|
|
| Re: Culver Express (1313033) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 6 |
||
|
| (1314329) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Sep 21 12:45:40 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Michael549 on Sun Sep 21 12:44:41 2014. "the perception of a quicker ride."The schedule shows it is in fact a quicker ride. |
|
|
| (1314338) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Sep 21 13:49:53 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by italianstallion on Sun Sep 21 12:45:40 2014. Ok, Thanks for the information about the J/Z train.Mike |
|
|
| (1314341) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Sep 21 14:10:12 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by italianstallion on Sun Sep 21 12:45:40 2014. Can a similar operation work on the F line between Ave X and Church Ave, then? How much time would it save over the current ride-of-a-thousand-stops local F service? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1314366) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Sep 21 14:52:57 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Sep 21 14:10:12 2014. I don't know, but I think it deserved some serious thought.The 1/9 didn't work, but the J/Z and predecessor routes have for the past 53 years. I don't understand all the issues. |
|
|
| (1314401) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Sep 21 18:05:52 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Joe V on Sun Sep 21 14:52:57 2014. One of the issues with the idea of skip-stop service on the Brooklyn-F train, is the differences between the Brooklyn F-train, and the examples of the 1/9, and the J/Z.In the case of the 1/9, and the J/Z - both variants went to the last terminal on the line. On the Brooklyn F-train, trains both enter service and drop out of service at the Kings Highway, Avenue X, and Coney Island terminals. It was suggested to create skip-stop service between Kings Highway and Church Avenue, just for six stations. Such a small number of stations would not really balance the passenger load between the trains that start at Coney Island, and that start at Kings Highway. The 179th Street station in Queens is a very capable superb terminal that in the past handled both the 15-tph of the E train, and 15-tph of the F-train during the rush hours. The Coney Island station does not seem capable of such a feat, if all F-trains that start service from there. Just a few thoughts. Mike |
|
|
| (1314404) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Sep 21 18:11:19 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Sep 21 14:10:12 2014. Including the 2 stations cited by you, it's 10 stops, not a thousand. Plus there are express stops thrown in there too.We like to exaggerate don't we? |
|
|
| (1314412) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 21 18:35:33 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Michael549 on Sun Sep 21 18:05:52 2014. F trains operated 18 trains,E trains used 12. |
|
|
| (1314424) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Sep 21 19:04:13 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Sep 20 10:40:36 2014. Eh, still not as bad as all the people sitting on the stairs at Penn Station NJT concourse... |
|
|
| (1314425) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Sep 21 19:09:50 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Sep 21 19:04:13 2014. That is no concern of MTA ot NYCT. |
|
|
| (1314427) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Sep 21 19:27:00 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Michael549 on Sun Sep 21 18:05:52 2014. What about if the skip-stop ran between Church Ave and Avenue X? There are eight stops in between, so maybe that would be a better balance of passengers, especially if trains that start/end at Ave X also stop at Ave U. |
|
|
| (1314428) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Sep 21 19:32:47 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Sep 21 18:11:19 2014. I know how many stops it is. I've seen that expression used before on Subchat to describe the Brooklyn portion of the F. If you get on at Coney Island, it can sure feel like it. I am not exaggerating. |
|
|
| (1314434) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Sep 21 19:48:15 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Sep 20 10:40:36 2014. Can't be done with others lingering against them.True. If you are saying people ought not to do it, the people you are preaching to aren't here to hear you. |
|
|
| (1314491) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Sep 22 02:34:35 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 21 18:35:33 2014. "F trains operated 18 trains,E trains used 12."I truly doubt that the Coney Island station could handle the pumping out of 18 F-trains per hour toward Manhattan. Mike |
|
|
| (1314492) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Sep 22 03:10:40 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Michael549 on Mon Sep 22 02:34:35 2014. Yeah, they did ... we shared it on the D, which is why so many turned at Brighton Beach. |
|
|
| (1314493) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 22 04:21:58 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Michael549 on Mon Sep 22 02:34:35 2014. Regardless of what you accept or doubt, F trains indeed operated 18tph,until December of 1988. |
|
|
| (1314496) | |
Re: Rider's Wish List: (F) Brooklyn Express; Metro-North in Co-Op City; More rail service to Queens/S.I. |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Sep 22 05:40:20 2014, in response to Re: Rider's Wish List: (F) Brooklyn Express; Metro-North in Co-Op City; More rail service to Queens/S.I., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Sep 20 19:58:59 2014. As said, if you did do that at all, I would do it with the (C) because of the 8th Avenue line options that such would offer, letting THAT be the Culver Express while the (F) and (G) both end at Church Avenue while the (C) goes to Coney Island.The big problem as we all know is Broadway-Lafayette, which is why it would be a case of "be careful what you wish for," UNLESS you can manage 30-32 TPH or a train every 100 seconds or so during peak periods. |
|
|
| (1314497) | |
Re: Rider's Wish List: (F) Brooklyn Express; Metro-North in Co-Op City; More rail service to Queens/ |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Mon Sep 22 06:15:14 2014, in response to Re: Rider's Wish List: (F) Brooklyn Express; Metro-North in Co-Op City; More rail service to Queens/, posted by randyo on Mon Sep 15 17:45:17 2014. Too bad about the sacrelige of the MTA removing all the tilework. That was a real screwup and just simply bad judgment. I rode through there on a fantrip (and stopped? - don't remember), as have others on this board, and IIRC, the tiles were all clean, and the station was ready for passenger service.Why they took the lower level and "reverse rehabbed" it, to resemble some kind of bunker is beyond me. And if they put it back into service, they will install those panels, pasted up on the walls of pseudo IND tiling, with the colored bands. Not close, and no cigar. |
|
|
| (1314507) | |
Re: Rider's Wish List: (F) Brooklyn Express; Metro-North in Co-Op City; More rail service to Queens/S.I. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Sep 22 06:48:51 2014, in response to Re: Rider's Wish List: (F) Brooklyn Express; Metro-North in Co-Op City; More rail service to Queens/S.I., posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Sep 22 05:40:20 2014. You want to reduce the BMT portion of the Culver line to 7 TPH?The only way the Culver express could ever work was if the SAS was connected to Rutger St. |
|
|
| (1314508) | |
Re: Rider's Wish List: (F) Brooklyn Express; Metro-North in Co-Op City; More rail service to Queens/S.I. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Sep 22 06:52:51 2014, in response to Re: Rider's Wish List: (F) Brooklyn Express; Metro-North in Co-Op City; More rail service to Queens/S.I., posted by Edwards! on Sat Sep 20 22:23:46 2014. No, it's not. Unlike most wild railfan ideas, this has already been done. And it was unpopular in Prospect Park and Carroll Gardens, which saw their Manhattan service halved. Carroll St has roughly double the ridership of Ditmas Ave, yet you want to see Ditmas have double the service of Carroll St. Forget the G train, only kids use that train during rush hour to get to school.And this was with Bergen Lower open and served by all F trains. Under any new express plan, Bergen would surely be local only. |
|
|
| (1314522) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Sep 22 09:16:18 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Michael549 on Sun Sep 21 12:44:41 2014. The J/Z operation works because it meets the one absolutely essential criterion for skip-stop operation, namely that for a significant (perhaps majority?) percentage of people on the line, the time saved from skipping stops is greater than or equal to the extra time waited for a train due to some trains not stopping at your stop. This balance is helped by the fact that the J/Z both stop at important points like the two Archer Ave stations and Woodhaven Blvd. These three pick-up points for people going to the city in themselves make the operation worth it. The people at these stations are saving significant time (at least a few minutes) without waiting extra for their train.The 1/9 operation did not meet that criterion. The F train would probably not meet it either. Even if you just did it south of Church Ave, a particular run would save no more than 2 minutes (being generous), and trains don't run as often as every 2 minutes. The logistics of setting up such a tiny skip-stop operation, never mind the fact that people at stations like Ave N, Bay Pkwy, and Ave I, all with bus connections and still a relatively long ride into the city would see trains bypassing them while they themselves don't get to enjoy the benefits of skipping stops, all together, don't make it worth it. |
|
|
| (1314523) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Sep 22 09:19:18 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 22 04:21:58 2014. They were 18 TPH even later than that too I think, up until V service started in 2001 I would say. When all the Es went to Jamaica Center, the Fs were running more often. As late as 2000, I'm almost certain we had 18 Fs and 12 Es per hour, with all Fs to 179 and all Es to Jamaica Ctr. |
|
|
| (1314529) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Sep 22 09:31:42 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Sep 21 19:27:00 2014. Ok let's work it out:Skip-stop "A:" skips Ditmas, Ave I, Ave N, and Kings Hwy, terminating at Ave X. Skip-stop "B:" skips 18th, Bay Pkwy, Ave P, and Ave U, and going on to Coney Island. Being generous with a 45 seconds saved per station skipped, and again that's being generous, you have saved 3 minutes. The stations being skipped will have wait times increased by an average of 2 minutes. Let's take the furthest stop -- Ave U. At Ave U in the morning I will wait an extra 2 minutes, but my train will only skip 3 stops once I get on it, saving me (being generous) 2 minutes 15 seconds. And all the stations further north will save less time. I don't know -- it just doesn't seem worth setting up the operation. Also, unlike the J/Z, which has service a bit more spread out, these F trains will almost inevitably be running into each other, especially in the PM rush coming back from the city after those long runs throw everything off. (As it is, we have F trains running into each other and unscheduled expresses to sort things out). |
|
|
| (1314544) | |
Re: Rider's Wish List: (F) Brooklyn Express; Metro-North in Co-Op City; More rail service to Queens/S.I. |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Sep 22 10:03:56 2014, in response to Re: Rider's Wish List: (F) Brooklyn Express; Metro-North in Co-Op City; More rail service to Queens/S.I., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Sep 22 06:52:51 2014. Exactly. Plus the population has exploded at the underground F stations in Brooklyn since the '70's. In making changes you may be solving one (perceived) problem and creating a new one. Leave the F as is. |
|
|
| (1314545) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Sep 22 10:11:01 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Sep 22 09:16:18 2014. Thank You.I'm confident Operations Planning sees it that way too. |
|
|
| (1314562) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Mon Sep 22 10:37:54 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Sep 22 09:16:18 2014. Kudos for using the word "criterion" correctly! |
|
|
| (1314565) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Sep 22 10:40:06 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Sep 22 10:11:01 2014. Yes, but this SubChat thread can still serve a realistic purpose if we look ahead to the future. You have to assume that within a decade or two, there will be some sort of system-wide reconfiguration. Eventually we will have to acknowledge that not every train going through Rutgers will be able to make it onto Queens Blvd (due to other traffic). So some other northern terminal will have to be found for Culver / Gowanus trains (probably the Upper East Side on the 2nd Ave line). They may then set it up so that 20+ TPH are going through the Rutgers tube. Then we can imagine how express service on the Culver may look, because I doubt that they would just run F trains at 3-minute (or less) headways and have them all make every single stop.So it is possible to fantasize about a future reality, as long as we realize that right now it doesn't apply. |
|
|
| (1314576) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Sep 22 11:20:33 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 22 04:21:58 2014. "Regardless of what you accept or doubt, F trains indeed operated 18tph,until December of 1988."---------------- I was never arguing against 18 trains-per-hour ever being used on the F-train. I was not arguing against 18 trains-per-hour coming out of Queens where 179th Street is very capable of turning out that number, as well as the rush hour load of E-trains. The Queens end was never in doubt. I was wondering about the Brooklyn end. Since I know that F-trains enter service at Coney Island, Avenue-X, and at Kings Highway. There is a reason for that decades long practice. Even the A-train at 207th Street, gets help from the Dyckman Street yard access, where some rush hour trains start/end from there, in order to not clog the push-pull terminal with trains. On the #2 at 241st Street in the Bronx, the rush hour #5 was removed from that terminal and pushed down one stop to 238th Street-Nereid Avenue, in order to better than the train load, and not clog the terminal. There are other examples. I was trying not to be long-winded, but ended up not being clear. Mike |
|
|
| (1314578) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Sep 22 11:28:51 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Sep 22 03:10:40 2014. "Yeah, they did ... we shared it on the D, which is why so many turned at Brighton Beach."Maybe I was not clear. I was specifically, and only talking about the F-train terminal at Coney Island, not the additional terminals of the B, N or D trains, along with some M or QB trains thrown in. Yes, the Coney Island complex is a mighty capable complex, and can easily pump out/handle more than 18-trains-per-hour when/even if ALL of the lines that terminate there are in rush-hour high traffic operations. In this discussion, I was only talking about the F-train! Mike |
|
|
| (1314624) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 22 14:43:34 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Sep 22 09:19:18 2014. Correct.I was basically dwelling on those three E trains that came out of 179 during the rush.. Also,a number of F were turned at Kings Hwy,eight of them ,during peak hours. |
|
|
| (1314626) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Sep 22 15:04:44 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Sep 22 09:31:42 2014. It might not be worth doing, especially if it doesn't save much more than two minutes. |
|
|
| (1314635) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon Sep 22 16:05:37 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Sep 22 09:31:42 2014. The ridership south of Church doesn't warrant a skip-stop setup. And, north of Church, you have heavier residential areas, like Carroll Gardens, Boerum Hill, and Cobble Hill. If anything, start a few "F" trains at Church, like Myrtle Ave on the 14th Street line. If the demographics south of Church change in the future, then adjust the service accordingly. |
|
|
| (1314651) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Sep 22 16:57:12 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Michael549 on Sun Sep 21 18:05:52 2014. There are a total of 10 stops between Church Ave. and W 8th St. (i.e. Ditmas Ave. thru Neptune Ave.), so with skip-stop operation, each train could skip 5 stops. All could continue to Coney Island as they do now. But it would only save about 3 minutes per train. Is it worth doing? Since most F riders are not coming from Coney Island, probably not. Then again, it might cause some passengers from Coney Island to switch from the D to the F. But the slowness of the F is more perceived than actual. All the lines from Coney Island arrive at Herald Square in about the same amount of time. What the F loses from making so many stops, I expect it gains from not having to deal with delays at the DeKalb Ave. interlockings. |
|
|
| (1314657) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Sep 22 17:34:32 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Sep 22 16:57:12 2014. Oops, they don't all continue to Coney Island now, I didn't realize that until I checked the schedule. So skip-stop trains would bypass only 4 stations, making them even less worthwhile. |
|
|
| (1314672) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Sep 22 18:51:07 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Sep 22 16:57:12 2014. Actually, the lines from CI do not arrive at Herald Sq in the same amount of time. Taken from the published timetables from about the same time period in the AM rush and using Kings Hwy as a common starting point, the F takes 45 min, the Q takes 37 min, the B takes 35 min and the D from Bay Pky, (since there is no K/Hwy station on the West End) takes 44 min. That means the Brighton Line has it way over the F in terms of running time to a station that is common to all lines coming out of the Stl area and it's doubtful that a Culver exp service would result in any significant running time decrease. |
|
|
| (1314675) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Sep 22 19:17:33 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Sep 22 09:16:18 2014. The J/Z looks like it saves 5 minutes.How much the F train would save, I don't know. How much time per station skipped do you figure ? |
|
|
| (1314682) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Sep 22 19:30:21 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 22 14:43:34 2014. Did the Hillside E start right up with 63rd Street, or was it some time later when the R got booted out of 179th ? |
|
|
| (1314687) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Sep 22 20:07:41 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Joe V on Mon Sep 22 19:30:21 2014. The Hillside E in its current manifestation started with the 2001 63rd St connector. The 63rd St connector meant that the E was now more important the F (since 53rd was more important than 63rd and the F was now getting help along 6th Ave in the form of the V) and so the F would no longer be entitled to run 18 TPH.The R was booted from 179th long before this, however. Even throughout the 90s the F was the only daytime line to 179th. For a time the G covered it overnight (when the F terminated at Queensbridge). |
|
|
| (1314701) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Sep 22 21:30:02 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Sep 22 20:07:41 2014. Some Notes From Wikipedia:On December 11, 1988, the IND Archer Avenue Line opened. E trains were rerouted via this branch, stopping at the upper level of Sutphin Boulevard and Jamaica Center stations. The E train now skipped 75th Avenue and Van Wyck Boulevard on weekdays. R service was extended to 179th Street, because the E used to provide Hillside Avenue Local service but this was later discontinued when the F became the local. In 1997, E service began running local in Queens during late nights. Service on the E was affected by the September 11, 2001 attacks as its terminal station is located at the northeastern corner of the World Trade Center site. It went to Euclid Avenue in Brooklyn as the local on the IND Fulton Street Line at all times except late nights, replacing the temporarily suspended C service—the third time it had served the borough. This had happened in 1976, and again in early 2000 during the replacement of track switches at the World Trade Center station. On September 24, 2001, C service was restored, and E service was cut to Canal Street (since World Trade Center would be closed until January). On December 16, 2001, the connection from the 63rd Street Tunnel to the Queens Boulevard Line opened, and F trains were rerouted via this connector to travel between Manhattan and Queens. Some rush hour E trains now run to 179th Street, allowing passengers from east of Union Turnpike to have an express service to 53rd Street. This is also due to the lack of capacity at Jamaica Center during rush hours. -------------- Those 3 E-trains out of 179th Street began have an interesting history due to the Archer Avenue terminal not being able to handle the entire amount of E-trains. Mike |
|
|
| (1314702) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by steamdriven on Mon Sep 22 21:36:09 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Sep 22 20:07:41 2014. Hm.I can't say if an F express/short turn local setup would work or makes sense, one has to know the details. How about the following: F express, which starts from the end of the line, F local, which starts in the heavily used area where the express would bypass, AND Run the F express at full speed By that I mean the most speed it can gain by about the 1/3 point between express stops, --without-- the power-crippling mod. Signals might have to be fixed, e-brakes recalibrated and drunks/druggies booted off the roster, just do what's needed. These same trains hit 60mph on crappy stick rails decades ago. An express has one large advantage not mentioned earlier in the thread: it's less wearing on the pax. 10 stops means being jerked sideways 20 times, and a fresh infusion of sweat ever 1500 feet. A rush hour express is still a sardine can, but slightly less miserable. It would be usefully faster if managed by engineers instead of politicians. |
|
|
| (1314707) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Sep 22 21:58:12 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by randyo on Mon Sep 22 18:51:07 2014. The D takes a consistent 52 minutes from Stillwell Ave. to 34th St. in the morning rush (49 minutes to W. 4th). The last pre-9 AM morning train specifically listed in the public schedule for the F is the 7:24 from Stillwell, which gets to 34th St. at 7:20, for a travel time of 56 minutes, or 4 minutes longer than the D. But the train before that one (the 7:17) takes 53 minutes, and the one before that (the 7:07) takes 52 minutes, the same as the D that departs at 7:43. Looking a little earlier in the morning, both D and F trains depart Stillwell Ave. at 6:20 AM, and both arrive at W. 4th St. at 7:07 AM; the D beats the F to 34th St. only because it skips 14th and 23rd. The 6:21 AM Q train from Stillwell Ave. gets to 34th St. at 7:11, the same 50-minute running time as the 6:20 D. |
|
|
| (1314712) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Sep 22 22:23:06 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Michael549 on Mon Sep 22 11:20:33 2014. I may be wrong or missing some examples but all of the NYCT two track dead end terminals except for Parsons/Archer are able to turn 18tph, some even more.The reason the F had/has short turns is because of demands and not because of terminal capacity. |
|
|
| (1314713) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Mon Sep 22 22:31:23 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by steamdriven on Mon Sep 22 21:36:09 2014. Run F express at full speed.Not going to happen. NYCT would need to have a major change in philosophy. IDK what you mean by E-brakes and drunks/druggies being booted off the roster. There have been permanent changes made following some fatal operational situations. The days of 60 MPH operation are gone. They also want slower as it creates less wear and tear on all components (tracks/structures/less vibration). Rule of train by-passing a station: enter regular speed, making sure your speed at the leaving signal is no more than 15 MPH. |
|
|
| (1314714) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Sep 22 22:34:32 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Sep 22 21:58:12 2014. Yes the F is faster than most think and more reliable except rush hours. But rush hours is when Gold/Dekalb gets even more unreliable. |
|
|
| (1314715) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Sep 22 22:38:53 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Sep 22 09:19:18 2014. I somehow remember that right before the V started, the E:F ratio was 14:16 trains per hour. 12:18 was earlier that that. |
|
|
| (1314720) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k9 on Mon Sep 22 23:56:18 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Michael549 on Mon Sep 22 11:20:33 2014. Two midday northbound (5) trains terminate at 241 St in the morning |
|
|
| (1314726) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by steamdriven on Tue Sep 23 02:23:58 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Mon Sep 22 22:31:23 2014. K. I'm not privvy to internal changes, I'm thinking of the Union Square smackup. That was years ago, tho.So... if that problem is solved, the the issues are signaling and pennypinching. There are hundreds of new cars on order, so a bit of wear on the trains doesn't strike me as a dealbreaker. The time of 500-1000 people per train is expensive; saving 10 or 15 min one way is 50-100 man-hours. Let's say the average person produces $40/hr worth of something and is paid $20 (both figures are low) that's $1000-$5000 worth of time per run, one way. 10 trips/week, $10-50K value of time per week, counting only weekdays. Say they work 200+ days per year, we're in 6 figures. But that's just one group of passengers - that trainset kept going after they get to work, running lighter loads during the day and at night. Add it up & 1 train x 20 min per full length run saves or destroys over $1M/year worth of time. You can buy a whole lotta spare parts, concrete n rails for that. If a train saves 20 min per complete run, one can (probably) park one train from that line to keep about the same headway, thus ditching maintenance for one trainset. Jamaica-Queensboro alone has around 10 wasted minutes. E-brakes: Currently, they're set to be barely more than normal braking, about 3mph/second. There's more grip on the rails than that, at least 4. But I don't know if the brakes have anti-skid to avoid flat wheels. I can deal with the end of 60mph operation ... make it 70 ;-) |
|
|
| (1314750) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Sep 23 08:01:17 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Sep 22 22:34:32 2014. LION lived only 2 blocks from the (F) train at Bergen Street. Him walked several blocks to DeKalb to catch the (QB) or whatever. The destination of him was 34th Street/6th Avenue.The BMT was a much quicker ride. BMT stopped at Canal, 14th St and 34th Street. IND Stopped at Jay, York, Delancy, Second, Houston, W4th, 14th, 23rd and finally 34th Street. POUT on the (F) Train, and besides there were always many MORE trains per hour at DeKalb than at Bergen. ROAR |
|
|
| (1314755) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Sep 23 08:10:20 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Sep 20 19:06:16 2014. Also, I think they covered over other stairs when they retiled the station in the early 90's. |
|
|
| (1314767) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Sep 23 09:33:43 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Sep 22 10:40:06 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). |
|
|
| (1314784) | |
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Sep 23 10:59:03 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by steamdriven on Mon Sep 22 21:36:09 2014. Also Church Ave would need to be more equipped to relay trains. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 6 |
||
