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  
Ftrainfan

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

Recommended Posts

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 (F) can finally be a cluver exp and there's a better chance R46s can stay on the (F) since it could share with the (V). Tell me what you think

 

 

Thanks

(F)trainfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Leave the (V) ALONE! I like it how it is now! Skip stop (F)(V) is so low!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 (F) can finally be a cluver exp and there's a better chance R46s can stay on the (F) since it could share with the (V). 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

I will give a few scenarios as to what happens:

 

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

 

2. The (V) goes to Brooklyn via the (F) Culver Line:

 

What's good about this is that the (V) can take some load off the (F) 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 (G) uses the Culver line also, to Church Avenue. Adding the (V) along the Culver line means that the (G) riders will have to wait for at least two trains to pass them before (G) comes for them, so the sevice pattern looks like this:

 

(F)(V)(G)(F)(V)(G)

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just looking at the title of this topic, I got the impression that the (F) and (V) were going exactly the same route, including the 63rd Street connector.

 

I will give a few scenarios as to what happens:

 

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

 

2. The (V) goes to Brooklyn via the (F) Culver Line:

 

What's good about this is that the (V) can take some load off the (F) 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 (G) uses the Culver line also, to Church Avenue. Adding the (V) along the Culver line means that the (G) riders will have to wait for at least two trains to pass them before (G) comes for them, so the sevice pattern looks like this:

 

(F)(V)(G)(F)(V)(G)

 

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

 

i agree. leave the (F)(V) the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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