The Junction Worse Than DeKalb (A response to your deinterlining plans, part 2)

In this video, I will talk about a junction that is even worse than DeKalb Junction in terms of its throughput, but never gets the same notoriety.
Sources/Further Reading
pedestrianobse...
pedestrianobse...
www.vanshnooke...
homesignalblog...

[@empirestate8791]

Great video! People don't talk about this junction enough - it's a massive chokepoint that deserves a lot more attention. I personally think that going with a simple de-interlining plan, whereby local trains serve Inwood and express trains serve the Bronx, is the best option. There's not much of an argument to be made to support the inwood express service because it barely saves any time. Simply running more trains will reduce wait times, which reduces the total journey, and I'm sure having less crowding and fewer delays is well worth the loss of the express.

[@jimgeo1000]

Esp. Because the B already runs as an express service in Brooklyn. I agree, it makes no sense and it probably confuses new riders too

[@logik_08]

Part of the reason why the express skip 155th and 163rd are because both stops don't see much ridership, it makes sense for the express to to said stops because of that reason

[@botmes4044]

You're of the right mindset, but you've got it backwards. There's a physical explanation as to why the A must remain Express on CPW, because otherwise it's forced by the track layout to be routed to WTC, lest it use the switches south of Canal St to merge onto the Fulton St bound tracks, and thereby wipe away all capacity gains. Keeping the A Express also takes advantage of the current switches at 145 St to diverge onto the Local tracks and terminate at Washington Heights, while also maintaining Express service for Inwood. A fully deinterlined A train could operate at 30+ tph, with 10-15 serving WH and 15-20 continuing to Inwood. Much better than today's provision.

[@TheTrainTheoristOfficial]

​@@botmes4044Honestly, as Long as the A&C Still Run on the current routes, I don't care what the plan is lmao.

[@Reformperson]

@@botmes4044yeah but it would be best for the Bronx to get the local service as that wouldn’t be served by the D Train, a deinterlined Concourse line would be served by A Trains as the locals can funnel in 17tph or more depending how well 205th Street does as a terminal, which is the capacity on concourse and the rest of that extra trains can go to the B and D for extra service. With this plan the A has to end at WTC, as a route to Norwood 205th St makes the A more useful and it would still be a short route. This requires the C to be rerouted on via Queens Blvd to Jamaica 179th St to replace the K route that was proposed, as the K route would not be needed. The C would also take over service to Lefferts Blvd and the Rockaways as the C would be running 24tph up to Rockaway Blvd. The reason why I have the D ending at 168th St is because of the provision to send the D to Staten Island, as starting Staten Island bound trains at 168th St would be better and shorter then 207th St. Starting it at Forest Hills would be a huge no no, as that would make the route way too long. 168th St is also the furthest Northbound terminal we would give to Staten Island bound Trains. A run to Grasmere to Grand St would be 35 minutes with the D Train. The total run time would be around 85 minutes which is acceptable, because doing this with the R would mean over 2 hours of running time which is bad, and the amount of stops it sits through is bad enough. The last stop for the Staten Island Extension would be Richmond Ave and the station would have tail tracks to lead to a new yard as there’s space on Teleport Drive to store the terminating D Trains.

[@JSLR4K]

The big problem with de-interlining, at least in the short term, is that the MTA currently doesn’t have enough rolling stock for the B division. Having the capacity to run an extra 6-8 tph is only worth it if you have the sufficient rolling stock to add more service. Sure, you can run 4 car long or 5 car long trains like the G, but then you deal with overcrowding during peak, which reduces capacity. And while the new R211s are just starting to be delivered, they are just replacing the R46s, which is not compatible with CBTC.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

That’s why you buy more train cars silly.

[@qwerty112311]

@@TheRailLeaguerright, because the subway ridership is at record levels and the MTA is flush with cash. Errrr…

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@qwerty112311 I’m pretty sure additional new subway cars are always accounted for in the upcoming capital plans. The number of cars the MTA gets is enough to replace train cars to retire plus expand service.

[@CR1Creative]

​@@TheRailLeaguer What is your deinterlined and median term proposals for the entire system

[@Interstella-ni3vh]

Bro thank you so much for using visuals and animations to explain your information, it really helps us understand the subway system ALOT more clearly. Reddit/Discord breakdowns are helpful but hard to understand without visuals

[@qolspony]

Back in the 1990s many times i could get a waiting "E" at Canal Street if i was on a "C" train. I never understood this arraignment, but maybe they were thinking about Queens Blvd riders, i dont know. But you got to know that the "C" would have to wait longer and any train behind it.

[@michaelscott7706]

Sometimes when 8th ave blows up the dispatcher would put the Bs n D on the local and the A n C on the express. Southbound Cs will skip 135 n 50. Or he'll do the reverse. But yes when a A and D are are at 145 at the same time the Concourse n 8th ave get backed up north of 145 especially the Concourse line.

[@terrancelord5185]

Would it be better if B, D, A and C trains are the only trains that interline with each other. No N,Q or E trains.

[@terrancelord5185]

Then the A and C merge before 42nd street. The D and B just run via sea beach and bay ridge 95th street. Then if possible in the future have T trains run local on Fulton and C trains run to lefferts blvd.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

No. The 59th Street Junction forces the entire B Division schedules to be written around it. It we deinterline there while keeping the interline at 145th Street, the schedules should be a bit smoother.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@ianhardy9375 Actually deinterlining works too, ALONGSIDE timing and precision. In fact, deinterlining makes both easier. Remember, in 1959, the Broadway-7th Avenue service patterns were changed to essentially deinterline 96th Street, with all 1 trains remaining on the local track, and all 2 and 3 trains staying on the express tracks. You’re not complaining about that.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@ianhardy9375 Not a valid excuse at all, since the IRT Broadway-7th Avenue situation has shown that it is possible to deinterline the system. 58th Street will still be in use but with a different pattern changes, same with DeKalb (though I personally woutldn’t touch that one unless DeKalb Avenue is rebuilt. We can combine deinterlining with simplification and everybody wins. In fact, we can have a service pattern for 59th Street like: (A): unchanged (B): northern terminal flipped back to 168th Street (C): now 8th Avenue Express to 145th Street, then via Concourse to Norwood-205th Street (D): 8th Avenue Local and Concourse Line to Bedford Park Blvd. This preserves access to both the 8th Avenue and 6th Avenue Lines from all stations, though travel times will be even faster. You really need to have an open mind and not be so closed-minded and arrogant.

[@jointransitassociation]

@@ianhardy9375 Sir, did you even watch the video? Like I addressed this “timing” defense in this video.

[@williamerazo3921]

ACD should be express and B local from 168. C from Concourse to Euclid. Get ride of switching of both 145 and canal crossover

[@lohphat]

1:30 How quaint, you showed perfectly interspersed A/C and D/B trains instead of three of one or another showing up then a 20 minute delay until anything else. 🤣

[@Michael_afton698]

I’m going to be fully honest I agree with this man he’s spitting out some facts

[@apexhunter935]

Are you ok man? I've noticed that in your newer videos (even the non-deinterlining ones), the tone and writing seems to have shifted to a more passive-aggressive stance (sometimes even mildly aggressive). I know we don't know each other and all that, but i'm worried about you and i think you and the others are doing great stuff with this channel. Beyond that, i think this video definitely exemplifies how much of a poor terminal world trade center is and how it could definitely use a rework for potential extensions (or atleast psuedo-reviving the 2nd system plans for a branch off the local tracks on east broadway and potentially extending it into brookln as a possible alternative to the irt utica av line)

[@jointransitassociation]

It is just no one listens what I have to say. And I will say this: never have I been so disappointed in the comments section on YT. And I have seen my fair share of trolls and haters, so this is already a very low bar. So the fact that there is an even lower bar that is the comments here is an accomplishment of itself. So a few while back, I was explicitly clear on my stance on reviving the Third Ave el: it is a waste of time and resources while regional rail on Metro North can be accomplished at a fraction of the price. And the comments there were mostly good, but then, the barrage of reviving the Third Ave el started and I was just sitting there like: did anyone learn anything from my video? Anyway, fast forward to the Bronx branches video, I was again explicitly against sending the SAS to the Bronx because there is currently a small market for it. And this time, the comments section was flooded with people sending the SAS to the Bronx. Clearly no one learned anything from this video. I much rather have comments fighting my stance on sending the SAS to the Bronx, so I at least know someone is hearing me out, but no, these people just straight up ignored what I have to say. Finally, we released a podcast video, and the title was explicitly against sending SAS to the Bronx. And again, it was flooded with people wanting to send it to the Bronx, which infuriated me. The entire point of the podcast, in which I invited Laverick, the guy who wrote SAS via 125th on Van’s blog is because I wanted to let everyone know that hey, sending the SAS to the Bronx isn’t necessary. And yeah, it was the exact same response. Not only was I very disappointed, but Laverick was also disappointed to see the comments talk about nothing about what we discussed in the podcast. And I tried reasoning with some of these people, and yeah, they did not want to hear it. I can’t open a mind that’s closed. I felt I like I always have worded my videos heavily, because you know, it is called passion. But lately, I am wording things in a specific way to wake people up to cold hard reality: they need to throw out many of their plans. As someone who is in politics working as a transit advocate, I assure you that we are not the only interest. The government pours a ton of money into other sectors. There is a reason why in all of the Lines That Never Were series, I never called for the construction of grand 6 track lines like the South 4th St Subway, nor calling for redundant lines to be built, especially when deinterlining works very well. I really wish that some people in the comments actually works in politics so that they know how hard it is. I made this point so many times. NYC is not a Minecraft world where you can delete 50 Minecraft villages. Politics exist. Spend a day trying to advocate a grand subway line with a $20 billion price tag. See what will happen. I know that it is much more exciting to think of new subway lines than little fixes, but unless a real shift in politics happens (like another Mass Transit Act of 1964 or The Public Service Commission), these grand ambitions that I see in the comments won’t happen. At first, I wanted to reply to these people. But I was resting myself over and over, which became tiring, so this is the reason why these videos exist. There are way too many people for me to respond to, but if I make a video, these people will see it, so this is why these videos are made. Anyway, this has gone on longer than I expected. I hope that you understand where I am coming from. And to answer the point about WTC, I honestly don’t see an issue with it. In my plan, the local tracks will see 24 tph, an increase from 13 tph on CPW, meaning an increase of nearly 100 percent. That should be sufficient for probably the next 50 or so years.

[@apexhunter935]

​​​@@jointransitassociationthank you for responding. I wouldn't know (atleast not 100%) what it's like for you amd the rest of the team since i don't work in politics, but atleast now i have a decent idea. Hope you and the team are doing well and I await to see what you all have in store next. As for deinterlining the system I had an extra idea in mind. Remember how i brought the 2nd system plans, well what if instead of utica av, this new route would connect to and potentially take over the franklin av shuttle as well as the brighton beach local. Think about it, if the n and b swapped brooklyn branches, then their'd still be that bottleneck problem at prospect park. We could theoretically solve this by having the q run on the express to brighton beach while one of the 8 av locals handles local service (and if anything, the 8 av local line could probably be cut back to prospect park during late nights with the q swapping to the local track). Of course there would still be the issue of what to do with the n train. I have a few potential ideas: 1: rework the n and r so that they both run up/down the same general route between astoria and west end but with the n providing peak direction express 2: have the n branch off from the q between 7 av and prospect park and run down fort hamilton pkwy (with a potential extension into staten island) 3: eliminate it and have its equipment spread out to boost other lines There's probably other things that could be done and i doubt any of this would happen anyway, but it is nice to brainstorm some unorthodox ideas sometimes.

[@VinceHere98]

@@jointransitassociation That seems pretty understandable. First off though, I think you may have misunderstood the bit about the Third Avenue El. I think when people meant by sending the SAS to the Bronx, they didn't actually mean to rebuild the 3rd Avenue El from the ground up. I think most of them meant a new underground line running via 3rd Avenue. I know that sending the SAS to the Bronx isn't necessary, but I think it'd still be nice to have another B division line running in the Bronx other than just Grand Concourse (the B and D lines). I also think that the South 4th Street line honestly isn't really needed, and that the shell of the unfinished station can be repurposed into something else, probably an underground restaurant or maybe the main concourse of the new in-system transfer between the J and M on the Jamaica Line (with a new station on Union Avenue, replacing both Hewes and Lorimer Streets) and the G on Crosstown. I know that politics can hinder one's greatest ambitions, and that you're advocating for more realistic approaches for fixing the subway system. Me? I'm just a guy with an ambitious imagination on what the subway system should've looked like today. Like for example, I believe that the 2nd Avenue Subway should've begun construction shortly after World War 2, and eventually finishing some point around the late 1940's or early 1950's, and later on, 2 other subway lines running along 5th and 9th Avenues are constructed in the late 50's and early 60's respectively. Again, it's just my spoiled imagination on what the Subway system should've been like today. Perhaps one day I should showcase one of my maps on Brand New Subway to you guys so you can let me know what you guys think. I should be warn you though, it sadly contains some reverse branching.

[@TMC_BC]

@@VinceHere98”It’d be nice” is something to say while playing NIMBYRails or Cities: Skylines, not in real life where money is at stake.

[@TMC_BC]

@@jointransitassociation As someone who also tries to remain grounded and practical with their proposals, I feel this so much. Mine might sound grand, but I’m more focused on getting construction costs down (I’ll mention details on that later) to make construction more efficient and faster (multiple segments/lines can be built at once). I also advocate for complete de-interlining to reduce the necessity for new lines, and add meaningful core capacity to the system. In reality, I don’t think mine are that grand, especially if they are split into segments (which, again, can be constructed at the same time or back-to-back) of varying priority. - As for regional rail, I would love to explain my proposal in detail, given how enthused your team seems to be about it. I’m an advocate for full through-running, even including new rail tunnels through Lower Manhattan and Midtown. - An element of rapid transit system design I picked up from another transit blogger is having every line intersect every other line (not including shuttles) at least once, which influences some of my extension decisions. - I too, am in disagreement with most commenters about reviving the 3rd Avenue El. To me, it seems more like a social justice issue in finally ending a 50 year grudge against the removal of an underperforming and outdated elevated line (the El suffered from mediocre ridership even in its heyday). Call me crazy but I send the 3rd Avenue Subway (my replacement for Phases 3-4 of 2nd Avenue) diagonally west across Harlem and Washington Heights to Fort Lee via the GWB, and eventually to Paterson via NJ-4. As a resident of Bergen County, New Jersey, I feel that even though it is politically difficult to approve and coordinate a subway project between the states, it should be fought for. If we’re going insofar as to advocate for true through-running regional rail, which requires similar kinds of arrangements and agreements, the subway, which should be extended onto the other side of the Hudson, should be given a fair chance (and it almost was, but Christie happened, fuck that fatass). - I propose a grand total of *two* new trunk lines, not even quad-tracked. One north-south (3rd Avenue), one east-west (50th Street). These are high priority, even with de-interlining and regional rail. Most of the extensions I propose are the standard popular railfan extensions for the most part, such as 6 to Co-Op City (mine goes to Eastchester-Dyre to connect with the 3, again, to provide transfers to every line), Astoria-LGA, 7 to College Point/Whitestone, in addition to the New Jersey lines and extensions, which get a very bad reputation in the community. - When it comes to construction costs, NYC is simply choosing to make bad decisions, and seemingly doesn’t learn from them. Tunneling for SAS Phase 1 cost only $285M. The big cost contributors were the unnecessarily large mined station caverns. Even if they were mined, a smaller station box would have cut costs dramatically (the ones constructed were the almost twice the length of the platforms, in Europe, station boxes are typically 20% longer than the platform at most). The station systems, such as escalators, elevators, and lighting, were also not standardized across the extension (for absolutely no reason?) and increased cost dramatically. The tunneling cost is pretty average on a global scale, actually, it’s just everything else that we mess up, and should invest political energy to make better. It’s mainly the doing of private contractors controlling the projects, rather than the city government closely monitoring contractor activity, or even doing construction in-house.

[@black348]

As a person who has used the A and C train a lot on their life. Brooklyn section of these two trains is severely broken with single track setup from Hoyt to WTC which causes mass delays if there is any issue between those stations. Dekalb is terrible since they have the B train crossing over rather than running it express and making the N train go local but as you pointed out leaving Dekalb is also an issue since getting into Atlantic is a headache. 59th needs trains rerouted in a lot of different junctions to save time, but again I beg the question what train servers Brooklyn on the A train side? The K train?

[@qolspony]

Since when did they start making "N" the 4th Avenue local?

[@ECRALSE40LPS]

Yeah I see what you mean DeKalb is also a bad junction which is why make the d and q switched places but if you like the other plan, I can handle your opinion.

[@black348]

You have to reroute so many things in so many different areas. I remember when you had the M train running to Bay Pkwy in Brooklyn. I remember when the D train used to run where the Q currently is. You had the Q circle and Q diamond. C train used to run to Bedford Pk during Rush Hour. You would need to re-route almost every train except the R from Dekalb to make it smooth and with 59th St you may need to revisit the C train going north to Bedford Pk and routing the B train somewhere completely different. I remember when the C train used to terminate at WTC at one point, so he's basically using an old school plan from way back when. Honestly the Brooklyn section of the A/C trains need to be revamped in the event you have a medical emergency or some sort of failure on the line. You have only two transfer stops between Euclid and Hoyt which are Broadway Junction and Franklin Ave to the Shuttle. I've been stuck plenty of days because of this and had to use J or L trains to get into city.

[@scottydude456]

As someone who lives near there, I never understood why that junction was so horrible, I think that the simplest solution is to keep 6th and 8th ave from interlining since there’s already cross platform transfers

[@B345T1N355Official]

I explained this in another comment, but I think the switches for the A to go local on CPW were north of 59th which would mean that C trains would be delayed by A trains moving onto their track and B and D trains have to worry about A trains switching onto their track southbound.

[@FadkinsDiet]

About 20 years ago the MTA proposed having the A run local on Central Park West in order to smooth service at junctions. Even before the public hearings there was a huge outcry, getting cocerage in city wide news. Tradition ("Take the A-Train"), rwcism against the affected, areas and increased transfers causing crowding at 59rh st. were the most common issues brought up. Even though the MTA had good data shoeing how much service would improve, they were conpletely overwhelmed in the public eye. Rather than continue to look like the bad guy the MTA backed down. In order for any of these to be feasible the MTA needs more backbone and a better communications department.

[@jeffrienunez4557]

I was thinking of just making the B & D local and have the A & C run express A would stay as is but it’s southern terminal will just be Far Rockaway B will run from 168 st-Bay Ridge 95 st C will run from BPB/145 St - Lefferts Blvd via CPW/8 Av express D Norwood 205 St-Coney Island via CPW local H will run from WTC-Rockaway Park via 8 Av/QB local and via QueensLink. R will run from Forest Hills-Whitehall St W will run 24/7 from Astoria - West End line

[@Foxybravo59]

personally i would have then A/C run express from 59th -145th because the 8Av lines have more branches because of the A line and the B/D only goes towards brooklyn but not as many stops like the A line

[@zeroone8800]

I wouldn't say it is a ploblem of the junction (A junction problem is where trains that from a services map should not interfere with each other, cause a problem because of the actual track layout. Junction problems should be fixed with a capital project, not de-interlining. An example of this is the Nostrand Junction.), but a problem with the service pattern. Part of this could be solved with "line rebalancing." The few locations of three service interlining need to be broken and then all the interlined track runs at a 50/50 split between the two services. This eliminates least common denominator caused conflicts, but could still suffer from "phasing" conflicts. Phasing conflicts are when the "phase" of two lines differ. (A train on the "A" phase of a ABAB line ties to merge onto a C_C_ line, but has to wait for it's phase (the next "_"). Phasing conflicts are predicable and could happen on every run. They also cause a relatively small reduction in maximum capacity. The only way to solve them is de-interlining.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

Technically deinterlining can also help with “line rebalancing” as it eliminates all conflicts at 59th Street.

[@qjtvaddict]

I ain’t gonna roast this it sounds reasonable.

[@mmanisr22]

As a regular D rider for years, you only experience a ONE MINUTE delay at 59th st when they put a B in front. You are making too much out of this

[@jointransitassociation]

That is because the MTA severely reduces service to accommodate those delays. Like we are talking about half of CPW's capacity is deleted because of this junction.

[@TMC_BC]

They are not making too much out of this, this junction limits core capacity

[@anotherview9604]

It is not De KOlb, it is De Kalb... long 'a,' not an O. Long time user of the De Kalb station.

[@BMTEnjoyer160]

Dekalb junction is not bad when ever I go there

[@jointransitassociation]

As someone who had to use that station and travel to Manhattan, I am in awe whenever the train goes through the junction with no delay, which goes to show how many times the train gets delayed there.

[@qjtvaddict]

@@jointransitassociationwhat train was it?

[@CR1Creative]

​​​🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄 what is even worse than the 59th street junction

[@theexcaliburone5933]

Ive been there once and we sat there for like 5 mins…

[@noahnorman6877]

Trust me, I’ve been on every train that goes through the junction and the train got delayed every single time. The only train that doesn’t slow down is the R, which passes under the junction.

[@BoiBuuK40]

I think the worst one is the eastern pkwy line at Frankin Ave. The 2 & 5 have to merge through the 3 line going to new lots into the manhattan bound to get to franklin.

[@jointransitassociation]

Rogers (the junction you are talking about), is a horrible junction too, but that junction has 40 tph running through during peak times. That is 10 tph higher than 59th and 2 tph higher than DeKalb.

[@theretronavigator]

And the delays at Rogers Junction ain’t crazy either.

[@jointransitassociation]

@@theretronavigator And the capacity reduction to the IRT because of that junction is pretty big.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@theretronavigatorNot true, especially if you’re going southbound towards the Nostrand Avenue Line. If you’re at Franklin Avenue, both the 2 and 5 arrive at the same time, and you board the wrong train, you will pay for it.

[@Bugzygrenade999]

Just run the E to Euclid as a local. That solves for additional capacity in the cannery tubes. Deinterline 59th street and have the A run local from 59th to 207 in inwood. Run the B express up central park west. Have the C as additional rush hour service on 8th Ave with a terminus at World Trade Center.

[@sihollett]

What's with all these uneven frequencies in NYC? If one service is every 4 minutes, then a service it shares track with needs to be every 4 or 8 minutes to fit in the gaps where they share track. If you have an every-4-minutes service and an every-6-minutes service, the junction where they merge will require delaying one train regularly (every 12 minutes), whether it's de-interlined or not. It strikes me that the interlining problems are much more problematic because services don't mesh, and also that deinterlining won't deal with this issue of services sharing tracks not meshing with each other beyond reducing the number of conflicts.

[@jointransitassociation]

Not really. Deinterlining is when you remove reverse branching and removing as many merging conflicts as possible. There will be some merging conflicts, but you can time them better. Timing two trains is much more doable than timing three or four, as in the case of the 59th St Junction. If you time two trains, it doesn't matter the split, 2:1, 1:1, or 3:1, there is a way to time it with no delays. With a better way to time these trains, we can now increase service.

[@sihollett]

@@jointransitassociation My point was that if the services mesh properly, the conflicts at junctions are easier to deal with. And it's that lack of meshing headways at a merge that is the main problem discussed in this video (trains having to wait for a space at the junction due to other trains), not the reverse-branching - which is a different, exacerbating, problem (and one that does need solving): one of overly complex service patterns making timetable planning and reliability difficult. And, as you refuse to take 'just time your trains better' as part of a solution that keeps reverse-branching, I'm not taking it with keeping stuff that doesn't mesh merging frequencies either! There's only three solutions here - remove branching entirely, have trains wait/uneven headways, or run frequencies that mesh. You cannot time even 10tph and even 15tph headways without clashes unless you can get down to 1 minute headways (and the 6-minute train runs 1 minute before or after a 4-minute train) - even the people pushing CTBC as a way of keeping reverse branching aren't pushing for that extreme a signalling solution! 3:2 doesn't go at this frequency as you can't get the grain small enough to stop them clashing. Granted, 3:2 is, at least, pretty sane compared to many NYC subway frequency ratios between services along the same line - it's not the 10:9 ratio that exists between 4 and 5 trains, for instance!

[@jointransitassociation]

@@sihollett As I put in the video, the MTA bases its B Division timetables out of two junctions: 59th and DeKalb, meaning that is the maximum capacity that they run through those junctions. Those gaps are pretty much intentional, so that you don't get that B/D combination at 59th St. If you run more service, you risk holding up the entire B Division, because again, those extra trains would throw the entire schedule out of whack. So that is why I don't buy the "just run your entire trains better" because the MTA tried doing that, even going as far as cleaning out all the timetables and starting it from 59th and DeKalb, and this is the best they can do. If this is the best they can do, I am not impressed. Also, since I have no idea what you are trying to say for the "You cannot time even 10tph and even 15tph headways without clashes unless you can get down to 1 minute headway", so let me repeat this again: you can absolutely time two trains even if they run at different frequencies, provided that they are deinterlined. I will show you. If both the A and B are running at 15 tph and are branching at a certain station, you can time it like this. A: 8:00 B: 8:02 A: 8:04 B: 8:06 and so on until rush hour dies down. If the A is running at 20 tph and the B is running at 10 tph, you can still time it like this. A: 8:00 A: 8:02 B: 8:04 A: 8:06 A: 8:08 B: 8:10 and so on until rush hour dies down. Here, there would be a 2 minute wait in between the first two trains, then followed by a 4 minute wait by the next train, but that is just a 2 minute extra gap. It is not like the sometimes 10+ minute gaps that we see on CPW. The problem is that you are timing three or four trains, which throws everything out of whack. Timing two trains is easy, three is borderline bad, and four is just horrible. On 59th St and DeKalb, you are timing four different trains, and due to how LCM works, there will always be a time where the combination that you don't want will happen.

[@sihollett]

@@jointransitassociationIf the A is running at 15tph (4 minute headways) and the B is running at 10tph (6 minute headways) you are going to get clashes even though you are only timing two trains. Certainly it's easier to time two trains than three or four - reverse branching exacerbates this issue - I've never said otherwise and am definitely not advocating keeping it. However the main problem you talk about here is that of frequencies not meshing, rather than reverse branching itself. Deinterlining is a very good thing, but it doesn't solve the problem of trains having to wait for space at junctions - because that problem is one of non-meshing headways. While 1:2 and 1:3 mesh, the 2:3 you talk about doesn't mesh. If you have one service as 15tph, the other needs to be 15tph, 7.5tph, or 5tph to mesh. 10tph doesn't work with 15tph. The lowest common multiple of 15tph and 10tph is 30tph, but 2 minute gaps don't work with this ratio: A 8:00 B 8:02 A 8:04 B 8:08 A 8:08 - oh dear, a clash! You could break the 30tph into 6 blocks that repeat every 12 minutes, give 2 to the B and 3 to the A, with a gap in the 6th. But then the A is every 2-6 minutes (even though there's 15 trains an hour, its very uneven). A 8:00 B 8:02 A 8:04 A 8:06 B 8:08 gap 8:10 A 8:12 (the first block again) 60 is the lowest common multiple that gives enough space to not let them clash and remain even. Throw the Bs on the odd minutes, and they'd stay there (just after or just before A trains). There's no signalling system that would allow it, other than line-of-sight streetcar-style running (which is very slow)! A 8:00 B 8:01 A 8:04 B 8:07 A 8:08 A 8:12 B 8:13 A 8:16 B 8:19 A 8:20 I'm not necessarily talking about running more trains. Smarter frequencies are not necessarily higher frequencies (though they would allow higher frequencies to be more reliable) - you might cut the frequency of one service to get them to mesh.

[@jointransitassociation]

@@sihollett "While 1:2 and 1:3 mesh, the 2:3 you talk about doesn't mesh. If you have one service as 15tph, the other needs to be 15tph, 7.5tph, or 5tph to mesh. 10tph doesn't work with 15tph." Again, there really is no split one gets 10 and the other gets 15. That adds up to 25, and if you are 25, why stop there? Increase it to 30, which is the maximum capacity. "The lowest common multiple of 15tph and 10tph is 30tph, but 2 minute gaps don't work with this ratio" That is because the total capacity is not 30 tph, or a train every 2 minutes. The total capacity is 25 tph, or a train every 2.4 minutes, which one is not the maximum capacity of a track, as it is usually closer to 30 tph. And two, two minute gaps is not what you use when you have 25 tph, 2.4 minutes are. By using this information, we can create a timetable that doesn't involve any train conflicts. A: 15 tph B: 10 tph A: 8:00 B: 8:02.4 A: 8:04.8 B: 8:07.2 A: 8:09.6 A: 8:12 B: 8:14.4 A: 8:16.8 B: 8:19.2 A: 8:21.6 and repeat until rush hour dies down. There, no conflicts. Wait times for a B would first be 4.8 minutes, followed by a 7.2 minute wait, then followed by a 4.8 minute wait. That is an extra 2.4 minute wait, which again, is not the end of the world, as is much better than CPW.

[@tskinner670]

The (C) or (CC) was a Bronx (Concourse) line service until the (B) and (C) switched Northern terminals in the 1998.

[@bennythepenny5831]

I prefer the (K) as the 8th Avenue route to run onto the IND Concourse Line, not the (C).

[@monica012077]

​@bennythepenny5831 I miss the AA. 168th St to WTC on R40 slants . The slants were also on the B to 168 in the early 90's. They were so fast nothing could outrun them.

[@jaedub85]

I'm very late here, but your numbers on the 59th street capacity are WAY off. Between 8:27 and 9:27 in the morning in the borth ound direction, there are 17 A trains, 9 D trains, 7 C trains and 9 B trains. That's 42 trains going through the junction, and there would clearly be more capacity on the local track. NYCT doesn't set service levels based merely upon maximum capacity at a junction.

[@johnlupo3919]

say ANYWAY NOT: ANYWAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@joshuav875]

7:45 CBTC is awesome as it dramatically improves on time performance. Me: Excuse me? Have you rode the express and local trains on queens Blvd? Sometimes they’re late, as long as ten minutes and Jamaica bound F is usually slow heading into forest hills, 99% of the time. On top of that, every week there’s a delay affecting all the QB Trains every week or so due to activated brakes, signal, or other technical issues.

[@jointransitassociation]

I’m talking about the 7. And I have my own issues with CBTC on the 7, but that is fewer than the fixed block signaling from the 1930s. The solution to QBL is to deinterline, not to stop CBTC.

[@F40PH-2CAT]

We ain't de interlining. Run tge railroad better, don't inconvenience riders.

[@jointransitassociation]

The current setup is already a massive headache to riders, because you are waiting so long for a train when in reality, it could be much shorter. And also, I addressed this fallacy of "just run your trains better", it is in the video.

[@samuelitooooo]

Riders are already inconvenienced by delays and fewer trains able to run because of reverse branching. It's broke and needs fixing.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

That’s not how it works.

[@androidtexts6948]

Yea riding the B from the Bronx to Brooklyn for work was taxing as you had to go through 59th and Dekalb

[@DeeVeeElevenOhFour]

the only way for c trains to go to bedford park blvd is to deinterline 145 st junction...

[@williamhuang8309]

Why are people so obsessed with one seat rides Literally every single other metro system in the world is designed with transfers in mind yet those systems work perfectly fine and with fewer delays

[@thatflyingscotsmanfan1297]

Great video as always!

[@GerardLilVert]

The B train barley comes and the D Train never comes ever! So it’s not a big problem

[@ShemTheKid]

ive taken the 6th Aveune Concourse line for most of my life and i have never experienced that at 59th street during peak & off peak hours i mainly see the b train holding at the local station befor 59th street

[@jointransitassociation]

If you don't feel it, that is because the MTA severely reduces service to accommodate those delays. I literally said that in the video, "That is the 59th St Junction in action, so the MTA reduces service to accommodate and prevent these delays from happening."

[@ShemTheKid]

@@jointransitassociation so if so why label it "the junction worse then dekalb"

[@edbacher2030]

I don't buy it. Back in the 60's, there were 30 TPH between the A and D, and about 20-24 TPH between the BB and CC. Things ran reasonably well. The reason there are these backups has to do with the difficulty of keeping to schedules, due largely in part to excessive dwell times at way stations. Passenger behavior has a great deal to do with this. I used to ride the E/F, boarding at Roosevelt Avenue, when they ran 33 TPH between 7 and 8 AM. Trains would come in, people would squeeze on - or not - and allow the doors to close. They knew there was another train behind. Things ran smoothly. Then careless train operators caused the elimination of "keying-by" red signals, which also allowed trains to run behind each other more efficiently. Finally, passengers will not tolerate losing express service, so you can't streamline 59th Street. That's a political reality. They wanted to run the #2 as the Bronx express to eliminate switching at East 180th Street, and there was pushback. Brooklyn politicians killed the F express service because passengers didn't want to wait twice as long for a Manhattan train at local stations. About 30 years ago the LIRR was going to implement new schedules that better reflected passenger demand, which would have increased Huntington service and reduced Babylon service. Guess what? LI politicians killed it. That's a reality. And I frequently use the 59th Street station, and more often than not, there are not those merging delays. An unfortunate reality is that massive changes in work and leisure habits have reduced the need for maximum rush hour headways on many lines, and increased the need for better midday and weekend service, which has happened. So merge delays at 59th Street rarely result in trains being stacked up because there are fewer trains needed. If every ABCD arrive during rush hours absolutely packed, I would agree that headways are too long. But the TA has lost the ability to run individual trains efficiently - dwell time is too long because they can't get the doors closed fast enough. They just keep reopening them whenever someone sticks blocks them instead of forcing that person to release the door. That's how it used to be. Now they're afraid of getting sued.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

There have been some safety concerns and population growth since then, at least during the 1990s when that Williamsburg Bridge accident happened. What was done in the 60s cannot work now, and even then, deinterlining here can be of big benefit.

[@bxdanny]

But there usually aren't significant delays at 59th St., and there usually are at DeKalb. Conflicts are possible, but not that common. And they were less common back when the B (and its predecessor, the BB) ran only in rush hours.

[@TMC_BC]

59th Street, and all instances of reverse-branching limit capacity too, so it’s physically impossible to run more service through the area.

[@matthewlee9342]

atleast toronto doesnt have those kind of junctions

[@R166452]

I think the real reason is that the IND CPW line is a bottleneck for the IND in general. I think it would be better if they built another subway line along CPW and connecting to the Concourse Line to solve the problem. It's expensive but building new lines as well as connecting underutilized lines is a better idea.

[@jointransitassociation]

That is extremely expensive and not all needed when deinterlining works just fine. CPW and Concourse are two tracked in capacity and CPW is four tracked in capacity, meaning two tracks for Concourse and two tracks for Inwood.

[@KingofGamingAndTrains456]

@@jointransitassociation While I may not agree with everything you think, I still want to try and remain neutral towards some of your ideas. In that case, would it be possible under your CPW plan (8th Avenue service local, 6th Avenue service express) for the A train to be rerouted along the Concourse line to 205th Street (completely absorbing your rush hour C train route to Bedford Pk Blvd), while the D runs to 168th Street instead? Looking at vanshnookenraggen's track map, there are a few switches around 145th Street that would make this possible. The reasons I don't think the B and D would be able to run together to 207th are the platform and track layouts at the 145th Street upper level and at 168th Street, and the bumper blocks at 207th that would limit the number of trains that can be turned around there during rush hour.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

That doesn’t solve much when we have a lot of unused track capacity on the existing 8th Avenue Line (and the merging delays it comes with) to work with.

[@shadowmamba95]

This is why it is best to just have the (A) run to Inwood, while keeping the (B) and (D) at Concourse, with the latter two running CPW Express. The (B) and (D) would be able to fully make use of the junction at 145th Street without any disturbances from the (A). Plus, if Astoria Yard is built, you can have the (A) serve to 95th Street, while the (W) serve further into Queens [(R) be removed entirely, of course].

[@Tokubrother]

As a frequent CPW rider, I can confirm this line is horrible in frequency and we desperately need some changes

[@TheLIRRFrenchie...]

Lol rogers junction is my every so often headache...

[@TheRailLeaguer]

It’s EVERYONES headaches, especially since it’s made worse by the terminal station that is Flatbush Avenue.

[@bennythepenny5831]

I prefer these services for the IND Central Park West Line under the existing system: (A) Far Rockaway-Mott Avenue to Inwood-207th Street 24/7 via Central Park West & Saint Nicholas Avenue express (B) Brighton Beach to Bedford Park Boulevard 24/7 via Central Park West & Concourse local (C) Ozone Park-Lefferts Boulevard to Inwood-207th Street 24/7 via Central Park West & Saint Nicholas Avenue local (D) Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue to Norwood-205th Street 24/7 via Central Park West express & Concourse local (K) Euclid Avenue to Fordham Road 24/7 via Central Park West local & Concourse local (X) Jamaica Center to Washington Heights-168th Street via Central Park West local & Saint Nicholas Avenue local

[@samuelitooooo]

TL'DR Unlike on the IRT, there are no physical constraints here. I don't see the 59th Street Junction as a problem at all specifically in terms of capacity. Because if Queens Blvd were properly deinterlined to maximize its capacity as well, then that would take over the 8th Ave local, and thus everything south of 50 St would be well-utilized. 5:00 You reference Alon Levy in the description who is extremely supportive of systemwide 6-minute service partially because of how much easier it is to write every schedule when every train has the same frequency. Finances, labor, and post-pandemic ridership are also taken into account. If this were the case, then one delay would self-correct this (1:30) cadence. (But this does ignore the advantage of deinterlining that addresses delays caused not by train operations and scheduling but by public disruptions, equipment failures, emergencies, et al. ) The third A train branch is non-existent most of the time; only 10 full-length A trains go this way during rush hours, 0 on weekends. They should just manage the branch line - the Rockaway Park shuttle - better, by timing Broad Channel-bound shuttles with actual locations of moving A trains. Then the remaining two branches (and consequently the shuttle) can run every 12 minutes all day all week, which is a remarkable improvement over sporadic intervals on weekdays and 20-minute service on weekends. (Alon Levy also writes about why clockface scheduling - when trains arrive at the same minutes of every hour, e.g. :03, :18, :33, :48, also known as "takt" scheduling - is more passenger-friendly than inconsistent intervals on infrequent services.)

[@carllivingston169]

Is this why the C train seems to not exist

[@michaelscott7706]

Lol don't let a Southbound C cross from 1 to 3 north of 59 to run around a B then you got gridlock on A3.

[@oskarsrode2167]

And give the Ozone Park branch to the C train.

[@chaoticcyrus2695]

Nice video, my suggestion is to make the C express and the D local from 125-59 sts that way its a smoother transiton

[@Reformperson]

That’s was one of the suggestions but if you want 17tph on CPW Local route the A between Norwood 205th St and WTC and you will have a maxed out Concourse Yard, as a well as a clear separation on the 59th St and 145th St Junctions. The C won’t be needed North of 50th St but will be needed on the QBL to 179th St leaving the E as it is. Also the A to 205th St in the Bronx is a short route from WTC because you will have the C Train taking over the 3 branches that the A once did, while the all E trains end at Euclid. For the B and D The B would run to Inwood 207th St and the D would run to 168th St. The main reason why I have the D ending at 168th St is because of the provision to extend the D past 95th St to Staten Island. So in other words this is how we should deinterline the 59th St Junction A: Norwood 205th St to WTC B: Inwood 207th St to Coney Island (Sea Beach) C: Rerouted on the QBL to Jamaica 179th St. D: 168th St to Bay Ridge 95th St. The other plan I had the A remaining as it is while the C gets sent to Norwood and then extended to Lefferts Blvd so that the A and C run more frequently.

[@CR1Creative]

​​​​​@@Reformperson Here's how many cars we need for deinterlining Concourse (A): 230 R160's (23 trains) Coney Island (B): 210 R160's (21 trains) Jamaica (C), (E), (F): 985 R211's, 130 R160's (111.5 trains) 207th Street (D): 210 R160's (21 trains) Pitkin (E): 520 R211's, 130 R179's (65 trains) Coney Island (G): 210 R160's (21 trains) Coney Island (N, Q, R/W): 625 R68/A's (62.5 trains) East New York (M): 260 R160's, 8(four-car) R211's (30 trains)

[@Reformperson]

@@CR1Creative we are going to need that pattern regardless of that because any line that terminates at Bay Ridge 95th St has to be a shuttle during the late nights. Remember how the R is a shuttle during the late nights in this case it will be the D being a shuttle late nights to 95th St. Also those assignments are essential for for having the G line.

[@CR1Creative]

​​@@Reformperson Here's how many cars we need for deinterlining the A Division 240th Street (1): 420 R142/A's (42 trains) 239th Street (2): 410 R142's (41 trains) E 180th Street (2)/(3): 205 R142's (20.5 trains) Lenox Avenue (3): 205 R142's (20.5 trains) Jerome Yard (4)/(5): 415 R262's (41.5 trains) Livonia Yard (4)/(5)/(S): 480 R262's, five (6-car) R262's (54 trains) Westchester Yard (6): 445 R262's (44.5 trains)

[@CR1Creative]

R211 Car Assignments Deinterlining Concourse Yard (A): 230 R160's (23 trains) [17 in service] Coney Island Yard (B): 210 R160's (21 trains) [15 trains in service] 207th Street Yard (D): 210 R160's (21 trains) [15 trains] Pitkin Yard (C), (E): 520 R211's, 130 R179's (65 trains) [24 trains in service] Jamaica Yard (C), (E), (F): 980 R211's (98 trains) [36 trains in service] Coney Island Yard (G): 210 R160's (21 trains) [15 trains in service] 36th-38th Street Yard (N): 300 R160's (30 trains) [24 trains in service] 36th-38th Street Yard (Q): 70 R160's, 140 R68's (21 trains) [15 trains in service] Astoria Yard (R)/(W): 480 R68[A]'s (48 trains) [20 in service] Fresh Pond Road Yard (M): 268 R160's, 8(four-car) R211's (30.8 trains) [12 trains in service]

[@R323838]

It might suck but it's not as bad as you guys make it out to seem, The B/D trains go over that switch at the maximum 25 mph which isn't bad on a switch that's designed to go at least 35 mph over. Trains merge all the time all over the world and they don't have delays. The issue we have is speed in which before he left, Andy byford was addressing. The whole dekalb situation is it's own issue within itself including the Manhattan bridge. The reason why things suck is because of how slow these trains go over switches that are made with high speed in mind with the exception a good chunk.

[@jointransitassociation]

I don’t know about you, but the current setup deletes capacity by 50 percent. That is very problematic.

[@jointransitassociation]

Also, speed isn’t the problem. The problem is merging conflicts. Even if you have faster switches, the train would still have to be held. Any delay will equal loss in capacity, so you have get rid of the merging conflicts, the one that causes those delays.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

The merge cuts into the capacity the line can offer. The more of them we have the worse it gets. Deinterlining can help with this by smoothing out and isolating train movements, thus opening up room for additional trains to be added to the schedule.

[@czechdeph]

Not 100% accurate. C train behind delayed B train doesn't need to be delayed if the time gap in between C and B allows C to continue rolling while B is being hold. Only in case the C follows B in the shortest time allowed by signals, the B being hold in the station waiting for clear path causes C to stop.

[@jointransitassociation]

If even that is the case, you would need some insane pinpoint precision to time those trains. Like a minute is the difference between okay service and an entire backup at 59th. That is impossible because DeKalb gets delayed 90 percent of the time and the C is a horrible service.

[@czechdeph]

@@jointransitassociation Thanks. I am used to a precise timing here in Prague, where trains schedule is being kept during the whole day. But no interlaying here.

[@robertk4493]

About the timing. The only way out of this dilemma seems to be diming delineations counted in seconds, so that while 6minutes and 4 minutes trains will always end up with a tight time. Specifically in the example, of 15,10,10,and 15 tph, if A and B are only on even minutes, with C and D only on odd minutes, there should always be a minute between trains. The problem with this solution is one, that we don't want an even frequency split, as some lines are more used, and 2, this does not solve the problem presented by this junction that it connects delays on A and B to C and D. Ideally, the lines could ignore each other. After all, it is unreasonable to expect the metro to run with no 1 minute delays, and with tracks able to take 1 minute or less headways. If signaling could handle that, we would want to push it through the main tunnels, as it would allow more than 30 tph on the central line, and so the problem reappears. Specifically, not just the trains themselves move and cause delays, but also their rolling signal blocks, and so even if two trains come 15 seconds to a minute together, they might still be slowed by the requirements that their blocks not intersect the other trains, to allow for stopping distance.

[@ezrapotter4631]

Have a Bway line running on CPW instead of the D, going to hard-to-reach West End Ave via 53rd st. There were provision for a Bway line to run on CPW

[@qolspony]

Back in the 80s and 90s, the "B" and "D" use to get delayed a lot in Brooklyn. So what they use to do is send the "C" to the lower level of West 4th Street. They knew back than that it was better to have an all local service to the Bronx than no service at all. No such service out of 8th Avenue exist today. And from an operational standpoint, it was a genius idea. The "C" was the buffer zone for service to the Bronx, like the "F" on 6th Avenue. The BMT buffer zone is the "W" line. That train is always available and thats why it is so important. The Broadway IRT has the #1. And the Lexington Avenue lines have the #6. But the Grand Concourse has nothing unless they start getting use to using the #4 and that is a totally different train with a totally different demographic.

[@lioneljones6484]

OK after listening to your plan I can see you have no service planning experience or knowledge, I would love to see you get up infront of the public at a service change public hearing in Inwood and tell the riders that they will no longer have express service to midtown, or tell the concourse riders that sorry you don't have a train to take you to the museum any more or any other local stop on cp west, all your plan does is trade a train choke point at 59th street for a passenger transfer choke point at 125th street, and kills the one seat ride for thousands of passengers on both branches

[@jointransitassociation]

What do you mean? I have two options, and the second one is when I catered towards politics. Inwood riders will still get their express by taking the B. And, your one seat ride options are located two blocks apart, so most riders would probably have a one seat ride anyways. If they don't, transfer at 59th St, which is a cross platform transfer, as if people aren't doing it today. If you are going to huff and puff at me, at least understand what I am proposing, and that I actually worked in politics for two years as a transit advocate.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

Technically all deinterlining plans will maintain express service to Inwood and almost everyone will keep their one-seat rides.

[@blanchiep]

Thank God I moved to Montana. The NYC transit system drove me insane cuz of incompetence. I had to get out as the trains continually made me late no matter what time I left for work. It cost me a lot of money.

[@ezrapotter4631]

Run a line on 53 st all the way to West End ave, like the D

[@JamiesonPercad]

STOP COMPLAINING! DEINTERLINING ISN'T GONNA HAPPEN! DEAL WITH IT!

[@jointransitassociation]

Actually, deinterlining has happened before. Search up the IRT 7th Ave line.

[@DeeVeeElevenOhFour]

what about the n?

[@abbyaidanandalexacosta6656]

One time I was on a n train then it got rerouted via the d to 96 street

[@agr804]

Rogers Junction: “am I a joke to you?”

[@jointransitassociation]

Rogers Junction is bad too. But that junction is able to handle 40 tph, 10 tph more than 59th St, and 2 tph more than DeKalb.

[@ezrapotter4631]

4:09 that must’ve been worse when the M was running down there

[@isaacherrera2283]

Hmmm, I probably got an idea, swap A and B trains( A on local, B on express) so that none can cross and delays

[@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831]

he said that in the video

[@juanlozada1455]

I like your plan but the only thing I didn’t like was making A and C terminate at WTC. Here is what I would Change A - Inwood to Far Rockaway or Lefferts Blvd, (unchanged) B -168th St to Brighton Beach, lcl from 168th St to 59th St C - 145th St to Euclid Av, Exp from 145th to Chamber St, Rush Hr Peak Express on Concourse D - Norwood 205th St to Coney Island, lcl from 145th St to 59th St. Or have C and D switch northern terminal C to Norwood 205 St and D to 145th St E - Becomes exclusive lcl on 8th Av 50th St upper level would be renovated so it can have access to the Express track

[@jointransitassociation]

The reason why I made the A run in Manhattan only is because the setup at WTC. Currently, if you want maximum capacity on QBL, reverse branching needs to end, meaning no E and F on the express tracks. This means that the E, or the IND 8th Ave line would have exlucsive express service on QBL, running at 36 tph. But if you end the E at WTC, you restrict capacity to 24 tph, which is worse service than what QBL gets today. But if you route the E over the IND Fulton St line and take advantage of all the branches it has, you can preserve that 36 tph. Even though the A getting 24 tph looks bad, that is still a near 100 percent increase in capacity on CPW's local tracks. That would be sufficient for probably the next 50 years.

[@TheTrainTheoristOfficial]

​@@jointransitassociation honestly hate the E going up to the Rockaways, but it is what it is.

[@r160fan7]

In my opinion, the Myrtle - Bway Junction is even worse.

[@jointransitassociation]

That junction is bad too. But that junction is able to handle 19 tph, which is less than 59th St, but since 59th has double the intended capacity of BMT Jamaica, the 59th St Junction is still worse in terms of throughput. Myrtle-Broadway would instead by comparable to DeKalb in terms of how bad throughput is.

[@lioneljones6484]

It's not problem with the junction it's scheduling, and there's nothing you can about the junction.

[@jointransitassociation]

I literally addressed this "timing" defense in the video.

[@adam_nathan]

You say that perfect timing is impossible but somehow Switzerland manages to have perfect on-time running with massive flat junctions all over the place, it really is an operational issue if you can’t make flat junctions work. Not everyone can run their railways like the Swiss though, and realistically that’s not going to happen in New York

[@jointransitassociation]

I mean Japan has trains running on time and they interlined, but as you said, that is almost impossible in NYC. Anything can happen, which would ripple through the entire system.

[@EndIessProductions]

@@jointransitassociationJapan trains are so intime at all times because the drivers get very pressured

[@VinceHere98]

Okay, so after some consideration, I’ve decided to change up my plans and take the R off of Queens Boulevard. However, I’m not sending it to Astoria, as I don’t want to kill off the W again in the process. Instead I’ll send it to run along Northern Boulevard with the M. But before I talk about the M and R, here’s how I would fix 59th Junction, and it’s pretty simple: The A and C run local while the B and D run express. The B will replace the A to 207th Street, while the A terminates at 168th. The C will run with the D along Grand Concourse, up to Bedford Park Boulevard, where it’ll terminate, while the D remains at Norwood-205th. With that out of the way, now for the M and R. I expect phases 3 and 4 of the Second Avenue Subway to run with 4 tracks, with the T and U running express while the V and Z are reimagined as local services. The M and R will run along 63rd Street while the E and F handle 53rd. The K will be introduced to replace C local trains, but will run along a new branch on 57th Street, connecting to Queens Plaza, where it’ll run local with the G along Queens Boulevard while the E and F run express. The N and W will continue to run via Astoria. The Northern Boulevard line will be a 4-track line, with the M and R running local while the V and Z run express. The V and Z will meet up with the M and R at Roosevelt Island via a new lower level, and 21st Street-Queensbridge is converted into a 4-track station. 36th Street will also have a lower level, so that passengers can transfer from the G and K to the M, R, V and Z. Yes, I know, that sounds like reverse branching, but I really don’t want the F to become a hyper-local route. Plus the M seems pretty out of place on Queens Boulevard, as it uses 8-car trains while the E, F, and R use 10-car trains. Under my Northern Boulevard line proposal, the M and R terminate at Bell Boulevard while the V and Z go one stop further to Cross Island Parkway. A new yard is to be constructed at Crocheron Park, with the R and V sharing 10-car trains while M and Z share 8-cars. The E and K will replace the R and W along the Montague Street branch, while the R and W run along a new branch connecting between City Hall on the Broadway line and Fulton Street on the Nassau Street line, cutting the J back to Chambers Street (both Fulton and Broad will have their platforms extended to accommodate 10-car trains). The E and K will run via 4th Avenue local (the E will run via Sea Beach to Coney Island while the K runs to Bay Ridge-95th Street) while the N and Q run express and via West End (Q terminates at Bay Parkway while the N continues on to Coney Island), and the B and D handle Brighton (B runs local to Brighton Beach and the D runs express to Coney Island). The R and W will run via a brand new tunnel under the East river, connecting to the Fulton Street line, where A and C trains will run express while the R and W run local, to Euclid Avenue. C trains will replace the A to Lefferts Boulevard, and the W can share R179 and R211’s with the A at Pitkin yard, and therefore won’t have to share with the N at Astoria-Ditmars anymore. The Q will run local via north of 2nd Avenue while the T and U continue running express. The Q will run via 125th Street while the T and U run to the Bronx via the 3rd Avenue line (which will be 3 tracks). The T will split off from the U after Mosholu Parkway, to run with the D along Burke Avenue, to Co-Op City-Bay Plaza, while the U continues along Webster Avenue, towards Nereid Avenue, where it’ll terminate. The Z will split off from the V after Houston Street to run with the J via Jamaica, and then split off from the J after Broadway Junction, to terminate at Atlantic Avenue (for a transfer to the L). The T and U will terminate at Hanover Square while the V continues along via another tunnel under the East River to run local with the G along the IND Culver line, to Church Avenue. During rush hours, the V will run with the F along the BMT portion of Culver, to Kings Highway, where it’ll terminate, while the F continues on to Coney Island. To wrap up: A/C: 8th Avenue/Fulton Express, CPW Local (C via Concourse) B/D: 6th Avenue/CPW Express, via Brighton (B via Brighton local, D via Brighton express) E: 8th Avenue/4th Avenue Local, QBL Express, via Sea Beach F: 6th Avenue Local, QBL/Culver Express G: QBL/Culver Local, via Crosstown J/L/Shuttle lines: No changes (tho J is cut back to Chambers) K: 8th Avenue/QBL/4th Avenue Local M: 6th Avenue/Northern Boulevard Local, via Jamaica and Myrtle N/Q: Broadway/4th Avenue Express, via West End (N via Astoria, Q via 2nd Avenue Local and 125th) R/W: Broadway/Fulton Street Local (R via Northern Boulevard Local, W via Astoria) T/U: 2nd Avenue Express, via 3rd Avenue (T via Burke Avenue, U via Webster Avenue) V/Z: 2nd Avenue Local, Northern Boulevard Express (V via Culver Local, Z via Jamaica)

[@TMC_BC]

The problem is that you are still reverse-branching very heavily, and limiting capacity

[@tskinner670]

No express on CPW?

[@VinceHere98]

@@tskinner670 fixed it

[@ezrapotter4631]

Maybe run the R on CPW, there were original plans to put a Broadway line on CPW

[@VinceHere98]

@@TMC_BC What would you prefer? I'd rather not have the F run primarily local on QBL because I don't want it to turn into another hyper-local route, like the C or R, or the late-night A. I'm used to the F running express on QBL with the E and I'd rather keep it that way, even if it means I'm still limiting capacity. I don't mind taking the R off of Queens Boulevard anymore, but I don't want to send it to Astoria and end up killing off the W again, which is why I sent it to run along Northern Boulevard with the M (which I wanted to take off of Queens Boulevard anyway since I thought it stood out from the other QBL lines, mainly due to it running 8-car trains while the E, F, and R used 10-car trains. If you had the G and K replacing the M along QBL local, you won't have to worry about having to store M trains at Jamaica Yard as a layup anymore, therefore the E, F, G, and K can share all the 10-car R160's at Jamaica, both Alstom and Siemens sets (and R211's, should Jamaica get some, which I do sure hope it will).

[@B345T1N355Official]

I think if we de-interline CPW and move the B/D to the express and A/C to the local, there would be complications with the A having to switch to the local tracks which could mess with the headways of all the lines, especially going into Brooklyn. The switches for the A to get to the express are located north of the station so the A would have to stop on the express tracks, which could disrupt the flow of B/D service. This would especially be an issue since the A and B run together while the C and D together as well.

[@Reformperson]

I’ve said this before but keeping the A local to Norwood solves everything on both junctions and won’t disrupt the C and E trains coming from the QBL. Also bear in mind that when you send the B and D Express you have a combined 30tph, and the A by itself funnels 17tph. With the C away from CPW it will join QBL with 24tph leaving the E as is, which means that the C and E combined make 36tph which is the capacity that both QBL and Cranberry need. So in other words here’s how it plays out in tph A: 17tph to Norwood 205th B: 15tph to Inwood 207th C: 24tph on QBL D: 15tph to Washington Heights E: 12tph on QBL With 8th Ave which is extremely overcrowded with 1 million riders daily it needs a lot of capacity meaning that you have a grand total of 53tph with the A C and E trains combined.

[@B345T1N355Official]

@@Reformperson Just a question on your proposal, is the trains per hour supposed to be at peak operation level or is it supposed to fluctuate during time of day? Because I’ve seen people argue a lot on trains per hour, but I think the issue I pointed out with lines constantly switching tracks would delay not just the express services but the local services too. Are you proposing the C/E to serve on the lower level of 50th St with the A switching onto the local tracks after 42nd St? If you propose the C/E both going to QBL and the A/B/D going down CPW with the B/D going express, then I think the D should stay going to Norwood and then have the A/B continue up 8th Ave, with the A going local to 168th and the B going express to 207th. I also have a plan for DeKalb Junction which involves the N/Q running on Brighton, with the N running local to Coney Island and the Q running express to Brighton Beach. The B/D/R will go on 4th Ave with the B/D going express and the R going Local to Bay Ridge. The B would go back on West End while the D would use Sea Beach. I feel like you can run a lot more trains per hour if trains don’t cross each others’ paths.

[@Reformperson]

@@B345T1N355Official well The B will be the line that gets sent down Sea Beach, The Express Tracks can also access QBL also which is what the C and E are going to be. The B of course will end at Inwood 207th St while the D end at 168th St. There will be switches south of 36th St which means that the D will be the line serving Bay Ridge. Note the the B and D combined make 30tph while the C and E make 36tph combined. Regarding the 59th St Junction, the A would have to run to Norwood 205th St as you can run 17tph on the A on both CPW and 8th Ave Local. Meaning the trains won’t interfere with Norwood boing A Trains. Also the A can run up to 21tph with the extra tracks after Bedford Pk Blvd and 205th St, So in regards to train schedules, and that is why when I watched the 59th St Video I rather have the A end at Norwood rather than 168, as I have D Trains ending there. A: Norwood 205th St to WTC (All Times) B: Inwood 207th St to Coney Island (All Times) C: Jamaica 179th St to Lefferts Blvd/Rockaways (All Times) D: 168 St to Bay Ridge 95th St (All Times except Late Nights) E: Jamaica Center to Euclid Ave (All Times) Late Nights D: 36th St to Bay Ridge 95th St Note that the D has to be a shuttle during late nights to increase the amount of late night B Trains. Note the you can turn up to 30tph ending the D at 168th St.

[@danielwaitzman2118]

“Interlining” is a great convenience for passengers. And having to change trains can itself cause delays.

[@jointransitassociation]

You pay for interlining by having horrible service. And your one seat ride options aren’t very impressive. On Central Park West, you have a one seat ride to both 6th Ave and 8th Ave, which are two blocks apart. And in exchange for that horrible choice, you have 50 percent of capacity deleted. Any increase in capacity would decrease delays, not increase it.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

Not really, especially some deinterlining can increase passenger convenience further.

[@NosebergEatzbugsVonShekelstein]

Not really a big deal.

[@TMC_BC165]

Alright after taking advice from the most correct Jason John I have to say that this deinterlining plan is pure garbage

[@jointransitassociation]

Umm, sarcasm?

[@Amiri_Francis]

Plz telling me your joking

[@TMC_BC]

I have an impersonator now

[@TMC_BC165]

@@TMC_BC No your the imposter

[@TMC_BC]

@@TMC_BC165 You know, I’m well known enough online for most people to know who the imposter is

[@roberthuron9160]

One alternative to the above,should be the re-opening of the Nassau loop,from the Williamsburg bridge,and having the lower end,going over,the Brooklyn Bridge,as that would uncork the choke points,North of the other junctions! Having the Brooklyn Bridge back in operation,is the equivalent of another subway tube! But,in today's climate of opportunistic politicians,something simple,wouldn't get a hearing,and it really is obvious! There was a plan,when the Nassau loop was put in,to connect the bridge,but it wasn't done,the grades were too steep! However,now,with high horsepower motors,it should be feasible! Connections on the Brooklyn side,A,L,Mand maybe J?? Considering that the only river crossing,with NO TRANSIT,bus,streetcar,or subway,is the famous BROOKLYN BRIDGE,the question is WHY??? Thank 😇 you!!

[@jointransitassociation]

That is would more money than it is needed. Instead deinterline DeKalb if you want more capacity to South Brooklyn.

[@samuelitooooo]

It's not that simple anymore, politics-wise, now that most of the bridge was given over to cars. You'd be surprised how hardcore people get triggered even by removing one parking space; just look at what's going on with congestion pricing right now. And people are complaining about the separated bike lane on the Brooklyn Bridge right now, which replaced one car lane. Another thing against having trains on the Brooklyn Bridge though is simply the age of the bridge. Would it support a modern, heavy, 8-car train? If I remember correctly only trolleys used to run on the bridge a century ago, whereas the loop led to the Manhattan Bridge before Chrystie St was a thing. Anyway how would any of this address 59th Street?

[@danielwaitzman2118]

@@samuelitoooooThe Brooklyn Bridge was used by lightweight wooden El cars, not all-steel cars.

[@droppingemstv4283]

The A is the longest line in the system so going local isn't an option the b and d must go local on CPW

[@TMC_BC]

If you swap the 8th Ave services so that the A terminates at WTC (with the C), and the E runs express to Brooklyn (express on Fulton, local service on Fulton would be handled by a new K service, an overlay to the de-interlined E), this setup is entirely possible

[@qolspony]

​​​​@@TMC_BCnions would fight this to their graves. There was one time the "E" ran to the Rockaways. It was the first line to the Rockaways. It was Express in Brooklyn. And the C (no relations to the C today) and the CC ran local to Hudson Terminal. Of course the "A" ran local in Brooklyn. Why this was arraigned like this, I don't know. When the "C" was cancelled, the AA/CC and E ran local on 8th Avenue. By the way, the "E" was the longest line in subway history. And the "C" was the longest line in recent history. It also had the largest amount of stops. A very painful assignment for any train crew.

[@jointransitassociation]

Just saying, the E under this plan is slightly shorter than the A is today.

[@droppingemstv4283]

Ok guys were not talking about the passed, if de-interling 59st was to happen now it makes the most sense to have the A and C express with the C and D switching terminals C to 205th and D to 168th and now that 207th is being worked on to accommodate 600ft trains I dont see why not

[@qolspony]

@@droppingemstv4283 The 50th Street station needs service at all times. There is no way for a visitor to know that most of the train traffic is on the lower level. It really isn't so obvious for people not familiar with the system.

[@ezrapotter4631]

Tech transit, have you talked about the Dekalb Jct?

[@Reformperson]

He has

[@josiahdillard7428]

I just think it’s best to keep the junction as it is and I ride the A train often

[@jointransitassociation]

That is very problematic.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

What is wrong with deinterlining that junction while keeping the interline at 145th Street?

[@josiahdillard7428]

I just feel like deinterlining is pointless in this case because if we change the routes of the ABCD trains to save maybe 1-2 because of a switch at 59

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@josiahdillard7428 Actually it would save nearly 10 minutes for riders and a lot of headaches on the scheduling, as literally the scheduling of the B Division currently revolves around the almighty junction at 59th Street. It’s a win-win-win for everyone. Beside, the 8th and 6th Avenue lines are not that far apart so everyone will get to where they need to go with deinterlining. Noting to worry about.

[@jointransitassociation]

@@josiahdillard7428 What do you mean? The capacity increase is immense. Right now, a maximum of 13 tph on the local and 17 tph on the express can run through that junction. By deinterlining, it would be 24 tph on the local and 30 tph on the express. I literally said that in the video.

[@vovinio2012]

Could you, please, say more about routes going from 8th and 6th Ave lines to the 53 St Tunnel? It`s still would be interlining via reverse branching, isn`t it? How it could be maintained at high capacity or fixed and how would this interfere with the Queens Boulevard line deinterlining plans? (in the video about 76 St tunnel you`ve noted that 53 St tunnel would be used by E and K, but how K reach it before?) Thanks!

[@Reformperson]

The K does not need to Exist the C can be rerouted on QBL and run to 179th St. with the C away from CPW the B and D combination would be at 30tph and the A itself would run 24tph, this is because the A itself would run on Concourse to Norwood 205th St maintaining peak direction Express service rather then being a useless local shuttle, the A to Norwood would be a lot better. The B and D would take over the Inwood Branch but the D would terminate at 168th St giving CPW a grand total of 54tph

[@shadowmamba95]

@@ReformpersonHow would rush Hours work. Would the regular (A) trains end at BPB, while end at Norwood via Concourse Peak-direction Express/Reverse-peak-direction Local?

[@Reformperson]

@@shadowmamba95 well some A Trains would end at BPB to maintain peak direction express service on Concourse this means that during the AM rush hour we have Norwood bound A Trains go express after 145 St and in the PM rush hour the A Trains coming from Norwood would go express in the Bronx up to 145th to continue its local service to WTC, and with the A ending at WTC we also allow the C line to replace the current A up to both Lefferts and the Rockaways.

[@ECRALSE40LPS]

The same applies with the rogers junction.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

Yep. It’s terrible too, made worse by the terminal that is Flatbush Avenue. Deinterlining can help bring up the capacity too, though extending the Nostrand Avenue Subway to just Kings Hwy should bring some terminal relief on the Nostrand Avenue Line.

[@ECRALSE40LPS]

​​​@@TheRailLeaguerSame here the 149th street junction would need to be changed because of that awful curve the 5 use. So 5 trains go to Bedford park blvd with the 4, while the 3 takes over the 5 to dyre Avenue. Also a shuttle would be implemented between 135th Street and Harlem-148 street. The 148th street yard would need to be a maintenance facility to prevent damage on subways. And I'm pretty sure you know how to de interline Roger's junction.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@ECRALSE40LPShat could work too, though 148th used top be a maintenance yard, but the shops were taken out. Me personally, I would’ve propose building a new smoother curve to allow for the 5 train to travel directly between 138th Street-Concourse and 3rd Avenue-149th Street without stopping at 149th Street-Grand Concourse. In other words, move that 5 train merge between Grand Concourse and 3rd Avenue. Almost everyone will see faster service and the few riders that need to go to 149th Street-Grand Concourse can use the 2 train.

[@ECRALSE40LPS]

I like your purpose on de interling cpw but sending the c to Bedford park blvd would be reduce because of 145th street junction(which would need to be improve) it may not sit well for concourse riders during rush hour.

[@jointransitassociation]

They already have a local service along CPW during rush hour today, so I am going to give them another local service that will be more frequent. If they an express, transfer at 145th or 125th, as if they aren't already doing that today.

[@Reformperson]

@@jointransitassociationyeah but either way Concourse Riders would have to get used to having 8th Ave service and 24tph on Concourse can be done with the A Train while the D ends at 168th St. Any concourse rider wanting 6th Ave Service can transfer at 145th St It will end reverse Branching that way the A is not a useless local shuttle and as for the C you can just route it to QBL to 179th St keeping the E as it is. Because the K would defeat its purpose.

[@shadowmamba95]

@@ReformpersonThe only thing I wanna know is how rush hours work? Would the run both directions to/from Norwood?

[@Reformperson]

@@shadowmamba95 it’s peak direction in the AM and in PM we have the trains going in the reverse peak. So it’s similar to how the 7 does its peak direction express service. The A route would also be a short one as well.

[@shadowmamba95]

@@ReformpersonWhat about regular (A) trains during rush hours, will it go to Norwood along with the , short-turn at BPB, or both?

[@shadowtoad95]

One thing to ask. With the second plan of having (A) and (C) to WTC, other than the issue of reverse-peak reduction of frequency because of reverse-branching, some do not like the fact that there are two lines ending at WTC because of capacity overload at WTC. At least, that is what I have heard from MysticTransit's Discord server, which has a wildly different plan with their deinterlining. Your take?

[@jointransitassociation]

Currently, the local tracks of CPW run at 13 tph. Even though WTC cuts capacity to 24 tph, it is still a near 100 percent increase in capacity, meaning this is sufficient for the next 50 years or so.

[@shadowtoad95]

@@jointransitassociation Ok. How is the frequency split between the (A) and (C), given Van-Uday's plan?

[@shadowtoad95]

@@jointransitassociation Is the 13TPH at CPW Local with or without interlining at 59th Street?

[@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831]

@@shadowtoad95 he said currently, it runs 13TPH.

[@ahmadfrw1]

You can't fix every problem in the MTA. What I can guarantee you is the (A) is not leaving Inwood. You can pretty much say the (A) will operate the most frequent with trains arriving every 3 to 4 minutes during Peak Hours. The (D) will come in second with trains arriving every 6 minutes. The (B) can beef up service to every 6 minutes so that the Concourse line can get a train every 3 minutes (20 trains per hour) and the (C) will not see headways higher than 7 minutes.

[@jointransitassociation]

Did you even watch the video?

[@TMC_BC]

The B should be running every 4, the D should be running every 4, the A should be running every 4, and the C should be running every 4.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@jointransitassociationNo, and I’m also guessing that he doesn’t ride the subway (or bus) system often for any purpose.

[@ahmadfrw1]

@@TMC_BC In a dream world. You do not hear as many people looking for (C) trains that are looking for (A) or (D) trains. I'll guarantee you, anyone looking for 168th Street, 145th Street, 125th Street, 59th Street, 42nd Street, 34th Street - Penn Station, 14th Street, West 4th Street, Canal Street, Chambers Street, Fulton Center, High Street - Brooklyn Bridge, Jay Street - MetroTech, Hoyt- Schemerhorn, Nostrand Avenue, Utica Avenue, Broadway Junction or Euclid Avenue are MOSTLY going for (A)s over (C)s because they want the EXPRESS. Then it is the demand North of 168th Street and East of Euclid Avenue that matters as this is (A) territory. Your typical (C) customer is generally at a lightly used Brooklyn Station going to a Manhattan Local Station, transferring from an (A) train out of Queens going to a Local Station or an (A) train from Inwood going to a Local Station, or transferring from another line going to a Local Station. Central Park West would receive the highest of demand so it is wise to increase service on the (B) so that you get a Peak Hour train every 3 to 4 minutes. Then look at your Local bus alternatives. In Manhattan, it is basically the M3, M10, M20 and M104. The frequencies for these routes are not up to par, as it should be slightly higher than the (C): the M3 every 5 to 6 minutes at Peak, the M10 every 3 to 4 minutes at Peak, the M20 every 4 to 5 minutes at Peak and the M104 every 2 to 3 minutes at Peak. In Brooklyn, the (C) acts as a LIMITED for the B14 and B25. It once acted as a LIMITED for the B12 when that ran to Cypress Hills. The frequencies for those routes are not up to par as well as they are ranging from 8 to 12 minutes. Also, (C) LOCAL Stations in Brooklyn and Manhattan are not the safest of stations.

[@TMC_BC]

@@ahmadfrw1 If they share tracks, they have to run the same frequency or else you risk uneven gaps, which reduces overall ridership. “Convenience” must always be sacrificed for efficiency, which ends up being more convenient in the long run.

[@larryd2439]

It seems to me there are a few things not taken into consideration with this. Politics/ridership data and travel patterns/fleet size(are there enough cars for this/costs for running the service(crews and car mileage etc).

[@jointransitassociation]

I have taken politics into account here. I picked a plan that allows Inwood and Concourse riders to retain their express service, which is something that they want. The only thing that changes is that Inwood riders now have a 6th Ave express, and if they want their 8th Ave train, they can have a direct cross platform transfer at 59th St. Otherwise, they can walk two blocks. I literally addressed this in the video. The MTA, with all of their faults, knows that they need more trains. This is why they are currently buying more trains. With every service expansion, the MTA buys more trains. For example, the Program for Action came with the R44s, the IND came with the Arnines, the Dual Contracts came with new subway cars for the IRT and BMT. Buying more subway cars and training more personnel is part of the NYC Subway history, look it up.

[@larryd2439]

@@jointransitassociation I’m well versed in how the MTA operates. They are buying cars to replace old rolling stock. The question is, is it built into the contracts for fleet expansion? I can easily find this out.

[@larryd2439]

@@jointransitassociation additionally, there are other factors including where certain car fleets are maintained. Not every barn takes care of every type of equipment.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@larryd2439Yes. The R211 order consists of 1612 car. Discount the 75 cars for the Staten Island Railway, you have 1537 cars for the subway. Replacing the R46 cars requires about 940 cars, so that leaves 597 cars for fleet expansion.

[@jointransitassociation]

@@larryd2439 The Coney Island Yard connects to the B/D, and the A/C will still have access to the 207th St Yard and both yards take care of all types of train cars. I literally took this plan from two transit experts, Vanshnookenraggen and Uday Schultz.

[@missyinacage]

Why not just run the A,B, and D express and the C local? Or the A/C local and B/D express?

[@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831]

running 3 services on the express is not a good idea. The second option was the one he put through.

[@shadowmamba95]

Or maybe, keep the (B) and (D) as it is. Boot the (A) out of CPW to serve QBL/8th Ave Express [you can thank 7th Ave-53rd St for that], then let the (C) take the whole Inwood branch. We can also have a separate service to take the local tracks at the upper level of 145th Street, while the (C) takes up the express tracks to Inwood. I think the (L) can be a good fit, considering that most proposals of the (L) extension take place at Amsterdam Avenue on the West Side, making the connection feasible. I have seen other lines going there like the (T), but that can be an issue because the (T) would have to go under Central Park and 5th-Lexington Avenues, which might be not as feasible.

[@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831]

@@shadowmamba95I think you are missing the whole point of deinterlining, which is to maximize as much capacity on lines without making large extensions. TTA mentioned in his video that if CBTC is more widespread on CPW, 6th and 4th Ave, the C can take over the K train route he previously proposed. And the A train can be the sole local. Also keeping the B and D how they are will not help.

[@shadowmamba95]

@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831Yeah, I know. I went into the dream subway route, my bad. But, I would still have the (C) run local for the whole Inwood branch. The (A) would be with the (E) at QBL/8th Ave Express. The reason why I kept the (B) and (D) as is would be because of how the 145th Street junction works. Of course the (B) would be CPW express, just in case if I forgot to mention it.

[@MrKongDavidNow]

I think the biggest problem with your idea is that it renders the A and C lines completely useless. With your idea, the A and C will basically become local shuttles because a lot of their purpose is to serve Brooklyn and Queens. It also takes away 8th Ave express service which I find very hard since for me wits easier to take the A to W4 and then transfer to the D

[@jointransitassociation]

Okay, to say that the A/C under this plan is completely useless is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of CPW riders who use the local stations of CPW. The A/C will be a 10+ mile long line that serves dense neighborhoods. The 7 is around 10 miles long, and I never hear the 7 being called useless. Just because the A serves one borough doesn't mean it will be useless. Washington Heights and the Upper West Side are extremely dense neighborhoods, and that is reflected in the CPW's ridership. The A will still run through it and pick up those riders, and since those riders are heading into Midtown, the A continuing on into Brooklyn isn't needed. And if they need to, there is a cross platform transfer at 42nd, 14th, W4th, and Canal for E/K heading into Brooklyn. Second of all, when I did I take away 8th Ave express service? CPW express will be served by the B/D, while the lower 8th Ave express will served by the E/K (a new service). And the E/K will take over service to Fulton and would be better suited to, especially when QBL, 8th Ave, and Cranberry are all getting CBTC, meaning an increase in capacity from 20 tph to 36 tph. Finally, the D runs on CPW, and would be express. Unless you are taking the A south of 50th St, to which I say, continue to take the A because the current express run only saves you one station. Or if you are an Inwood rider, take the B. The B makes express stops on CPW too.

[@MrKongDavidNow]

@@jointransitassociation but why would you completely change the service pattern for Brooklyn. Where would the K run? In my option 8th ave express from 125th to W4 is way faster than 6th ave express so much so that I take the A first then the B D. might as well remove the A C entirely and keep the B local since you can just transfer at 7th ave

[@jointransitassociation]

@@MrKongDavidNow The K in Brooklyn is the same service pattern as the C, local on the IND Fulton St line. With 12 tph for the K, that would more than double frequencies for Fulton local riders, the majority of people using that line. Why are we removing the A/C? No. The IND 8th Ave line has four tracks, and by removing the A/C, you effectively cut capacity in half, which is the same effect as the 59th St Junction. So the A/C exists to serve the absolute majority of riders that use CPW, and to make sure that the IND 8th Ave line is run close to its maximum capacity as possible. And I will say it once and I will say it again. Just because a train line doesn't leave one borough does not mean it is useless. Context matters. Search up the density of the Upper West Side and Washington Heights. There is a reason there are two train lines in the area and back then a third train line was proposed to run through there. There are train lines similar in length as the A I proposed here, like the 7, yet no one complains that the 7 is useless or a glorified shuttle because guess what? The 7 serves dense neighborhoods and so does the A under this plan.

[@MrKongDavidNow]

@@jointransitassociation I did mention I live there and I find your plan extremely ineffective. I would like to keep my 8th av express service. As well as that, what will run express in Fulton

[@jointransitassociation]

@@MrKongDavidNow Your logic is since this plan doesn’t serve me directly, it doesn’t work. Oh gee, I wish that there was a direct train for me to go to where I need to go. Like the 7 going to the Lower East Side. But since the 7 doesn’t do that, the 7 is ineffective. I am being sarcastic, but the 7 used to be a reverse branched mess under joint operation and they got rid of that in 1949. I am just using your logic which is a logical fallacy. In a subway system, one seat rides are never the priority, and according to numerous studies, actual frequent and reliable service matters. And again, if you want your Inwood express service take the B. What is so hard to understand? If you want 8th Ave then I don’t know, there is a cross platform transfer at 59th for you. It is not that hard man, especially when you say that you walk down two flights of stairs to transfer to the D. Also, this interlined mess caps how many trains you can run, so enjoy saving one minute taking 8th Ave while waiting for 6 or more minutes for the D. To answer your final point, the E is express and the K is local. I will have an entire video explaining Fulton soon.

[@jonathanlanglois2742]

38 trains per hour is one train every 90 ~ 100 seconds. Even on a fully automated system, that's about as good as it gets in a single direction for double track systems.

[@jointransitassociation]

That is horrible for capacity when the maximum you can run is 38 tph on two pairs of tracks. That is 19 tph per track, and since there are a ton of branches in the Southern Division, this is why you have riders waiting 10 minutes for a train.

[@TMC_BC]

This is over 4 tracks, not two

[@jan-lukas]

When you have completely separated lines you should expect maybe 40 tphpd per line...

[@believer5497]

What planet do you live on, where the D train comes every 4 minutes? Dude... I'm really digging your content, but you are overlooking how the system works. We are all entitled to our opinions, but the TA is in the business of providing services to serve the most people it can under the circumstances. The Delays you speak of aren't the trains..it's the WD signals..and crazy timers installed along the downtown local and Express tunnels. TIMERS. The D line is the absolute worst, when it comes to headways.. The C isn't great, but it's much better than it used to be. The B is better than most lines running there,while the A could be much better with a few service improvements. The common misconception all deinterlining folks make is exactly what you stated. The MTA has been doing this since 1968,the Transit Authority since 1953,and the Board of Transportation since day one. The experience of operating the system speaks for itself. While You may consider Your options the Best..the TA knows through experience and expertise How to optimize its system. The MTA did away with rush hour only routes to consolidate operations. The MTA switched the B and D to give riders better service in different areas,and make sense of traffic patterns. The MTA made the C line a 7 day 19 hour service because service levels warranted such a need. The bottom line is what can they do, to provide service to the corridor, and match That to the budgets they were given for such services. Do you understand? Matching services, and operating expenses. The A is the 8th Avenue Express for a reason. The D is the 6th Avenue Express for a reason. No matter what you figure out in your calculations, as a railfan,it still won't add up to a hill of beans when measured against the MTA BUDGET RULE. COST EFFECTIVENESS, MEETING SERVICE EXPECTATIONS, ENOUGH CREWS FOR SERVICE REQUIREMENTS.

[@jointransitassociation]

When did I say that the D comes every 4 minutes? It was a hypothetical. If you have resort to strawmanning what I have to say to make a point, then don’t make that point. Again, roast me for what I said, word for word. And second, this defense that the MTA is some all knowing wise company and they know what they are doing really needs to stop. The MTA has botched the Rockaway Beach branch study, refused to release the Utica Ave study, has costs that spiral out of control every year, has endless delays, has some horrible people on the board (search up David Mack), and has been used a political pawn between the governor and the mayor. You have to remember that all the smart people left along with Byford. The MTA also has one job, running trains, yet they aren’t interested. They don’t want to do anything. They are forced to do things because they take orders from the governor, and advocacy from transit activists makes its way to the governor. Sure, the current governor is better than the last, as she is actually looking into stalled projects under her predecessor, but NY was so close into electing a governor that believes in austerity assures and plans to starve the NYC Subway of new revenue sources like congestion pricing. We can here all day talking everything the MTA has done wrong, but this doesn’t show that the MTA is a well polished institution, but rather a organization that is held together by duct tape and string. And before you accuse me of this “I know everything” syndrome, I don’t know everything and no one does. But why can’t I question the MTA’s work? Clearly its interlining policies has deleted a ton of valuable capacity. This is a democracy, where we can question what goes on in government not some totalitarian state where obedience through tradition happens. Finally, I illustrated those train switching to show one point. At some point, the MTA has switched routes to make the system run better. So why can’t they do it again? Clearly, interlining has failed because one, it deletes a ton of valuable capacity, and two, it doesn’t even provide the majority of people with one seat rides. (Watch the Reverse branching video to find out why) So they should try to deinterline. Just saying, Byford was very close in swapping the F and M on QBL, which is a partial deinterline, but then he resigned because of you guessed it, politics. Again to remind you, the many of what the MTA is doing is a result of advocacy, like adding elevators or building SAS.

[@jointransitassociation]

Also, isn’t it more cost effective to make each pair of tracks use close to their maximum capacity? Just saying.

[@pbatommy]

Simple solution--eliminate the B and beef up service on the C and D.

[@TMC_BC]

This is a terrible idea, you’re limiting core capacity even more than the current setup does

[@nashorn9745]

Switch E and B south terminus B via 8 av. E via 6 av.

[@jointransitassociation]

That still doesn't solve the reverse branching on 59th.

[@nashorn9745]

@@jointransitassociation forgot D via 8 av. to 4 st.

[@yuuycockdemnations69420]

The 59th Street Junction issue can easily be solved by having 8th Avenue service express & 6th Avenue service local. People won't have one-seat rides anymore but they can very easily just transfer across the platform.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

Or in almost all other cases, one can walk two blocks. It’s not the specific trunk line that matters, but rather the specific area the origin and/or destination is at.

[@JamiesonPercad]

Completely idiotic post here from someone who doesn't take the D train.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@JamiesonPercadThat’s not true given that deinterlining the routes would actually be better for D trains rider, provided we keep the interlining at 145th Street. Not to mention that the 8th and 6th Avenue Lines are within walking distance of each other, so in this case, you could for example take the C train from a Concourse Line station (say Tremont Avenue) and ride it to a station like 34th Street-Penn Station and walk to your destination.

[@JamiesonPercad]

@@TheRailLeaguer Completely eliminating CPW express service on the 6th Avenue trains is NOT a good idea at all.

[@TheRailLeaguer]

@@JamiesonPercad Not really since the 8th Avenue Line is not that far away, though there is a variant of the deinterlining that makes the A and C trains local and the B and D express, with the Queens Blvd services going express to Brooklyn south of 42nd Street. Besides, deinterlining can actually make your trip faster, no matter where you’re going.

[@botmes4044]

Here's an even simpler solution that completely abolishes all interlining: eliminate the B and C, run A Express and D Local on CPW. The A would Terminate at Washington Heights, with all-day branching at 145 and serving Inwood; A takes over for C on Fulton St, and has all-day to its eastern branches. D swaps with Q on Brighton Beach, and also has all-day south of Prospect Park. A and D can then operate at 30+ tph just like the 6 and 7, and no longer interact with any other lines. 59 St, 145 St, and Dekalb Junctions become a complete non-issue, used only for reroutes and non-revenue train movements. Passengers traveling on CPW can use the *cross-platform* transfers available at 125 and 59 St to get to either 6 or 8 Ave.

[@jointransitassociation]

There is a reason why I have two options and the second option has politics factored in.

[@botmes4044]

@@jointransitassociation politics schmolitics. Transit is a mechanical system, not a work of art. It has an optimal state that it can work towards. If you demonstrate that optimal state, perhaps as part of a pilot program, then people will shed their sticky priors and embrace the new mode. Never cower before naysayers. They only fear what they do not understand.

[@TheTrainTheoristOfficial]

Yeaaaah, no. The B and C are Filler Lines for a reason, yes you can give More trains to the A and D, but that further pisses off people because now instead of 8th and 6th Avenue getting equal representation in the bronx, now you only have D Trains going local on CPW and exclusively express on 6th Ave, since remember the B and D go express on 6th ave, yeah you get more trains, but at the cost of choice. It especially gets weird once you consider Brighton. West End can easily be taken over by the R and W, and would Give the R a Yard, and as bizzare as it is, from what I heard, the W will get extended into Red Hook, if the MTA 20 year study is anything to go by. But Brighton really likes Local and Express, hence why the B exists. The C is just a reskined K Train, that is kinda useless, unless you put it on the express track with the A. But the C does have its uses in Brooklyn, being the local to serve the A Train. The K could take over that, But I highly Doubt E Train operators would support having to deal with 3 terminals 💀. That's really why I don't like the A and C terminating at WTC, yeah It increases capacity for the E, but that's immediately negated by the fact Jamaica Yard ain't equipped to deal with 3 terminals, especially since they already have the F which is the second longest line in NYC. Anyways, I was rambling on about something, oh yeah, The B and C are mainly redundancy lines which, in a system like NYC is good because you never know what could happen, one day a service could work perfectly fine, the next day it could be shut down because some homeless guy decided to ignite some fireworks on the tracks. As ridiculous as it sounds, we should be designing our system to be efficient and flexible at the same time when it does eventually occur. And eliminating the B and C further decreases flexibility, hence making a more inefficient system.

[@botmes4044]

@@TheTrainTheoristOfficial I don't know if I made it clear enough. As I recommend it: the C would be replaced by the A both north of 145 St and on Fulton St East of Hoyt. The Express sections of those lines would receive all day, bidirectional service (this would also apply to the D and on Brighton Beach). This is functionally identical to keeping the A and C, but moving the C to CPW and 8 Ave Express. I simply consolidate the nomenclature to emphasize that the A operates as a single isolated service through the core, with only simple branches at the extremities. Running Inwood and WH trains via CPW Express is ideal for a number of reasons: 1) switching 8 Ave trains to Norwood would make the A longer than it already is. Inwood and WH provide a shorter end to end journey as well as a short stop with proper terminal tracks, whereas Grand Concourse has nowhere to reverse trains during rush hour, except at the yard leads. 2) 8 Ave is a stronger ridership generator than 6 Ave, and it also serves Lower Manhattan. Grand Concourse riders already have to transfer to the A/C at 59 St, so simplifying the routes helps increase capacity for this existing process, and simply moves the transfer point north to 125 or 145. 3) running the A Local on CPW would force it to terminate at WTC, given the track alignments. This is not ideal, as it would then force the E to run Express on 8 Ave, only to enter Manhattan from Queens and then loop back out to Far Rockaway, thereby making it longer than the current A. ................. The choice you advocate for is an illusion. The typical rider simply takes the first train that comes, then transfers strategically when they have to. Simplifying the services and running them more frequently reduces barriers to this already existing behavior. For example: a local rider on Brighton Beach has only the Q available to them. Getting to 6 Ave still requires transferring at Herald Sq or Atlantic, even though the B currently serves the same corridor. However, running all BB trains to 6 Ave by default eliminates this false choice, while still providing all the same transfer opportunities for accessing Broadway. Another example: a local rider at the Museum of Natural History isn't going to wait 10 minutes for the C train to get to Lower Manhattan. Instead they'll take the B if it comes first, then transfer to the A at 59 St since it arrives twice as frequently as the C. If the routes were simplified, then this rider would take the D to the A just as they would today, except both services arrive every 2 minutes and have more reliable cross platform transfers. ............ Redundancy may be fine during major service disruptions, but that has nothing do with the normal service routing, but rather with the layout of the tracks. Simplifying the routes changes nothing about how dispatchers handle major disruptions, except there'll be fewer routes affected, given that they're deinterlined. What it *does* do is save precious minutes during normal operation, eliminate cascading delays, and stabilize the timetable so that trains run at higher frequencies with greater reliability. There is no trade-off that can preclude faster, more frequent trains.

[@botmes4044]

I find it curious that so few deinterlining proposals entertain the idea of swapping the 6 and 8 Ave services at W 4 St. Doing so while utilizing the routes in this video, we could have the following services: *(A) 8 Ave Lcl, Culver Exp* Norwood to Coney Island Concourse Exp btwn Bedford Park Blvd and 145 St. Rush Hour Culver Exp btwn Church Ave and Kings Hwy. Rush Hour *(D) 6 Ave Exp, Sea Beach Lcl* Inwood, 168 St-Wash Hts to Bay Ridge, Coney Island Wash Hts Exp btwn 168 St and 145 St. Day 4 Ave Exp btwn 36 St and 59 St (Sea Beach Only). Day *(E) 8 Ave, Queens Blvd Exp, Fulton St Lcl* Parsons Blvd, Jamaica-179 St to Lefferts Blvd, Far Rockaway Fulton Exp btwn Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Euclid Ave. Day Hillside Exp btwn Union Tpke and Jamaica-179 St. Day *(F) 6 Ave, Queens Blvd Lcl* Jamaica-179 St to WTC Frankly though, there are operational considerations for why Fulton St ought to be routed via 8 Ave/CPW Exp: it's the shortest route available for trains coming from Far Rockaway, there's a high-capacity short turn available at 168 St, and it provides the fastest and most direct route from 145 St to Lower Manhattan. I would instead route the services thus: *(A) 8 Ave Exp, Fulton St Lcl* Inwood, 168 St-Wash Hts to Euclid Ave, Lefferts Blvd, Far Rockaway Fulton Exp btwn Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Euclid Ave. Day Wash Hts Exp btwn 168 St and 145 St. Day *(D) 6 Ave Exp, Sea Beach Lcl* Norwood to Bay Ridge, Coney Island Concourse Exp btwn Bedford Park Blvd and 145 St. Rush Hour 4 Ave Exp btwn 36 St and 59 St (Sea Beach Only). Day *(E) 8 Ave, Queens Blvd, Culver Exp* Parsons Blvd, Jamaica-179 St to Coney Island Hillside Exp btwn Union Tpke and Jamaica-179 St. Day Culver Exp btwn Church Ave and Kings Hwy. Rush Hour *(F) 6 Ave, Queens Blvd Lcl* Jamaica-179 St to WTC

[@Reformperson]

I don’t like the F ending at WTC, but for Jamaica 179th St we can have more trains with the C Train ending there. The F would then be cut back to Forest hills 71st Ave The A to Norwood is something I strongly agree with as that solves reverse branching. The A would be the line that ends at WTC, as if would be a shorter route to Norwood 205th St If people want service to Norwood there’s is a cross island transfer at the express stations on CPW for the A Train making those stops, as the A would have better frequency on concourse than the D. The B would be the line running via Sea Beach while the D ends at Bay Ridge 95th for provisions for an extension to Staten Island, this is because the D would have a shorter route than the B.

[@botmes4044]

@@Reformperson terminating the F at WTC allows the E to be routed via Culver. 53 St and 8 Av have stronger ridership than 63 St and 6 Av, so the former should be the default for QB Exp service. But we can't terminate an Express service at bumper blocks, or else its capacity will be limited. So instead, we route QB Lcl to WTC and QB Exp to Culver, the latter where there are sufficient short stops for turning around 30 TPH. It is absolutely essential that the A remain on its current alignment. The Express trip from 42 St-PABT to Jamaica Center-Parsons Blvd is *15* minutes longer than 42 St to Inwood. We'd be asking train operators to spend at least an extra 30 minutes on their train per day whenever they make the run to/from Far Rockaway. That could easily turn into a labor conflict. I agree that cross-platform transfers are essential for deinterlining to work, and that they can be exceptionally quick and convenient when each service has the maximum frequency possible.

[@Reformperson]

@@botmes4044 the A won’t be going to Inwood as it would go to Norwood instead as you will get 24tph on Concourse. The B and D would run on the Inwood Branch with the D ending at 168th St, while the B goes to Inwood. So here’s the plan A: Norwood 205th St to WTC B: Inwood 207th St to Coney Island C: Jamaica 179th St to Lefferts Blvd and The Rockaways D: 168th St to Bay Ridge 95th St E: Jamaica Center to Euclid Ave F: Forest Hills 71st Avenue to Coney Island G: Court Sq to Church Ave M: Unchanged N: 96th St to Coney Island Q: 96th St to Ocean Pkwy R: Astoria Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island W and Z would be eliminated. The F would be going express after Church Ave so that it would not interfere with the G and the G would have more trains with full length trains and would handle local service on its own.

[@botmes4044]

@@Reformperson I think we should acknowledge here that both our proposals achieve the same goal: isolating, segregating, and consolidating the services into "closed systems" so as to maximize capacity across the network. It just so happens that the Subway is imbued with a series of flying junctions that allow alternate routes for deinterlined services. Pluck that string, and the whole Rube Goldberg Machine falls into place. Given that the infrastructure is fixed but ridership is fluid, then I believe the best metric for comparing alternate route schemes is *operations.* Which routes are paired with which yards? What's the longest journey a train could make? How stable is the timetable? Which terminals restrict capacity on which lines? With this in mind, we must make our judgement from a common starting point: Far Rockaway trains *must* be routed to the earliest possible terminal on the fastest stretch of track, which due to the track geometry happens to be Inwood via CPW Express. This displaces the D onto CPW Local and the E onto 8 Av Local and QBE, which displaces the F onto QBL, which displaces the E again onto Culver (for the extra capacity), which then displaces the F into WTC. It all just falls into place. Finally, I also agree that the G should be isolated on Culver Local. This would give the MTA a really good excuse to rehabilitate the lower level of Bergen St.