BrooklynIRT

-it does not make sense for the to run local down Broadway, the alone or alone is perfectly fine when it comes to handling the crowds. -the current setup causes lots of problems since the has to get from local to express to get on the Manhattan Bridge, among other things. that particular switch delays the and a lot. I think problems are also caused at the Midtown end with too many trains making switches by Herald SQ or Times SQ or W 49 or W 57 or wherever all the switching occurs. there have been many complaints about merging delays since the was cut and the was made a 24/7 Broadway Local..

I probably edited the post after you quoted. the thing is for after SAS begins running, not now while the SAS is not running. after SAS begins, the will replace the: -Astoria portion of the -Broadway Local , since it will become a Broadway Express on weekdays and something in addition to the has to serve Broadway local stations if the is to be a Broadway Express again

I know I pressed peacemaker for explanations in the past when he criticized my ideas (I still think my reasons for pestering him were at least halfway decent), but asking somebody to explain a PITA rush hour walk is just...what the... anyway, the thing is that it does not make sense for people to have to make that transfer during rush hour for no reason. a lot of people, busy station, long walks down passageways to get from the BMT Brighton to the BMT 4th Ave platform. most of your other reasons for these changes have been shot down, meaning these changes would not be good ones overall. therefore there is no reason to take the off Brighton and there is no reason to make people walk down passageways to get from the BMT Brighton to the BMT 4th Ave platform during rush hour! the was and will be supplemental, not duplicative! the current duplicates supplements the on the Astoria line! the current duplicates supplements the b/w Lex Ave-E 60 St and Canal St! the former and future supplemented/will supplement the b/w Ditmars and Times SQ. the former and future supplemented/will supplement the b/w Lex Ave-E 60 St and Whitehall. the has always supplemented the b/w Lex and Times SQ. after the comes back, the weekend , not the weekday , will continue to supplement the b/w Lex and Canal b/c the will not run on the weekend. I am pretty sure.

alright, then let us discuss the Astoria/Broadway/Sea Beach side of town. forget about Brighton or anything else. it is not nonsensical to restore the . if you agree that the has to go to E 96 St-2 Ave after SAS opens, then something must go to Astoria to replace the , and if MTA has the ability to give Astoria the supplemental trains it needs (the is the non-supplemental Astoria line) without having to run them all the way to/from Coney Island for no reason, it has to turn those supplemental trains somewhere further north so that it is not paying for empty trains to be on the road for no reason (they get empty when they are traveling in the reverse peak direction, which is after most of the commuters have gotten off in the central business districts). MTA does have the ability to give Astoria the supplemental trains it needs without having to run them all the way to/from Coney Island for no reason. it has the ability because it can turn the supplemental trains at Whitehall. this is what they did when they ran the . it is a shortened . it makes more economic and operational sense to run the from Ditmars to Whitehall than it does to run more trains from Ditmars to Coney Island if there is no on the Astoria line.

Whitehall is currently the only place where it would be physically possible to terminate the extra trains you would need to run on Brighton to make up for the loss of the . but you cannot send them there b/c you cannot take service away from Grand & Chrystie Streets. forget about Whitehall even being a physical possibility for these extra trains once the SAS phase I opens, since all the trains will then go to E 96 St-2 Av and the will have to return to service, running local from Ditmars Blvd-31 St to Whitehall. due to crew assignments, the way crews' schedules are created, budget constraints, a possible lack of rolling stock, the need to keep service patterns as simple as possible, and the need to avoid using switches unless there are good reasons to use them (in this case the ones b/w local and express tracks around W 168 St-Broadway), no trains should run beyond W 168 St-Broadway. done yet?

the Euclid-Lefferts shuttle during overnight hours. yes, most of us know about it. if you are talking about Lefferts and Far Rock and not Rock Park, the thing about preventing transfers is totally irrelevant. the real motive behind sending all trains to Far Rock and all trains to Lefferts is improving frequencies on each branch. but like I said those riders do not want that. they prefer the current situation instead of all trains on Lefferts branch and all trains on Far Rock branch. if Rock Park is part of the discussion then the preventing transfers thing is relevant. but the fact of the matter is that whoever does not want to deal with taking the shuttle to the at Broad Channel should not be living on the Rock Park branch. there are many other affordable neighborhoods in this city with better mass transit than those along the Rock Park branch.

no, b/c Wash Hts + Inwood would lose service for no reason. also assuming you ran the same # of trains on the Brighton as current trains on the Brighton (better have them serve Grand & Chrystie Streets as well; that station is heavy, so forget about turning them at Whitehall) to make up for the loss of the , you would have nowhere to turn them before West 4. you cannot run on the 6th Ave EXP tracks the rerouted plus the plus some Brighton service replacing the . physically impossible. nowhere to turn those new trains. *hopes s/he does not come up with something else so the thread can be put to bed*

but I already said they do not want that and thus that will not happen! if it bothers you so much I hope you have no plans of living out there..or have the ability to leave that area soon if you currently live there..

not enough room for in cranberry street tubes. physically impossible during rush hour due to track capacity (currently there are close to 30 trains per hour (TPH) per track per direction during rush hour in cranberry tubes and 30 TPH per track per direction is the max when you have fixed block signaling). therefore no via the 8th Ave line (south of West 4th), Fulton line, or Rockaway line. I said that before. and not enough demand for that much service to Rock Park or Far Rock.

to begin with the does not go to Norwood at all. now, let us proceed, very quickly so we can get back to our lives... it has been said in the past that the riders on the Lefferts branch prefer an express train running every 10-20 minutes to a local train running every 10 minutes. I personally would prefer the local train every 10 minutes to Lefferts so Far Rock could have more service and Lefferts could have more service, but I do not live in those areas and have no interest in living in those areas and apparently most who live out there prefer what is there now, so that will have to do. it is physically impossible to send more trains thru the Cranberry St tunnels during rush hours, so neither the nor anything else can go there with the . when it comes to non rush hours there is just no demand for another service going there with the . if more service is needed outside rush hour you just add more or trains. and like Grand Concourse said the needs to stay in southern Brooklyn to serve the Brighton line. and making the a CPW local while the is a CPW express is just renaming CPW services if talking about rush hours. for the times when there is only one CPW local train (the ), well, you could have the or run local to supplement the since CPW local stations only get service every 10 minutes on weekends, but for whatever reason nobody wants the or running local there outside overnight hours. I do not live in those areas and have no interest in living in those areas and apparently most who live out there prefer what is there now, so that will have to do. or maybe MTA does not feel that the demand for CPW local service is worth paying for more running time (you know, the additional running time that comes when you run a train local instead of express). and the people who live there have yet to make a big stink about the 10 minute weekend headways.

I remember when I used to be that guy going on about changes I thought should be made to the IRT lines...glad I found better things to do =) I am going to kindly advise you to let these service patterns be and perhaps try to figure out other ways to improve mass transit in NYC. for starters maybe you can join the political fights for new rapid transit lines, extended rapid transit lines, reactivated rapid transit lines, maybe congestion pricing on trafficated streets where buses run, etc etc.

http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1218855

but what will they do in future GOs in which they are forced to run NTTs to SF outer while the old SF is open? have them just hang out around there with doors closed until they can get into Rector N/B? and why would opening all the doors on a NTT by mistake cause them to ban NTTs but not R62s and R62As (the latter of which will be servicing a 5-car station regularly soon) from servicing 5-car stations? it is not like NTTs have some mysterious effect on C/Rs that motivates them to accidentally the door open button for both of the two zones any more than they would on the other trains.

why will the trains stop there if they are not servicing the station and why will they not service the station?

WTF? the trains have that many of them too? I thought only buses had that many (they hang out in the engine compartment)...

yes, they should.

damn half width cabs. I feel sorry for you Dan. =(

cannot penalize everybody on account of a couple of persons with extreme opinions. if we had no transit system and there were so many more personal vehicles on the road, our planet would be so much more screwed than it already is (global warming). were they all running to CI during the same hours? it was not the running there for one part of the day with the running there for another part of the day or something along those lines?

local, as did the . you really took me back with that one; I remember being surprised to see "New Lots Avenue Brooklyn" up on the signs of trains running over Broadway. I was in elementary school at the time.

ATS really messed up today. I see a northbound descend from the el to the tunnel as I approach the entrance to the northbound platform of the 137 St station. as I descend the staircase, the ATS announcer states that the arriving train (the one I saw descend from the el) is not in service and is terminating at 137. and the conductor was one of those people who announces as little as possible and closes the doors mad quick, so I had to run onto the train once I realized it was going past 137 (I realized this when she said the next stop was 145, which seemed to come out of nowhere since ATS led me to believe the train was terminating at 137). it also says "this train is NIS" or "this train is NIS" at Flatbush when there are weekend GOs with those lines terminating at FB, but that is not nearly as bad as when it happens at an irregular terminal.

how in the world does a show up on Nostrand at this time of night? also forget about those absurd wait times for the trains; subwaytime/ATS is either messing up, under maintenance, or both. the system thinks that it is currently taking every train 7 minutes to get from Church to Beverly. a lot of times during the day subwaytime shows 15+ minute waits for a , , , or train; which I find hard to believe unless intervals are being abandoned left and right

so. much. . service. between. Manhattan. and. Brooklyn. referring to the fact that the is running like every 8 mins instead of 12 between MN and BK

http://thejoekorner.com/carassignments/index.html http://thejoekorner.com/carassignments/bmt-ind-2012-12-24.html http://thejoekorner.com/carassignments/irt-2012-12-16.html