Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
LRG

Should the MTA bring back the K train?

Recommended Posts

I don't know if the K train has been discussed previously; if it has, my apologies.

 

The reason I bring this up is because the Eighth Avenue Line has two locals and one express, while other lines, like Broadway, has two locals and expresses, Sixth Avenue has two locals and expresses, etc. The IRT East and West Sides have two expresses and one local, but the fact that Eighth Avenue has more local services than express is weird. I was wondering how would anyone feel about reinstating the (K) train as the weekday Eighth Avenue Local between 168th Street and the World Trade Center and have the (C) become the weekday Eighth Avenue Express in tandem with the (A). On weekends, the (C) would become local. In my opinion, this would distribute even local and express service along the line, with the (E) and (K) Local and the (A) and (C) Express. Above 59th Street this would create three expresses ((A), (C) and (D)) and two locals ((:P and (K)). Any thoughts on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the (A) runs enough express trains where the 8th avenue line is fine as is. PLus remember that before 59th St the (D) merges onto CPW with it soooo there's slight congestion there AND at Canal St the (C) merges onto the same track with the (A) so some congestion there. There's not much express between Canal St and 59th st that the (K) would actually need to run behind it and between 59th St - 145th ST the (D) is running right behind the (A) as a supplement. So there's no real reason for a (K) between there. It was dumped for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the (A) runs enough express trains where the 8th avenue line is fine as is. PLus remember that before 59th St the (D) merges onto CPW with it soooo there's slight congestion there AND at Canal St the (C) merges onto the same track with the (A) so some congestion there. There's not much express between Canal St and 59th st that the (K) would actually need to run behind it and between 59th St - 145th ST the (D) is running right behind the (A) as a supplement. So there's no real reason for a (K) between there. It was dumped for a reason.

 

Actually the (K) was dumped because the MTA found out it was an off-peak clone of the <C>, so they merged the two and created the (C) with it. The (C) took the responsibilities as the (K) except it didn't turn at WTC on weekdays. Weekends however, it did.

 

My intention for the (K) would make it easier for express riders. The (C) would become express, not the (K) and as a result Eighth Avenue has two expresses and two locals. With the (K), bottlenecks at Canal Street would be wiped out completely because there will be no crossing over on weekdays, like the (C) does now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually i think the dispatchers handle the (A) and (C) pretty well. Usually the (A) is given headway there. Its rare the (A) is held up for the (C) to go first. Plus if you look, you'll see that the locals give better service than the Express trains lately. Most of the stops along CPW and Washington Heights that people get off of are on the local not the Express.

 

Lexington has two expresses because the lexington line is all that runs on the east side in terms of subway. To run anything less would be foolish. I get up the east side faster on the (6) sometimes than i do on the (4)(5) due to the ridership on the express lines. The 7th avenue line has the (2) that accesses the Bronx so the (3) is needed to relieve it of passengers which it does well because they terminate that at 148th St. The (1) as a local is AMAZING in terms of frequency and station dwelling.

 

 

The (:P(D) run along 6th Avenue obviously to provide Bronx access from 6th avenue as the (V) and (F) go to queens. I think they could just run more (A)s and the 8th avenue line would be taken care of. There's no need for an extra express line. If I were to run anything it would be more locals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the "Killer (K)" with its five trips from 168 to WTC for eight hours pay. Not too many crews want to see that sucker come back from the dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, the "Killer (K)" with its five trips from 168 to WTC for eight hours pay. Not too many crews want to see that sucker come back from the dead.

 

Did that factor into its demise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did that factor into its demise?

 

Yeah, like the TA gives a rats behind about our work schedules.

 

No, it was more like the (K) was made redundant by the extended hours of service on the (C).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actually i think the dispatchers handle the (A) and (C) pretty well. Usually the (A) is given headway there. Its rare the (A) is held up for the (C) to go first. Plus if you look, you'll see that the locals give better service than the Express trains lately. Most of the stops along CPW and Washington Heights that people get off of are on the local not the Express.

 

Lexington has two expresses because the lexington line is all that runs on the east side in terms of subway. To run anything less would be foolish. I get up the east side faster on the (6) sometimes than i do on the (4)(5) due to the ridership on the express lines. The 7th avenue line has the (2) that accesses the Bronx so the (3) is needed to relieve it of passengers which it does well because they terminate that at 148th St. The (1) as a local is AMAZING in terms of frequency and station dwelling.

 

 

The (:P(D) run along 6th Avenue obviously to provide Bronx access from 6th avenue as the (V) and (F) go to queens. I think they could just run more (A)s and the 8th avenue line would be taken care of. There's no need for an extra express line. If I were to run anything it would be more locals.

 

Well if you ask me, the (C) does needs more cars, but the only way that is possible is if they stop (A) trains from operating to Lefferts Boulevard and give the extra cars to the (C), and if necessary, make the (C) operate to Lefferts Boulevard instead. This will prove helpful into having the (C) become 600' long.

 

BUT...riders will bicker that there is less Manhattan Express service since the (A) will only go to the Rockaways. Well, make the (C) Express in Manhattan then, and between Euclid Avenue and Rockaway Boulevard, riders can transfer between Rockaway (A) service and Lefferts Boulevard (C) service. This brings the (K), so Eighth Avenue will have two expresses and two locals. The (K), being a Manhattan-only service, should have enough cars for the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring the (K) back as A 168 EXP and terminate at Euclid weekend service EXP in Manhattan local in BK with (A) exp service for the weekends only. (K)<R> and hopefully it will pay more for T/O to pick bring that bad boy back as a Diamond exp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what I Think about all this.

(A): 8th Ave/Fulton street express, 207th St. to the Rockaways (no (A)'s go to lefferts)

(C): Keep the same

(E): Keep the same

(K): 8th Ave/Fulton street express, 168th street to Lefferts

 

My rationale: The (A) is reduced to 2 terminals, and you are guaranteed it will go to the Rockaways and JFK. People around Lefferts Blvd will still have a one seat 8th Avenue express service via the (K). You still have the (C) as the (A)'s local counterpart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is what I Think about all this.

(A): 8th Ave/Fulton street express, 207th St. to the Rockaways (no (A)'s go to lefferts)

(C): Keep the same

(E): Keep the same

(K): 8th Ave/Fulton street express, 168th street to Lefferts

 

My rationale: The (A) is reduced to 2 terminals, and you are guaranteed it will go to the Rockaways and JFK. People around Lefferts Blvd will still have a one seat 8th Avenue express service via the (K). You still have the (C) as the (A)'s local counterpart.

 

Wait...are you proposing that the Fulton Street Line carry THREE lines? You know how much of a bottleneck that would create, especially at Canal Street? I'm sorry, but that needs to be rethinked.

 

So I reworked my provision:

(A): Operates between 207th Street and Far Rockaway, via Manhattan and Brooklyn Express and Queens Local. Peak rush hour service can operate to/from Lefferts Boulevard or Rockaway Park, utilizing the express tracks of the area somehow.

(C): Between 168th Street and Lefferts Boulevard via Manhattan Express and Brooklyn and Queens Local.

(E): Remains the same.

(K): Between 168th Street and WTC, via Local.

 

This all applies to weekdays only. On weekends the (C) operates local for the (K) which will not run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait...are you proposing that the Fulton Street Line carry THREE lines? You know how much of a bottleneck that would create, especially at Canal Street? I'm sorry, but that needs to be rethinked.

 

So I reworked my provision:

(A): Operates between 207th Street and Far Rockaway, via Manhattan and Brooklyn Express and Queens Local. Peak rush hour service can operate to/from Lefferts Boulevard or Rockaway Park, utilizing the express tracks of the area somehow.

(C): Between 168th Street and Lefferts Boulevard via Manhattan Express and Brooklyn and Queens Local.

(E): Remains the same.

(K): Between 168th Street and WTC, via Local.

 

This all applies to weekdays only. On weekends the (C) operates local for the (K) which will not run.

 

Not a bad idea at all, but then why not just rename the Lefferts-bound (A) from 207 the (K)? That way you can keep the same headways, schedules, and stuff while still differentiating them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not a bad idea at all, but then why not just rename the Lefferts-bound (A) from 207 the (K)? That way you can keep the same headways, schedules, and stuff while still differentiating them.

 

I guess that might take some time to change all of the destination signs between (A) and (K) at the terminals because they always swap cars and the R44s don't have automatic signage changes at the front and back of the car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Danger hiptop 4.6; U; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920)

 

If they bring back the (K) I would agree to have it Run from 168 to lefferts and it runs all times except late nights.like the (C)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Danger hiptop 4.6; U; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920)

 

If they bring back the (K) I would agree to have it Run from 168 to lefferts and it runs all times except late nights.like the (C)

 

If that happens but it won't. The (A) should be express 24/7!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Danger hiptop 4.6; U; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920)

 

If that happens but it won't. The (A) should be express 24/7!
how would it be 24/7 exp if the 2 local lines in manhattan and blkyn and queens are not running late nights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Danger hiptop 4.6; U; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920)

 

how would it be 24/7 exp if the 2 local lines in manhattan and blkyn and queens are not running late nights?

 

Easy if the (K) runs local via 8th Avenue/Fulton Street and Central Park West Lines while the (C) isn't running...the (A) can run express to/from Far Rockaway-Mott Avenue late nights!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess that might take some time to change all of the destination signs between (A) and (K) at the terminals because they always swap cars and the R44s don't have automatic signage changes at the front and back of the car.

 

Remember that this is a hypothetical service, and that the (K) would be the exact same as the current (A) to Lefferts. And I'm assuming a train to Lefferts will always be going to Lefferts. So then you wouldn't need to change anything, since intervals and service would not be affected at all, just nomenclature. But that's just my plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Danger hiptop 4.6; U; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920)

 

Easy if the (K) runs local via 8th Avenue/Fulton Street and Central Park West Lines while the (C) isn't running...the (A) can run express to/from Far Rockaway-Mott Avenue late nights!
Oh ok now I understand but I think the can use the R32 becuse the Flipdot sign and there is still the K rollsign on the sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Danger hiptop 4.6; U; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920)

 

Oh ok now I understand but I think the can use the R32 becuse the Flipdot sign and there is still the K rollsign on the sides.

 

A R-32 (K) that would be so hawt;):tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Danger hiptop 4.6; U; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920)

 

A r-32 (K) that would be so hawt;):tup:
Lol,that would be hot I would Railfan the (K) if they ever bring it back with the oldest cars still around.the Ind k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the only thing i can see being the most reasonable is to just rename the Lefferts (A) to the (K). everyone(including me) will be able to tell its destination by that. And Airport goers can just wait for the (A) instead of getting confused on which train goes to JFK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the only thing i can see being the most reasonable is to just rename the Lefferts (A) to the (K). everyone(including me) will be able to tell its destination by that. And Airport goers can just wait for the (A) instead of getting confused on which train goes to JFK

 

That's what I said... but no one seems to be listening or even considering it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's what I said... but no one seems to be listening or even considering it.

 

because everyone is only caring about what they want to see and not really thinking of what will work. Just because other lines run 2 exps doesnt mean all lines can. The (A)'s headways are fine. The most practical use of bringing back the (K) is using it for the current Lefferts service. The (E) has WTC on lock. having 2-3 different (A)'s and a (K) would be too much. The (C) is the way it is for a reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.