|
|
| Re: Increasing QB capacity (428152) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 7 of 16 |
||
|
| (429090) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:08:08 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat May 12 17:17:04 2007. No, I've seen this many times and you are not exaggerating. It's pretty bad at 205th St. for some reason. |
|
|
| (429093) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun May 13 12:10:53 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 02:11:44 2007. Sure he can - it's called 'connections w/the right ppl' after that you can influence decisions such as having the el shut down. |
|
|
| (429094) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:11:18 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 21:48:19 2007. After 1977, I'd bet 75% of those who used it were transferees from the Q49 shuttle bus. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (429095) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun May 13 12:12:09 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 12:01:33 2007. 'Macy's or the small businesses?'I think that's pretty relevant. |
|
|
| (429096) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 12:16:13 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:08:08 2007. The approach to 205 st terminal is slow because the train has to make that hard right turn near the end. |
|
|
| (429097) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:17:02 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 21:36:56 2007. I think he gets off on doing this sorta thing. |
|
|
| (429098) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 12:18:43 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Grand concourse on Sun May 13 12:10:53 2007. Nope. A gross exaggeration on your part. In fact, everything I've been able to find on the web shows the opposite. The TA as an organization did not want to tear the El down so quickly but gave in to the merchasnts' collective request. Everyone regretted it later.That's why you have to do more than railfan to understand what MTA does or does not do and why. |
|
|
| (429100) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun May 13 12:20:04 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:02:31 2007. I really doubt that you could run more than 15 TPH from the old 168th St. terminalThey ran 20 tph, count them. |
|
|
| (429102) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun May 13 12:23:09 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Railman718 on Sun May 13 10:08:11 2007. Yes. But on the other hand they could put twenty platform conductors on that platform, and provide them with rubber hoses. These do not need to be people of great vocabulary, they only require loud voices.OFF OFF OFF LAST STOP EVERYBODY OFF MOKSCHNELL! ROUSE ROUSE ROUSE... That will quickly clear a train, and we could have increased headways. ROAR |
|
|
| (429103) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 12:24:05 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun May 13 12:23:09 2007. 8-) |
|
|
| (429105) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:25:39 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sat May 12 19:30:28 2007. The "businesses" in the area who wanted the demolition were Macy's, Mays and (before they closed) Gertz. Young World, The Wiz, Arthur Treacher's and other small stores between Sutphin and Merrick wanted the el to stay. They had no power and no voice, since the big companies controlled both the MTA and their local representatives in Albany. David's site, while awesome, is also riddled with inaccurate information. |
|
|
| (429107) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:28:55 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sat May 12 16:18:41 2007. Gee, the will of one (or a select few) person[s] being inflicted on everyone..... No, that never happens in NYC politics! |
|
|
| (429108) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 12:29:12 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:25:39 2007. You claim that these stores ("and others") wanted the El to stay open without offering any evidence."David's site, while awesome, is also riddled with inaccurate information. " I'd say that was your problem. Your ignorant conspiracy theory here is laughable at best. Come back when you have some real knowledge to offer! |
|
|
| (429109) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:29:44 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Sat May 12 22:24:10 2007. No. The original reason for running the M down the West End line (that being to augment a significantly reduced yellow B service via Broadway during rush hours) no longer exists. The D runs at headways which serve the D well all by itself. I can personally attest to it's relative uselessness. The passangers you describe (wanting stations in Lower Manhattan) usually ride the D to Pacific St. and transfer there. |
|
|
| (429110) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:31:57 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sat May 12 22:43:14 2007. Actually, the M was put on the West End in 1986 because the yellow B only ran at 10 minute headways initially. The M help replace the halved Manhattan Bridge service. 10 D's per hour is more than adequate to serve the West End line. |
|
|
| (429113) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:34:07 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 12:29:12 2007. I would qualify living in/using the area to be evidence. |
|
|
| (429114) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:35:48 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat May 12 20:34:06 2007. I'm also sure the Culver shuttle F stations would have had to have been extended to handle 600' trains, this allowing it to be used by re-routed F trains should problems force them to use the Manhattan Bridge. Replacing the middle track would have not been necessary, but an interlocking allowing both tracks to access the middle track at 9th Ave would probably be needed. Connecting the track at Ditmas to the southbound track to Coney Island would also be a must. Trains could then lay up at CI and access the line from there. |
|
|
| (429115) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:35:52 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 02:10:09 2007. Suffering with multiple personalities? |
|
|
| (429117) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:38:29 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Sat May 12 22:53:14 2007. Not nearly enough to warrant this service. |
|
|
| (429118) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:38:44 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Sun May 13 00:49:07 2007. You "base your bullshit" on the same bullshit everyone else does.That's not true. People on this board have different levels of access to informaation, and different people analyze things differently. Either way, Instead of responding to the valid points he raised, you chose to attack him personally, which is unfortunate. |
|
|
| (429119) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:40:29 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Sun May 13 11:13:02 2007. It's hard to count ridership anywhere on the M south of Central Ave, since it shares trackage with at least one other line the whole length of the route. You have to eyeball it, and my eyeballs tell me that it's NOT that heavily used. The D could absorb it all without much difficulty. |
|
|
| (429120) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:40:33 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by AMoreira81 on Sat May 12 23:51:38 2007. such as extending the C to Lefferts Boulevard and running the A only to the RockawaysAs I've stated repeatedly, doing this would make service worse for lefferts riders during rush hours. |
|
|
| (429122) | |
Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:44:44 2007, in response to The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by E Line Fan on Sun May 13 00:03:13 2007. This would have made the most sense. But the 1967 service plan was not designed to make sense. It was designed to highlight the new 6th Ave connector and to make this new connection the most important to former southern BMT riders, even if it had to be forced upon them and the more popular trunk under Broadway downgraded. Until the 1980's, the IND was aways favored in favor of the BMT in almost every respect. |
|
|
| (429123) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 12:45:03 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 11:58:16 2007. How do you know what he was aware of? How is Bamberger relevant? Even if he had been aware, why would be bring it up in this thread?The article you refer to was written by Mark Feinman, not by Dave Pirmann. Are you not aware that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA/NYCT/TA) are distinct entities? Which entity did Yunich chair? Which entity wanted to keep the el, according to Feinman's article? |
|
|
| (429125) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 12:46:56 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 12:16:13 2007. Who said anything about the approach? |
|
|
| (429126) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:47:39 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Dand124 on Sat May 12 22:56:43 2007. Only near Union Ave. did the Crosstown and Myrtle Ave els come that close. Tell someone who lives near Flushing Ave and Washington Ave that the "G" can adequatley serve you. |
|
|
| (429127) | |
Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:47:42 2007, in response to Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun May 13 12:02:32 2007. If they *wanted* to clean up the lower level at 9th Avenue, the (M) would have no difficulty terminating there.Why? It can terminate on the upper level. |
|
|
| (429128) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun May 13 12:48:46 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Sun May 13 11:13:02 2007. Yes, but the M doesn't stop at Grand Street. If the M was removed from the West End, the passengers would still be able to take the D to Grand Street, just as they can now. |
|
|
| (429129) | |
Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:48:53 2007, in response to Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:44:44 2007. Didn't the planners also have a more efficient through routing in mind? You had D and B trains terminating at 34th from the north, and Q and T trains terminating at 57th from the south. |
|
|
| (429131) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:49:47 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:47:39 2007. Tell someone who lives near Flushing Ave and Washington Ave that the "G" can adequatley serve you.J trainloco! COME ON DOWN! |
|
|
| (429132) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun May 13 12:50:15 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by E Line Fan on Sun May 13 10:50:05 2007. But even from there, M trains have to run light to about Bay 50th Street in order to access Coney Island yard. |
|
|
| (429134) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun May 13 12:58:14 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Sat May 12 22:53:14 2007. How would Broadway line riders suffer from the loss of the M in southern Brooklyn? I don't think they would. I've taken the M into southern Brooklyn during rush hours. M trains aren't exactly overcrowded during rush hours. I don't think losing the M in southern Brooklyn will be a huge loss. |
|
|
| (429136) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun May 13 13:00:34 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:34:07 2007. But that doesn't matter to the person who lives the middle of the US many miles away from the city w/only the internet as his only source. |
|
|
| (429138) | |
Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun May 13 13:02:54 2007, in response to Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun May 13 12:02:32 2007. Actually, QB (renamed the Q in 1985) trains accessed DeKalb via the Manhattan Bridge, just as today's Q trains do now. It was the M and the QT that accessed the Brighton line via tunnel, but QT service did not last long once the D began running on Brighton. |
|
|
| (429139) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 13:05:52 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by SMAZ on Sun May 13 04:34:31 2007. Back then, the divisions were operated seperatley and the Culver from Ditmas on south was transferred over the IND. Today, such concerns do not exist. |
|
|
| (429140) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 13:06:56 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by SLRT on Sat May 12 22:50:28 2007. Boy, this little line gets a lot of attention on the net. We need someone to do the same for the outer Jamaica Ave. el. |
|
|
| (429141) | |
Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 13:08:13 2007, in response to Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun May 13 13:02:54 2007. The "QT" lasted from 1920 to 1967. It only received a letter designation in 1960. |
|
|
| (429143) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun May 13 13:09:43 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 11:23:01 2007. Yes, that's very clear. |
|
|
| (429146) | |
Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 13:13:33 2007, in response to Re: The (M) and the (QB) Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:48:53 2007. Yes, but notice where the service ran as it was "thru-routed". The Brighton line is the major BMT route to CI and gets the heaviest patronage. It lost all but a few Broadway trains and became the line which the IND route dominated. Everything possible was done to make the D the only real alternative to Brighton riders, with the odd NX and handful of rush-hour QB's. Even the local was removed from Broadway and replaced with the far less desirable Nassau St (QJ, then M) service. |
|
|
| (429147) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 13:17:04 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:40:33 2007. No, it wouldn't, if you increase service to 8 or 9 TPH. |
|
|
| (429150) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 13:21:39 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun May 13 12:20:04 2007. Let me clarify: I doubt they could run more than 15 TPH from 168th St. under today's rules and conditions. |
|
|
| (429152) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun May 13 13:26:15 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:34:07 2007. I agree. |
|
|
| (429153) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun May 13 13:27:14 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:38:44 2007. That's an excellent summarization. |
|
|
| (429154) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 13:29:27 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 13 12:29:44 2007. Why is the original reason relevant in 2007?If there were no demand for the service, it would have been cut back to 9th Avenue if not further. Might I suggest that many passengers take whichever train comes first and transfer later, if necessary? (If you're going from the West End line to Broad Street or Fulton Street or Chambers Street and an M pulls in first, why on earth would you not get on? If you wait for the D, at best you'll end up back on that same M train at Pacific; you might instead end up on its follower.) You've personally attested to lots of stuff here. I haven't found your personal attestations terribly reliable. |
|
|
| (429156) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 13:37:39 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:34:07 2007. Not really. There are lots of people who live in an area and never learn much about it or its other residents.Chris isn't wrong about everything in his neck of the woods but he is wrong about this. |
|
|
| (429157) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 13:38:28 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun May 13 12:48:46 2007. The M stops about two blocks away from Grand Street. |
|
|
| (429158) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 13:38:38 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Sun May 13 12:35:52 2007. Not at all. There are plenty of personalities here on Subchat, like you and the chrisses and I enjoy them all. |
|
|
| (429159) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun May 13 13:39:16 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 12:46:56 2007. Go back to counting R32 serial numbers. You haven't finished yet. |
|
|
| (429160) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Sun May 13 13:40:25 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun May 13 12:58:14 2007. More frequent service to 36th Street, where they can pick up the N (or even to DeKalb for the Q). |
|
|
| (429161) | |
Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Sun May 13 13:40:54 2007, in response to Re: M Train in Brooklyn (Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun May 13 12:58:14 2007. We would actually gain, because the M's often get hung up over on the West End or 4th Ave. side, and then provide large gaps in the area it serves along (Myrtle) and then even begins skipping the stops over here. Stuff like this would surely help make us the 5th in the city for sending cars into Mahnattan. Who wants to be bothered with that?I'm looking at ways, for a suggestion to turn the West End service into a Peak direction special service (much like the old QB or RJ), but with a somewhat longer running period, which is hard to do, because that would create twice the service in the reverse peak on this end, with the hulk of the service coming from Chambers, plus the through trains from the West End. The peak direction trains from this end would probably have to be extended to 9th Ave and lay up, which would be good in that it would give us continued access to Fulton and downtown Brooklyn. But in the reverse of this for the PM, it would just be the same problem again, with the trains coming from 9th Av. still getting hung up on that end. Perhaps every other train would run through? Or it might end up having to be a separate service, like the old TT or RJ (which ran light down the J line after the AM rush). |
|
|
|
Page 7 of 16 |
||
