|
|
| 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? (804504) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (804509) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Sat Jul 4 00:52:30 2009, in response to 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by gbs on Sat Jul 4 00:38:32 2009. Impossible. What you're asking for would require switches to be installed between the 4th Avenue and 7th Avenue stations. With that, you might as well have the G terminate at 7th Avenue. |
|
|
| (804512) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by metropod on Sat Jul 4 01:01:37 2009, in response to 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by gbs on Sat Jul 4 00:38:32 2009. that would require changing ends three times. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (804517) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by gbs on Sat Jul 4 01:26:25 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by R36 #9346 on Sat Jul 4 00:52:30 2009. You didn't read the suggestion carefully. The G would leave 4th Avenue NORTHBOUND (towards Smith-9). |
|
|
| (804519) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by gbs on Sat Jul 4 01:28:18 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by metropod on Sat Jul 4 01:01:37 2009. You didn't read the suggestion carefully. The crew changes ends while at 4th Avenue, then proceeds NORTHBOUND (towards Smith-9), waits on the express tracks for the starting time, and then continues northbound into Smith-9.Only 1 change of ends. |
|
|
| (804521) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by metropod on Sat Jul 4 01:47:44 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by gbs on Sat Jul 4 01:28:18 2009. OK, first off, you didn't write a detailed enough post to get your point across.Second; If these people need the trasnfer as you say, then you're stiffing the return trip by having it re-enter service at smith-9th, negating the work of switch relocation and basicly wasteing everyone's time and money. |
|
|
| (804545) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Zman179 on Sat Jul 4 07:49:49 2009, in response to 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by gbs on Sat Jul 4 00:38:32 2009. Rotten idea. How long do you expect the F train right behind the G to wait? Four minutes? Five minutes? And what happens if the G has difficulties charging the train? |
|
|
| (804580) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Jul 4 09:28:02 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by Zman179 on Sat Jul 4 07:49:49 2009. Exactly the question that I was about to post. |
|
|
| (804601) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Sat Jul 4 09:46:57 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by gbs on Sat Jul 4 01:26:25 2009. That would be a "wrong rail", which would require Control Center permission. |
|
|
| (804652) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jul 4 10:51:01 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by Zman179 on Sat Jul 4 07:49:49 2009. The (GG) to Choich should be permanent.ROAR |
|
|
| (804751) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Think twice on Sat Jul 4 20:31:15 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jul 4 10:51:01 2009. Agreed. |
|
|
| (805030) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jul 5 11:15:58 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by R36 #9346 on Sat Jul 4 00:52:30 2009. And 7th Avenue might very well make more sense at that point, especially if the F stayed local (better, the F would be express at all times, the G goes to Church Avenue and as previously suggested by a few, the C switches to the 6th Avenue line after West 4th and goes to Brooklyn while the V becomes a full time line and replaces the C in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, also giving 6th Avenue riders access to the financial district from midtown via a one-seat ride. |
|
|
| (805031) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by metropod on Sun Jul 5 11:23:46 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jul 5 11:15:58 2009. that does nothing good. in fact, It will more likely make life a little more difficult. |
|
|
| (805063) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jul 5 13:01:17 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by metropod on Sun Jul 5 11:23:46 2009. Actually, the way W4 St was designed, the physically straightest routes are 6 Av into Spring St and 8 Av into Houston St so sending the V to the Fulton St Line and the C via Smith St might make good sense. |
|
|
| (805067) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Sun Jul 5 13:12:02 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by metropod on Sat Jul 4 01:47:44 2009. OK, I really don't want to get into this as I really don't care but as far as your second point is concerned, they could take on passengers at Fourth Avenue before making the northbound move. |
|
|
| (805079) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Sun Jul 5 13:36:55 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jul 4 10:51:01 2009. For what reason? For railfan purposes, often as railfans we forget to ask ourselves the key questions... does it itself make sense, are there enough passengers to make it going to church a permanent idea. Even if the G were to go there 24/7 til the end of time, the F would still have to run local because if the F were to run express after the Viaduct Rebuild riders between Bergen and Church would lose the benefit of frequent service and full length trains. For the G to church to be worth its while the people would have to want it, and to ensure the frequency the V would have to join the G and force the F to express to make the benefit worthwhile for all passengers. |
|
|
| (805080) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by metropod on Sun Jul 5 13:39:34 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by randyo on Sun Jul 5 13:01:17 2009. that would require having the V run on weekends and staffing the tower at W4th almost all the time. |
|
|
| (805081) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sun Jul 5 13:43:21 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by metropod on Sun Jul 5 13:39:34 2009. Theres already staffing at West 4th Tower 24/7.. |
|
|
| (805082) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by metropod on Sun Jul 5 13:55:10 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by Railman718 on Sun Jul 5 13:43:21 2009. last time I listen to that source. |
|
|
| (805084) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Sun Jul 5 14:05:32 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Jul 4 09:28:02 2009. But don;t these same difficulties exist with the long-standing ("current" is no longer an operative word here) service pattern? |
|
|
| (805085) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Sun Jul 5 14:05:55 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jul 4 10:51:01 2009. Why stop at Church? How about Kings Hway? Or even Stillwell? |
|
|
| (805086) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by metropod on Sun Jul 5 14:06:39 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by Jeff Rosen on Sun Jul 5 13:12:02 2009. Ok, now, THAT makes sense. |
|
|
| (805090) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jul 5 14:49:21 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by metropod on Sun Jul 5 13:55:10 2009. What source? Who is telling you incorrect information?RELEASE THE HOUNDS |
|
|
| (805096) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jul 5 15:12:40 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by ClearAspect on Sun Jul 5 13:36:55 2009. Which is why as noted above (and previously suggested by others), the C and V should look at switching lines south of West 4th, with the C going to Church with the F and G (allowing the F to be express at all times), while the V becomes a full-time line and replaces the C to Euclid.The major benefits are 6th avenue riders in midtown now have a new option to get to the financial district, while people getting on at 53rd/Lex being able to use either the E or V train to get to the financial district. At the same time, riders on the Culver line can now access 8th Avenue line trains without having to wait until Jay Street. This would really work if the lower level of Bergen Street were to be renevated and re-opened to passengers. |
|
|
| (805102) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 5 16:13:12 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by R36 #9346 on Sat Jul 4 00:52:30 2009. In that case, you might as well just run the G to Church Ave anyway. |
|
|
| (805103) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Jul 5 16:15:00 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by ClearAspect on Sun Jul 5 13:36:55 2009. I think he's only advocating continuing what's being done now. No express service. |
|
|
| (805105) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sun Jul 5 16:18:42 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by MainR3664 on Sun Jul 5 14:05:32 2009. No because these advocates want the G to change directions to go north on the same track where the F is coming south.Signal protection? Yes. Even with a drop back crew, would it hold up the following F for a longer period of time than if the G continued south? Yes again. On 99.9% of every subway and bus line there is built in recovery time at the "last stop" where in case of a late arrival that vehicle can still leave the same place on time. With this unworkable idea, if the G arrives late s/b (even by less than 5 minutes), it's still late on its' n/b return trip. NYCT OP people, if they have read this proposal, are LTAO! |
|
|
| (805111) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Sun Jul 5 16:30:35 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jul 5 15:12:40 2009. Why should the C go down to Church? Whats the point? Who does it benefit? The MTA will counter that the transfer at Jay Street makes such a move un-necessary. The V wouldn't go full time either under that, simply because the demand isn't enough. If the C could handle it now in its current operations, the need for the V to run 24/7 wouldn't be necessary. It's current time of operation is enough to run to Euclid. While you do offer good options, however you're just offering a one seat ride over a transfer. I don't see enough people transferring at West 4th Street to make your idea worthwhile over the current configuration. Then again I sound like a NIMBY, I would love to see it tried at least maybe you're 100% right. |
|
|
| (805113) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Sun Jul 5 16:49:55 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by metropod on Sun Jul 5 14:06:39 2009. First time anyone ever said that about one of my posts! |
|
|
| (805125) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jul 5 17:34:57 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by ClearAspect on Sun Jul 5 16:30:35 2009. Your points are well taken, however, as I recall the 53rd Street/Lex station is very crowded in the mornings, and by having the V replace the C to Euclid (with the C going to Church Avenue with the G instead), then that eliminates what has been a major problem at 53rd, as riders can simply then use either train once in Manhattan, and at the same time makes the V a more viable full-time route. |
|
|
| (805127) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Jul 5 17:58:04 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jul 5 17:34:57 2009. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Let's keep this simple:a) Extend the G-train to Church Avenue, 24/7/365. This solves many problems - regardless of train length, recovery time, transfers, etc. If G-trains are short (4 or 6 cars) just how many folks are still on the train for the "fumigation ritual"? Using Church Avenue allows the storage of trains and other flexible operations. b) The F-train runs local at its usual frequency of service and pattern (24/7/365) - everybody is happy. So now let's consider the V-train assuming that there's no subway car shortage and that there's the manpower and money to accomplish the following. c) Extend the V-train to Church Avenue during the weekdays as an express along the Culver route. This allows V-trains to serve a function in Brooklyn, provide some express service while still not reducing service for those at the local stations. The V-train can run at whatever frequency that it now has - since the F-train always has the more frequent service. d) In addition, extend the V-train to Kings Highway during the rush hours as an express. This allows V-trains to serve a function in Brooklyn, provide some express service while still not reducing service for those at the local stations. The V-train can run at whatever frequency that it now has - since the F-train always has the more frequent service. There are track switch issues at Kings Highway that do not allow a previous pattern of service to exist now, so use a different pattern. Make the V-train express during rush hours to/from that station. So it goes without saying, but I will still say it. e) Leave the current C-train alone. Except for more service, the riders really are not clamoring for changes in this route. f) Forget any ideas of switching trains among or between the Sixth AVenue and Eighth Avenue lines at either Jay Street or West 4th Street. The riders know full well to walk to the platforms that they need for their destinations. -------- Just my thoughts. Mike |
|
|
| (805128) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by metropod on Sun Jul 5 18:07:15 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jul 5 17:34:57 2009. That would not solve crowding at 53rd street. |
|
|
| (805137) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k9 on Sun Jul 5 18:24:42 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by ClearAspect on Sun Jul 5 16:30:35 2009. The (V) actually needs to have its weekday hours cut back by 1 hour, the savings would be better put into running the (5) to/from Manhattan a bit later on weekends (to nearly match the weekday ending times). |
|
|
| (805163) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Jul 5 19:49:04 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by Jeff Rosen on Sun Jul 5 14:05:55 2009. They'd be empty past 4th Av, which I assume is the main stop G riders wants. F is enough past Church, maybe could use a few more trains, but i don't think the G is needed or wanted past Church, imo. |
|
|
| (805168) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Sun Jul 5 20:00:08 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Jul 5 19:49:04 2009. Actually my post was meant as sarcasm for Lion's post and wasn't meant to be taken seriously. |
|
|
| (805170) | |
Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Jul 5 20:07:03 2009, in response to Re: 4th Ave. as a G terminal after the viaduct construction?, posted by Jeff Rosen on Sun Jul 5 20:00:08 2009. Most of us knew that. You fooled a fool though... |
|
|
