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

[GreatOne2k]

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.

 

Better idea, run the as the Culver Express / 6 Av Express / 2 Av Local to 96 St in 2016. The can be restored as early as 2016 as a weekday only route to 96 St with the . This way the can remain the way it is.

 

Or the can run to 168 St CPW express to 145 St local to 168 St weekdays from 2014 - 2016. If the Culver Express in needed before then or the SAS is delayed again.

 

The middle track at 72 St would have came in handy on the SAS, it could have terminated the or any other displaced lines.

[MTR Admiralty]

Better idea, run the as the Culver Express / 6 Av Express / 2 Av Local to 96 St in 2016. The can be restored as early as 2016 as a weekday only route to 96 St with the . This way the can remain the way it is.

And would it decrease trips, pray tell?

[NX Express]

Better idea, run the as the Culver Express / 6 Av Express / 2 Av Local to 96 St in 2016. The can be restored as early as 2016 as a weekday only route to 96 St with the . This way the can remain the way it is.

This would delay the ( by switching.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Better idea, run the as the Culver Express / 6 Av Express / 2 Av Local to 96 St in 2016. The can be restored as early as 2016 as a weekday only route to 96 St with the . This way the can remain the way it is.

 

Or the can run to 168 St CPW express to 145 St local to 168 St weekdays from 2014 - 2016. If the Culver Express in needed before then or the SAS is delayed again.

 

The middle track at 72 St would have came in handy on the SAS, it could have terminated the or any other displaced lines.

, and trains all sharing the same tracks during rush hours? There's no way that's going to work.

[Grand Concourse]

Only way for that to happen is at the expense of the and :

-technically the can't really replace the entirely, and the 71st-2nd Av end needs more service than the other portion. So they could have the at the (M2) headways.

- select trains would run both local and express [taking some trains off the ]. By the time the and gets to Brooklyn, the could run to just Church Av as a local and the would run express and make all stops couth of Church to CI. Because CI can't handle all the trains.

 

It is probably more of a headache than it is worth, but it is something - small ditch effort to keep the .

[GreatOne2k]

, and trains all sharing the same tracks during rush hours? There's no way that's going to work.

 

(, , and (Q6) all shared track during rush hours, so it should work for the , , and

[LRG]

(, , and (Q6) all shared track during rush hours, so it should work for the , , and

 

That's because each line operated with headways at 10 TPH or fewer. The amount of trains for the , or (Q6) did not exceed 30 TPH. Having the , and co-exist will be daunting. Something will have to give.

[Eric B]

I wonder if the could be reduced, and the increased in its stead. The would already have the helping it in Brooklyn.

 

Still, this would need 72/2 put back in, at least for Phase II and later, and it would be better as to not interfere with the .

[Grand Concourse]

Well read my post or #55 here for my idea.

[GreatOne2k]

I wonder if the could be reduced, and the increased in its stead. The would already have the helping it in Brooklyn.

 

Still, this would need 72/2 put back in, at least for Phase II and later, and it would be better as to not interfere with the .

 

Replace lost trains with more trains to 179 St, maybe foe a while every other could go to 179 like the or to 238

[Eric B]

 

Replace lost trains with more trains to 179 St, maybe foe a while every other could go to 179 like the or to 238

Yeah; that's what I was thinking. Or, just now, was wondering if they could then switch the and between Parsons and 179th. (Is there some reason it HAS to be the to Parsons? I used to hear about propsals to send the or even there!)

[NX Express]

I wonder if the could be reduced, and the increased in its stead. The would already have the helping it in Brooklyn.

 

Still, this would need 72/2 put back in, at least for Phase II and later, and it would be better as to not interfere with the .

 

Would WTC be able to handle that increase in trains? Also, there's the issue that the decrease puts QBL Exp-6 Avenue riders at a disadvantage. However, the could run via express...and via 63 Street...which would make it just like the in Queens and Manhattan. Brooklyn would be the only difference (i.e. to CI, to Church).

 

In a nutshell...Turn some (F)s at Church Avenue and call them (V)s.

[rr4567]

Lmfao. What about a "2-2" (two-two) train?

 

 

they have that. it's called the 11, 12 and 13 on the R62 rollsigns

[67thAve]

Close your eyes and i'll kiss you, tommorow i'll miss you.

[NX Express]

Today is the LAST DAY of the , the , and the (M2) in Manhattan.

[MTR Admiralty]

Damn, Auf Wiedersehen, .