|
|
| Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av (1149098) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 7 |
||
|
| (1150684) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Sat Apr 14 03:19:27 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Apr 12 18:48:15 2012. Agreed. I think the G should be brought back for late nights and weekends. Basically there should be at least 2 locals on QB all times. |
|
|
| (1150695) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 07:33:05 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by grand concourse on Sat Apr 14 03:19:27 2012. I don't think the G would be all that necessary there at night. Especially not going to Manhattan. Most people only get on it to get to the next express station anyway. The Queens Blvd local stations aren't "that" busy that they would need two local services at night. Even Lexington doesn't get that. |
|
|
| (1150696) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 07:35:52 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Apr 13 22:23:09 2012. The M performs fine during the week....92%. Interestingly, when it doesn't even run to Queens Blvd, on the weekend only a shuttle, it only runs at 84%. This should also put to bed the complaints against the M running to QUeens Blvd, that it would "mess up the M line on the Eastern Division part". Well, no.....it still performs better than most lines! |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1150698) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 07:37:51 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 13 12:43:46 2012. All the horror stories that were posted here about how the M will be screwed once it goes to Queens Blvd, and will mess up the M along the Eastern Division port were also unfounded, like just about every other criticism of the 6th Ave M before it was put in place. 92%....better than most other lines, and better than when the M only runs as a shuttle! |
|
|
| (1150726) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Apr 14 10:06:47 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Apr 13 22:23:09 2012. Main line IRT is quite a mess.I do think PM rush Jamaica-bound J/Z would suffer if certain trips were to originate on the Southern Division, since the D, N, and R all have OTP inferior to that Eastern Division. The M is good, but worse then the J/Z due to its inter-divisional nature. |
|
|
| (1150739) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 14 10:38:13 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Gold_12TH on Fri Apr 13 22:23:09 2012. I'm surprised to see the M doing better on that crazy corridor. |
|
|
| (1150740) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Sat Apr 14 10:38:37 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 12 11:15:34 2012. I wonder if it would be possible to hook the proposed Hanover Square station to the Montague tunnel. That way, South Brooklyn gets 2nd Avenue service, Water Street gets a subway, and the additional line relieves crowding on the IRT subway between Brooklyn and Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1150743) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 14 10:53:19 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 07:35:52 2012. The concerns were reasonable.Queens Corridor has a bad rep. Things are always messed up and people thought it could affect the M line. |
|
|
| (1150752) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Apr 14 11:44:03 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 07:35:52 2012. What happens now is the same as in the V days. When troubles arises on QB, they cancel the V part of the M and send them to Chambers. |
|
|
| (1150753) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Apr 14 11:47:48 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 07:33:05 2012. Even Lexington doesn't get that.It does now. Along with 7th Av. IRT, and 4th Ave BMT down to 36th St. |
|
|
| (1150760) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Apr 14 12:28:26 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Elkeeper on Thu Apr 12 14:44:08 2012. the F is the only express over night in Queens. |
|
|
| (1150768) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Apr 14 12:59:04 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by J trainloco on Thu Apr 12 18:00:09 2012. So, it was okay for the "E" and "F" to run express between Queens Plaza/Forest Hills, at night from 179th St. But, now that the "E" runs to Parsons/Archer, it has to run local to QP. I would have thought that splitting the "E" and "F" might have increased ridership overall to justify both being expresses at night, with the "G" as the local. Guess I was wrong, sorry! |
|
|
| (1150771) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Sat Apr 14 13:05:48 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 07:33:05 2012. Fine, if not late nights, then at least weekends so that riders are,'t stuck with Rarely. |
|
|
| (1150772) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Sat Apr 14 13:06:07 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 07:33:05 2012. Fine, if not late nights, then at least weekends so that riders aren't* stuck with Rarely. |
|
|
| (1150776) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Apr 14 13:14:12 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Apr 14 12:59:04 2012. So, it was okay for the "E" and "F" to run express between Queens Plaza/Forest Hills, at night from 179th St.It wasn't so they don't do it anymore. Having the G as the only local at night was just a bad idea. |
|
|
| (1150777) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Apr 14 13:15:18 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Apr 14 12:59:04 2012. Oh, and the F runs express at night. |
|
|
| (1150778) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Apr 14 13:18:58 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by grand concourse on Sat Apr 14 13:06:07 2012. You need more riders for that. I can't remember the last time I couldn't get a seat on the R there on a weekend. Same for 4th Av Bklyn. |
|
|
| (1150779) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Apr 14 13:19:56 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Joe V on Fri Apr 13 16:54:25 2012. Roosevelt Island has enough political power to prevent that. |
|
|
| (1150780) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Apr 14 13:23:31 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by J trainloco on Fri Apr 13 19:37:03 2012. not to mention the old TA planned to use the F and whatever route from Second ave as the main 63rd st service from conception. |
|
|
| (1150782) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Apr 14 13:24:19 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Apr 14 13:14:12 2012. Okay, why was the "G" a bad idea for night service? At least the "E" and "F" could both run as expresses! Or, has night ridership dropped? |
|
|
| (1150784) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sat Apr 14 13:52:01 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Apr 14 12:59:04 2012. Please remember that the running of the E and F trains as express trains, and the GG train operating 24/7/365 was BEFORE the mid-1970's fiscal crisis and the various changes on the subways. Then there were midnight hour express trains with the #2, the A-train, the D-train, the N-train, #4 operating express in Manhattan, the E and F trains operating express along Queens Blvd, and other features of the subways in operation.Since the mid-1970's fiscal crisis there have been numerous changes in the subways. Now it is unusual for a subway line to have more than two routes running the full-length of the line - transfers to a shuttle operation excepted. Mike |
|
|
| (1150795) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Apr 14 14:23:00 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Apr 14 13:19:56 2012. I am not recommending it - just saying what would have happened had the V been chosen to be the 63rd St service. |
|
|
| (1150800) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Apr 14 14:26:47 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Apr 14 11:44:03 2012. What the really need is a switch on the Brooklyn Bound track west of Essex from the J4 to J1 track. I don't know if there is room between the pillars.By putting the J on the sidetrack, they'd have the ability to relay the M on the middle track. Then weekend service from Fresh Pond to Essex could be feasible. If they could renegotiate union contracts, run them as 4 car OPTO's. |
|
|
| (1150805) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Apr 14 14:33:25 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 14 10:38:13 2012. What the really need is a switch on the Brooklyn Bound track west of Essex from the J4 to J1 track. I don't know if there is room between the pillars.By putting the J on the sidetrack, they'd have the ability to relay the M on the middle track. Then weekend service from Fresh Pond to Essex could be feasible. If they could renegotiate union contracts, run them as 4 car OPTO's. |
|
|
| (1150819) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Sat Apr 14 15:57:13 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Joe V on Sat Apr 14 14:26:47 2012. The switch already exists. It was added during the realignment back in 2004. Brooklyn bound J trains can arrive at Essex on either J4 or J1. |
|
|
| (1150820) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Apr 14 16:03:14 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by VictorM on Sat Apr 14 15:57:13 2012. I have Dougerty's 2011 book, and didn't see it. |
|
|
| (1150826) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Sat Apr 14 16:42:14 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Apr 13 12:34:50 2012. Yeah..that seems to make sense. |
|
|
| (1150871) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Apr 14 19:40:35 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Joe V on Sat Apr 14 16:03:14 2012. They often (but not always) use the switch when the J Shuttle (Essex-Prospect Pk) runs. |
|
|
| (1150873) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Apr 14 19:52:00 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Apr 14 13:24:19 2012. The G doesn't go to Manhattan, where the majority of late night riders come from.Expresses can't serve local stops while locals can serve both. One express and one local are more than enough for late nights. If a third late night service is really needed, it should be local and from Manhattan. In fact I think almost every line should be local only late nights. The time you save from express runs is lost in longer waits for most people. I'd rather have locals every ten minutes than express and local every twenty minutes. They did the right thing on the Lex and 7th Ave lines, except that trains aren't usually evenly spaced. |
|
|
| (1150887) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 20:48:22 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Apr 12 11:15:34 2012. I have mixed feelings about it. While I agree, another line would be nice, at the same time, we have the very underutilized Nassau line, far from near capacity, with an already connection to an underutilized tunnel to Brooklyn all there already. In an ideal world, with unlimited funds, the new line would be great, but in a realistic world, with very limited funds, to just have this underutilized infrastructure just sitting there and not use it seems silly. |
|
|
| (1150888) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 20:53:58 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Apr 14 10:53:19 2012. They obviously were unfounded, as the M has some of the best on time performance of many lines. |
|
|
| (1150890) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 20:55:05 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Joe V on Sat Apr 14 14:26:47 2012. If I am not mistaken, they could do that if they wanted to. The J can access either outer or middle track. |
|
|
| (1150891) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 21:00:14 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Joe V on Sat Apr 14 16:03:14 2012. That's wrong then, as it does exist. |
|
|
| (1150892) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 21:04:36 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Joe V on Sat Apr 14 10:06:47 2012. Yes, but it's almost just as good as the L, in which doesn't share trackage with any other line. It's second to only the L, the C, and the G, that's pretty impressive.As for "due to it's interdivisional" nature, almost all the lines (outside of the IRT) are "interdivisional" (and I am stretching "interdivisional" to even include the N (which runs all on the BMT, but expanding that to mean "intertrunkline" |
|
|
| (1150893) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 21:09:10 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Thu Apr 12 00:45:33 2012. Perhaps, but adding service to the Nassau line, when people rather have the Broadway line, isn't the answer either. |
|
|
| (1150894) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 21:12:27 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Apr 7 17:04:06 2012. I don't doubt that, but what happened to the surplus cars from when they combined the M and V? Between the shorter trainsets needed, as well as all the extra M trains that were used between Essex and Bay Parkway, there were left over trains from that combination. The V line trains are still used between Forest Hills and Essex, and all those trainsets, when converted from 75 foot cars to 60 foot cars, have the equivelent of two 60 foot cars left from every V train that ran between Forest Hills and 2nd Ave (now Essex St). Then, all the M trains that ran between Essex and Bay Parkway were surplus too. |
|
|
| (1150895) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Apr 14 21:12:53 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 07:35:52 2012. Keep in mind that if there is ever a service suspension on the M line along Queens Blvd., the abandoned intervals are considered on time.In other words, if your train fails to show up (any train interval being abandoned) this does not affect on time performance, even though YOU could be late for work. Just being the messenger! |
|
|
| (1150896) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 21:14:01 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 21:12:27 2012. Disclaimer -- the above post is in no way condoning the extension of the J (I don't think it's necessary), but just an observation of the extra trains left over from the M/V COmbo. |
|
|
| (1150897) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Apr 14 21:18:03 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 21:12:27 2012. After the merge of the M/V was made, the excess R46's were transfered to Pitkin, which allowed the retirement of the R44's.If the traditional M was still around, and the V was left untouched, the R44's could not have been retired. |
|
|
| (1150898) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 21:20:13 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Apr 14 21:18:03 2012. Ahh, that's what I was forgetting, the R44's being retired. |
|
|
| (1150899) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 21:23:30 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by grand concourse on Sat Apr 14 13:05:48 2012. I totally agree about weekend days. |
|
|
| (1150900) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 21:24:38 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Apr 14 11:47:48 2012. Really? I didn't realize the Lexington has two locals at night. The 4 and 6 both run local on Lexington all night? |
|
|
| (1150901) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 21:26:05 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Apr 14 21:12:53 2012. Interesting. So if the M is diverted to Chambers St, and doesn't go to Forest Hills, that's considered on time? Then the whole system has screwed up stats, as they do that on most of the lines at one time or another. |
|
|
| (1150904) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Apr 14 21:45:52 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 21:26:05 2012. If a train leaving Met gets rerouted to Chambers, the interval is abandoned on paper and is on time, even though customers are inconvienced and have to take the F instead, if that is indeed running downstairs (it could be rerouted over the A line, e.g). It is then considered an "extra" to Chambers and another extra when it turns to go back to Met.All extras are considered to be on time, even if it takes 60 minutes to go from Chambers back to Met. |
|
|
| (1150919) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 23:28:50 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Apr 14 21:45:52 2012. That being the case, I would say just about all the stats for all the trains are BS. |
|
|
| (1150926) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sun Apr 15 02:08:56 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 23:28:50 2012. That being the case, I would say just about all the stats for all the trains are BS.As Bill said.. "Paper Railroad". |
|
|
| (1150927) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sun Apr 15 03:55:01 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by randyo on Thu Apr 12 14:26:30 2012. Yes, absolutely. Strangely, this was an incident I remember vividly. I was 15 at the time, working as a messenger for the summer in Bush Terminal. It was July, 1966, a weekday AM, I was on the southbound platform at Pacific St. On the local track, in came an N Brightliner. Seconds later, a T Brightliner rolled in on the express track, and signed for 9th Av. Both idled briefly in the station. Funny, though, I don't remember which train I got on! |
|
|
| (1150930) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sun Apr 15 04:01:02 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 23:28:50 2012. Given the heavy padding in the schedules, on-time performance is a sham. Leisurely transit it is. |
|
|
| (1150936) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Apr 15 04:30:42 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sun Apr 15 03:55:01 2012. The signs might have been wrong. |
|
|
| (1150937) | |
Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Apr 15 04:36:15 2012, in response to Re: Rush hour J to 9 Av, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 14 21:24:38 2012. Yes. It's been that way for some time now as is the case with the 1 and 2 on the West side. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 7 |
||
