 24/7 Line. It isn't that hard.
@@MysticTransit Or split into 2 like multiples have said ut.
Where does the Q go?
What app is that for the interactive mapping where you can rename stations and stuff?
Brand New Subway. It's a website.
@@MysticTransit Thanks ! Love your videos
Running the G from forest hills to coney island and having all day express F service would be amazing, especially if bergen lower level reopened.
Really enjoy your content on this page
I'm glad you do. I plan to continue to make high quality content here!
@@MysticTransit as you should 😌✨
Speaking on de-interlining in Brooklyn, the MTA should make the D and B go to Stilwell ave via brighton, and the Q and N trains go to Stilwell ave via West End, so that there is less commotion at Dekalb ave.
Make the N and Q run via Brighton since riders pefer Broadway over 6th Avenue. Also having 2 services run via West End for the sake of peak direction express is not worth it. Most ridership is from the local stations. So you flush out the benefits of faster trains for an express service that wont even serve the majority of people.
@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831yes agreed and with that we make the B run 24/7 as that would take over Sea Beach under my plan.
What exactly is de interlining? Or interlining?
Interlining is basically when two lines from separate trunks are connected. Think the 2/5 on WPR.
Interlining is when multiple transit services run together with a blended schedule for at least part of their rout. For Example, the A B C and D trains interline along the 8th Ave line under Central Park West.
@@jimbo1637 Ahh that makes sense. Thanks for explaining 😊
The way I see it, de-interlining is such a simple concept that it would have already been done if there wasn't more benefit to keeping things interlined. The issues at Rogers Junction, for example, could very easily be cleared up by sending all Lexington trains to Utica/New Lots and all Broadway-7th Avenue trains to Flatbush, but the fact that such routings haven't happened in over 50 years means there's a better reason to keep the trains interlined. Same with DeKalb Ave: segregating Broadway and 6th Ave services in Brooklyn would easily solve all the issues! But this hasn't been implemented in 50+ years (aside from during the Manhattan Bridge reconstruction) so there is obviously a benefit to keeping them interlined.
While I do like the idea of swapping the F and M on 53rd and 63rd Sts, I also see huge issues with removing the R from Queens Blvd and replacing it with the G as the G doesn't go where riders want to go: Manhattan. Thus, M trains would be PACKED and G trains significantly less full if they were the only two options on the line. Then there's the issue of the R having no direct yard access, which as others pointed out is the entire reason for the N/R terminal swap. Lastly, though it'd be cool to see the lower level of City Hall opened, why short turn there rather than providing additional service to the Financial District and Whitehall St? There didn't seem to be a real reason for that.
But if the Manhattan bridge gets re-constructed then the (N) & (D) will (N)ot (N)ot have (D)-lays (see what I did their lol 😏).
Most people do not use the R to go to Manhattan, in fact, they use it to access Queens Plaza and LIC. I see Astoria as higher priority than some redundant service carrying air on Queens Blvd. I would increase the platform length on the Eastern Division to 10 Cars, allowing the M to run 600’ trains, while the G can use 480’ trains at first, but swap for 600’ trains if the demand arises.
And also, City Hall Lower Level would be a MUCH better terminal than Whitehall Street. City Hall Curve (The S-Curve south of City Hall) results in a 9 train per hour deficit on the Broadway Local’s max capacity. Turning trains at City Hall would allow us to provide more service in Astoria, with areas south still getting a massive boost in frequency.
N - 15 tph 96 St to Brighton Beach Broadway/Brighton Exp
Q - 15 tph 96 St to Coney Island Broadway Exp/Brighton Lcl
R - 9 tph Astoria to City Hall, 21 tph to Coney Island Astoria Lcl/Broadway Lcl/ 4 Av Lcl/West End Lcl
@@TheRailLeaguer I mean, I can understand their hesitancy to try new things given how much blowback they get from the public when any little thing goes differently than normal. Not to mention the costs involved with trying something new, especially if there's risk of having to revert all the changes if it doesn't work.
The idea of swapping the D and R in South Brooklyn does make sense, but also does nothing to address the removal of a Manhattan-bound local service from Queens Blvd. I for one find it hard to believe the R is empty going from Queens Plaza to Manhattan, but I'm not a regular rider of the Queens Blvd Line nor have I seen the ridership data.
As for City Hall, that makes sense. I didn't hear a reason provided in the video, so I was curious. I'd guess City Hall would have more capacity than Whitehall St as well, given there are more terminal tracks.
@@mvcrailphotos As a former Forest Hills resident, I can confirm the R does carry dead air on Queens Blvd, and is probably worth sending to Astoria as it was intended to be pre-unification.
This showed up on my recommends today.
What is that subway program that you’re using? Where can I get it please?
✌🏾
Brand New Subway. It's a free website.
Got it! And this is FANTASTIC! Thanks mucho my dude!👍🏽
The (M) Train should run on 63rd Street Tunnel in both directions to The Rockaway's and from The Rockaway's for Queens Link via Queens Boulevard Local at all times, plus to replace The Rockaway Park Shuttle Train. The (F) Train should run on 53rd Street Tunnel at all times with the (E) Train. The (G) Train should return in Queens Boulevard Local to help the (R) Train again except late nights, the (G)/(R) Train's should run to Queens Plaza Station in Queens on late nights. The (G) Train should be 10-Cars at all times and go to Kings Highway Station in Brooklyn at all times, making more stops for Crosstown passengers. The (D) Train should run on Brighton Express to Coney Island Stillwell Surf Avenue's Station in Brooklyn. The (D) Train on the late night service should run Local in Brighton when there's no (B) Train service on the late nights. The (Q) Train should run on the West End, plus run via 4th Avenue Express, except late nights. The (Q) Train on the late night service should run on the 4th Avenue Local via West End. The (B) Train should run Brighton Local to Ocean Parkway Station in Brooklyn except late nights. Ocean Parkway Station in Brooklyn should have the yard for the (B) Train ending at Ocean Parkway Station between the Local and Express Tracks. The (3) should go to The Bronx via Jerome line with the (4), so that the (4) could use R62's. R62's and few R62A's should be in Jerome Yard while the R142's/A's should be transfer to the (2)/(5) Line's. Just saying.
Which software do you use for this? It looks kinda cool
brand new subway; its a website
@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831 found it, thanks!
If you de-interlined queens blvd and set the M via 63st would the M have to run on weekends to Manhattan?
The M should run to Continental Avenue 7 days a week.
I agree with sending the (M) to 71 all week. With Weekend Reduced service on the (G), QBL Lcl would need to see more service.
@@MysticTransit Might as well just cut the G back to court square cause queens blvd doesn’t justify having four services during weekends or late nights
Here my thoughts
I think the (G)‘s one-seat ride between Brooklyn and Queens was a bit overstated. It was not a hugely popular service when it did run there. And given that the QB Line is the second busiest in the system, with an overwhelming rider preference for Midtown Manhattan service, bringing back the (G) to Queens Blvd would benefit a relatively small number of riders. It would probably be even less popular if it were brought back than it was in 2001 when weekday (G) service was cut back to Court Square to make room for the (V). So what I would recommend is route the W train to queens blvd local to Forest hills. Or reroute the W train to 8th Avenue Local have both F/M via 63rd street and both E/W via 53rd street. Both proposals the M train is the main local operating all times except late nights. And the W train is the supplementary weekday only route
Why not queens Blvd local has terrible service and deserves better
Here's a question about interlining on the White Plains Rd and Dyre Ave lines. If both 7th Ave express trains end at each northern terminals proposed, what subway line will go to 148 Street and Lenox Terminal? If this is the case, I doubt if this one will go through.
Most people would want to turn it into a shuttle, which is not ideal and why I don't support that method of de-interlining.
@@daniel_teplitsky07 ur right, that wouldn't work at all.
@TMC exactly. It would force Harlem riders from 148/145 to have another transfer, along with the shuttle probably providing even less service than the (3) originally was.
@@TheRailLeaguer I’ve also came up with another idea. It’s very expensive, but it also creates a new Regional Hub in the South Bronx. Build a new tunnel under 138th, coming up under Grand Concourse and splitting to run on either side of the existing Jerome line, a new 149th-GC station built south of the existing 149th Street tunnel instead of the current platforms to its north, then a new tunnel under 150th, coming up in the median of Westchester immediately after 3rd Avenue and merging with the existing elevated structure.
This would fully de-interline The Bronx. Don’t know what to do about 148th, except just make people walk?
Problem with sending the 3 to Flatbush Avenue is that it pretty much makes the 3 a shorter version of the 2.
With this service the 3 might as well be rush hour only and just have buses on 145 & 148.
Sending the R to Astoria would be great but only with we could get the R to West End.
And then with this version of the W what’s the point of it existing if the R is going to mirror its entire route.
Also, every 3 train has to go for a layup and put-in since they don’t run to Brooklyn overnight. Also, find me some people who are okay with losing direct 7th Avenue service between Franklin Avenue and New Lots Avenue.
@@Bklynkid52 The impacts will be very minimal since even with deinterlining and the transfer, the overall trip between the New Lots Line stations and the West Side of Manhattan will be a lot quicker. Nobody would mind losing that direct service.
@@TheRailLeaguer
At some point all of the elevated lines in the Bronx need to be replaced since the MTA can't maintain them forever
THE G TRAIN SHOULD RUN ON RUSH HOUR FOREST HILLS TO CONEY ISLAND. IN MY OPINION THERE SHOULD BE A M EXPRESS THE FIRST EXPRESS JUMP WILL BE MIDDLE VILLAGE TO WYXKOF AV THE SECOND JUMP WYCKOF AV TO MYRTLE AV BROADWAY THE LAST ONE MYRTLE AV BROADWAY TO MARCY AVENUE
I wouldn’t remove the W because Broadway commuters would get a less frequent local service. Instead I would extend the W to Central Queens making it a full time local. The N to LaGardia Airport, and The R To To Rockaway Park.
They wouldn't get a less frequent local service. With upgrades to the Astoria Line, it can be upgraded to turn 21 tph, which is about a train every 3 mins.
I searched your channel for a segment on the C train, but didn't find it. My question is when the A line is terrible backed-up, why doesn't the MTA allow the C train to continue beyond 168th street to 207? This would certainly help those who need to catch a bus at 175th street.
The reason for this is that it is easier to terminate (C)'s at 168 St, and it is quicker. Also, having the lines connect north of 168 St would cause delays.
Now, if the (A) has a serious delay, I would expect them to route a few (C)'s up to 207 St to relieve customers.
I refer to days when there are 20 minute delays on the uptown A during afternoon rush hours. Since there are no trains at the terminus at that point, the C could make its turn-around there.
I love this
New video hype
For the third ave line
It could be a new line ( the (8)) and run with the 6 till it get to the third ave stop
Then goes along the original route except underground
I wish they would extend the 2 train to to kings plaza or make a shuttle service from Flatbush ave bklyn college it would improve over crouding on the B46SBS B46LCL and B41
Really the reason behind it was the 5 trains curve at grand concourse like we could renovated or de interline those people would need to deal with it.
The Rogers Junction is like the railroad section of Eastern Parkway for de interlining on the 2, 3, 4 and 5 lines.
If the M Train rider wants the IRT Eastside line they lose access to the connecting passageways at 51st Street because if you send them to 63rd st then they must do out of system transfer to 59th Street Eastside Line Station.
They could also transfer at Bleecker for the (6). Also, you would be able to switch to the E/F, which would run to Lex - 53 St.
Well, nothing stopping them *except for the price*.
Expand 51st street to full express
They could just transfer to the E/F at Jackson Heights like lots of people already do. Nothing would change.
@@MysticTransit thank you for telling me what regarding transfer stations I just simply end up using the IRT Names since they're simpler to say example is 74th Street Broadway instead of Jackson Heights Roosevelt Avenue this one is 51st Street. Another example I tend to use is Fifth Avenue Bryant Park instead of 42nd Street Bryant Park
You contradict yourself in your reasoning. You oppose the loss of the a 1 seat ride that would be caused by de-interlining the 2/5 in the Bronx but yet you suggest eliminating the queens Blvd connection to the Broadway line by sending the R to Astoria? In what world does that make sense? Plus, the R would also loose access to a rail yard, that was the whole reason it was removed from Astoria in the first place. Please put more thought into these videos. The one good thing you suggested was switching the M and F at 53 and 63rd.
@@TheRailLeaguer except it’s not a good deinterlining. While granted it’s no E or F, the R train is popular on Queens Blvd. it provides a 1 seat connection to the Broadway line, and more importantly, a quick transfer to the 4/5 express at 60th st, which 53rd st lacks. You are also eliminating direct railyard access for the R train, making maintenance and storage more difficult, impacting reliability.
While I am not necessarily advocating for the 2/5 de interlining in the Bronx, the overcrowding issue can be remedied by more frequent and reliable service. Of course, with the roger junction limiting service on the IRT, de-interlining in the Bronx should only be considered after the mess that is rogers is fixed.
There is no fix for the lack of rail access on a R switch to Astoria. Nor is there a fix for the drastic cut in capacity on the Queens Blvd local by replacing the R with the G. The M train can’t carry that load alone, it’s limited to 8 cars due to running on the BMT eastern division, nor can it handle more TPH as the J and Z limit it. The G train, while nostalgic, was eliminated from forest hills for a reason. People didn’t like it. It’s true that many people on QBL transfer to the express at Roosevelt, but some don’t and you still have the local stations between Roosevelt and queens plaza. a return of the G train guarantees everyone will transfer At either Roosevelt or Queens plaza, to already jam packed E/F trains. It’s ludicrous and not a good detinerlining.
Just as is suggesting that the F should run express in Brooklyn, leaving only the G to service some of the most heavily used stations in northern brooklyn on the IND culver line.
The only de interlining that made sense was switching the F and M at 53rd and 63rd. The other “good de-interlining” were more ridiculous than the supposed bad de-interlining in the Bronx (which isn’t even that bad if roger junction can be fixed to provide more service.)
@@unknown1201 As a former resident of Forest Hills, I can confirm the R had always carried dead air on Queens Blvd. The G wasn’t eliminated because people didn’t like it, it was cut back when the 63rd Street Tunnel was built, making the G practically useless because it only ran during late-nights. But now, as we’re seeing with the Interboro Express and the growth in the Outer Boroughs, not every service has to go to Manhattan. Most R riders are heading to Queens Plaza. The NYC Subway is over-branched, which makes interlining very impractical to operate the system efficiently, as we see with services that are known to be “slow”.
Counterpoint: Broadway and 6th Ave run fairly close to each other through Midtown, down to SoHo. The biggest loss for Queens would be one-seat rides all the way to Rector St and Whitehall. The E goes to WTC, of course, and the G might be a faster option to various parts of Brooklyn, including Fulton St and Hoyt-Schermerhorn.
Also, do check out another comment in this thread by Gabe PL. The specific reason they needed the R to have a rail yard is because the R27s and R30s the line had at the time were, well, lemons, long story short. Nowadays we have cars like the R160 that are very reliable.
So to justify reconnecting the G (and the *possibly* acquired R160s since the R32s and R46s are supposed to be retired) to Forest Hills, he proposed removing the R, requiring anyone going from the Broadway line to Forest Hills to use the 7 (at Queensboro Plaza) or newly swapped M (at 63rd Street)? Further, he wants the R to, not run along side the N in Astoria, but *replace* the N? And have it go to 96th Street? Knowing a new line was to be created when the Second Avenue line is extended south of 72nd Street? Even further, unless for every replaced N is to be 2 Rs, (4:04) why would an upgrade need to be done on the Astoria line to "increase frequency" when he literally proposed [replacing] one line with another?
5:44 - Given the configuration, the only issues include the 4 crossing to the local track to get from Franklin Ave to Nostrand Ave, especially if the 5 terminates at Crown Heights - Utica Avenue. This delays any SB 2/3 heading towards President Street. Similarly, any NB 2/3 heading towards Franklin Ave delays the oncoming 4 unless the interlocking occurs beforehand. (The 3 currently experiences this when a 2/5 converges onto its track.)
Now of course I'm going to address the thumbnail... why does that map have the N being switched to the Brighton line and the B to the Fourth Ave line? Shouldn't it be the D (which originally ran on that line pre-2001) and Q being switched instead? This would streamline the B/D between Grand Street and DeKalb Avenue, as well as the N/Q between Canal Street and Atlantic Avenue. There wouldn't need to be changes south of 36th Street or Prospect Park because both already featured convergences/divergences.
The reason he discussed moving the R to Astoria to replace the N and W is simple: The R carries dead air on Queens Blvd, and the fact that the N switches from express to local north of 34th Street in order to run to Astoria limits capacity on the Broadway Line. Having all Broadway Expresses run to 96th Street and all Broadway Locals run to Astoria is the preferred option here. Regarding Phase 3 of the 2nd Avenue Line, it really isn't necessary to build south of 63rd Street, at least in the current plan. The T would cause Broadway service to be limited due to not being able to route both Broadway Expresses up 2nd Avenue Phases 1 & 2. I'd prefer an option where the T uses separate express tracks north of 63rd Street to continue into the Bronx to reduce conflicts. And regarding the upgrade to Astoria, because what we essentially did with de-interlining Broadway was segregating the expresses and locals into separate pairs (Expresses to 96th and locals to Astoria), Astoria-Ditmars wouldn't need to have its interlocking replaced to handle 24 trains per hour, rather than the current max of 15 trains per hour.
The proposal at Rogers Junction involves either adding a new crossover from the Eastern Pkwy Express to the local, or a track connecting the local at Franklin to the Nostrand Ave bound track. Here's a diagram for reference: www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/NYC_Utica_track.pdf
With the thumbnail, the switch-up at DeKalb actually makes more sense than a simple D/Q swap. The Brighton Line has a stronger preference for Broadway Service, so all Broadway Expresses should go there. On 4th Avenue, running 6th Avenue Expresses on 4th Avenue Express, with Broadway Locals on 4th Avenue Local preserves transfers. At 36th Street, the R reroutes to West End running 2.5 minute headways in order to have access to Coney Island Yard (rerouting to Astoria on the other end removes direct access to Jamaica Yard). New switches south of 36th Street allow the Sea Beach Line to have 4 minute headways and for Bay Ridge customers to have an express from 36th to Atlantic, that also runs more frequently than the current R train. All in all, no one loses out on the BMT Southern Division if de-interlined this way.
@@daniel_teplitsky07 first and foremost, I wasn't challenging the reason behind the discussion; let's get that straight. I find it interesting how it's been decided that local service along Queens Blvd is considered "dead air", especially when that "dead air" is being used to justify reconnecting the G to that line and doubling it's consist length. (Not arguing against the latter, just questioning the former.) Regarding Phase 3, like the schematic you later cite, there's already provisions carved out from Phase 1 heading south of 63rd St, so to say "it really isn't necessary to build south" would require a complete overhaul from the current plan. Likewise, because of the construction method used to build north of 63rd St, the entire infrastructure would have to be refitted (if not redone) for the separate express tracks. On that note, the T would _slow down_ Broadway Express service, but it wouldn't outright prevent the N/Q from being routed. Speaking of slowing down, before the W service was resumed in 2016, the MTA reported that line only seeing ~15 trains per hour, reduced to ~14/hr after. No way eliminating the W (a second time) and having only the R to Astoria is going to boost frequency 60-70%. (This is NYCT... just a _20%_ increase would be a miracle.)
I actually agreed with the Rogers Junction proposal... that's why I highlighted it's necessity. (I wasn't mentioning the current configuration's delays for shits and giggles.) My problem was (and still is thanks to the schematic linked) the proposal to (1) have the 4 retain express status despite the obvious intent to run it to New Lots Ave, and (2) to have the 5 run local with the intent to go beyond Utica Ave despite the initial phrasing of the proposal. (I mentioned "the 4 crossing to the local track to get from Franklin Ave to Nostrand Ave" because I thought Utica Ave was going to be the 5's terminus, as it is every now and then during rush hour.) The diagram you referenced has the south wall blown to run the 5 to Kings Plaza as an El south of what appears to be either Foster Ave or Glenwood Rd. Just the newly opened Target makes this seem unlikely, never mind the necessary cut-and-cover (because bi-level) for reinforcing infrastructure. (Seriously, "northern extension provisions" instead of making the line 4-track, thus leaving room for a interlock-free northbound line?)
Lastly, there was more popular demand for the R instead of the N to run to Coney Island? I mean unless you're suggesting the N continues beyond Brighton Beach to converge with the Q, that's what would happen in this swap. (Never mind the fact this idea has the N/Q stopping at Dekalb with the B/D bypassing it.) My method didn't require additional switches south of 36th St because the N (Sea Beach) joins 4th Ave as an express without using interlocks, and the Q (West End) could simply use the existing switches. Aside from not changing the D/F/N/Q option at Coney Island, not only is this the cheaper option, NYCT is more likely to implement this method _because_ it's the cheaper option. On that note, is 6th Avenue service disliked, because going by what you said switching the R to Sea Beach (and Coney Island subsequently) would speed up service, conversely slowing down whatever takes it's place at 95th St.
@@TechGroupF430i The R would definitely provide a 60%-70% service increase because unlike today, it would be completely isolated on its own track pair, with the only limits being certain curves, limiting it to 21 trains per hour running on Astoria, Broadway Local, 4th Ave Local, and West End. Compared to present day frequencies on Astoria (15 tph), Broadway Local (16 tph), 4th Ave Local (8-10 tph), and West End, (10 tph). It’s more likely that NYCT would consider a D/Q swap, but that isn’t necessarily the right option. Brighton riders prefer Broadway Service, and that is what’s being increased here. Building those switches wouldn’t be difficult as there are provisions for crossovers between the express and local tracks between 36th Street and 45th Street, meaning that no columns would have to be removed in order to construct them. Also I don’t know where you get the idea that I think people demand the R more than the N to Coney Island. I never switched it to Sea Beach. Here’s the service pattern for reference:
B - 4th Ave Express/Sea Beach Local
D - 4th Ave Express/Bay Ridge (by way of express/local crossovers south of 36th Street)
N - Brighton Express to Brighton Beach
Q - Brighton Local to Coney Island
R - 4th Ave Local/West End Local
@@daniel_teplitsky07 only one B Division route has ever pulled off a headway of under 3 minutes (and even then that involved two A trains from two different termini), yet you've said the R could be sped up from 4 to 2.5 minutes -- from 15 TPH to 24 TPH (a 60% increase) -- each end using one terminus. (Even the 1 @ 20 TPH and 7 @ 15 TPH couldn't do that, and they each run an unchallenged route.) Such a speed increase would be uncharacteristic of NYCT, which I assume you've noticed given your second comment says 21 TPH, down from the 24 TPH initially claimed.
Lastly, there's no need to be disingenuous... I asked if "there was more popular demand for the R instead of the N to run to Coney Island." I never said that *YOU* think people demanded the R more than the N. (You said there was a "stronger preference", implying "popular demand", thus the inquiry.) I literally pointed out that the N (which currently runs to Coney Island) would instead terminate at Brighton Beach, and that the R (which currently runs no where near Coney Island) goes there instead. Now I'd apologize for the mix up on how the R gets there, but you scuttled that by suggesting the B runs to Coney Island instead of the D.
@@TechGroupF430i I meant the Brighton Line has a stronger preference for Broadway Service, so running the B/D down Brighton is a non-starter. 4th Ave would also lose transfers to 6th Ave, making passengers from West End make the long transfer at Atlantic (4th Ave Expresses should always skip DeKalb). At least with my proposal, 6th Ave Service from West End is accessible from a simple cross-platform transfer. We could theoretically run 24 tph down from Astoria to City Hall LL (which would be finished for passenger service), and then 21 tph down to Coney Island (City Hall Curve limits throughput to 21 tph, and 5th Ave-59th Street limits throughput to 24 tph).
I had came up with a idea on splitting up the G line into two separate lines that both go into Manhattan via 34th st and into jersey. So one would run local on the Queens blvd line and the other would run local from church Ave then they could both run via 34th to jersey then go the Rutherford or Secaucus junction or both. But they would both run on separate tracks in Manhattan so Queens blvd would have E,F,M and X trains at all times. Then culver and the Brooklyn portion of the crosstown line would be the G line. Then culver express service would come back at all times.
Cutting the G back into Brooklyn is a horrible idea, especially as it is the only Crosstown between Queens and Brooklyn.
@@daniel_teplitsky07The other is the IBX though not crosstown doesn't go into manhattan.
Great job! But Idk why people would want to send the 3 train to Dyre Avenue..
@@TheRailLeaguer I agree with you. If they sent the 3 to Dyre and the 5 to burnside, Then it would destroy the only direct connection.
Exactly. I've been saying this for months now.
Extend the G to Coney Island and make the F express along McDonald Avenue and Prospect Park. No capitol improvements needed, just the financial commitment.
IMO, Rogers Junction can only truly be fixed if they dug up the tunnel and rebuilt it similar to south of 36 Street or south of 59 Street-Columbus Circle with flying junctions. Also, find me some people who use stations between Franklin Avenue and New Lots Avenue that wouldn't mind losing direct 7th Avenue service.
I think the sacrifice is worth it for faster service, as Franklin Avenue has a cross-platform transfer between Lex and 7th Ave. 96th Street on Bway-7th Ave handles much more transfers despite having narrower platforms, so I don't think crowding is an issue. The only inconvenience is one that will pass with time, and its the change in a rider's commute.
@@daniel_teplitsky07 Faster service doesn’t always mean better service. Also, a bottleneck will still exist with every 3 needing to go for layups and put-ins since they don’t run to Brooklyn overnight.
@@Bklynkid52 If that’s the case, you can probably build a yard along the Bay Ridge Branch (to store Nostrand Ave trains, and if a Utica Avenue Line is built, a yard can be built alongside Flatbush Avenue near Avenue T.
@@daniel_teplitsky07 If the yard isn’t built along the Nostrand Avenue line, then there’s no point, since the bottleneck will still exist.
@@Bklynkid52 Exactly, and the yard will have to be built as part of that project. I think it should be built because Nostrand is already constrained by terminal layout anyway.
During evening rush hour all Neried ave 5 Bronx express trains come from New Lots ave.
How about swapping the (D) and the (Q) in Brooklyn. This could potentially increase the number of 1 seat rides and decrease station congestion. Large portions of the West End line is near large Chinese American populations in Sunset Park and Bensonhurst. Most of these people tend to travel between those neighborhoods and Canal St (home of Manhattan’s Chinatown). Currently, they need to transfer at 36th St to/from an (N) train since the () doesn’t stop at Chinatown. However, if the (D) is replaced with the (Q), they would no longer need to transfer at 36th St, decreasing station congestion.
Brighton Riders would never tolerate the loss of the Q. It’d be better to swap the B and N, and installing 2 switches south of 36th Street. The R, running from Astoria, would be the sole Broadway Local running 24 trains per hour and running via West End to Coney Island. The B would run express on 4 Av replacing the N on Sea Beach to Coney Island. The D would utilize new switches south of 36th Street to run to Bay Ridge on the local tracks.
People on Brighton prefer Broadway service so I would recommend this instead A unchanged
B 168 street CPW Local Coney Island via sea beach 4th Avenue express
C 205 street CPW express
D Bedford Park Blvd CPW Local Bay ridge 95th street 4th Avenue express bay ridge local
N Coney Island Brighton local
Q Brighton Beach Brighton express
R Coney Island 4th Avenue local.
The Q train becomes a weekday only route
The A train runs local from 207th street 145th street on weekends and Late nights while the B train only runs up to Atlantic Avenue during those times. Since 6th Avenue and Central Park west ridership isn’t high enough to justify having 4 services on weekends and late nights
Both the C and D operate on the Bronx all day every day to encourage ridership the D replaces the C to 205th street during late nights
@@daniel_teplitsky07 Putting the B on Sea Beach would mean that Sea Beach line customers wouldn't get any weekend service to Manhattan.
@@clbtransit4798 Then make the B a full-time line, with the N becoming the weekday-only Brighton Express from 96th Street.
@@daniel_teplitsky07 That's the logical solution. Allow the N to become the weekday-only subway line in CIY and then the B can provide full time service to 168th Street or 145th Street overnight.
Did OPTO go away?
I wish this this video actually explained what de-interlining is before jumping into the specific pros and cons of it.
I would've expected most transit fans to already know what de-interlining is, so, I felt like there was need to explain it.
@@MysticTransit But don't you want more people to become transit fans who e.g. might not have known up front? It's not like it would take more than a few seconds of the runtime. I don't mean this in a harsh way of course, just a genuine critique.
@@MysticTransit love the content, but I'm not quite sure what de-interlining is either. This subject is pretty new to me and you seem pretty knowledgeable. Maybe a short 5 minutes explanation would help?
But what about the Q
Do you have a blog or email address?
Yes. Check the "about" section on my channel for contact information.
I'm also working on a website.
@@MysticTransit Hi. I don't know if you saw my reply, but I wrote a thesis about a crosstown extension of the Second Avenue Subway under 125th Street.
Cool. Is it available for public view?
@@MysticTransit Yes, it's on the Vanschnookenraggen website and was published in May last year.
Whats the mapping app used in the vid?
Brand New Subway.
The idea of sending the 3 to Flatbush along with the 2 is seriously flawed. People on the Flatbush line want both Lexington Avenue and 7th Avenue service. In addition, you'd eliminate direct yard access from the 3 line, which was a problem before the 1984 Brooklyn terminal flip.
@@TheRailLeaguer Yes because your admitting that you support discrimination and segregation
@@TheRailLeaguer Merge issue and transit deserts are a separate issue. Still support deinterline though
In addition sending the G to coney island is also a great idea
This is a very necessary step in NYCMTA as faster and better outweighs that one seat ride
I disagree with your assessment of deinterlining 149 St. It is assumed that deinterlined routes would remove some one seat rides, but we have to weigh that loss against the potential gains:
1) the Lexington Ave and 7 Ave trains would no longer interact with each other (except at Rogers Junction), meaning there'd be fewer potential cascading delays, and higher frequencies along Lexington and Jerome Ave. This could allow us to include a rush hour express between 125 St and Burnside Ave skipping 6 stops, which isn't possible today because Jerome Ave is only a branch.
2) the transfer at 149 St is less an issue of stair capacity, and more an issue of platform capacity. If the (4) ran through the upper level at max capacity, then there'd be less potential for platform crowding, which would thus provide greater throughput on the stairs.
3) there'd be a net *gain* in the total number of trains traveling into Manhattan via 149 St, thereby absorbing all the passengers who would've taken the (5) before, or who would've transferred between the (2) and (4) anyways.
This arrangement is no different to how many other transfer stations currently behave, such as 74 St Jackson Heights or 42 St Grand Central. Riders may lose their one seat ride, but they're not actually losing access; they simply trade their one seat ride for a short walk and a 1-minute average wait for the transfer, which would apply in both directions.
4) 149 St is right now in the process of receiving elevators, meaning the (5) will soon no longer be the only ADA Accessible option between WPR and Lexington.
5) the 148 St spur has a solution that doesn't require a single dollop of concrete: treat it as a rush-hour-only commuter service, with 22 trains (the number of slots at Lenox Ave Yard) in the morning and evening, but a midday shuttle bus connecting 145/148 Sts to 135 St, along with the current nighttime shuttle train connecting to Times Sq. This would give 9-to-5 commuters a direct trip, while still preserving access throughout the day.
Though I personally advocate for the shuttle train conversion similar to what's been proposed by others, I also understand that deinterlining shouldn't have to wait for such a capital project. We can solve the problem with operations before concrete; if we can't fix 142 St Junction, then we can at least bypass it altogether.
6) it's safe to assume that the number of passengers traveling from the Bronx via either 7 Ave or Lexington would be about a 50/50 split if the services were balanced as such; except today, 7 Ave riders have only half the potential service (and so (2) trains tend to be crowded, which depresses ridership), whereas Lexington riders are split across two different sets of platforms. This in and of itself causes problems at 149 St, with riders shuffling through the station to get to whichever platform has the earlier train, rather than defaulting to a single platform if the routes were deinterlined; in the reverse, Lexington riders would no longer ever depart at the lower level. This simplifies wayfinding and eliminates unnecessary movement via the stairs.
7) Mott Haven Junction is an abomination that should only be used for non-revenue movements and temporary reroutes. Eliminating revenue service through the junction would require less timetable padding and thus dramatically speed up services, meaning trips overall would be shorter than today despite the transfer.
8) deinterlining 149 St would be the logical conclusion to rebuilding Rogers Junction. The MTA would have to maximize the return on investment, and as such should explore all possibilities to increase capacity and reduce the potential for delays across the A Division. The potential gains from fixing and deinterlining Rogers Junction would be lost if we were to continue operating 149 St as currently.
9) when there is only a single route serving a station, then riders only ever board the first train that comes. This would not only reduce platform crowding along all of 7 Ave, Lexington, and WPR, but most importantly at 149 lower level. Simple math dictates that crowding would decrease if riders wait less time for their train. This would improve safety for riders traveling via either trunk.
10) since the (5) would no longer have to cross in front of the (2) at E 180 St, then we could instead simplify the Express service so that Wakefield trains switch to the middle track and become Express, while Dyre Ave trains remain Local, with a timed cross platform transfer at E 180 St. Thus the Express service wouldn't have to default to Lexington, but would instead continue to 7 Ave. This would eliminate crossover delays, decrease travel times for Wakefield riders, and simplify wayfinding.
So we're forced to make a trade-off: either we keep the services as-is to preserve certain one seat rides, but continue suffering from delayed trains, imbalanced service provisions, crowded unsafe platforms, and awkward transfers; or we deinterline the routes and gain decreased travel times, reduced platform crowding, improved safety, fewer delays with greater reliability, more capacity between the Bronx and Manhattan, additional Express service on Jerome Ave, simpler Express service on WPR, more logical wayfinding, greater return on investment for an important capital project (Rogers Junction), and an overall more efficient subway. I choose the latter.
I bet you support ISIS and Hamas along your terrorist plot to kill the subway rotues
You are a racist 5 train hater
what site is that it looks cool
I think deinterlining should be considered where it has the potential to eliminate problematic merges, and where any additional transfers would be cross platform. This means the QBL and Astoria deinterlining plan makes sense. From a QBL local station, you can take the M directly to Manhattan, or the G and transfer across the platform to the E or F at Roosevelt Avenue or Queens Plaza. Service on the E and F would be more frequent and have fewer delays. To access the Broadway Line (making up for the loss of the R on QBL), there's the cross platform transfer at Lex/63rd with the express, or an up and down transfer at 34th/Herald Square with the local. By deinterlining Broadway, it eliminates that awful 34th Street merge, so service would be more frequent on both the local and express. The problem with all day Culver express service is that relying on the G as the only local is not going to go over well with residents. It would also require restoring the lower level of Bergen Street so that you can transfer to the F to access Manhattan. Otherwise you're stuck on the G to Hoyt/Schermerhorn and need to transfer to the A or C.
The same is true for Rogers Junction. Any new transfers that would be required are across the platform. That merge is so bad that the entire IRT is scheduled backwards from it. It also allows for service increases associated with a future Utica Avenue Line.
An area I don't think should be deinterlined is DeKalb Avenue. If it's set up where all 6th Avenue trains go to 4th Avenue Express, and all Broadway express trains go to Brighton, that results in a long trasnfer at Atlantic/Barclays since the 4th Avenue Express skips DeKalb. I also agree that the IRT in The Bronx shouldn't be deinterlined, because doing so would create an inconvenient up and down transfer at 149th Street Grand Concourse, which is already overcrowded as it is.
What drugs are you on saying that DeKalb shouldn’t be de-interlined? It’s the absolute worst choke point in the entire B Division…
I agree with your first two paragraphs. If we were to rebuild the lower level at Bergen St and reroute all Rutgers trains via Culver Express, then we'd have isolated the G from every other service: dedicated tracks from Court Sq to Church Ave. I don't think Culver Local riders would complain so much about transferring at Bergen, if the G reliably came every 3-4 minutes.
But I take issue with your assessment of 149 St. It's true that the station has poor surface access, but the middle mezzanine, for what it's worth, is actually quite robust: 8 stairs to the lower platforms, and 4 stairs to the upper platforms. That's comparable to the (7) connection to the (4/5/6) at Grand Central. Also, 149 St just recently received elevators, so the transfer is now ADA accessible.
The problem is that the two upper platforms are separated by the middle track, which forces transferring riders onto only TWO stairs depending on the direction they're heading. *That's* what causes congestion.
Consider this: the middle track isn't used for Express service, it's used so that (4) trains don't have to merge with (5) trains immediately after the station, while the latter are still inching through the curve; instead they merge further south at 138 St through a faster switch.
This means that, if we deinterline 149 St, then the (4) could use the outer tracks *at all times.* Therefore, the MTA could *fill in* the middle track, first with temporary platform cars, then later permanently, thereby creating one large island platform with FOUR stairs connecting to the middle mezzanine. This would more evenly distribute riders between the stairs, effectively *doubling* the capacity of the station during the rushes, when riders are predominantly heading in one direction.
Filling the middle track also allows the MTA to later install *escalators* within that space that directly connect the upper and lower level platforms. You gotta think of these holistically.
6:00 or they can just make the 5 go express the 4 don't have to go express just because there not gonna make no extra switches just because they want a express train to go to New Lots
@@TheRailLeaguer to prevent what interferences tho
i can't imagine the (G) with the 179s
My home station is 21st St Queensbridge and that idea with the F train is absolutely not happening
The MTA was going to test the F/M swap before the COVID hit. I don’t see much of an issue with it.
The only thing is. Is the MTA willing to have the M run to Forest Hills 24/7
I like the old intro bring it back please
Please explain more.
@@MysticTransit yay you repleyed to me and when you tell what it is about after that you had the black screen and the moon fall down and go to the side and said MT see what I mean
A good proposal is just send a G train to coney Island and send the F train to Staten Island and make run to the abandoned ball park station
That's not interlining. The whole point of interlining is to work within the current system, not make grand subway extensions. Also, a cheaper extension to Staten Island to to make the R go beyond Bay Ridge - 95th St to Staten Island.
@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831that’s true but the R sits through a lot of stops and it would be better to deinterline and extend the D to Staten Island, as that would end at 168th St going express on 6th Ave and CPW. I would give the Inwood Branch express service to avoid lengthening the routes to Brooklyn and Staten Island. We have Coney Island (B) via Sea Beach and 95th St (D) for a shorter and more reliable route.
BTW... "Nereid" is pronounced "NEER-ee-id"; in Greek mythology, the Nereids were the sea nymph daughters of Nereus (a very minor sea deity). One of the 50 or so Nereids was Thetis, mother of Achilles. And yes, it's odd that a landlocked street would be named after sea nymphs.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nereids
YOU ALWAYS GET A LIKE ! 😊 Aarre
Guess I’ll have to put lunch on hold-
Lmao
Your ideas fail to take into account operational difficulties. Removing the conflict of E and F at 36th St in Queens only moves it to Fifth/53rd. Sending the M via 63rd St tube means it now has to run 24/7 OR you have to shift the F there in off hours. Confusing people with two services on one lettered route. That's just one. The others made similar issues. The best one no one talks about is forcing the A and C to share the river tube. Build the intended tube from Court St. to WTC and the E looses it's terminal but the C would have throughput without conflict and the E could be terminated in a new platform using the tunnel space for A5 track at Chambers.
@@TheRailLeaguer You don’t need a K train the E train could just split it terminals
@@TheRailLeaguer But the thing is that both the E and K runs on the same route after Kew Gardens. So your better keeping the E train as the sole 8th Avenue route.
I dont like cbtc because i want to be an operator for a reason, not for some robot to control it
CBTC doesn't always mean ATO, the Operator can still control the train. Restricted Manual mode is a thing.
CBTC just helps to prevent/notify stuff like overrunning a station. You still have control of the train.
@@UA-camLover123 ok
@@MysticTransit thanks
What about late nights for the M the M does not run into Manhattan late nights and weekends M terminates at Essex Street
The (M) would run to Forest Hills 24/7.
@@MysticTransit You don’t have to. Operate to Essex Street late nights the F train could run to 63rd street and the E train runs local like they do currently
I think the (A) should be extended to The Bronx, Terminate on Riverdale Avenue & West 263rd Street. It would run express on the extended lower level from 168th Street to Dyckman Street, with the diamond (C) going local to Inwood, 215th Street. The local (X) would terminate at Inwood, 207th Street from a new trunk line. The new line would run from 14th Street & 9th Avenue, continuing onto Columbus Avenue until 110th, curving onto Amsterdam Avenue, then turning onto Dyckman Street until finally running under the (C) line, & terminating at the lower level of the Inwood, 207th Street station. The diamond (X) would continue to The Bronx, going under Fordham Road, then continuing under Pelham Parkway & finally terminating at Pelham Bay Park, Burr Avenue. The (R) should instead go on its original Queens Boulevard service, but instead split off at Northern Boulevard, and turn onto College point Boulevard, turning onto 11th Avenue, then terminating at Beechhurst, Little Bay Park.
That wouldn’t be possible, since the topography of the Bronx does not allow for it.
@@daniel_teplitsky07 What do you mean?
@@bennythepenny5831 The terrain of Upper Manhattan and the Bronx makes an extension past 207th Street into the Bronx impossible, because of the steep grades. A tunnel from Manhattan would have to be extremely deep and expensive to run through the western portion of the Bronx.
I don't like it, because I need both the 2 & 5 at Flatbush Ave
Exactly. And if the (5) is needed, there will always be a transfer at Franklin Avenue.
You don’t
Would have been more educational to me if you started the video by explaining exactly what interlining and de=interlining is. I have no idea.
Neither do I.
Personally I support Alon Levy's plan for full deinterlining. This would require some small capital projects and create awkward transfers, but would allow all subway infrastructure to be used at full capacity. For instance, right now the 63rd street tunnel is only carrying 15 trains per hour! If you eliminated the M train, and gave the F exclusive use of the QB express tracks, you could run 30 F tph through this tunnel. The E train would get exclusive use of the 8th ave local tracks (the C would become an express in downtown and midtown) and the queens blvd local tracks and could run 20 tph. (2 tph less than the current traffic through 53rd st, but this is made up for by the big increase in F trains) This means 5 extra trains per hour for the queens blvd local. The astoria terminal is upgraded for 24tph, a 9 tph increase over current service, and the R and W trains serve it, with 12 tph each, while the N joins the Q on the 2nd avenue subway, allowing it to have 24tph too. Thus the plan gives Queens 14 extra trains per hour and the 2nd ave subway 12 extra trains per hour!
I'd make both the F and M express via 63rd Street because the M is a hugely popular line. I am also in support of rebuilding Grand Concourse to eliminate the long transfer between the IRT East and West Side Lines. Everything else, I'm also in support for.
The amount of people who would have to change trains would mean transfers like 42st would become way busier. Also a lot of passengers prefer a one seat ride.
@@MIkeDye200202holla The higher train frequency cancels out the crowding on platforms and trains.
@@daniel_teplitsky07 is not a long transfer unless you're talking about those flights of stairs.
I haven't seen Alon Levy's deinterlining plan. I've seen vanshnookenraggen's plan though.
What do you mean my interlining? Is it when two subway routes share the same track? Yes, it would be less confusions for tourists and newly arriving immigrants.
Bump for that conductor at 4:15
Please take this as constructive criticism, especially if you want to increase viewership and grow your channel. Before dividing straight into the pros and cons of something that that very likely not common knowledge, in this instance, de-interlining, please clearly explain what it is. 2 mins into this vid I gave up because nothing you were saying registered with me. In fact, I chose the video mostly because I wanted to know what de-interlining was. And I live, grew up in NYC, and have been ridding the subway for over 3 decades. And secondly, please try to match your statements with visuals that directly support them, not just random or loosely related video. For example, when you mentioned de-interlining the 2 and 5, you showed a map, must no markings on it to explain how de-interlining relates to the map. Then you quickly moved to another example, I think in Brooklyn, this time with no map, just moving trains. Nonetheless, I applaud you for what you are doing, which is way more than me. But I think you can make your videos even more interesting and educational.
I don't know what the term "de interlining" means, but your topic does have examples in this clip.
De-Interlining is basically getting rid of Interlining, which is when two (or more) lines from different trunks (Lexington, 7th Av, etc.), run along the same track, sometimes causing delays.
For Example: The D/N Trains on 4 Avenue, or the B/C Trains on CPW.
Here’s the most important change. The removal of the orange M train in exchange for the V train and Brown M train. ANYONE TALKS ABOUT THAT😠😠😠😡😡😡
@@TheRailLeaguer The thing is that he just doing this cause HE WANTS THE SUBWAY ROUTES BACK
@@TheRailLeaguer No the point is to make the M train GREAT AGAIN. Undue a CRIME AND MURDER of the V train
@@TheRailLeaguer Yes the K H 9 and V brown M were all murder.
@@TheRailLeaguer The video stated that WE WILL MURDER THE W TRAIN and weaken the unity of the BROADWAY LINE and crush the spirt of Astoria RIDERS BY ALL DIRTY WAYS AND MEANS
I like that idea with the Queen's route's but only I would of had the R line run with the F because the R train has to do a whole lot of turning (in that specific tunnel portion) before it comes into Queen's Plz and after leaving Queens Plz as well "heading towards Manhatten". However @ the same time I could see the R going back to it's old pattern by traveling to Astoria because I remember when the N line used to terminate @ 71st "Continental Ave". Speaking of that, "back in the day" the 2 and 3 line's used to terminate @ Flatbush Ave and the 4 and 5 lines terminated @ there respective spot's. So it really wouldn't be any change there with that happening again but I get what your saying though. By the way, love your video's!!!!!
The R can't run via 63rd Street efficiently because it causes conflicts at both 57th-7th and Lex-63.
You should first explain what the definition of “interlining” and “de-interlining” means.
This video was intended for those who already knew about Interlining.
Maybe I suggest That M Train Should Be terminal at 21 Street Queensbridge at All Times Also extending the F train back to 53 Street. And Also Have G Train Be Sent Back 71 Street Forest Hills.
pre-2001 63rd street tunnel patterns will not work anymore.
sorry dude
@@thoseonetrains In the future that should happen but not now
@@56CharlesTadareChannel That would cut off service from that area to the rest of Queens unfortunately
No.
It's pretty bad, but US workers won't take like $800 a month (It's well-paid in China) to improve the subway
@@TheRailLeaguer Average numbers in China
Dude labor is not the problem here