3 to Flatbush

3 to Flatbush (1641977)	Home · Maps · About

Home > SubChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2]

Page 1 of 2

Next Page >

(1641977)	view threaded
3 to Flatbush
Posted by AlM on Fri Jun 20 19:26:41 2025 Maybe I just missed this on Subchat, but suddenly I'm seeing random articles saying that the MTA is going to send both the 2 and 3 to Flatbush to eliminate crossovers at Rogers Junction. It sounds like it requires switches east of Nostrand so that an eastbound express can switch onto the local tracks. Much cheaper than flying junction but still requires work. And now the 3 doesn't have a yard at either end of its run. It also sounds like there isn't any really precise time frame for this.
Post a New Response

(1641979)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Q4 on Fri Jun 20 21:20:13 2025, in response to 3 to Flatbush, posted by AlM on Fri Jun 20 19:26:41 2025. The 3 would still have access to the Lenox Yard in Harlem which is adjacent to its Terminal at 148th St.
Post a New Response

(1641981)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Bill from Maspeth* on Fri Jun 20 22:10:15 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Q4 on Fri Jun 20 21:20:13 2025.* There is no maintenance facility at 148th St. It is simply a layup yard.
Post a New Response

(Sponsored)

iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It

(1641982)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Jackson Park B Train* on Fri Jun 20 22:14:57 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Jun 20 22:10:15 2025.* If memory serves, the 3 ran 148--Flatbush in the late 60s.
Post a New Response

(1641985)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by W.B.* on Sat Jun 21 02:36:34 2025, in response to 3 to Flatbush, posted by AlM on Fri Jun 20 19:26:41 2025.* Then which line, I ask, will go to New Lots Avenue?
Post a New Response

(1641986)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by LuchAAA* on Sat Jun 21 03:23:24 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by W.B. on Sat Jun 21 02:36:34 2025.* Maybe the 4 full-time? Also talk of an 8 train being created.
Post a New Response

(1641987)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by AlM* on Sat Jun 21 05:42:15 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by W.B. on Sat Jun 21 02:36:34 2025.* When the 5 goes to Brooklyn at all, the 5. Other times, the 4. Peak hours also an 8 train from 7th Ave to New Lots, because Flatbush can't turn all the rush hour 7th Ave trains.
Post a New Response

(1641989)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by New Flyer #857* on Sat Jun 21 07:04:10 2025, in response to 3 to Flatbush, posted by AlM on Fri Jun 20 19:26:41 2025.* So far I've only heard of this, usually alongside the F/M (53rd/63rd) swap, in the context of railfans on YouTube suggesting it could happen. It wouldn't surprise me if the articles you are reading are just being taken off that -- do they cite sources? I get the impression the railfans are perpetuating it to put or keep the idea in MTA's mind, not so much that it originated from MTA. That all being said, I think deinterlining at Rogers is a good idea if it's just a matter of a couple of new switches (instead of a new flying junction). I'm neutral on the F/M swap. I think in both cases the subway map will be a bit more complicated in differentiating between weekdays and weekends, since I presume Utica will require two lines on the weekends and the 3 will have to go back to its normal route then.
Post a New Response

(1641990)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by New Flyer #857* on Sat Jun 21 07:19:42 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jun 21 07:04:10 2025.* Never mind, I see some official mta links on some of the articles.
Post a New Response

(1642000)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Kevin from Midwood* on Sat Jun 21 16:06:25 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 21 05:42:15 2025.* Why are they willing to add a new route number now when they've been OK with the A to Lefferts/Far Rock/Rock Park, the E to 179, the Q via Sea Beach, and the 5 to Nereid?
Post a New Response

(1642001)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by LuchAAA* on Sat Jun 21 16:51:52 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Jun 20 22:14:57 2025.* Later than that. I was just geeking out looking at my 1981 NYC Subway map and the 3 is going to Flatbush, 2 to New Lors, 4 to Atlantic Avenue midday. I think the terminal swap takes place around 1985 or 1987.
Post a New Response

(1642003)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by X-Astorian* on Sat Jun 21 17:31:29 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jun 21 16:51:52 2025.* Later than that. I was just geeking out looking at my 1981 NYC Subway map and the 3 is going to Flatbush, 2 to New Lors, 4 to Atlantic Avenue midday. I think the terminal swap takes place around 1985 or 1987. The 2 and the 3 swapped Brooklyn terminals on July 10, 1983.
Post a New Response

(1642008)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Italianstallion* on Sat Jun 21 19:48:20 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jun 21 07:19:42 2025.* And what do those links say?
Post a New Response

(1642009)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by LuchAAA* on Sat Jun 21 20:23:59 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by X-Astorian on Sat Jun 21 17:31:29 2025.* Thanks. I wonder when the 4 started going to Utica all day instead of Atlantic Ave? Has to be not long after 1983.
Post a New Response

(1642015)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Railman718* on Sun Jun 22 07:48:29 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Italianstallion on Sat Jun 21 19:48:20 2025.* I’m on my cell but here’s the official document it’s happening. https://www.mta.info/document/176416
Post a New Response

(1642018)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by New Flyer #857* on Sun Jun 22 09:12:18 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Railman718 on Sun Jun 22 07:48:29 2025.* That's a fairly new document and wow, it looks like the F/M swap is the real deal.
Post a New Response

(1642019)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by AlM* on Sun Jun 22 09:13:21 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Railman718 on Sun Jun 22 07:48:29 2025.* I see the F/M swap but not the 3/5 swap.
Post a New Response

(1642020)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by New Flyer #857* on Sun Jun 22 09:27:16 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 22 09:13:21 2025.* I think the map that's out there including the 8 train was MTA-issued but just as a sample concept. Honestly if Flatbush can't, and won't, handle more trains overall anyway (which is why an 8 train is even a thought) then I wonder if any adjustment is worth the hassle.
Post a New Response

(1642022)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Railman718* on Sun Jun 22 10:21:29 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 22 09:13:21 2025.* IRT issues lol… IND BMT issues get my attention.. Yet I didn’t notice anything there regarding that though.
Post a New Response

(1642024)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Pelham Exp* on Sun Jun 22 11:17:51 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Railman718 on Sun Jun 22 07:48:29 2025.* Thanks for sharing!!
Post a New Response

(1642027)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Railman718* on Sun Jun 22 12:42:07 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Pelham Exp on Sun Jun 22 11:17:51 2025.* You are welcome!
Post a New Response

(1642045)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by LuchAAA* on Mon Jun 23 23:01:53 2025, in response to 3 to Flatbush, posted by AlM on Fri Jun 20 19:26:41 2025.* The real problems with the IRT are the terminals. Severe congestion during rush-hour. And overcrowding due to smaller cars and heavy ridership. Lexington Ave is pretty bad.
Post a New Response

(1642048)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Railman718* on Tue Jun 24 05:44:47 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jun 23 23:01:53 2025.* Lexington Ave is pretty bad. The Korridor Got it beat by a mile now... CBTC and heat just dont seem to work well, yet that's just in the Summer. That's why im glad i was able to pick outta there and go uptown... I do beleive this F and M swap will be effective, yet the real fun will be at night with those Romeo Dropouts at Queens Plaza.
Post a New Response

(1642051)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Spider-Pig* on Tue Jun 24 10:06:22 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by W.B. on Sat Jun 21 02:36:34 2025.* The plan is to create an “8” train which will run with the 2 to Franklin, then to New Lots. The 5 will be extended with the 8 to New Lots.
Post a New Response

(1642052)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Q4 on Tue Jun 24 10:36:28 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Jun 20 22:10:15 2025. Your comment was the 3 wouldn’t have a “yard” at either end. I pointed out it still would have the Lennox Yard. Your original post did not refer to a “maintenance facility”.
Post a New Response

(1642055)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Olog-hai* on Tue Jun 24 17:35:55 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jun 23 23:01:53 2025.* Well, if they hadn't demolished the Third Avenue line, then maybe they wouldn't be so overcrowded.
Post a New Response

(1642056)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by LuchAAA* on Tue Jun 24 17:54:00 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Railman718 on Tue Jun 24 05:44:47 2025.* One problem along Queens corridor is all the high rise condos at local stops adding to ridership. And more about to open. Catholic church in Rego Park sold the land and built 20 story high rise. Diner on 63rd now a 15 story condo.
Post a New Response

(1642060)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Railman718* on Tue Jun 24 19:13:49 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jun 24 17:54:00 2025.* Yep everything’s changing..
Post a New Response

(1642061)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Bill from Maspeth* on Tue Jun 24 20:46:35 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jun 24 17:54:00 2025.* And more and and more demands for electricity
Post a New Response

(1642062)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Jackson Park B Train* on Tue Jun 24 21:42:43 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Jun 24 20:46:35 2025.* Any new building should have PV and DHW solar systems unless totally shadowed. IINM most current subway cars have regen braking putting some power back into the system. There are many other systems which can significantly reduce net usage without reducing convenience. As to allowing more housing adjacent transit stations, this is what we need--easy travel from home... the TA needs to run denser service.
Post a New Response

(1642063)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by BILLBKLYN* on Tue Jun 24 22:47:43 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jun 24 17:54:00 2025.* You gotta see Sunset Park!! Same shit!! Look at the Astoria elevated! It's like the Emerald City on that line!
Post a New Response

(1642066)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Olog-hai* on Wed Jun 25 01:17:21 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jun 24 21:42:43 2025.* Any new building should have PV and DHW solar systems Why, so they can break down in five years? Never mind the money-losing mess that is recycling stuff like that.
Post a New Response

(1642067)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Kevin from Midwood* on Wed Jun 25 02:39:11 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jun 24 17:54:00 2025.* Better the city should be a rural backwater.
Post a New Response

(1642068)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Jackson Park B Train* on Wed Jun 25 03:23:57 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jun 25 01:17:21 2025.* The DHW panels on my roof are a mix. One (bought as a "floor demo") has served well over 27 years. Its twin only lasted 10+/-, and 3 others, bought used over 15 years. so at prsent 1 nearing 28 years, and 2 bought new are seven years in service with expectation of 15+ in future. Scalding hot water all but maybe 20 days of too much fog in a year. As to recycling the water panels are a copperpipe/sheet assemblage housed in an aluminum bos w/ fiberglass insulation and a glass top. All but the fiberglas is easy to turn into money.
Post a New Response

(1642069)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Jackson Park B Train* on Wed Jun 25 03:26:29 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Kevin from Midwood on Wed Jun 25 02:39:11 2025.* We have more rural backwater(s) than we need. We are short several million housing units nationwide. Transit requires density to provide riders.
Post a New Response

(1642070)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Railman718* on Wed Jun 25 05:28:26 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Jun 24 20:46:35 2025.* Don’t worry Bill I’m sure whichever person is that city’s next mayor will make transit his top priority!
Post a New Response

(1642074)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Olog-hai* on Wed Jun 25 15:42:36 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Jun 25 03:26:29 2025.* We are short several million housing units nationwide No we aren't. Thanks to your liberal politicians, millions of "housing units" are overpriced.
Post a New Response

(1642083)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Lord Vader* on Thu Jun 26 09:17:39 2025, in response to 3 to Flatbush, posted by AlM on Fri Jun 20 19:26:41 2025.* Heard about this on social media and the way I see it, the congestion at Roger’s Jct aka Nostrand Interlocking got bad when the 5 train was extended to Flatbush Ave during the mid day hours. The 4 train handled it fine for many years. Just cut the 5 back to Bowling Green mid days and the issue is solved. Rush hours congestion is unavoidable but at least mid day service can be reliable again. As for the F and M swaps, not really sure how that will work. Vader
Post a New Response

(1642084)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by AlM* on Thu Jun 26 09:44:08 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Lord Vader on Thu Jun 26 09:17:39 2025.* Rush hours congestion is unavoidable I believe the idea of the 3/5 swap is to reduce rush hour congestion considerably.
Post a New Response

(1642087)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Ancient Mariner* on Thu Jun 26 15:47:00 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Lord Vader on Thu Jun 26 09:17:39 2025.* Eliminating the need to cross trains in front of others is a proven way of dealing with congestion. The original IRT routes had the upper Broadway trains (today's #1) providing express service south of 96th Street and the trains coming down off of Lenox Avenue (today's #2and #3) crossing over to provide local service. As you can imagine, it was a mess. On February 6, 1959, the routes were swapped, and that has been the pattern ever since. So we've had 66 years to prove the concept, and it works! Sending all "express" (center track) trains to New Lots and all "local" (outer track) trains to Flatbush is the analogous adjustment which, with a pair of new switches east of the juntion, is what seems to be on the table.
Post a New Response

(1642088)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by randyo* on Thu Jun 26 16:44:39 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 24 10:06:22 2025.* If the service is going to operate most of its route with the 2, why have an extra number?
Post a New Response

(1642089)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by randyo* on Thu Jun 26 16:47:24 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Q4 on Tue Jun 24 10:36:28 2025.* The OP used the term “yard" to denote a maintenance facility. The reason for swapping the south terminals of the 2 and 3 in 1983 was to give the 3 easy access to a maintenance facility. That was the same logic behind swapping the north terminals of the N and R.
Post a New Response

(1642092)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by AlM* on Thu Jun 26 17:13:03 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by randyo on Thu Jun 26 16:47:24 2025.* The OP used the term “yard" to denote a maintenance facility. I didn't actually say. But yes, I was thinking maintenance facility and not just storage tracks.
Post a New Response

(1642094)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Spider-Pig* on Thu Jun 26 17:50:53 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by randyo on Thu Jun 26 16:44:39 2025.* So you’re not familiar with the periodic suggestions that one of the A branches be renamed the H or K?
Post a New Response

(1642096)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by AlM* on Thu Jun 26 19:18:55 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jun 26 17:50:53 2025.* I guess the difference is that the H and K are railfan suggestions. The "8" seems to be an actual MTA suggestion.
Post a New Response

(1642097)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP* on Thu Jun 26 19:36:22 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Ancient Mariner on Thu Jun 26 15:47:00 2025.* Both branches north of 96th St. had express and local service patterns. It still caused delays because half of all trains going through there had to switch tracks.
Post a New Response

(1642099)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim* on Thu Jun 26 20:17:21 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jun 26 17:50:53 2025.* I would give the Dyre Ave line its own number, like 9 when it was a shuttle.
Post a New Response

(1642100)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Stephen Bauman* on Thu Jun 26 20:46:03 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Thu Jun 26 20:17:21 2025.* I would give the Dyre Ave line its own number, like 9 when it was shuttle. It was at one time. Just after the 8 for the Astoria Line.
Post a New Response

(1642102)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Wallyhorse* on Thu Jun 26 21:02:26 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jun 26 20:46:03 2025.* And later for the Bronx 3rd Avenue EL.
Post a New Response

(1642104)	view threaded
Re: 3 to Flatbush
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim* on Thu Jun 26 22:15:54 2025, in response to Re: 3 to Flatbush, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jun 26 20:46:03 2025.* "Just after the 8 for the Astoria Line." That #8 for Astoria trains was on the roll signs of the R12s from ACF. That order was made before it was decided to give the Astoria line to the BMT. IIRC no R12s ran on the Astoria line in revenue service.
Post a New Response

[1 2]
	Page 1 of 2	Next Page >

[ Return to the Message Index ]