|
|
| Re: Culver Express (1313033) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 6 |
||
|
| (1314785) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Sep 23 11:17:12 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Sep 23 09:33:43 2014. Well if you have 20 TPH on the F, and 10 of those make all stops, you have 6-minute waiting times at the local stations, which is manageable. The situation on the 6th Ave local would go to a philosophy concern. As population (and thereby need for service) increases, you would not be able to have as many switching options as you currently do. (You can't fit an M between two F trains if the F trains are every 3 minutes, unless some other technology for increased track capacity comes out). Eventually, the M would likely be bumped from 6th Ave (by that time, it will likely be needed again in Lower Manhattan and southern Brooklyn anyway). The upside would be that when you get off the J or M at Essex you have a train arriving on the F at Delancey every 3 minutes.The system will eventually look more and more like this I suppose/fear. Passengers will have to make more transfers in order to obtain high-frequency service. All lines will become one train right behind the other and trains using switches will be kept to a minimum. |
|
|
| (1314801) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Sep 23 12:13:37 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Sep 23 09:33:43 2014. "That's what I suggested. I suggested operating a V train at 6 tph to supplement the Q on 2nd Ave, then run via 6th Ave Local and the Rutgers Tunnel. Once in Brooklyn, this V would run express from Jay to Church and then via the Culver el to CI. But I was told the problems would be too many trains on the 6th Ave Local (14 F + 8 M + 6 V), and that F line riders south of Church won't stand for 10-minute waits for their trains during rush hours. Not to mention the issues with relaying 600-foot long F trains at Church (I had suggested running the F local in Brooklyn to/from Church)."-------------------- That is actually not a bad idea. In the past I have proposed that the V-train become the Culver Express ending at Kings Highway, and keeping the F-train as it is currently. It becomes a win both ways - local folks get to keep their frequency of service, and folks who want an express get one with the V-train, considering the capabilities of the Kings Highway station. I do not really believe that there are any issues with 600-foot trains at Church Avenue, regardless of the current short G-trains. Church Avenue is an original IND station, and I just can not see the planners/builders creating a terminal/layup area by design that is not capable of handling full length IND trains. The current shorter G-trains may provide a bit of flexibility that regular 600-foot trains may not, but that is whole different order from saying "not possible", especially considering that Church Avenue was the terminal for full-length A, E, D and F trains in times past. Beyond the issues of the actual completion of the Second Avenue stubway, the switching between tracks (and among F & Q trains) to accomplish this route, and the fitting in of this V-train among the others on Sixth Avenue, is one simple question. Does the MTA have the extra trains to create such a V-train route? I believe that there were discussions on this forum about the re-configuring of the trains (new trains bought, old trains removed, trains allocated between what lines, etc). Just some ideas. Mike |
|
|
| (1314805) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 23 12:56:32 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Michael549 on Tue Sep 23 12:13:37 2014. How many times do I have to say this?This is 2014 and not the old days when all those trains got relayed. Today you have timers there and signals to key by. IT TAKES LONGER TO RELAY @ CHURCH. I also explained in a response to Randyo that the track configuration is different now hindering old time flexibility. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1314811) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 23 13:00:32 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 23 12:56:32 2014. I also explained you could do a quick relay in the old days since the R1/9's did not have to be re-charged upon stopping at the bumper block.Every second counts and seconds become minutes. |
|
|
| (1314817) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by BusRider on Tue Sep 23 13:08:05 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 23 13:00:32 2014. Minutes become more money! |
|
|
| (1314818) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by BusRider on Tue Sep 23 13:09:38 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 23 13:00:32 2014. So basically the,way services are now nothing can be changed, therefore most of these threads are wishful thinking? |
|
|
| (1314825) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Sep 23 13:20:24 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Sep 22 21:58:12 2014. You are citing times before the real peak period for the respective lines starts. Also, I cited times from points on the respective lines that are relatively common to all the lines and covering the points where passengers would be most likely to take the option of choosing one line over another. While it is true that trains lvg Stl have about the same running time, N/O Kings/Hwy there is a substantial difference between the Brighton Lines and the F and that is the portion of the respective lines where the variation in running time would make a difference to riders. If a passenger lived at K/Hwy and Ocean Pky for example and had to take a bus to the train anyhow, the faster running time on both the B and the Q would probably make the passenger take the bus the the Brighton line rather than the Culver. |
|
|
| (1314826) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Sep 23 13:23:13 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by TheGreatOne2k9 on Mon Sep 22 23:56:18 2014. That's because they are needed to make midday #2 service. |
|
|
| (1314829) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Sep 23 13:29:50 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Michael549 on Mon Sep 22 11:20:33 2014. Actually, the reason the #5 Wh Pl Rd trains were moved from 241 to 238 St is that they are all AM put ins and PM layups. When the #5s came out of 241 St, a number of #2 trains were put ins/layups from/to 238 St. There are of course still some #2 put ins from 241 St but now the service pattern is more consistent with only #2 trains coming out of 241 St. Back in the 1970s, when #5s came out of 241 St, am equal number of #2 trains originated at E180 St and those were the trains that terminated at 238 St in the PM. |
|
|
| (1314833) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Sep 23 13:42:00 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 23 12:56:32 2014. How many times do I have to say this?This is 2014 and not the old days when all those trains got relayed. Today you have timers there and signals to key by. IT TAKES LONGER TO RELAY @ CHURCH. I also explained in a response to Randyo that the track configuration is different now hindering old time flexibility. --------------- A train taking longer to relay, is simply not the same as saying the layup area can not hold 600-foot trains! Which was that the layup area was designed to do, the layup area was designed to hold 600-foot trains - the specific point I was making. Or are you saying that the track configuration has changed to point where 600-foot trains simply can not under any circumstances fit within the layup area? Mike |
|
|
| (1314846) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Sep 23 14:33:33 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Michael549 on Tue Sep 23 13:42:00 2014. Fumigation is the new fly in the relay ointment.ROAR |
|
|
| (1314849) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Sep 23 14:35:31 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Sep 23 08:01:17 2014. I ASSume you mean the post-MTA rush-hour "QB" or the pre-MTA "Q", right? The old "QB" was local in Brooklyn and Manhattan, via the MB. That would not have saved you much time, Lion! |
|
|
| (1314852) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Sep 23 14:38:53 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Elkeeper on Tue Sep 23 14:35:31 2014. QB was express in Manhattan, QT was Local.ROAR |
|
|
| (1314855) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Sep 23 14:40:43 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Sep 23 14:33:33 2014. It's getting to be a pretty old fly by now! |
|
|
| (1314858) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Sep 23 15:03:36 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Sep 23 14:33:33 2014. It's not new. It was always a requirement even if it was sometimes loosely enforced. |
|
|
| (1314859) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Sep 23 15:07:15 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Sep 23 14:38:53 2014. The original pre Chrystie OB along with its corresponding QT were local both in Manhattan and Bkln. It was only after Chrystie that the QB became a rush hour only lcl in Bkln, exp in Manh service. Nd before you comment, I worked all of those services as a C/R and M/M and dealt with them all as a Tw/M and T/D. |
|
|
| (1314865) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Sep 23 15:28:11 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Sep 23 14:33:33 2014. I am going to try again.Asking and checking that all of the passengers on a G-train has left the train before the train goes into the layup area for a terminate and relay operation - is basically the same operation as: Asking and checking that all of the passengers on a F-train has left the train before the train goes into the layup area for a terminate and relay operation. The need for passenger removal would be present regardless of the train size. The length of the train may mean that passenger removal operation may take a bit longer, but that is not the same as saying the passenger removal operation can not be done at all. (There may be scheduling or manpower changes to accomplish something, but that is another issue entirely.) The fact that G-trains are currently sized at 300-feet, and F-trains are sized at 600-feet - would not make a difference concerning the necessity of the passenger removal procedure. One would have to do the passenger removal procedure regardless. The decision to have 300-feet G-trains, and 600-feet F-trains is a policy decision by the MTA. Any day the MTA could decide and purchase enough cars to have 600-feet G-trains. There is nothing within the physical plant that precludes that idea. (Now there could indeed be physical plant reasons for not having 975-foot long trains, but I've never argued for such a length of trains, or that they could be accommodated.) Church Avenue was designed and built to terminate and relay full-length IND trains, and full-length IND trains are 600-feet. To now say that such an operation is now impossible because it now takes a bit longer time than it used to in the past - simply does not pass muster. Have the layup tracks at Church Avenue been shortened so as to not hold a 600-foot train under any circumstance? Another example: It is like saying that currently #2 and #5 trains terminate at Flatbush Avenue/Brooklyn College, so it is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for a #3 or a #4 to EVER under any circumstance NOW to terminate at the Flatbush Avenue/Brooklyn College station. Most transit fans would say, "REALLY" to such a statement. Then they would start to ask questions. Mike |
|
|
| (1314880) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 23 16:48:22 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Michael549 on Tue Sep 23 13:42:00 2014. There are only 4/600' tracks in Church Yard. Since the G runs there they would needvat least 2 for relays plus the G needs those tracks for their lay-ups. |
|
|
| (1314887) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Sep 23 16:59:49 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by randyo on Tue Sep 23 15:07:15 2014. Yes, that is the one I remember EXP in Manhattan and Local in Brooklyn.And if you want to know the marker lights were yellow and white, or white and yellow, LIONS after all are dyslexic. ROAR |
|
|
| (1314906) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Sep 23 18:11:38 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 23 16:48:22 2014. "There are only 4/600' tracks in Church Yard. Since the G runs there they would needvat least 2 for relays plus the G needs those tracks for their lay-ups."Now we are on the same page! Mike |
|
|
| (1314907) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 23 18:14:52 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Michael549 on Tue Sep 23 18:11:38 2014. Which is why I say "Church Ave. as a terminal is for G trains only." |
|
|
| (1314919) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Sep 23 18:45:42 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 23 18:14:52 2014. Well during rush hours which is probably the only time an express service would probably be needed anyhow, there wouldn't be any need for layup space. When Gs would be laid up, express service would be over anyhow. |
|
|
| (1314922) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Sep 23 18:48:33 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Sep 23 16:59:49 2014. When I was a M/M the QB markers were green/red, the same as the pre Chrystie Brighton Exp. Prior to Chrystie, Brighton Lcls carried red/red N/B and white/white S/B for both via tunnel and via bridge. |
|
|
| (1314943) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Sep 23 19:26:01 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Sep 23 11:17:12 2014. I doubt the M will get bumped from 6th Ave. M line riders like the current service pattern. The M isn't going back to Nassau St and southern Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (1314947) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Sep 23 19:29:53 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Sep 23 11:17:12 2014. If a Nassau St service will eventually be needed again in southern Brooklyn, it would be better to extend 6-8 J trains to southern Brooklyn via 4th Ave Local once the R179 order is complete. |
|
|
| (1314949) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k9 on Tue Sep 23 19:38:38 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by randyo on Tue Sep 23 13:23:13 2014. Those trains also run reverse peak express. |
|
|
| (1314991) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Sep 23 23:05:08 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Michael549 on Tue Sep 23 12:13:37 2014. They don't now. And they probably won't until a substantial number of R211s are in service. |
|
|
| (1315126) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Sep 24 15:49:58 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by TheGreatOne2k9 on Tue Sep 23 19:38:38 2014. I wasn't aware of that but that's nothing new. Back in the days of the Lo-Vs when the principal Wh Pl Rd service was Lex rather than 7 Av, there were a few returning thru expresses in the AM after the last S/B thru exp cleared 149 St that operated exp between 149/3 and E180 St terminating there and laying up. |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 6 |
||
