|
|
| "V" to Euclid Ave (559236) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 7 |
|
|
| (559236) | |
"V" to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008 Thoughts??? |
|
|
| (559237) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Jan 25 22:06:24 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. Not bad, it would help out the (C) rush hour crowd. |
|
|
| (559239) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Jan 25 22:09:14 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. Then again, that may possibly mean more switchmen at Euclid. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (559240) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Fri Jan 25 22:09:21 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Jan 25 22:06:24 2008. as a replacement or as an addition? |
|
|
| (559241) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Fri Jan 25 22:10:01 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Jan 25 22:09:14 2008. 'more switchmen at Euclid. 'or switchwomen...... |
|
|
| (559242) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Jan 25 22:11:25 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by monorail on Fri Jan 25 22:10:01 2008. Yes. |
|
|
| (559245) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Fri Jan 25 22:13:46 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Jan 25 22:11:25 2008. wonder if any switchwomen are switch-hitters..... |
|
|
| (559248) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 22:15:10 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. Not good. |
|
|
| (559249) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:18:36 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by monorail on Fri Jan 25 22:09:21 2008. addition |
|
|
| (559251) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Fri Jan 25 22:20:15 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:18:36 2008. would definitely improve service for the people at the local stopsBUT it would add congestion around Hoyt-Schemerhorn Sts |
|
|
| (559253) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Jan 25 22:21:25 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. Why? |
|
|
| (559254) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 22:22:06 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by monorail on Fri Jan 25 22:20:15 2008. And West 4th?I'm asking, b/c I'm not sure. |
|
|
| (559256) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:22:57 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by monorail on Fri Jan 25 22:20:15 2008. I doubt that Hoyt would be at capacity. Crossing "V"s at Jay might slow the F line. |
|
|
| (559257) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:23:16 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Russ on Fri Jan 25 22:21:25 2008. Why not? |
|
|
| (559258) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Fri Jan 25 22:23:40 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 22:22:06 2008. perhaps Jay St, depending on where the V would switch to the Sixth Ave tracks. |
|
|
| (559259) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Jan 25 22:23:43 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:22:57 2008. What's the A+C+V's TPH? |
|
|
| (559260) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:24:07 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 22:22:06 2008. V's go through W4St now. Nothing would change there. |
|
|
| (559261) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Jan 25 22:24:08 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:23:16 2008. Why ask why? |
|
|
| (559262) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:25:05 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by monorail on Fri Jan 25 22:23:40 2008. Jay St. |
|
|
| (559263) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 22:25:16 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:22:57 2008. Oh. I thought you might've meant crossing V's at W4. Either way, you'll get congestion. |
|
|
| (559264) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:26:28 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Russ on Fri Jan 25 22:23:43 2008. ??????? 24 perhaps. |
|
|
| (559265) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:28:25 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 22:25:16 2008. If the (V)s were based in Pitkin Yard, then it would make sense to run them to Euclid - even if only during the rush hours |
|
|
| (559266) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 22:30:27 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:24:07 2008. Oh. I thought you meant crossing over at W4. I guess you meant Hoyt.Either way, you'll have congestion and confusion. Confusion in the form of TW/O's and T/D's you have to ask four or five times for a trains call letters or just won't give a lineup until seeing the train on closed-circuit. This process alone will add minutes to s/b A, C, and F trains. |
|
|
| (559269) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 22:38:17 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:28:25 2008. Sorry, I meant crossover at Jay, not Hoyt.Either way, it sounds like too many trains coming through one interlocking. You really have to understand a little more about RTO. Everyone is scared and a little paranoid. Trains will be slowed down by tower op's and T/D's who make double or triple sure that they're getting the right train on the s/b. They won't just accept the punch as being correct, but they'll make the train crawl up to the point of no return homeball too(to see his route sign)on closed circuit. And behind all this s/b mess, you'll have F trains losing more time than they already do. |
|
|
| (559270) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jan 25 22:38:21 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. As much as I like it (it gives me another option to Brooklyn along with the F) I'm not sure if it'll be good for everyone, what with the potential congestion it might cause. |
|
|
| (559272) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Fri Jan 25 22:47:12 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. Why do I have a feeling this might not be a rumor? |
|
|
| (559274) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Jan 25 22:51:37 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:26:28 2008. During rush hour, what's the A, 12 or 15? isn't the C and V 10 and 9? If I've got my numbers right, we're talking 31-36tph. Sounds tight. |
|
|
| (559275) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Fri Jan 25 22:53:26 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 22:38:17 2008. Another question is woul Fulton get congested with both (C) and (V) trains running? The (C) can be sent back to WTC during the times the (V) usually runs. |
|
|
| (559276) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 22:53:56 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:28:25 2008. Ok, just thought about this some more.If V's have to go to Brooklyn because they're assigned to Pitkin Yard, some F's will have to turnaround at 2nd Ave, or there will be too much congestion in Brooklyn. I guess you can equate the F turnaround at 2nd to the R turnaround at Canal. |
|
|
| (559279) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Freddy the Foamer on Fri Jan 25 22:56:07 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by The Port of Authority on Fri Jan 25 22:38:21 2008. Is there equipment and crews to cover such an additional service? Maybe this will keep the R-32's around awhile longer! Just a thoughtfrom a foam face. |
|
|
| (559280) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 22:56:09 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by FarRock on Fri Jan 25 22:53:26 2008. True. But there are already too many E's at WTC to handle the congestion and confusion of C's going there too.That's why I'm suggesting that some F's turnaround at 2nd Ave when the V is going to Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (559281) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 22:57:06 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Freddy the Foamer on Fri Jan 25 22:56:07 2008. Just more cab time for crews, or reduction in switching/yard jobs. TA will find a way. |
|
|
| (559282) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Fri Jan 25 22:57:33 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 22:56:09 2008. It shouldn't be a problem unless there are more (E)s running now than abot 10 yrs ago. |
|
|
| (559283) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Fri Jan 25 22:58:53 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Freddy the Foamer on Fri Jan 25 22:56:07 2008. This means R38s on Queens Blvd. |
|
|
| (559284) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 22:59:49 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by FarRock on Fri Jan 25 22:57:33 2008. E's alone sometimes have trouble getting in and out of WTC due to congestion. Add C's to the mix, and you have trouble.F turnaround at 2nd Ave is great for many reasons. |
|
|
| (559285) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 23:00:26 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by FarRock on Fri Jan 25 22:58:53 2008. Or an equipment change at Pitkin Yard. |
|
|
| (559286) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jan 25 23:05:19 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. Um, no.LION thinks that Fulton Street should be served by 8th Avenue Express Trains. Send the (A) to the Rockaways (Far/Park), Send the ((fill in the blank)) to Lefferts, either as a Fulton Local or if a third service is sent to Euclid, then as an express. LION thinks that whatever train is terminated at Chambers/WTC should be a local train (CC)? while the express (E)? should ride the Cranberry. LION would be in favor of sending the (V) to Chambers/WTC which would put the (C) into the Rutgers tunnel, and thence on to the Culver. Let the (C) run local to Church Street, let the (F) run express from CI. Or maybe send the (C) across the WillyB to Metropolitan. But LION thinks to avoid switching on the 8th south of W4th. ROAR |
|
|
| (559287) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jan 25 23:07:24 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:25:05 2008. Oh Oh... You just created a bottle neck.The locals can do a 6/8 Av flyover south of W4, but anyplace else and you increase delays and loose tph. ROAR |
|
|
| (559288) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Jan 25 23:11:35 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by FarRock on Fri Jan 25 22:57:33 2008. World Trade Center is a fairly slow-going terminal, because of the bumper blocks, timed signals, and the fact that someone is almost always trying to board the rear of a northbound train just as it gets the lineup to proceed.(Of course, limited as WTC is on the 8th Av Line, Jamaica Center is apparently even worse). |
|
|
| (559290) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Fri Jan 25 23:17:09 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jan 25 23:05:19 2008. Just for fun do a route switch.Have (V)s run down 8th Av via 53 St with the (E) and have (C)s run down 6th Av via the connection at CC. Both routes keep their north terminals, but the south terminals are swapped. This way there wont be any worries about congestion at Jay. This creates an orange (C) and a blue (V) |
|
|
| (559291) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Jan 25 23:18:53 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Jan 25 22:06:24 2008. It would not work:There would be too much congestion into the Cranberry Street tunnel with the A/C as well, plus anywhere else will not be an easy crossover. Plus, I would have the V combined with the M anyway if it were up to me. The best hope there would be once the SAS gets to Water Street to build a new tunnel to Brooklyn that would connect to the current Transit Museum at Court Street and then join the A/C at Hoyt-Scherhorn, continuing to at least Euclid from there. |
|
|
| (559292) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Fri Jan 25 23:26:21 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Jan 25 22:09:14 2008. Euclid one has one Switch person the Road T/O's relay thier own trains by themselfs. |
|
|
| (559293) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Jan 25 23:27:24 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Russ on Fri Jan 25 22:51:37 2008. It's on the lower end, since the C route doesn't run 10 peak tph, as I recall.The tricky part will be merges, and trying to schedule them so as to minimize conflicts, the trickier part being that there's more than one merge. They can play around with peak tph numbers, sure, but given all of the merge points, there are bound to be some delays, especially to the extent there are regular deviations from an efficient schedule. |
|
|
| (559294) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Jan 25 23:27:41 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Fri Jan 25 23:26:21 2008. Ah, alright, so the switchman is only there just to lay-up the trains then, not to relay them. |
|
|
| (559296) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Fri Jan 25 23:32:19 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. I don't see how its going to work during Rush Hours when A and F Service run back to back. The C Line is always getting delayed with A/B service cutting in front of them and now with the V trying to cut into the congo line of A/C service I don't think it will work.Ofcause you can always throw a supplement out there to see if it could be possable but I don't think it will be exept for Middays and Evenings then it could work. |
|
|
| (559297) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 23:33:20 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Jan 25 23:27:41 2008. He does relays and layups. When trains arrive late, he's often needed to double-end the arriving trains so they go back out on or close to schedule. |
|
|
| (559298) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Fri Jan 25 23:33:49 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Fri Jan 25 23:27:41 2008. Currect Lay up and Put In and maybe double end a relay for a late arrive so it leave the Terminal North on time. |
|
|
| (559300) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Jan 25 23:40:25 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jan 25 22:53:56 2008. If V's have to go to Brooklyn because they're assigned to Pitkin Yard, some F's will have to turnaround at 2nd Ave, or there will be too much congestion in Brooklyn. I guess you can equate the F turnaround at 2nd to the R turnaround at Canal.Terminating some F trains at 2nd Av does have an upshot of increasing reliability over the truncated route, especially with the big merge at 36th St in Queens. But it also has the downside of taking service frequency away from the Culver Line. True, the G route is going to be extended to Church Av. That still leaves the ex-BMT portion of the Culver Line less served than now, right? Well, one solution might be - since some F trains already short-turn at Kings Hwy, terminate those F trains instead at 2nd Av, and extend some G trains to Kings Hwy to replace the short-turned F trains terminating at 2nd Av. Still, I'm not a fan of the crossover at Jay St; seems too much potential for congestion. Plus, the relay operation at Euclid Av may start to resemble the conga line into Forest Hills with that frequency of trains coming in. |
|
|
| (559314) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 26 00:03:07 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Jan 25 23:40:25 2008. Maybe just two or three F's per hour will turnaround at 2nd under this plan.All F's would go to Stillwell. Those scheduled to LU after Kings Hwy will go to Stillwell, clean out, and then go to the yard. |
|
|
| (559321) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 00:16:57 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 26 00:03:07 2008. That brings this to mind: I wonder what the motivation would be to send V trains to Pitkin Yard.If the goal is to lighten up the load at Jamaica Yard, maybe there are other ways that could be done, depending on which yards have capacity to spare. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 7 |
|
