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.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Tracknut

(F) Express Thru the Culver Line

Recommended Posts

Why doesn't the (F) run express at least to Church Avenue and then run local from there?

 

How are the condition of the express tracks between Church and Kings Highway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the express tracks on the McDonald Avenue elevated are capable of handling express service. They might need a little work but that's about it. I guess it's the MTA's decision on doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I'm hearing, there's a petition going around to resume Culver Express service at least to Kings Highway on the F. Although there are some things that I disagree with, they gotta put those center tracks to use already. Geesh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think well see any Regular-Weekday (F) Express service pattern until the Culver viaduct reconstruction is complete, come 2011-2012. Once that project is out of the way, who knows what we might see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The express track between Ditmas Ave and Kings Hwy is in perfect shape. In fact it sees quite a bit of action.

 

The express tracks between Ditmas Ave and Church Ave are out of service due to the Culver Viaduct project. As a result, northbound "express" trains would have to be routed to the local south of Ditmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The express track between Ditmas Ave and Kings Hwy is in perfect shape. In fact it sees quite a bit of action.

 

The express tracks between Ditmas Ave and Church Ave are out of service due to the Culver Viaduct project. As a result, northbound "express" trains would have to be routed to the local south of Ditmas.

 

The tracks between Carroll Street and Fourth Avenue have been completely ripped out, so there is no way that the express tracks north of Ditmas can be used for any sort of reroute right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support it but as of right now, the express tracks are unusable north of the Church Av interlocking cuz there are no other switches for it (the interlocking north of 4 Av was removed) and the express tracks between the 4 Av portal and the Carroll St portal are completely gone. Maybe when its completed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the (F) is express between Church Av and Jay St, which line will provide local service to Manhattan? Don't even think about posting that the (G) will be the only local. That's not happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the (F) is express between Church Av and Jay St, which line will provide local service to Manhattan? Don't even think about posting that the (G) will be the only local. That's not happening.

 

This is primarily why the (V) will come to Brooklyn, to provide parallel (G) and (V) local service. If anything, the (G) and the (V) can't both terminate at Church Avenue, so the (V) may be sent to Kings Highway. I don't think there are many (G) riders south of Church Avenue, just Sixth Avenue riders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is the tunnel that triangulates between Seventh Avenue and Church Avenue? IIRC, this tunnel last saw the 70(F).

 

It's fine, right now some of the tracks are being worked on. It has been in use, on weekends before the viaduct work started and the (G) was extended, the (G) would run lite from Smith-9th to Church Av and they would relay there instead of at 4th Av. Nothing is going to happen with an (F) express for the next 4 to 5 years while the viaduct work is on going, so it is pointless to speculate on what might happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why couldn't Church Av handle (G) and (V) service with (F) through-service? CTL used to handle (E)(F) with (R)(V) terminating there. The (G) runs less frequently than the (R) as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why couldn't Church Av handle (G) and (V) service with (F) through-service? CTL used to handle (E)(F) with (R)(V) terminating there. The (G) runs less frequently than the (R) as well...

 

I guess Church Avenue can handle trains better than Forest Hills, as there are more tracks at Church. But I think if express service is restored south of Church, there will be need for Sixth Avenue service. The (V) may very well be sent to Kings Highway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess Church Avenue can handle trains better than Forest Hills, as there are more tracks at Church. But I think if express service is restored south of Church, there will be need for Sixth Avenue service. The (V) may very well be sent to Kings Highway.

 

Church Av and CTL both have 4 relay tracks underneath the revenue tracks. Do you propose the (V) be sent to Kings Hwy full-time or rush hours only (a la the (M))?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Church Av and CTL both have 4 relay tracks underneath the revenue tracks. Do you propose the (V) be sent to Kings Hwy full-time or rush hours only (a la the (M))?

 

It could go there all day on weekdays, that was what I had in mind. By the time the Culver Viaduct project is near completion, there will probably be a public hearing to allow passengers to give their opinion on a new service pattern, but I hope it's not like the Manhattan Bridge situation when the MTA implemented this lame service flip-flop ((D) via West End, (B) via Brighton) service. I'll give my view of what would be a good outcome:

 

(F): As it is, except weekday service operates express between Church Avenue and Bergen Street. Peak express service operates between Church Avenue and Kings Highway. Late night and weekend service is normal (current full-time pattern).

(G): As it is.

(V): Weekdays, between Queens and Kings Highway. If a change like this were implemented, the (V) may very well see more ridership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It could go there all day on weekdays, that was what I had in mind. By the time the Culver Viaduct project is near completion, there will probably be a public hearing to allow passengers to give their opinion on a new service pattern, but I hope it's not like the Manhattan Bridge situation when the MTA implemented this lame service flip-flop ((D) via West End, (:P via Brighton) service. I'll give my view of what would be a good outcome:

 

(F): As it is, except weekday service operates express between Church Avenue and Bergen Street. Peak express service operates between Church Avenue and Kings Highway. Late night and weekend service is normal (current full-time pattern).

(G): As it is.

(V): Weekdays, between Queens and Kings Highway. If a change like this were implemented, the (V) may very well see more ridership.

 

I'm not too familiar with Culver service, but is there really a high demand [over crowded F trains] during the midday hours south of Church Av that really demands the need for the V to run to Kings Highway?

I see at most rush hour service for the V to run to Brooklyn, but shouldn't the F and G be enough middays?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is the fact that the (G) only has 4 cars; I believe it should have 6 though. But personally, I also think that the (V) should be extended into Brooklyn. Especially if the extra service would be benefitial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fully support (F) culver Exp service :tup:

 

So do I. The (F) is in dire need for express service in Brooklyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, there is the fact that the (G) only has 4 cars; I believe it should have 6 though. But personally, I also think that the (V) should be extended into Brooklyn. Especially if the extra service would be benefitial.

 

If the (G) is supposed to take the load from the (F) for local stops then it needs to be a full train set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the (G) is supposed to take the load from the (F) for local stops then it needs to be a full train set.

 

The (C) and the (G), both the step-children of the subway. The ©'s getting 10 gars, great! The (G), well, it used to be eight cars when it ran R32s before December of 2001 before getting downgraded to 300'. Going back to eight would be some sort of upgrade, I guess. Especially if th (V) doesn't come to Brooklyn after all then the (G) would really need to be longer to support the extra load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (F) needs no express service (in Brooklyn that is, via the Culver line), it's fine the way it is. However, if express service was warranted, the (F) expresses should terminate/orginate at Kings Highway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The (F) needs no express service (in Brooklyn that is, via the Culver line), it's fine the way it is. However, if express service was warranted, the (F) expresses should terminate/orginate at Kings Highway.

 

What are you talking about??? The (F)does need express service. Park Slope residents have been pushing for this for so long, and now their wishes have been granted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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