V and W trains join a long list of routes that have bowed out of the subways

[bstar1]

He means riders in Park Slope do not want to give up the train.

When the Culver Viaduct work is finished, there were plans to extend the into Brooklyn and have it run as either Culver Express or Culver Local. If it ran as Culver Local, the would run express in Park Slope. Therefore, riders in Park Slope don't want the to run express because it would skip a lot of the stops in Park Slope.

Regardless of whether it is the (F)/(G) or (G)/(V) serving the local stations, riders still get service.

 

Just like they kept the between Essex and Metropolitan Av, instead of the . Those people are use to having the .

[LRG]

Wow...it can be very tragic. Well the circumstances for those was when construction shifted things around as well as service improvements. These however are cuts. They wanted (M2), they got it all right, just as instead :tdown:

[EE Broadway Local]

I live near Park Slope and I have no idea what you mean by that.

Park Slope loves the . What killed the 70(F) express in 1976 was riders complained about having to transfer at Bergen Street from the 70(GG) that served stations between Seventh Avenue and Bergen Street (including Fourth Avenue) for the 70(F).

 

Phew, that was fun if you came up from the 70(RR) at Ninth Street, got a 70(GG) and had to go downstairs at Bergen Street for a 70(F) to Manhattan.

[INDman]

Park Slope loves the . What killed the 70(F) express in 1976 was riders complained about having to transfer at Bergen Street from the 70(GG) that served stations between Seventh Avenue and Bergen Street (including Fourth Avenue) for the 70(F).

 

Phew, that was fun if you came up from the 70(RR) at Ninth Street, got a 70(GG) and had to go downstairs at Bergen Street for a 70(F) to Manhattan.

 

The main problem back then was that there is no escalator at Bergen St, plus there has always been a one seat ride from Church Ave (Pre City take over) to mid-town.

 

To ho ever asked about the loss of the when it went to Church Ave, I doubt it was seen as a problem since there was no loss of a one seat ride to Mid town.

 

I would be against any loss of the along the line since there has been a one seat ride to the city since 1933. There is no loss of a one seat ride on the (M2) because there has never been consistent service.

[checkmatechamp13]

Wow...it can be very tragic. Well the circumstances for those was when construction shifted things around as well as service improvements. These however are cuts. They wanted (M2), they got it all right, just as instead :tdown:

 

Looks like the gets the last laugh.

[checkmatechamp13]

The main problem back then was that there is no escalator at Bergen St, plus there has always been a one seat ride from Church Ave (Pre City take over) to mid-town.

 

To ho ever asked about the loss of the when it went to Church Ave, I doubt it was seen as a problem since there was no loss of a one seat ride to Mid town.

 

But if the replaced the at the local stations, that one-seat ride to Midtown would still be maintained.

The frequency would be slightly lower, but overall, it wouldn't really change since between the and , the local stations would have the same frequency of trains. (Especially riders south of 7th Avenue, who would gain back any lost waiting time by transferring to the express at 7th Avenue). For riders north of 7th Avenue, they would still have the .

[INDman]

But if the replaced the at the local stations, that one-seat ride to Midtown would still be maintained.

The frequency would be slightly lower, but overall, it wouldn't really change since between the and , the local stations would have the same frequency of trains. (Especially riders south of 7th Avenue, who would gain back any lost waiting time by transferring to the express at 7th Avenue). For riders north of 7th Avenue, they would still have the .

 

That's the thing though, come the 27th there is no more train. That's not to say it can't come back at sometime, but for the foreseeable future, express and local (with a transfer at Bergen St.) would not go over well at all.

[checkmatechamp13]

That's the thing though, come the 27th there is no more train. That's not to say it can't come back at sometime, but for the foreseeable future, express and local (with a transfer at Bergen St.) would not go over well at all.

 

I was talking about the plans before all of this (M2)/(V) combo talk came about. Now, of course, the can't be express because the is too infrequent (and is only half the size of the train).

[INDman]

I was talking about the plans before all of this (M2)/(V) combo talk came about. Now, of course, the can't be express because the is too infrequent (and is only half the size of the train).

 

I think any serious plan for Express service to Church Av or further south, Bergen St. should be fully reopened for. Also I think people will not like losing the transfer point at 4th Av to the BMT.

[LRG]

Well, while I do remain hopeful that the could return for the Culver project it's way too soon. Therefore, we know Park Slope riders have asked countless times for it back, so we know if people want it, it could very well be used.

 

Oh and a little O/T, for those who think the will go back to Smith - Ninth Streets once the work is done, that'll never happen in a million years. Ever since the went to Church Avenue reliability in service improved somewhat. The is a long line and the riders do need all the help they can get.

[Bill from Maspeth]

Well, while I do remain hopeful that the could return for the Culver project it's way too soon. Therefore, we know Park Slope riders have asked countless times for it back, so we know if people want it, it could very well be used.

 

Oh and a little O/T, for those who think the will go back to Smith - Ninth Streets once the work is done, that'll never happen in a million years. Ever since the went to Church Avenue reliability in service improved somewhat. The is a long line and the riders do need all the help they can get.

I don't remember anybody asking that the G be put back to Smith/9th after the project is over.

 

There is a new crew room at Church Ave. and as of next week it will be the "dominant" terminal with only a handful of jobs reporting/clearing at CSQ M-F, none S/S. Most equipment is put in/laid up at Church, something like 1 was done when the line was at Smith/9th. There is supervision at Church, vs. none when the line terminated at Smith/9th.

 

In the past Bergen had to make sure that there weren't 2 back-to-back s/b G's otherwise the relay at 4th Ave. would be tied up and delay the F. Today, it's on automatic and it's first come first served. Back-to-back s/b G's can be handled.

[INDman]

I don't remember anybody asking that the G be put back to Smith/9th after the project is over.

 

 

The plan for the Culver work said that the would go to Church for 4 years only while the work is taking place, at least thats what the plan was.

[Grand Concourse]

The plan for the Culver work said that the would go to Church for 4 years only while the work is taking place, at least thats what the plan was.

 

Well since they've cut the QB segment, they should at least keep the to church Av.

He means riders in Park Slope do not want to give up the train.

When the Culver Viaduct work is finished, there were plans to extend the into Brooklyn and have it run as either Culver Express or Culver Local. If it ran as Culver Local, the would run express in Park Slope. Therefore, riders in Park Slope don't want the to run express because it would skip a lot of the stops in Park Slope.

Regardless of whether it is the (F)/(G) or (G)/(V) serving the local stations, riders still get service.

 

To them they probably equate the for more frequency over the less frequent . That's why they don't wan the to run express. I personally would've had the as is, but turn back at Church and they run the all the way to CI. Late nights and weekends they can run the as is local the entire length. That way thous south of Church can bypass the Park slope stops and PS riders can keep their precious .

 

Well, while I do remain hopeful that the could return for the Culver project it's way too soon. Therefore, we know Park Slope riders have asked countless times for it back, so we know if people want it, it could very well be used.

 

Oh and a little O/T, for those who think the will go back to Smith - Ninth Streets once the work is done, that'll never happen in a million years. Ever since the went to Church Avenue reliability in service improved somewhat. The is a long line and the riders do need all the help they can get.

 

Not to mention riders can now stay on the to get the at 4th Av. So that's a good thing to no longer have to get off for the for one stop. They should keep the to Church.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I agree, keep the running to Church after the Culver Viaduct work is finished. It would be stupid to have the revert to terminating at Smith and 9th. Terminating the at Smith would delay the and preclude any kind of express service from running between Jay and Church.

 

But as far as running that express service, well, we're just going to have to wait and see what happens with the new service. Having the precludes any Culver Express service from the 6th Avenue Line. If that service does prove to be an operational nightmare and an unpopular service, then I say resurrect the in 2012, restore the old (M2) service and run the as the Culver Express. I'd keep the as is, just people who live on the elevated Culver Line are used to having the . The can run as far south as Kings Highway to supplement the and operate peak-direction express service during rush hours.

[NX Express]

I agree, keep the running to Church after the Culver Viaduct work is finished. It would be stupid to have the revert to terminating at Smith and 9th. Terminating the at Smith would delay the and preclude any kind of express service from running between Jay and Church.

 

But as far as running that express service, well, we're just going to have to wait and see what happens with the new service. Having the precludes any Culver Express service from the 6th Avenue Line. If that service does prove to be an operational nightmare and an unpopular service, then I say resurrect the in 2012, restore the old (M2) service and run the as the Culver Express. I'd keep the as is, just people who live on the elevated Culver Line are used to having the . The can run as far south as Kings Highway to supplement the and operate peak-direction express service during rush hours.

The has less tph than the , and the Culver Express needs a high frequency IMHO.

[LRG]

I agree, keep the running to Church after the Culver Viaduct work is finished. It would be stupid to have the revert to terminating at Smith and 9th. Terminating the at Smith would delay the and preclude any kind of express service from running between Jay and Church.

 

But as far as running that express service, well, we're just going to have to wait and see what happens with the new service. Having the precludes any Culver Express service from the 6th Avenue Line. If that service does prove to be an operational nightmare and an unpopular service, then I say resurrect the in 2012, restore the old (M2) service and run the as the Culver Express. I'd keep the as is, just people who live on the elevated Culver Line are used to having the . The can run as far south as Kings Highway to supplement the and operate peak-direction express service during rush hours.

 

Actually, the to Church Avenue "GO" states the will be extended to Church Avenue for five years. The posters went up in 2009, meaning the work won't be done till 2014*.

 

This is what I'd do:

 

 

• trains operates between Jamaica - 179th Street in Queens and Coney Island - Stillwell Avenue in Brooklyn; trains operate the same way they do now in Queens and Manhattan. In Brooklyn, there will still be two trains: Coney Island and Kings Highway. Both trains will operate express in Brooklyn between Church Avenue and Bergen Street, but Kings Highway trains operate local after Church Avenue to Kings Highway and terminate there while trains operate express after Church Avenue to Kings Highway and operate local to Coney Island afterwards. The ridership is double above Church Avenue than below it. If the were to go express in Brooklyn no one would use it because they'd have to make a transfer later on. In addition, having the local tracks used as the relaying point for the and and the express tracks used as through tracks for the to CI/Kings Hwy. will decrease delays for the . Forest Hills - 71st Avenue is a perfect example; local trains terminate on the local tracks while through trains use the express.

• : As is.

• : Local in Brooklyn; terminates at Church Avenue. The operates at nine tph (every 6-7 minutes) while the currently operates 10 TPH (every six minutes). While the local riders are losing an average of two minutes waiting for sixth Avenue service, it'll take the load off the as it'll be much fewer passengers on the and more on the because only 8 million passengers per year use the stations below Church Avenue while 20 million use the stations between Church and Bergen. This will make the very useful and the riders will be distributed accordingly between the two lines.

 

 

As for the ; if push comes to shove, they can either send it back to Broad Street or have the become a limited rush-hour exclusive (headways increased to every 7-8 minutes instead of 10, except during rush hours; (M2) and trains alternate), so it'd be 15 minutes the runs and 15 minutes the (M2) runs. If the latter case is deemed necessary then I wouldn't mind seeing the run along Sixth Avenue.

 

*2014 being the absolute earliest for completion of the project.

 

To them they probably equate the for more frequency over the less frequent . That's why they don't wan the to run express. I personally would've had the as is, but turn back at Church and they run the all the way to CI. Late nights and weekends they can run the as is local the entire length. That way thous south of Church can bypass the Park slope stops and PS riders can keep their precious .

 

See above. They still have the except it runs during late nights as weekends.

[MTR Admiralty]

I think your missing what I'm saying. The <J> would have been a replacement for the .

But they were still not used in any case right? Many signs were made, yet they were never used.

[INDman]

But they were still not used in any case right? Many signs were made, yet they were never used.

 

Yes, so their was never a a replacement for the .

[LRG]

But they were still not used in any case right? Many signs were made, yet they were never used.

 

The <J> designation is only found on the R32s (and R38s pre-retirement).

[MTR Admiralty]

The <J> designation is only found on the R32s (and R38s pre-retirement).

That's what INDman said a few posts earlier, IIRC

[bstar1]

Didn't the (M2) run over the Brighton?

[INDman]

Didn't the (M2) run over the Brighton?

 

I think that was it's original route back in the 70's.

[MTR Admiralty]

Didn't the (M2) run over the Brighton?

It did, until the mid 1980s, I think, when it got sent over to Bay Parkway. Wasn't that procedure supposed to be "temporary" anyway?

[Grand Concourse]

Probably so. But then again 4th Av can handle all the lines there. Brighton seems to be fine with just the ( and .

[Bill from Maspeth]

Didn't the (M2) run over the Brighton?

Till sometime in 1986 it did.