The "Cut" is being worked on

[MTR Admiralty]

But since the new is based out of ENY, which has 4-car sets, the will be 8 cars.

It HAS to be 8 cars because the el portion can't handle 600 footers.

[m7zanr160s]

That's irrelevant...the is justified to be full-length. ALL subway lines should be full-length, especially the and lines. The reason why they aren't is due to a car shortage.

 

There's no 32 shortage for the . With 10 (cars), I think there'd still be about 40 cars left over.

[Eric B]

Just realized also, if the start of the pick is pushed back, then we will have to pick for July 4, and I think it would be difficukt to squeeze that in now.

 

Also, just saw the new timetable, and the new requirements are 22 (AM) and 20 (PM), while the current is 17 for both. So I guess you guys are right then about more trains being needed for the new line. The 28 new 160's will just barely fill this in, with keeping the 42's. So are we stuck with the rustbuckets for life now?

[LRG]

Just realized also, if the start of the pick is pushed back, then we will have to pick for July 4, and I think it would be difficukt to squeeze that in now.

 

Also, just saw the new timetable, and the new requirements are 22 (AM) and 20 (PM), while the current is 17 for both. So I guess you guys are right then about more trains being needed for the new line. The 28 new 160's will just barely fill this in, with keeping the 42's. So are we stuck with the rustbuckets for life now?

 

Don't forget that this is a service cut and not an increase. Were it an increase the would still be running. If the (M2) were to be truncated to Broad or Chambers Streets then there would be enough R160s and the R42s would be pushed to another line if needed.

 

If/when we get out of this financial crunch then we'll see the status of the car assignments. But don't forget that with the R44 retirement the 32s and 42s HAVE to stay.

[RTOMan]

Just realized also, if the start of the pick is pushed back, then we will have to pick for July 4, and I think it would be difficukt to squeeze that in now.

 

It can be done ......

[Eric B]

Don't forget that this is a service cut and not an increase. Were it an increase the would still be running. If the (M2) were to be truncated to Broad or Chambers Streets then there would be enough R160s and the R42s would be pushed to another line if needed.

 

If/when we get out of this financial crunch then we'll see the status of the car assignments. But don't forget that with the R44 retirement the 32s and 42s HAVE to stay.

So you think the changes will be reversed when the financial crunch is over? I think there is a possibility the people on my end will oppose them taking away the new service (which they hadn't known about all this time).

What I could see them doing, is if it draws enough riders off of the , they might reduce that line, which they had so increased, creating the need to keep the 42's in the first place. (And yes, there are people who would rather have a longer one seat ride than a transfer).

[LRG]

So you think the changes will be reversed when the financial crunch is over? I think there is a possibility the people on my end will oppose them taking away the new service (which they hadn't known about all this time).

What I could see them doing, is if it draws enough riders off of the , they might reduce that line, which they had so increased, creating the need to keep the 42's in the first place. (And yes, there are people who would rather have a longer one seat ride than a transfer).

 

Trust me, with the Culver Viaduct project in progress, once it's done the will be reintroduced and serve Brooklyn. Park Slope needs more help than Middle Village and Glendale for what it's worth. I guarantee you that even after the new routing people will still take the train because it's...faster.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Cars these days are built into either 4 car sets or 5 car sets. (I'm talking about 60 footers) And you want to have some kind of uniformity in yards. It's not logistical to have a yard with some 5 car sets and some 4 car sets.

 

The should have stuck with married pairs. They are far more flexible and can be better-tailored to ridership patterns depending on the time of the day or week. Also, if one car has a problem, only two cars have to go out of service instead of four or five. Nearly every other North American subway system as well as LIRR and Metro-North use married pairs.

 

The only way four- and five-car sets make sense is if they're articulated.

[RTOMan]

The should have stuck with married pairs. They are far more flexible and can be better-tailored to ridership patterns depending on the time of the day or week. Also, if one car has a problem, only two cars have to go out of service instead of four or five. Nearly every other North American subway system as well as LIRR and Metro-North use married pairs.

 

The only way four- and five-car sets make sense is if they're articulated.

 

Tell that to Peter Kalikow and freinds who Ok'd that stuff..

 

Oh nobody cant, they arent around to answer for it.

[Eric B]

Trust me, with the Culver Viaduct project in progress, once it's done the will be reintroduced and serve Brooklyn. Park Slope needs more help than Middle Village and Glendale for what it's worth. I guarantee you that even after the new routing people will still take the train because it's...faster.

 

A lot of people I know don't really compare like that, and want as few transfers as possible. Most people look at it in terms of individual lines, rather than fastes overal paths. My wife and friends are like that, and when going to the movies in Manhattan, they would want to go to 14th St because that was the only place they could go on one train. Trying to go to places like Port Authority, I would try to take a shortcut, such as the from Essex to w4, and they would have a fit, wanting to change directly to the at Bway Nassau.

Now, with this new line, that will be their main pathway to Midtown.

[MTR Admiralty]

The should have stuck with married pairs. They are far more flexible and can be better-tailored to ridership patterns depending on the time of the day or week. Also, if one car has a problem, only two cars have to go out of service instead of four or five. Nearly every other North American subway system as well as LIRR and Metro-North use married pairs.

 

The only way four- and five-car sets make sense is if they're articulated.

Very true, but the norm these days is to create sets and have full width cabs.

[LRG]

A lot of people I know don't really compare like that, and want as few transfers as possible. Most people look at it in terms of individual lines, rather than fastes overal paths. My wife and friends are like that, and when going to the movies in Manhattan, they would want to go to 14th St because that was the only place they could go on one train. Trying to go to places like Port Authority, I would try to take a shortcut, such as the from Essex to w4, and they would have a fit, wanting to change directly to the at Bway Nassau.

Now, with this new line, that will be their main pathway to Midtown.

 

The main purpose of the is to help out the and nothing more. Making the line independent by combining it with another line is a HUGE mistake in the making. When the Culver project is done the MTA will have no choice but to bring the back and have it go into South Brooklyn...in order to help out the because that's the (V)'s purpose.

 

The work on the cut is being pushed back and I'm hearing that it won't even be ready until long after the end of June to begin with. Why in the hell are the TA investing time and money into this POS combo line that's incurring more costs than saving???

 

You're drinking the MTA's Kool-Aid to the point that you don't even realize how long it'll take for the train to clear out of Marcy Avenue, followed by a 7-minute trip along the Williamsburg Bridge...MORE time, resulting in a longer trip. Then the train will have to clear out of Broadway and Lafayette Street, adding MORE time. It's clear-cut that people will just will continue to use the train even if the came to existence. If you want faster service into Manhattan then the TA should just implement skip-stop service on the .

 

Mark my words, the MTA will regret implementing this combo line in the first place. It'll just fall into disuse, rotting away for another four decades.

[LRG]

The Chrystie St Cut that will serve the M train will begin on June 28th.

 

It won't be ready by then have you bothered to read the entire thread?

[Eric B]

The main purpose of the is to help out the and nothing more. Making the line independent by combining it with another line is a HUGE mistake in the making. When the Culver project is done the MTA will have no choice but to bring the back and have it go into South Brooklyn...in order to help out the because that's the (V)'s purpose.

 

The work on the cut is being pushed back and I'm hearing that it won't even be ready until long after the end of June to begin with. Why in the hell are the TA investing time and money into this POS combo line that's incurring more costs than saving???

 

You're drinking the MTA's Kool-Aid to the point that you don't even realize how long it'll take for the train to clear out of Marcy Avenue, followed by a 7-minute trip along the Williamsburg Bridge...MORE time, resulting in a longer trip. Then the train will have to clear out of Broadway and Lafayette Street, adding MORE time. It's clear-cut that people will just will continue to use the train even if the came to existence. If you want faster service into Manhattan then the TA should just implement skip-stop service on the .

 

Mark my words, the MTA will regret implementing this combo line in the first place. It'll just fall into disuse, rotting away for another four decades.

I'm not going by what MTA says, or even my own preference in what I think is the fastest trip. I'm going by what average people tell me when I suggest faster routes that involve more transfers (which are common over in this section of the system). Most people are not railfans or subway whizzes who know how to master getting around the system. They would prefer to get on one train and have it take them to where they need to go. Getting up, and then dealing with stairs, passageways, and another railroad that might be delayed or crowded if the first one wasn't already, is stressful to them,

It didn't make sense to me when I used to argue with my wife (and occasionally, some others), but that's the way people think.

 

I myself think that Church Ave was the natural destiny for the , but that was always iffy to begin with. They all along never seriously planned it; it was mostly us speculating on it. At one point, some demand for it developed; most likely from that Park Slope blog, and then when the Culver viaduct work began, the MTA said they would

consider it when the work was finished. There was never any final decision.

So the demand to keep it going to Myrtle may well overpower any demand for Culver. They already have a quick, direct line to Midtown. Eastern Div. has nothing but annoying transfers, and never knew there was a direct link possible. I would like to see both, but I don't know if all that could fit on the 6th Av. local.

 

The original purpose of the was to keep 53rd St connected to 6th Av. when the was moved to 63rd. Whatever it does after that has always been up for grabs.

[LRG]

I'm not going by what MTA says, or even my own preference in what I think is the fastest trip. I'm going by what average people tell me when I suggest faster routes that involve more transfers (which are common over in this section of the system). Most people are not railfans or subway whizzes who know how to master getting around the system. They would prefer to get on one train and have it take them to where they need to go. Getting up, and then dealing with stairs, passageways, and another railroad that might be delayed or crowded if the first one wasn't already, is stressful to them,

It didn't make sense to me when I used to argue with my wife (and occasionally, some others), but that's the way people think.

 

I myself think that Church Ave was the natural destiny for the , but that was always iffy to begin with. They all along never seriously planned it; it was mostly us speculating on it. At one point, some demand for it developed; most likely from that Park Slope blog, and then when the Culver viaduct work began, the MTA said they would

consider it when the work was finished. There was never any final decision.

 

The original purpose of the was to keep 53rd St connected to 6th Av. When the was moved to 63rd. Whatever it does after that has always been up for grabs.

 

Well...regardless, the fact of the matter is that this is a service cut. You people may see it as an increase but it isn't. If they take it away then there's nothing that can be done because it's been disused for so many years because it wasn't warranted THEN, and it won't be warranted NOW even with a new pattern in place from the old one.

 

The line is STILL keeping 10-minute headways for goodness sake! And the fact still stands that there are obstacles that lie along the (M2) already because the (J)/(Z) have more seniority over it. The and have more seniority over the because it runs more frequent than it. WIth this new line there'll be MORE lines that the will have to give way for...the and in Brooklyn, the in Manhattan, the in Manhattan and Queens, and the in Queens since it'll be less frequent than the . So I wouldn't get too comfy because there are way too many downsides to the than what people don't see. AND I'll still bet you that people will still take the train even if this line goes into place (that is, if it even goes into existence cuz it's being pushed back).

 

BTW, I've heard something about the and the work along the cut that others may not know...I'm not going to disclose it at this time...let's just say, the new won't be in place as soon as most people think

[Guest lance25]

Wirelessly posted via (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

 

Let me guess, the MTA is going to continue the M-Nassau through Chambers or Broad St until Chrystie St is ready.

 

I'm curious, why all the animosity toward the M-6th Av. All the speculation and claims that the line will fail from the start is something I just don't get. We have no idea how commuters (key word) will respond to direct service from Myrtle Ave to 6th Ave since the 70s, but I personally believe that some will like it. Speaking of the old line, comparing the M-6 to the K, a line that ran only during the rush hours in a similar fashion to today's Z, seems a bit unfair.

[LRG]

Wirelessly posted via (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

 

Let me guess, the MTA is going to continue the M-Nassau through Chambers or Broad St until Chrystie St is ready.

 

Correct...to be precise, not till well after July.

 

I'm curious, why all the animosity toward the M-6th Av. All the speculation and claims that the line will fail from the start is something I just don't get. We have no idea how commuters (key word) will respond to direct service from Myrtle Ave to 6th Ave since the 70s, but I personally believe that some will like it. Speaking of the old line, comparing the M-6 to the K, a line that ran only during the rush hours in a similar fashion to today's Z, seems a bit unfair.

 

If the residents of Middle Village and Glendale want service to Midtown, they can take the QM24. They have no right to be griping about non-Midtown service; they have an express route that'll take them to 34th Street in under 3/4ths of an hour.

[Eric B]

it will be a defacto increase for those who have never had midtown service before. We know it's a decrease; but they won't see it that way.

 

Also, is what you heard that the work was done because there was some clearance problems with the 160's, and that they might start with split service? (Met-Essex; 2nd Av-CTL) That's what I heard today.

[LRG]

it will be a defacto increase for those who have never had midtown service before. We know it's a decrease; but they won't see it that way.

 

Also, is what you heard that the work was done because there was some clearance problems with the 160's, and that they might start with split service? (Met-Essex; 2nd Av-CTL) That's what I heard today.

 

Great, more headaches in order to revive this POS cut. Just what I want to hear.

[YankeesPwnMets]

It won't be ready by then have you bothered to read the entire thread?

 

No, there could be more reroutes over the and Line, Late Nights, weekends and middays to replace the switch and other stuff such as signals,

 

Nobody said the had to go to Brooklyn. The could always make a diamond train, or have 8 car trains run via the local to Kings Highway. Also, they could bring in the use of the middle track after Ditmas, morning rush hour to noon Express Manhattan Bound only, noon to end of evening rush express to CI while the 4 tracks after church will serve express service both directions

[LRG]

No, there could be more reroutes over the and Line, Late Nights, weekends and middays to replace the switch and other stuff such as signals,

 

Nobody said the had to go to Brooklyn. The could always make a diamond train, or have 8 car trains run via the local to Kings Highway. Also, they could bring in the use of the middle track after Ditmas, morning rush hour to noon Express Manhattan Bound only, noon to end of evening rush express to CI while the 4 tracks after church will serve express service both directions

 

The line won't help at all.

[Bill from Maspeth]

If the cut won't be ready, and the only place I heard of this was here, let's just keep the current "pick" going with the M to Bay Pky in the rush. Oh excuse me, the MTA has no money and I guess they want to cut back the M no matter what. If there is a split service with the M to Chambers in the rush, I wonder if the IND portion still gets the ENY R160's? Whatever.

 

As for the need of the current pick being extended, they can easily have a holiday pick for 7/5 during the month of June via phone.

[YankeesPwnMets]

I think the will use Fresh Pond Yard's R160s

[Bill from Maspeth]

I think the will use Fresh Pond Yard's R160s

You don't have to think that because it's a fact which has been stated here numerous times.

[38th Street Yard]

I think the will use Fresh Pond Yard's R160s

 

Fresh pond is only for lay-up train from MET, ENY has the cars