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.

New Changes (Classic Transit group public interview)


R32 3838

Recommended Posts

Okay I know many of you railfans agree and dissagree with these service changes, And As all of you know there are going to be different car assignments as well due top these changes.

 

What do you think and what do you agree or disagree with and if you were in charge what would you do and what subway cars would you assign to what line, NOT Only railfans regular people as well.

 

Thank You

 

Classic Transit Group founder,

 

Christopher Henderson.

 

Supporter of the R32 (:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I figure it, the (M2) has been serving South Brooklyn for over 40 years. One thing I notice about the (MTA), they can give a hoot about history. Sure, to them its only a letter they can mess around with, but when a certain line links specific communities for decades, why go ahead and pull that from the customers who utilize the route? Now the people on 4 Av have to suffer with less service. The (M2) in South Brooklyn is as much of a route as the (D) to Coney Island, regardless if its running on the Brighton, West End, Culver... I hate to say it, but Id rather keep the (M2) to Bay Parkway, and go ahead and lose the (W).

 

The (W) came into the system some 9 years ago next month, and as we used it for the Manhattan Bridge project, Post 9-11 service, Stillwell Construction, yet again, this is a route that made history in the system, and is now going to suffer. I just hate to see routes cut out of the system all together, because they make the system what it is today. The History of each individual line..

 

Now for the (V). Sure, it was hated at first, who knows, is it still? I wasn't a like/dislike candidate to the route because I didn't have need for it that much.

 

Long story short, Id keep the (M2)(V)(W) as it is now, but the (V)(W) would run rush hours only.

 

If your going to open up Chrystie St, at least repeat history with a bang. The (MTA) should create like an Upper Manhattan/Bronx Route, then head out to East NY via Chrystie St. Sending the (M) through there as a Queens to Queens route, makes no sense.:tdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only upheaval I see with the (M)/(V) combo are the less amount of trains that different lines are going to use. The (M) is still going to maintain the same headways as the (M2) -- every ten minutes! Before the (V) came into existence the (F) operated 18 TPH. When the (V) came into existence car assignments and headways were changed to accomodate the new line; the (E) was increased from every five minutes to every four minutes and now runs 15 TPH. The (F) got extra R32s and gave 46s to the (V). As a result Sixth Avenue Local riders had 25 TPH, a gigantic service increase! Now, service is going down to 21 TPH, eight car trains are being used along the BUSIEST line in the subway as well. It won't fly!

 

I agree with Zach; the (W) could be reduced to a rush hour route except I'd have it run pduring peak hours only at the headways it currently runs right now (8-10 minutes). The line is very useful because it helps out the (R)...now riders are going to cram into the (Q) and we don't know yet what the headways are going to be for it.

 

It's funny that the (V) was never brought up last year, why now? What do people find so special about the (M2)/(V) combo? It's a gotdamn service cut for goodness sakes! The TA threw out money revitalizing an unused 40-year-old track for what it's worth. The only good thing I see with the (M2)/(V) is that skip-stop service was salvaged but I'd rather lose skip-stop Jamaica service than to see the (M2) being forced onto another line.

 

The MTA is so full of themselves. They should have cut more express buses and not buy more express buses that cost so much to maintain and aren't even full for the matter and pulled Orion 5s or RTS from Eastchester that weren't even that old and had some life for another few years.

 

It looks like the only way the (V) would ever come back is when the Culver project is finished. I still have hope that the (V) will return, the (M) will go back to (M2). Not everything would be back to normal like many of us would like it to be but it'd be a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite frankly, the M/V thing is really new to me. I heard the pros and cons of it. We can't really make generalisations based on data and observations. We can only make a true decision once the service is up and that months have past before riders could make a firm say whether it is beneficial or not.

 

Now if though, the M/V merger is a total failure and that clock should turn back, I do agree that the status quo should return, albeit with rush hour service only patterns.

 

If though, the majority agrees that the merger is beneficial to the greater whole, I do say that keep the M/V merger. The W should exist as a rush hour route, continuing to 9th Avenue or even Bay Parkway, assuming the route of the former M. That way, there would be no need for the Q to run via 60th.

 

The Q running via 60th will be problematic as you are forced to squeeze 3 full time lines into the same tunnel. The Q would have to switch after 34th to the local, thereby affecting N and R service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If though, the majority agrees that the merger is beneficial to the greater whole, I do say that keep the M/V merger. The W should exist as a rush hour route, continuing to 9th Avenue or even Bay Parkway, assuming the route of the former M. That way, there would be no need for the Q to run via 60th.

 

 

Now thats something I would agree on. Let the (M) go into play, while the (W) would still exist, and operate it rush hours, between Bay Parkway, and Astoria via West End/4 Av/Broadway Local. Leaving the (N)(R)(Q) alone. This at least gives Lower Manhattan, 4 Av, and the West End Lines another option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite frankly, the M/V thing is really new to me. I heard the pros and cons of it. We can't really make generalisations based on data and observations. We can only make a true decision once the service is up and that months have past before riders could make a firm say whether it is beneficial or not.

 

Now if though, the M/V merger is a total failure and that clock should turn back, I do agree that the status quo should return, albeit with rush hour service only patterns.

 

If though, the majority agrees that the merger is beneficial to the greater whole, I do say that keep the M/V merger. The W should exist as a rush hour route, continuing to 9th Avenue or even Bay Parkway, assuming the route of the former M. That way, there would be no need for the Q to run via 60th.

 

The Q running via 60th will be problematic as you are forced to squeeze 3 full time lines into the same tunnel. The Q would have to switch after 34th to the local, thereby affecting N and R service.

 

-I'm 99% sure that some (Q)'s will still terminate at 57th Street. The (W) runs every 10 minutes, wheras the (Q) runs every 6-8 minutes, meaning that every other train or every 3rd train would be turned back at 57th Street so that the 60th Street Tunnel doesn't get jammed.

 

-The (N) already merges with the ®/(W) at 34th Street, so this really wouldn't change anything.

 

-As far as extending the (W) to Bay Parkway, while that would maintain the service levels on 4th Avenue/West End, it wouldn't serve the purpose that the (M) did, which was to provide a service to Nassau Street. Also, the disadvantage of sending a Broadway route to Southern Brooklyn instead of a Nassau Street route is that if there is an incident at a station like 14th Street, all service is messed up (besides the (D)), wheras if a Nassau Street Line runs into Southern Brooklyn, it provides more backup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your going to open up Chrystie St, at least repeat history with a bang. The (MTA) should create like an Upper Manhattan/Bronx Route, then head out to East NY via Chrystie St. Sending the (M) through there as a Queens to Queens route, makes no sense.:tdown:

 

The point is not to ride the (M) end to end, it's like the (D). A line like that you are most likley going to just Manhattan and that's it than to bypass it. This (M) will take riders to the heart of Manhattan from different segements of 'Queens'*. The QB local never really 'packed' the (V), so a shorter train is not a big deal especially since the (G) had been running on it for years.

 

*mostly brooklyn for the 'south segment'

 

Now thats something I would agree on. Let the (M) go into play, while the (W) would still exist, and operate it rush hours, between Bay Parkway, and Astoria via West End/4 Av/Broadway Local. Leaving the (N)(R)(Q) alone. This at least gives Lower Manhattan, 4 Av, and the West End Lines another option.
I agree as well. Riders [would have to take a pretty long walk at canal from Centre st to Broadway] can take the (W) if they need to go further down to southern Brooklyn.

 

But at least the time being, they should've kept the (W) for rush hour only service [as it is now]. Then they could've run the (N) local. Astoria-Ditmars can't handle both (N) and (Q) trains there. There's more (Q)s than (W)s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-I'm 99% sure that some (Q)'s will still terminate at 57th Street. The (W) runs every 10 minutes, wheras the (Q) runs every 6-8 minutes, meaning that every other train or every 3rd train would be turned back at 57th Street so that the 60th Street Tunnel doesn't get jammed.

 

-The (N) already merges with the ®/(W) at 34th Street, so this really wouldn't change anything.

 

-As far as extending the (W) to Bay Parkway, while that would maintain the service levels on 4th Avenue/West End, it wouldn't serve the purpose that the (M) did, which was to provide a service to Nassau Street. Also, the disadvantage of sending a Broadway route to Southern Brooklyn instead of a Nassau Street route is that if there is an incident at a station like 14th Street, all service is messed up (besides the (D)), wheras if a Nassau Street Line runs into Southern Brooklyn, it provides more backup.

May seem so, we have to wait until things play out. We can't make assumptions based on what we see now.

 

Also, it's not that bad of a walk to go from Centre Street to Broadway, or Nassau to Trinity. The (M2) serves a dual purpose now as the Ridgewood/Willy section usually empties out between Essex and Fulton. I don't know how many passengers get on in LoMan for the South Brooklyn portion, but regardless, taking the (W) would not be a bad option, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I figure it, the (M2) has been serving South Brooklyn for over 40 years.
Really; 50 years; when you count the bankers specials that actually bore the letter first.

 

That's why it seemed to make sense to keep the new route as the (V) (as originally planned), and then eventually bring back the (M2) as what it originally was, a rush hour special from Chambers to the South.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Zach's idea of having the (M) route start from the UWS rather than Forest Hills. The problem with that is, the CPW tracks are hooked up to the express 6th Avenue tracks while the Chrystie Cut to the Willy B is tied to the locals, so some switching would have to be involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. The only other choice would be if they were to:

- swap the (E) and (F), while swapping the (V) with the (C).

- then they would need to combine the (M2) with the (C) and the (V) would run on Fulton.

 

But I don't think Culver riders would be happy with 8th Av over 6th Av service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support the (M). I know a few people in the Ridgewood/Middle Village/Whatever-you-call-it area and they are welcoming the direct connection to Midtown, rather than the icky Chambers Street area. I can't speak for everyone, though, and I'm sure there's a wide variety of opinion regarding the situation.

 

I don't think, however, that we can judge how this pans out unless you pitch a tent on Sixth Avenue the evening of June 26th... oh... and stay there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. The only other choice would be if they were to:

- swap the (E) and (F), while swapping the (V) with the (C).

- then they would need to combine the (M2) with the (C) and the (V) would run on Fulton.

 

But I don't think Culver riders would be happy with 8th Av over 6th Av service.

 

Thats How I always visioned Chrystie St / Culver Viaduct Post construction project Service.

 

This is what I drew up as a decent plan..

 

Ignore the (F)(G) changes along the Culver for this discussion.

 

cfgmvchanges2.jpg

 

(C) replaces the (M2) between Essex St and Metropolitan Av. 168 St To Metropolitan Av, except late nights.

 

(Z) Eliminated. Replaced by the (M2).

 

(M2) Jamaica Center or Broadway Junction to Broad or Chambers, weekdays. Rush hours to Bay Parkway. Skip Stop still stays in play.

 

(V) replaces the (C) between West 4 St, and Euclid Avenue, except late nights.

 

This plan would require the (C) & (V) to cross levels at West 4 St..

 

I drew this plan up years ago, but I think it would work. The only thing is, what to do on weekends with the (V). Does it run or not? Fulton St Express Service needs to be retained on weekends as well, so this plan would call for 18/7 (V) Service..

 

Zach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like idea but wouldnt this cost more? Btw instead of Euclid for the (V) maybe Lefferts?

 

Thats How I always visioned Chrystie St / Culver Viaduct Post construction project Service.

 

This is what I drew up as a decent plan..

 

Ignore the (F)(G) changes along the Culver for this discussion.

 

cfgmvchanges2.jpg

 

(C) replaces the (M2) between Essex St and Metropolitan Av. 168 St To Metropolitan Av, except late nights.

 

(Z) Eliminated. Replaced by the (M2).

 

(M2) Jamaica Center or Broadway Junction to Broad or Chambers, weekdays. Rush hours to Bay Parkway. Skip Stop still stays in play.

 

(V) replaces the (C) between West 4 St, and Euclid Avenue, except late nights.

 

This plan would require the (C) & (V) to cross levels at West 4 St..

 

I drew this plan up years ago, but I think it would work. The only thing is, what to do on weekends with the (V). Does it run or not? Fulton St Express Service needs to be retained on weekends as well, so this plan would call for 18/7 (V) Service..

 

Zach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support the (M). I know a few people in the Ridgewood/Middle Village/Whatever-you-call-it area and they are welcoming the direct connection to Midtown, rather than the icky Chambers Street area. I can't speak for everyone, though, and I'm sure there's a wide variety of opinion regarding the situation.

 

I don't think, however, that we can judge how this pans out unless you pitch a tent on Sixth Avenue the evening of June 26th... oh... and stay there!

Observing service patterns for one minute.. one hour.. one day... one week or even one month is not sufficient to make accurate conclusions to whether a line benefits the greater whole or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like idea but wouldnt this cost more? Btw instead of Euclid for the (V) maybe Lefferts?

 

Overall, I think it might be about the same, just that the (V) would mean full 600' trains for the Fulton local [which should eventually be that long anyway]. I disagree about any local to Lefferts. Trains would be empty till Rockaway Blvd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have it like this:

 

1. Im am going to start with the (:(

 

Have the (B) northbound rerouted to Forest Hills via 63rd st Weekdays only

 

The (F) will return to 53rd st, REASON The (B) is an express and the 63rd st tracks have better connection to the expreess than the the 53rd st segment and this will allow trains to run smoothly without swicthing.

 

To replace the (B) on CPW and Grand Conc. The (C) would replace it rush Hours (Bedford Park Blvd) other times to 168th st, bring Back the (K) to help the (C) on CPW have the (K) run between 145 and 2nd ave (K) replaces the (V) at 2nd ave, Rush Hours the (K) is extended to 168 to replace the (C).

 

The Reason why I slected the (K) to run to 2nd ave so it won't mess up the (E) at WTC, and the (K) will only be a weekday line.

 

 

The (M2) would be cut to chambers at All times, Late Nights as a shuttle

 

The (J) and (M2) makes local stops, (Z) would be express between Marcy and B'way Juction, (J)/(Z) skip stop will still remain between B'way Juction and supthin blvd.

 

The (W) would be cut, replaced by the (Q) in Queens, and the (N) would make Local stops, The (R) would be a 24/7 line with service increses

 

The (W)/(V) will be gone, This would be way much cheaper if they would have used this plan than to have the (M), for one the (B) would use less equipment maybe 6 trainsets less, you will have extra 8-car R160's leftover, They would have been used for the (C), The R42's would have been used for the (K) along with R32's the (K) would have used no more than 10 trainsets.

 

I would have the (C) still 8-cars due to the budget it would have been R32's and R160's (leftover from ENY)

 

The New (B) queens Blvd Local would benifet both QB riders and 6th ave riders and it would be like old times when the (B) ran down 63rd.

Weekends and nights the (F) would replace the (B) down 63rd.

 

The (D) would be unchanged and I would cut the (A) to rockaway Park and have full time shuttle service.

 

The (E) would loose 3 - 4 trainsets

 

The (A) those extra 6-7 trainsets would be free since the (A) Rockaway Pk would be cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have it like this:

 

1. Im am going to start with the (:(

 

Have the (B) northbound rerouted to Forest Hills via 63rd st Weekdays only

 

The (F) will return to 53rd st, REASON The (B) is an express and the 63rd st tracks have better connection to the expreess than the the 53rd st segment and this will allow trains to run smoothly without swicthing.

 

To replace the (B) on CPW and Grand Conc. The (C) would replace it rush Hours (Bedford Park Blvd) other times to 168th st, bring Back the (K) to help the (C) on CPW have the (K) run between 145 and 2nd ave (K) replaces the (V) at 2nd ave, Rush Hours the (K) is extended to 168 to replace the (C).

 

The Reason why I slected the (K) to run to 2nd ave so it won't mess up the (E) at WTC, and the (K) will only be a weekday line.

 

 

The (M2) would be cut to chambers at All times, Late Nights as a shuttle

 

The (J) and (M2) makes local stops, (Z) would be express between Marcy and B'way Juction, (J)/(Z) skip stop will still remain between B'way Juction and supthin blvd.

 

The (W) would be cut, replaced by the (Q) in Queens, and the (N) would make Local stops, The (R) would be a 24/7 line with service increses

 

The (W)/(V) will be gone, This would be way much cheaper if they would have used this plan than to have the (M), for one the (B) would use less equipment maybe 6 trainsets less, you will have extra 8-car R160's leftover, They would have been used for the (C), The R42's would have been used for the (K) along with R32's the (K) would have used no more than 10 trainsets.

 

I would have the (C) still 8-cars due to the budget it would have been R32's and R160's (leftover from ENY)

 

The New (B) queens Blvd Local would benifet both QB riders and 6th ave riders and it would be like old times when the (B) ran down 63rd.

Weekends and nights the (F) would replace the (B) down 63rd.

 

The (D) would be unchanged and I would cut the (A) to rockaway Park and have full time shuttle service.

 

The (E) would loose 3 - 4 trainsets

 

The (A) those extra 6-7 trainsets would be free since the (A) Rockaway Pk would be cut.

 

that would cost more money.

 

But anyways here's how I will change it.

 

The (W) Runs Rush hours and Middays between Ditmars Blvd and Whitehall Street

 

(V) Will be used As an Rush Hour route only

 

(M2) have it run to Bay Parkway during Weekdays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(W) Rush hours only is fine, middays (N) as a local would be ok. Basically what you stated is how the current (W) runs now.

(V) And what about 53rd? That tunnel can't go without 2 trains running thru it. That's a terrible idea for rush hours only.

(M2) if it doesn't get much ridership for the rush hours, what makes you think middays is a good idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a supporter of the new (M)! From what I heard from some T/A workers is that some (m)'s will go to Jamaica/179th St which is a very very bad idea! But if that happens no more (E) to Jamaica/179:tdown:A:tdown:also is 8cars & 10 car.A mixup may happen and there maybe an 8car (F) train.

(:( I am a (B) supporter and I love the R32 (B) btw.I think the (B) can go back to Wash Hts-168th St and the (C) up the Concourse terminating at Bedford Pk.It works like this b\c instead of 8th Av passengers wanting to transfer to 6th Av (D) they can stay on which will be better.Less crowds at 59th St.

Lastly I thought about this but it doesn't make anysense to me.

(A) To Far Rock All Times on weekends,(C) to Church,(F) to Euclid,(G) to Coney Island on weekends only 12am Saturday to Sunday 11:59pm.

(W) should only be used as a rush hr route!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a supporter of the new (M)! From what I heard from some T/A workers is that some (m)'s will go to Jamaica/179th St which is a very very bad idea! But if that happens no more (E) to Jamaica/179:tdown:A:tdown:also is 8cars & 10 car.A mixup may happen and there maybe an 8car (F) train.

 

 

Not necessarily, (E) could still go to 179th because of high capacity (57 TPH or something like that). I know the (MTA) is stupid but an 8 car (F) will not happen because (F) trains are out of Jamaica or Coney Island Yard and the (M) is from East New York yard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Observing service patterns for one minute.. one hour.. one day... one week or even one month is not sufficient to make accurate conclusions to whether a line benefits the greater whole or not.

 

Exactly why I said "stay there". You'll essentially need to become a mole person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mixed feelings over this whole (M) situation and the removal of parts of (M2)(G) route, and the elimination of the (V)(W) designations. I feel like there's one good side to it.

 

(Q) to Astoria is like an upgrade, giving Brighton Line riders direct access to/from Astoria Queens. Likewise the (N) does have to make like four additional stops between 34th-Canal Streets, but what's the big deal. I don't think the (W) is such a bad loss after all. I think more ®s would be needed though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No; the (M)'s won't go to 179th; they'll lay up on the express tracks between CTL and 179, and the crews start or finish at 179.

We'll see but it'll be funny if it happens but someone's job maybe on the line if that happens.

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?97847

I know that photo was before the (F)'s 1st day of 160's in service but its funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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