Wouldn't it be great if the F & V shared the line together?

[Ftrainfan 13]

Just like the (J)/(Z) train pattern , would'nt it be great if the (F)/(V) had the same pattern. They cloud both go to 179 street and coney island. they could both be 6 ave local/queens bl exp. the can finally be a cluver exp and there's a better chance R46s can stay on the since it could share with the . Tell me what you think

 

 

Thanks

(F)trainfan

[Zman 8]

(F)eh.

[Paul P 0]

(F)oam.

[7LineFan 254]

The gets used quite a bit as it is... and there'd be too many expresses and not enough locals on the QBL. So no.

[mark1447 685]

Yeah this would be so nice! Now lets have people off 53rd Street complaint about no 6th Avenue service instead now its to !

 

Leave the ALONE! I like it how it is now! Skip stop is so low!

[Grand Concourse 2,690]

Just like the (J)/(Z) train pattern , would'nt it be great if the (F)/(V) had the same pattern. They cloud both go to 179 street and coney island. they could both be 6 ave local/queens bl exp. the can finally be a cluver exp and there's a better chance R46s can stay on the since it could share with the . Tell me what you think

 

 

Thanks

(F)trainfan

 

Why not just an F/<F>? I'm sure they could probably program that on the R160's.

[nel070 0]

nope the is sufficient the has screwed the up enough

[R32 3348 10]

Leave things as it is. If you really wanted a Culver Express then all you would have to do is extend the to Church Ave.

[E train line 12]

No I want F train better service

[S78 via Hylan 1,076]

The and are good the way they are now.

[R44 5278 0]

Um, definitely not. The point of the V running with the E is the sole purpose of why the V even exists; replacing the F through 53rd St. No matter what, the E will still come as "slow" as each train is behind a V train. Don't forget that on QB, the F runs express as well. Face it, there is no solution to overcrowding. If the V ran with the F, then the F would be congested for no reason and the V would be empty 95% of the time.

[MattTrain 3,099]

Just looking at the title of this topic, I got the impression that the and were going exactly the same route, including the 63rd Street connector.

 

I will give a few scenarios as to what happens:

 

1. If the and were to run through the 63rd Street Connector:

 

The benefit is that there would be direct service between the stations along the 63rd Street and local stops in Queens Boulevard.

 

The problem with this is that the runs alone 53rd Street (it does this during late nights and weekends) however, the leaving the would cause more congestion along the especially during rush hours. A along 63rd Street is not needed, that's the (F)'s job.

 

2. The goes to Brooklyn via the Culver Line:

 

What's good about this is that the can take some load off the when it goes beyond Lower East Side 2nd Avenue. It can run on the Culver Line to Kings Highway.

 

Of course there are drawbacks:

 

The uses the Culver line also, to Church Avenue. Adding the along the Culver line means that the riders will have to wait for at least two trains to pass them before comes for them, so the sevice pattern looks like this:

 

 

I say leave the and the way it is. No need for the to go to Brooklyn either, if that was what was considered initally.

[Luis1985 1]

Just looking at the title of this topic, I got the impression that the and were going exactly the same route, including the 63rd Street connector.

 

I will give a few scenarios as to what happens:

 

1. If the and were to run through the 63rd Street Connector:

 

The benefit is that there would be direct service between the stations along the 63rd Street and local stops in Queens Boulevard.

 

The problem with this is that the runs alone 53rd Street (it does this during late nights and weekends) however, the leaving the would cause more congestion along the especially during rush hours. A along 63rd Street is not needed, that's the (F)'s job.

 

2. The goes to Brooklyn via the Culver Line:

 

What's good about this is that the can take some load off the when it goes beyond Lower East Side 2nd Avenue. It can run on the Culver Line to Kings Highway.

 

Of course there are drawbacks:

 

The uses the Culver line also, to Church Avenue. Adding the along the Culver line means that the riders will have to wait for at least two trains to pass them before comes for them, so the sevice pattern looks like this:

 

 

I say leave the and the way it is. No need for the to go to Brooklyn either, if that was what was considered initally.

 

i agree. leave the the way it is.