|
|
| Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends (819711) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
|
| (861734) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Nov 20 15:52:10 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Fri Nov 20 02:55:59 2009. That I think would be good, but if that happened, I would then extend the V to Metropolitan Avenue on weekends and have it replace the M shuttle on the Broadway Brooklyn end.The D I think could be run as a local on weekends, especially since then the A could at least run express to 59th when the D is local, even if the C is not running. |
|
|
| (861736) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Q46 ltd glen oaks on Fri Nov 20 16:08:39 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Nov 20 15:52:10 2009. I'm against the D running local for the sole reason that the service is subpar already. Waiting for that train at anytime is a pain because 2 of every other line will show up before it. That express service on the weekends and late nights is one of the few good things about the line and taking it away from BX riders would cause endless issues. If they just add more service on the C and didn't have GOs shutting it down every other weekend things would be fine |
|
|
| (861738) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 16:13:33 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by Q46 ltd glen oaks on Fri Nov 20 16:08:39 2009. Taking away the express service would cause no issues and solve many issues.It is one of the few service modifications for which there is no real downside. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (861740) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Nov 20 16:16:09 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 16:13:33 2009. It encourages riders to take the already overcrowded (4) train. |
|
|
| (861741) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 16:19:27 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by Osmosis Jones on Fri Nov 20 16:16:09 2009. Very few who have that opportunity now would choose otherwise. The 4 goes to the east side, the D goes to the west side. Very different markets.The D being local, OTOH would likely notably reduce crowding on the 1 line, from midtown to the UWS which is one of the worst on weekends. It would also reduce crowding on the C line, which can be quite bad too. |
|
|
| (861742) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Nov 20 16:22:49 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Nov 19 00:50:04 2009. In this case, because there are additional benefits to running the B as well:Most notably, the B could also serve CPW 24/7 and allow the A to at least run express to 59th Street during overnights and when the C is not running because of a GO in that scenario. |
|
|
| (861744) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 16:26:09 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Nov 20 16:22:49 2009. The only purpose of running the B would be to serve the underserved CPW line.That is much more efficiently achieved by running the D local. The purpose is to allocate late night and weekend service so that trains are not bypassing stations they could be stopping at. Skipping the local stations saves people on the trains 3 minutes, while if the train would only stop, those waiting on the platforms would gain 15 minutes. Considering the similar sizes of both populations, it is absurd that the D runs express at nights, and on weekends. |
|
|
| (861749) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Nov 20 16:31:18 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Nov 19 22:53:36 2009. That probably makes more sense (F to Church, D to Coney Island). That would give the Culver both a local and express line with the W replacing the D on the West End line (and if so, the W running to at least Whitehall 24/7 so people can transfer to other lines, including the 1 at Whitehall-South Ferry). |
|
|
| (861760) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Q46 ltd glen oaks on Fri Nov 20 16:50:15 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 16:19:27 2009. So then people in the Bronx have to wait 12-20 mins for a D to show up and then have it scrap the wall all the way to CC/59? what exactly about is a benefit. Even with the D running express now the service is still all over the place. That's just going to add unnecessary run tine to the line. Yes the 4 serves the east side but it connects with the 2 so people use that pattern of travel already to avoid the mess that is the D. If they actually ran the C with some type of decent frequency there would be no problem on CPW |
|
|
| (861761) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 20 16:52:56 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 16:26:09 2009. That is much more efficiently achieved by running the D local.Thereby screwing Concourse riders in favor of Inwood riders. No go. CPW local riders have the C. That's THEIR train, and if it's inadequate, address that by modifying C service. |
|
|
| (861765) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 17:06:32 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Nov 20 16:52:56 2009. Adding three minutes to the commute of concourse riders traveling to 8/59, 7/53, 50/6, 42/6, and 34/6 hardly counts as "screwing" riders in any way whatsoever.Besides, those traveling to any station 72-135 would be greatly advantaged by such a change. |
|
|
| (861766) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 17:10:35 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by Q46 ltd glen oaks on Fri Nov 20 16:50:15 2009. The C is irrelevant. The C would have to be running every 3-4 minutes for there to be a net time saved by running the D express(considering how little time the CPW express saves).You are also neglecting the added benefit to those wishing to go from CPW to Concourse. |
|
|
| (861770) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Fri Nov 20 17:31:51 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 17:06:32 2009. Not necessarily true; though the CPW express is scheduled to save three minutes, it's often saved more than that for me (especially on weekends). Further, if you use the same number of trains to operate the (D) local, you stretch the headway, adding an additional detriment in the form of increased wait times. This detriment doesn't just affect Concourse riders, but all other (D) riders.Also, the benefit gained by CPW local riders is offset by the detriment on Concourse; weekend Concourse ridership (both average and aggregate) is higher than average/aggregate weekend CPW local ridership. It'd be more beneficial (in my honest opinion) to increase (C) service. *** formerly shadyelstation. my blog |
|
|
| (861775) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Fri Nov 20 18:05:20 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Concourse Express on Fri Nov 20 17:31:51 2009. The CPW express run is five-six minutes long. I love that stretch. |
|
|
| (861776) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Fri Nov 20 18:07:08 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Nov 20 15:52:10 2009. Why does everyone want to see the (V) along the Broadway-Brooklyn corridor? If 8-car trains ran along Queens Boulevard, riders would go bonkers. |
|
|
| (861781) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Fri Nov 20 18:11:06 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 17:10:35 2009. The C is irrelevantWrong; if (C) service weren't crappy there wouldn't be much of a problem on CPW! The C would have to be running every 3-4 minutes for there to be a net time saved by running the D express(considering how little time the CPW express saves). False statement. Based on 2008 weekend numbers for Concourse and CPW, the (C)'s current 10-min headway, the (D)'s current 8-min headway, and an assumed time savings of three minutes for the CPW express, I found that leaving the (D) express and changing the (C)'s headway to every 8 minutes 57 seconds (NOT "every 3-4 minutes") would generate a greater net benefit per rider (+25.1 sec/rider) than running the (D) local (+24.8 sec/rider). This net benefit for running the (D) local decreases if: (1) The (D) runs less frequently than every 8 minutes, OR (2) The CPW express saves more than three minutes (a time saving greater than 3 min 41 sec guarantees that the (D) local will cause a net time detriment). Unless you add more (D) trains to compensate, (1) is guaranteed, taking away the little "benefit" achieved. That's why I believe it's better to add more (C) service; though the benefit on CPW local is smaller than a (D) local, there is no time detriment anywhere. Also, if the (D) runs less frequently, all (D) riders are affected, so now their detriment comes into play (my findings above consider only Concourse and CPW local ridership). *** formerly shadyelstation. my blog |
|
|
| (861793) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Nov 20 19:00:48 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Fri Nov 20 02:55:59 2009. F to Lexington/63rd..use the Metrocard transfer to 59th st/Lexington...catch the 4/5/or 6 there. |
|
|
| (861797) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Nov 20 19:04:37 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by lrg5784 on Fri Nov 20 18:07:08 2009. Given how 'well used the V is' I don't think they'll miss the other 120' of train. |
|
|
| (861798) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Fri Nov 20 19:05:20 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Nov 20 19:04:37 2009. I don't know, maybe it's just me then. |
|
|
| (861800) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 19:26:21 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by Concourse Express on Fri Nov 20 18:11:06 2009. Such numbers would only be the case if ALL concourse riders would benefit from the D running express. Such is not the case.Concourse-Concourse riders would not benefit whatsoever. They are counted doubly(assuming a round trip). Concourse-4 line riders would not benefit whatsoever. They are counted once per round trip in the concourse ridership tallies. Concourse-8th ave riders receive no benefit either. They are counted once in concourse ridership. Concourse- Washington Heights/145th riders receive no benefit either. They are counted once in ridership too. Concourse-CPW riders are HURT by the D running express. They are counted in both groups. Concourse-125 riders are slightly hurt by the D running express. They are counted once. The ONLY destinations for which Local D service would not benefit CPW riders are 50/8, 155 and 163/Amsterdam. Unlike all those concourse groups which would not benefit, these riders actually are an insignificant portion of the ridership. |
|
|
| (861844) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Q46 LTD Glen Oaks on Fri Nov 20 21:34:11 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 19:26:21 2009. If you make the D local you're going to have to add more service because the current headways won't work with all those added stops. The only people who are inconvienced by the D being express are people between 72-116 and 135 St stations because the C sucks. |
|
|
| (861889) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Nov 21 00:36:26 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by BMTLines on Wed Nov 18 20:59:41 2009. BOOO! Midtown terminals are an abomination! Bring on the SAS! And the 7 extension (I guess that's still Midtown. Oh well). |
|
|
| (861907) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Nov 21 01:03:36 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by R36 #9346 on Thu Nov 19 17:39:25 2009. I'm glad those days are over. |
|
|
| (861920) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Nov 21 02:41:52 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by lrg5784 on Fri Nov 20 18:07:08 2009. We're talking about weekends only for now with extending the V to Metropolitan. Weekdays, it still would only run to 2nd Avenue as it does now. I think QB riders would be quite happy having 8-car V trains on weekends to supplement the R as opposed to no-car V trains that don't presently exist at all on weekends.It's just if you have the V running on weekends, have it also replace the M Shuttle in Brooklyn to Metropolitan Avenue as well, as it also would be a good gauge to see if the combined line could eventually be made permanent, possibly 24/7 (and obviously if so, require extension of all stations along the Broadway-Brooklyn line the V would stop at between Essex-Metropolitan if the V became a permanent line on weekdays to accomodate 10-car trains). |
|
|
| (861944) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Sat Nov 21 07:04:26 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Nov 21 00:36:26 2009. Bring on the SAS! And the 7 extension (I guess that's still Midtown. Oh well).I agree, though IMHO the (7) extension should go to Chelsea Piers; based on plans outlined at MTA's Web Site the "stubs" past 34 St extend all the way to 26 St... *** formerly shadyelstation my blog |
|
|
| (861954) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Sat Nov 21 08:31:38 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 19:26:21 2009. Concourse-Concourse riders would not benefit whatsoever.Concourse-4 line riders would not benefit whatsoever. Concourse- Washington Heights/145th riders receive no benefit either. These riders wouldn't benefit from a (D) local either. In the best-case scenario the 8-min headway is retained (no change from current pattern). However, this requires adding (D) trains to compensate for the local run; if this isn't done, you stretch the headway, which increases wait times. For these riders such is NOT beneficial, but detrimental. This detriment, in addition to adversely affecting ALL (D) riders, reduces the benefit to CPW local riders. Concourse-8th ave riders receive no benefit either. How so? Given that such riders would transfer at 59 for 8th Ave service, an express is certainly advantageous over the local; the time savings increases the probability of connecting with a (C) thats already on the CPW lcl run (this eliminates waiting time on the transfer). In the worst-case scenario such a connection isn't made and the riders would wait for the next (A)/(C). This, however, is the best-case scenario in the (D) local case; as a local, (A) express trains could pass (D) locals, increasing wait times on the 59 x-fer. Concourse-CPW riders are HURT by the D running express. True, but such ridership is insignificant compared to the rest of the ridership to/from Concourse. Such riders can transfer to/from (C) service at 145 or 125; with the exception of S/B riders traveling to 135 or N/B riders traveling from 135, the transfer is cross-plat - hardly inconvenient compared to many other transfers. Concourse-125 riders are slightly hurt by the D running express. I assume you're referring to the switches and timers b/w 145 and 125 that eat up potential time savings. Even so, it's hardly a case of running the (D) local - it's a case of addressing the speed restrictions (AFAIK, the signals along CPW haven't been replaced yet). Not only that, it's still possible for expresses to save time on this stretch - it's happened to me many times. The ONLY destinations for which Local D service would not benefit CPW riders are 50/8, 155 and 163/Amsterdam. What about the rest of 8th Ave? A (D) local doesn't make a difference there either; such riders need an 8th Ave service - which they already have in the (C). As such, I still stand by my belief that improving (C) service is MUCH more beneficial overall than a (D) local. *** my blog |
|
|
| (861984) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Nov 21 12:06:26 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by R30A on Fri Nov 20 17:06:32 2009. It's not three minutes, it's more like 7. Most D riders want stations south of 72nd already. If a three minute wait is no big deal, then C riders should just deal with it. Right? |
|
|
| (861985) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Nov 21 12:09:04 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Concourse Express on Fri Nov 20 17:31:51 2009. Barring a GO, the C runs at the same headways the D runs in the Bronx on weekends. The CPW local does not need any more service. |
|
|
| (861988) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Nov 21 12:11:03 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Nov 18 21:18:10 2009. A much better case could be made for running the B to/from Brooklyn than to/from Harlem and the UWS on weekends. |
|
|
| (861990) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Nov 21 12:17:02 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by lrg5784 on Fri Nov 20 18:07:08 2009. An 8-car V train would be 30' longer than a G train was in the 1990's, and 90' longer than a G train from the 70's and 80's. |
|
|
| (862016) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sat Nov 21 14:04:14 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by Q46 ltd glen oaks on Fri Nov 20 16:50:15 2009. Scraping the wall adds all of 3-4 minutes to the entire trip. You make it sound like it adds an hour. |
|
|
| (862017) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sat Nov 21 14:04:59 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Edwards! on Fri Nov 20 19:00:48 2009. And lose your transfer and walk 3 blocks. That isn't a real transfer, even if it is "free." |
|
|
| (862018) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Nov 21 14:16:14 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Nov 21 12:17:02 2009. An 8-car V train would be 30' longer than a G train was in the 1990's, and 90' longer than a G train from the 70's and 80's.That means that a G train in the 70s and 80s was 390 feet long. That's not a multiple of either 60 or 75. |
|
|
| (862021) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Nov 21 14:41:49 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Nov 21 14:16:14 2009. Correct, a G train from the 90's (450' 6-car R46) was 90' longer than a G/GG train from the 1980's and 1970's (360' 6-car R32 or R10's).No wonder I didn't get one of the 11 positions that the AP created for fact-checking Palin's book. |
|
|
| (862027) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Nov 21 15:07:47 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Nov 21 14:41:49 2009. Wish they'd fackt check Algore' books!~Sheesh! |
|
|
| (862073) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Nov 21 18:06:13 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Nov 21 15:07:47 2009. The amount of paper it would require to document all the bullshit in those exceeds the capacity of our remaining forests. |
|
|
| (862083) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Nov 21 19:02:14 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by lrg5784 on Fri Nov 20 18:07:08 2009. Think they aren't going bonkers already with constant G.O.'s on the Queens Boulevard line now? While I don't necessarily want to see the V running via the Broadway Brooklyn corridor, I do think it should operate on weekends to supplement the R in Queens and the F in Manhattan and return some sort of normalcy to the Queens Boulevard line. |
|
|
| (862172) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Nov 22 00:20:58 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Nov 21 19:02:14 2009. Except by having the V also replace the M in Brooklyn, it probably makes it more worthwhile to have the V run on weekends, while at the same time get a good idea of whether or not it is worth making such a combined line worth it on weekdays as well. |
|
|
| (862445) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Nov 22 22:07:31 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Nov 22 00:20:58 2009. If the V were to run to Coney Island via the Brooklyn IND express tracks and the Culver Line and the F were to run local and terminate at Church Avenue, it would also make it worthwhile to run the V on weekends. |
|
|
| (862450) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Nov 22 22:22:43 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Nov 22 22:07:31 2009. I agree. At least since they 'hardly run the G on QB' they may as well run 2 trains via 53rd st on the weekends again. |
|
|
| (862462) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Nov 22 23:38:34 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by Q46 LTD Glen Oaks on Fri Nov 20 21:34:11 2009. A single train would easily cover it.Not too substantial of a cost for the service improvement it would provide. |
|
|
| (862466) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Nov 23 00:11:52 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by Concourse Express on Sat Nov 21 08:31:38 2009. The purpose of pointing out how many concourse riders benefit from the D being express was not that these people are necessarily benefiting by the D being local- It is to point out that to the (admittedly slight) majority of the Concourse riders, it doesn't matter whether the D is local or express.To ALL CPW riders, it DOES matter whether the D is local or express. To ALL 1 line riders, who deal with overcrowding (and the delays caused by it), which is at least in part due to the horrendous CPW line service, it DOES matter whether the D is local or express. Adding 6 minutes to the round trip travel time of the D won't have any real effect on service frequency. Perhaps you would need to keep another train running which would otherwise be stored for the weekend, although I suspect such would not be necessary. You could easily move around crew breaks so that you wouldn't need to have any more crews assigned. During nights, neither an extra crew, nor an extra train would be needed. |
|
|
| (862475) | |
Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Nov 23 02:55:40 2009, in response to Re: V Running/D Local on Weekends, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Nov 22 22:07:31 2009. That's something for after the Culver Viaduct work is complete in 2012-'13. I had previously suggested along those lines having EITHER the D join the F on the Culver Line (with the W becoming a 24/7 line going to at least Whitehall from Coney Island nights and weekends line and replacing the D on the West End Line) OR having the V go to Euclid in place of the C, with the C diverted at West 4th to the Culver Line and joining the G as a local to Church Avenue while the F becomes an express.As for the here and now, I think adding V service on weekends is much more warranted by extending that line to Metropolitan and having it replace the M Shuttle in the process. That also would give the MTA a chance to gauge whether the combined line can become a permanent setup for 24/7 service down the road. |
|
|
| (863368) | |
Re: Reviving the Brown R |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Nov 25 06:00:59 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Aug 13 12:36:26 2009. Maybe it's time to revive the "Brown R" train during rush hours in both directions (as opposed to peak direction only in the past), only this time it either terminates at Essex Street OR continues to Eastern Parkway to supplement J/Z service on the Broadway Brooklyn line. |
|
|
| (863372) | |
Re: Reviving the Brown R |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Wed Nov 25 06:40:32 2009, in response to Re: Reviving the Brown R, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Nov 25 06:00:59 2009. Not gonna happen. Ridership along the Fourth Avenue line doesn't call for such a pattern to be reinstated. Plus, if it goes to Essex, where will it relay? |
|
|
| (863491) | |
Re: Reviving the Brown R |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Nov 25 13:16:48 2009, in response to Re: Reviving the Brown R, posted by lrg5784 on Wed Nov 25 06:40:32 2009. Yup the current set up no longer allows the use of the middle track for terminating. |
|
|
| (863501) | |
Re: Reviving the Brown R |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Nov 25 13:34:35 2009, in response to Re: Reviving the Brown R, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Nov 25 06:00:59 2009. Two reasons why that will never happen. First was the N/R switch 6 months before the brown R was eliminated. Before then, both Broadway and Nassau St. R service could share fleets, they both used 8 car trains of 60 footers. Today, that would be impossible, so all brown R trains would have to come from the north (no yard in Bay Ridge). The second reason is that the whole purpose of the brown R was eliminated when the M was moved off the Brighton line in 1986. While it ran as the Brighton local, West End and Sea Beach riders could not make the transfer for Nassau St. trains at Dekalb during rush hours, so the diamond R (originally RJ) was created to provide this at Pacific St (the x-fer here to the Brighton line did not open until 10 years later). Once the M was sent over to the West End (originally as an express between Pacific and 36th), that need evaporated. Add all that congestion which was created at Pacific, where half empty M's and R's would hold up crowded B, N and R trains merging north of Pacific and it's a wonder that it took them so long to eliminate it in the first place. It should have gone at the same moment the N/R swapped terminals (and when the only map to ever show the diamond R as brown was issued). That the M now runs as a local on 4th Ave only makes the diamond R even MORE redundant.The final months of the diamond R demonstrated a service pattern which never appeared on maps. Most Manhattan-bound service in the AM until about 8 AM out of Metropolitan Ave consisted of R trains which ran to 95th St, so they could be turned and run back. There were almost no southbound M trains to Bay Parkway leaving Metropolitan in the AM, trains for the northbound service from Bay Parkway came from Coney Island yard and often ran to ENY, though they were often signed up as terminating at Chambers St. So you had the absurd pattern of M trains running to Eastern Parkway, and R trains running to Metropolitan Ave, and not a single hint of this service ever appeared on maps of the time. |
|
|
| (863586) | |
Re: Reviving the Brown R |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Nov 25 18:09:30 2009, in response to Re: Reviving the Brown R, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Nov 25 13:34:35 2009. If I recall, the original M service pattern had them on the local track on 4 Ave and it was changed when the H tracks of the Manny B closed and the N was put on the local. Initially, Ns were crossed to the express at Pacific St with the Ms remaining on the local. Some "brain" in service planning decided to put the Ms on the express instead and keep the Ns on the local. Some time before I retired in 1997, the services were swapped and the Ns were put back on the express and the Ms on the local. I was doing IRT schedules at the time the Ms were initially put on the West End but I was on the BMT when the last swap was made. |
|
|
| (863694) | |
Re: Reviving the Brown R |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Nov 26 00:51:31 2009, in response to Re: Reviving the Brown R, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Nov 25 13:34:35 2009. Didn't realize that obviously:I was simply going by what had been suggested by others. The reason I thought of Essex as a terminal for the Brown R was that in the last few years, when the J did its extra service to Prospect Park, it used Essex as its terminal on the north end. |
|
|
| (863713) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Nov 26 02:20:14 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Concourse Express on Sat Nov 21 07:04:26 2009. Good iDea. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
