|
|
| The F report (842381) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 6 |
|
|
| (842381) | |
The F report |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Oct 9 23:19:16 2009 So NYCT put out this report, with the accompanying statement:October 9th, 2009 Press Release IMMEDIATE #168 Paul J. Fleuranges Charles F. Seaton (646)252-5878 MTA New York City Transit Completes Comprehensive Study of F Line New Initiatives Underway to Improve Service With an eye toward improving service along the second longest line in the subway system, MTA New York City has completed an exhaustive three-month study of conditions along the entire length of the 27-mile F Line. The study acknowledges the line's below average performance, due in part to its length, the age of its infrastructure, and the complexity of its operation. Recognizing the need for improvement along the line, which connects the Jamaica section of Queens to Coney Island in Brooklyn, NYC Transit has made the line a priority and numerous initiatives are already underway under the leadership of F Line General Manager Dwayne Anglero. • A dedicated manager responsible for maintenance of the car fleet has been assigned to the line and the new cars are currently being placed into service. So far, these changes have resulted in increased reliability for F Line trains. • The line schedule is being reviewed for potential modifications. • Strategies are in place to reduce impact of construction and maintenance. NYC Transit President Howard H. Roberts, Jr., is chairing a committee of senior managers that will analyze the line's performance and implement strategies for improvement. A similar committee on the 4, 5 and 6 lines led to service changes and measurably improved performance. "While we are already in the midst of several capital projects aimed at improving service for F Line riders, there are measures underway that will move our customers closer to the type of service that they pay for and that they deserve," said Roberts. Current capital projects include rehabilitation of the Culver Viaduct and the Jay Street station rehabilitation while improvements to the signal system are proposed for the 2010 to 2014 Capital Program. While express service in Brooklyn cannot be implemented until the completion of the viaduct project, NYC Transit is committed to studying the cost and feasibility of this service prior to the completion of the work. The analysis was prepared at the request of State Senator Daniel Squadron. ---- Lots of interesting tidbits, but I gather that the 'solution' to the F woes will consist primarily of: R160s replacing older 60' stock (already done) Increase off-peak running time SMS program for signals For some odd reason, NYCT will study the feasibility of express service on the Crosstown-Culver segment, even though it's obvious, for reasons stated in this report, that it's a non-starter. That said, I have some comments of my own. While the SMS program for signals sounds great, the rest of the fix surely doesn't. Looking at the F route, one of the main problems for OTP is the fact that trains routinely don't leave 179 St on time; the relay process as practiced there is inefficient, and it seems to be a one-man operation in many (all?) cases. If the train is late to begin with, odds are that it's going to be late at the opposite terminal too. Another problem is delays due to the endless saga of track chip-outs, which the report obliquely notes has been exacerbated by adjacent track flagging. Considering the delays caused, and the expense of replacement, it may make sense to revisit the idea of concrete there. My guess is that the costs of the concrete bed are severe while the benefits are minimal. Lastly, for you R46 fans, although the R160s will make up most F trains, "some trains of R46s are expected to remain in F service until they come due for replacement by the end of the next decade." |
|
|
| (842396) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Oct 10 01:45:27 2009, in response to The F report, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Oct 9 23:19:16 2009. interesting. |
|
|
| (842398) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sat Oct 10 01:53:34 2009, in response to The F report, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Oct 9 23:19:16 2009. The relay doesn't negatively impact service. If the train arrives late, it can be double-ended for a quick relay. If the train is *that* late, the interval will be ABD'd anyway.The problem is the length of the line, the number of merges with other lines, and the fact the line is very crowded due to serving popular neighborhoods. It's easy to lose your time on this line, and not get it back. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (842403) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by B49 Limited on Sat Oct 10 02:17:14 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by G1Ravage on Sat Oct 10 01:53:34 2009. I have to agree 100% the Culver and Queens Blvd lines are so so pact. I also feel that the F is too damn long in Brooklyn. If you live in Kensington, for example and you had an option between the F line or the B line (via B 35 or B16 transfer), what would you prefer?Just curious, and I hope someone can give me a good answer for this. This is more after the viaduct project, can the Culver line handle an eighth Ave line train along its route? What would be the pros and cons behind it? (if or if not the express tracks would be available after the project) |
|
|
| (842404) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Oct 10 02:21:03 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by B49 Limited on Sat Oct 10 02:17:14 2009. What you mean to have the C and V switch and extend the C down to like Church?Also if the C or V were to run with the F into Brooklyn, should they trim the F back to Church and let the C or V continue on to Stillwell Av? |
|
|
| (842407) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sat Oct 10 02:41:32 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Oct 10 02:21:03 2009. As Broadway Lion always mentions, switching operations slow service down, and it's best for trains to stay on the same track as much as possible.Routing an Eighth Avenue train via Rutgers Street would involve a blind switching maneuver at West 4th Street Tower, or an equally blind switch at Jay Street Tower. "Blind" meaning we can't see the train before lining it up, and non-functional or non-existent punches. All trains would have to be held behind red signals to be identified over the radio to be routed properly. This can NOT be done efficiently at West 4th Street Tower. Service must run straight through there as much as possible. |
|
|
| (842408) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sat Oct 10 02:43:37 2009, in response to The F report, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Oct 9 23:19:16 2009. I read the report through, and it was a very interesting read. Although I doubt very many customers will care to read through the whole thing, which is a shame, because it's quite informative and correct, it goes into foamer-savvy detail of interlockings and dates in which certain sections were built. |
|
|
| (842411) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Sat Oct 10 02:51:09 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by G1Ravage on Sat Oct 10 02:41:32 2009. The claim in the report is that the "overcrowding" is exagerated by the fact that most passengers want to use either the first two or last two cars of the train. It also does a study on the sudden skipping of stops used as a technique when trains are delayed, you know the sudden annoucement at Jay Street that the next stop will be 7th Avenue and then Church Avenue. It basically says this is not a wise thing to do say in the PM rush hours when lots of passengers wish to get off at the skipped stops. I guess we'll see much less of this in the immediate future. |
|
|
| (842413) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sat Oct 10 03:25:35 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by MATHA531 on Sat Oct 10 02:51:09 2009. Perhaps. But as the report also states, doing a run helps ensure that there's a train to make the required interval in the opposite direction. It's a catch-22. |
|
|
| (842414) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Oct 10 04:28:02 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Oct 10 02:21:03 2009. As I've said before:If you're going to have an additional Culver Line train operate so that the F can run express in Brooklyn, if the issues with West 4th Tower can be worked out, I would look at having the C go with the B, D and F trains at West 4th to Broadway-Lafayette while the V train replaces the C south of West 4th to Euclid Avenue. This would give riders on both the Culver and Fulton Street lines the option of 6th and 8th Avenue service, and in the case of each line at worst a two-seat ride with a cross or same platform transfer. More importantly, it gives riders along the 6th Avenue Line in Midtown Manhattan a one-seat ride to the financial district and makes much better use of the V train by doing so (and in this format, the V becomes a 19/7 line while the A train would become a 24/7 express train in Manhattan since the C would become a 24/7 line as well). On the Culver Line, the C and G would both run local to Church Avenue 24/7 while the F train runs express at all times (with the lower level of Bergen Street renovated and re-opened for passenger service). During rush hours, the C could be extended to Kings Highway as a peak-direction express from Church Avenue-Kings Highway. This would probably soothe the objections of those on the Culver Line who don't want express service since they would now have a one-seat ride to the financial district they currently do not have and at worst a cross-platform transfer to the 6th Avenue line. |
|
|
| (842438) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Oct 10 09:06:16 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by G1Ravage on Sat Oct 10 01:53:34 2009. There's nothing you can really do about the F train problem unless you do a major reroute. |
|
|
| (842439) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Oct 10 09:20:42 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by G1Ravage on Sat Oct 10 02:41:32 2009. How would straight running a line from 8th to Houston be "Blind running",if the tracks are BUILT FOR SUCH A SERVICE..Are You blind? Have you NOT SEEN how the switches are made? Direct HOUSTON ST to 8TH AVENUE LOCAL UPPER LEVEL.. Direct 8th Avenue Local to 6TH AVENUE LOCAL LOWER LEVEL.. The TA operates the lines the way they do presently because it's what works for them..not the riders. The CC..E..F..D All ran differently back in the day using the very same STRAIGHT RAIL SERVICE to Chambers/Hudson Terminal/WTC..and Church Avenue. It can be done. |
|
|
| (842449) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 10:56:36 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by B49 Limited on Sat Oct 10 02:17:14 2009. LION used to live on Bond Street, at the corner of Bergen. Did the LION ever ride the (F) train? Exactly Twice! After that he walked to DeKalb to catch his trains, and frequently got of at Pacific Street. The extra walking time was negligible compared to the SLOW SERVICE on the (F) train.As I have mentioned before, my NYC destination was 34th Street, so that end of the equation is a moot point. (Yeah BMT) ROAR |
|
|
| (842450) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 11:06:08 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by G1Ravage on Sat Oct 10 02:41:32 2009. The LION would send the (V) to Chambers WTC and the (F) of course to CI via Culver. So those trains would have to be IDd before proceeding. How hard can identifying a train possibly be? Web Cams cost all of $49.00. Then they will be able to SEE the train.On Eighth Avenue this is not so. The (C) would be the only LOCAL on 8th Avenue and would go to Church via Rutgers. The (E) would be routed express from 50th Street and thus would eliminate the merger at Canal Street. ALL 8th Ave Locals via Rutgers, ALL 8th Ave Express via the Cranberry. (After all how many trains does 23rd street really need?) If you have other interlocking problems, please let the LION know and he will tail ewe how to fix them. ROAR |
|
|
| (842451) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 11:10:30 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Oct 10 04:28:02 2009. No. The LOWER level of BERGEN would NOT be reopened.Local passengers wanting the crosstown (if any) would still get on the (G) train, Local passengers wanting 6th Avenue can change at Jay Street for the (F). And for many of these passengers Eighth Avenue would serve them just as well, and so they would stay on that. The Lowere Level of Bergen WAS necessary as planned since the (GG) local would not go into Jay Street to give people the option of using the (F) train. ROAR |
|
|
| (842452) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 11:13:10 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Edwards! on Sat Oct 10 09:06:16 2009. I always thought the (F) was a pretty darn good route.Yes there are problems at Gowanus, but these are being worked on. I was unaware of issues at 179th Street. That is an issue that can be easily fixed. One more trainset out there will fix that. Yes it is a LONG route, but there seems to the LION to be no intrinsic reason for these issues. Pleas elucidate. ROAR |
|
|
| (842453) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 11:14:15 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by G1Ravage on Sat Oct 10 02:43:37 2009. Cool. Can ewe send me a copy of the report? broadwaylion at gmail dot com.ROAR |
|
|
| (842454) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Oct 10 11:24:53 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 11:06:08 2009. ahhhh.....cool beans. |
|
|
| (842456) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Oct 10 11:41:54 2009, in response to The F report, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Oct 9 23:19:16 2009. If the line is too long, perhaps it should be split somewhere in Manhattan. After all, not too many passengers will likely want to go from Brooklyn to Queens via Manhattan unless the service is lightning fast. Maybe the Queens part of the F could turn at 2 Ave and the Brooklyn part could turn at Essex Street. I see a crossover just before that station, and no other line uses those tracks there. I guess the only problem there is what to do with Brooklyn riders who want Midtown destinations. No, I guess that wouldn't work without a place to turn north of 42 St. Sigh. |
|
|
| (842458) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 11:49:58 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Oct 10 11:41:54 2009. No. People do not travel from 179 to Coney Island.But all of these trains travel to NYC. Once in NYC they need to *go somewhere*. Out the other side of the city is a fine choice. OK so an AM train from 179 is stuffed to W4th Street, then it runs fairly light to CI. This is better than turning it at 2nd AV and having it run light to 179. As for turning a train at Essex... DUMB DUMB AND DUMBER! Those Brooklyn customers knead MANHATTAN addresses north of Essex. Turning it at 57th street used to be a possibility, but now that is a thru station and is not available. No the current arrangement is just fine, thank ewe. Now it is possible to have a crew change at one of those stations but this is really not necessary. If the T/O or the C/R cannot hold it until he gets to CI, then there are a variety of paper products that they could use if they are really needed. Besides, all of that switching in downtown Manhattan is just plane STOOPIT. ROAR |
|
|
| (842459) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Oct 10 11:51:10 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by G1Ravage on Sat Oct 10 01:53:34 2009. The relay doesn't negatively impact service. If the train arrives late, it can be double-ended for a quick relay.To be more specific than I was originally, let's grant that the train arrives on the Jamaica-bound trip ON TIME (as opposed to merely being 'on time' for statistical purposes). But the train then emerges on D3 as a Coney Island-bound train 2-4 minutes behind scheduled departure time. Another minute or so tacked on to receive passengers then. Then coming into 169 St, the train slows to switch over to the local track. Then coming into Van Wyck Blvd, there is another slow-go, especially if an E train crosses ahead of our F train on to the local track: time to clear = E train switching time + E train dwell time (longer for R160s) + switch reset time (which probably overlaps somewhat with signal clear time) + F train dwell time (longer for R160s). By this point, if Van Wyck Blvd were the southern terminal, the F train is no longer on time, even with the cushion factor. At 75 Av, the F train crosses back over to the express track. Then into 36 St, for whatever odd reasons on too many trains, the signal is at red over red for 30-60 seconds even though the punch was at Roosevelt Av and there are no switches in between. The odds of our F train reaching 42 St on time are thus quite slim off-peak. And this is without track chip out, flagging, slow orders, and the like. If the train is *that* late, the interval will be ABD'd anyway. Sure but *that* can't possibly help schedule reliability: one train does the work of two. The problem is the length of the line, the number of merges with other lines, and the fact the line is very crowded due to serving popular neighborhoods. It's easy to lose your time on this line, and not get it back. If the trains are too crowded off-peak (the report suggests shoulders of the peak as culprits), one solution is to add more trains, which although costly in terms of labor, has the effect of creating two on-time trains in the place of one delayed train. If trains keep to tighter windows of when they are supposed to be at the interlockings, the merges can be scheduled so as not to conflict, the big merge being with the E running at an equivalent frequency of service. But with trains scheduled to run at combined 2-4 minute headways running 2-4 minutes behind schedule, it's a prescription for congestion. |
|
|
| (842462) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Oct 10 12:09:21 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Oct 10 11:41:54 2009. Right, that wouldn't work. Although notice how it's floated to split late night service in that fashion. I think that adding more trains has to be a key part of the cure, since that has the effect of restoring reliability between the timetable and reality.I also wonder how difficult it is to maintain 1:1 merge with the E if the F had more short-turn terminals. So yes, not worth it. After all, not too many passengers will likely want to go from Brooklyn to Queens via Manhattan unless the service is lightning fast. There's also the pain in the ass factor, though. Going from a Queens Blvd F-only station it's probably far less of a pain in the ass to stay on the F than to go F -> E/V -> G. To be sure, I don't believe that captures too large a population, though. |
|
|
| (842466) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 12:14:13 2009, in response to The F report, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Oct 9 23:19:16 2009. I don't really care what this report says, because frankly, it told a lie. Yes, the R40s and R42s time is indeed up (R40s are gone and R42s will probably make it to next year, but only live during the first quarter of 2010), but remember this: THE R32s ARE THE BEST ENTIRE FLEET IN THE ENTIRE DAMN B DIVISION!Okay, done...lol |
|
|
| (842467) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Oct 10 12:14:22 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 11:14:15 2009. Direct link is in the first line of my original post. |
|
|
| (842472) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 10 12:21:42 2009, in response to The F report, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Oct 9 23:19:16 2009. Lastly, for you R46 fans, although the R160s will make up most F trains, "some trains of R46s are expected to remain in F service until they come due for replacement by the end of the next decade."Most F trains should remain R46. The longer the route, the more comfortable car should be used. |
|
|
| (842476) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Oct 10 12:26:50 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 10 12:21:42 2009. Most F trains should remain R46. The longer the route, the more comfortable car should be used.I agree. The R160 seats are hideously uncomfortable and fewer in number. The idea that running time is proposed to increase and that more R160 trains are to comprise the F fleet is not a blessing: it's a curse! Probably the R160 sets have higher dwell time too, due to the longer announcements. But no doubt some R46s will be allocated to the A/C routes to replace older 60' stock there. |
|
|
| (842517) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 14:45:53 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Oct 10 12:14:22 2009. OK--thanks... it is running through my printer now.ROAR |
|
|
| (842520) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 14:47:08 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 10 12:21:42 2009. Not necessary: Nobody rides the whole route anyway.ROAR |
|
|
| (842529) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Oct 10 15:14:53 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Edwards! on Sat Oct 10 09:20:42 2009. You are being needlessly sarcastic. When a s/b 8th Ave. local arrives at W.4th, as you know next stop Spring Street, crossing over a switch. Yes, a straight rail move from there means next stop B'way Laf. What he's saying is that if some trains diverge and some trains go main route, the tower can't see the trains because they are downstairs and the train is upstairs. |
|
|
| (842531) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Oct 10 15:23:39 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 12:14:13 2009. Typical R32 foamer. If you actually look at the charts, you'd see that the R32 has a horrible MDBF. |
|
|
| (842542) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Oct 10 15:46:03 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 11:10:30 2009. I favor re opening Bergen lower, The persistent water intrusion ultimately has to be fixed even to keep the tracks usable, and the riders on the stairs trying to guess which train is next is now just a budget issue with modern train arrival annunciator systems. |
|
|
| (842544) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Oct 10 15:55:02 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Oct 10 15:23:39 2009. and one should ask when that began to happen. IINM there was a time when they were good cars. Is it merely age despite GOH or is it the very common 'mgmt has told us they will be replaced soon, only do breakdown repairs, no real PM'mantra? |
|
|
| (842555) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 16:32:45 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Oct 10 15:23:39 2009. Me, a foamer? Ha! I could give a crap less about MBDF, that's not what a subway car is all about, much like everyone's beloved R160. |
|
|
| (842562) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 16:44:07 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Oct 10 15:46:03 2009. The LION has said that Bergen Loweer WILL NOT BE USED.What part of "Will NOT be used." is unclear. ROAR |
|
|
| (842564) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 16:47:15 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 16:44:07 2009. The "not used" part. What point is it to bring back express service if they're not going to use the lower level for service? All it needs is some work. |
|
|
| (842565) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 16:48:15 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Oct 10 04:28:02 2009. IAWTP. |
|
|
| (842569) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by f179dj on Sat Oct 10 16:49:58 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 11:49:58 2009. FYI. When I had a CI report, I travelled from 179 to STL, lol. Granted, I was in the minority, but I did it; even at 3:30 in the morning southbound.On another job I cleared in STL at 1:06 a.m. (iirc) and had to reverse the trip to 179 and wait for a bus! Fun days (nights). One does what one's gotta do to put food on the table and pay the mortgage. |
|
|
| (842575) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by mci guy on Sat Oct 10 16:58:07 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by f179dj on Sat Oct 10 16:49:58 2009. i know a motorman who reported at 179 at 5 am. he made one round trip then swing then go back to stillwell and ride the train back to 179 to clear. sounds ridiculous. his wife was his follower on the next train. |
|
|
| (842579) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by mci guy on Sat Oct 10 17:02:53 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 16:32:45 2009. yea i love those r32s. i remember their debut on the brighton in 1964 when i was 17. wish i could relive those years and not just for the transit. |
|
|
| (842581) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by mci guy on Sat Oct 10 17:04:46 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 14:47:08 2009. except the t/o and c/r. when they get relieved midway youll know its a long route. |
|
|
| (842585) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Oct 10 17:09:46 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by f179dj on Sat Oct 10 16:49:58 2009. Every bit as much fun (not) doing that same trick from 205/Bainbridge. :( |
|
|
| (842587) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Oct 10 17:10:47 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 16:47:15 2009. Exactly, Bergen Lower should be reopened for (G) riders that want a piece of the Upper Culver express pie. |
|
|
| (842590) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Oct 10 17:17:59 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 16:47:15 2009. Exactly!!With the new tracking systems, the prior concerns about using Bergen Lower Level for passengers should no longer be the case, especially if they need to do work on that platform at some point anyway. The Lower level other than perhaps needing to be re-tiled really only needs new signage. |
|
|
| (842595) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Oct 10 17:33:49 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by mci guy on Sat Oct 10 17:04:46 2009. well, if it is such a long route, I am sure a schedule could be invented with crew relief @ 2nd Ave for instance. Given that there is apparently a crew quarters there for V runs, having F crews vhange out should not incur great cost. Certainly swapping out in both directions should be easy to do. |
|
|
| (842596) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Oct 10 17:37:40 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 16:44:07 2009. The part where I, also a Leo am right and you are wrong. |
|
|
| (842597) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Sat Oct 10 17:44:52 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by B49 Limited on Sat Oct 10 02:17:14 2009. I lived in Kensington (home station 18th Ave) until 1990 and the "F" had the advantage of not going through DeKalb Avenue. Back in the bad old days when the Brighton, West End and Sea Beach were running beaten up crap the "F" had it's shiny new fleet of R46s with cold working a/c. Since that time the rest of the system has improved while the F's fleet has aged.Now you have the yuppification of Windsor Terrace and Park Slope. These people complain more. They also vote more and thus are paid attention too more. When the peak-direction "F" express stopped running in 1975 we complained to our elected officials who basically old us it was just too bad. The consolation prize was the R44/46 only fleet. Not a bad deal. |
|
|
| (842607) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 19:22:09 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by mci guy on Sat Oct 10 17:02:53 2009. Thank you. Those who are underappreciating the R32s right now will be sorry later on, especially when the R160s start to fail on them. |
|
|
| (842608) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Oct 10 19:22:32 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 16:32:45 2009. To the suits at MTA/NYCT, MDBF is what it's all about.As for me, I am not in love with the R160. |
|
|
| (842610) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 19:24:46 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Oct 10 17:10:47 2009. The (G) is not capable of using the lower level. The lower level tracks connect only to the Sixth Avenue Line, while the upper level serves the Crosstown line, and the Sixth Avenue line via flying junction. |
|
|
| (842611) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 19:26:06 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Oct 10 17:17:59 2009. My point exactly. Thank you for proving my point. If express service is restored, Bergen Street will be a priority to be restored to a usable state. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 6 |
|
