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

Some progress on the Culver rehabilitation project

Recommended Posts

 

Still, that is future, we are talking about it currently if his plan was implemented tomorrow.
My plan isn't gonne happen tomorrow, im talking about when the Culver renovations are done which is in a 3-year timeframe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that would be ok about the (:P thing.My friend thought of this that would make much sense.By sending the (;) To Continental-71 Av and sending the (M) to 168th to replace the (C) and send the (C) to Bedford Pk.Basically it all works out b\c (M) replaces (C) which already have 8cars so it equals and the (C) goes full length by going to Bedford Pk bringing back the (K) which will have 15min headways like before.

Now the Culver Rehab a main reason was to have either the (F) or (V) run express in Brooklyn to get residents inbound/outbound quicker it was discussed just before the rehab started.Now the Lwr Lvl of Bergen St can make sense being redone so the (G) can turn there and go back uptown via Crosstown which won't really disrupt service.Now residents out on the Culver El somedays do have express service skipping Ditmas Av etc just like how the (D) has exp on the End's El.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that would be ok about the (:P thing.My friend thought of this that would make much sense.By sending the (;) To Continental-71 Av and sending the (M) to 168th to replace the (C) and send the (C) to Bedford Pk.Basically it all works out b\c (M) replaces (C) which already have 8cars so it equals and the (C) goes full length by going to Bedford Pk bringing back the (K) which will have 15min headways like before.

Now the Culver Rehab a main reason was to have either the (F) or (V) run express in Brooklyn to get residents inbound/outbound quicker it was discussed just before the rehab started.Now the Lwr Lvl of Bergen St can make sense being redone so the (G) can turn there and go back uptown via Crosstown which won't really disrupt service.Now residents out on the Culver El somedays do have express service skipping Ditmas Av etc just like how the (D) has exp on the End's El.

 

If you are going to send the (M) up CPW, it needs to go to Bedford Park since it makes operations easier, it is the reason why the (B) and (C) switched northern terminals in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or how about bringing back the (V) that might work. A diamond (F) also works but a (G) extension wouldn't work. Well its fine with me as long as they might bring back a Culver Express.

 

Riders below Church Avenue don't want the (G) because the (G) doesn't go to Manhattan. The (G) to Church Avenue is fine. Also, if they decide to implement express service along Culver between Jay Street and Church Avenue, the (G) cannot go back to Smith - Ninth Streets (in fact, the (G)won't go back to Smith - Ninth Street because ever since the (G) went to Church, (F) service had subsequently improved).

 

If the (V) should return then the best option would make it Culver Local to Church Avenue and the (F) express to Church and then Local south of Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no the (G) shouldnt go to Church, unless the MTA builds a switch that goes to the express tracks because it delays the (F) like crazy

The F delays the G more. I know firsthand that many times a northbound F arrives at Church at the time a G is scheduled to leave. That means the G is late. The F is the priority line.

 

Southbound: your scheme costs $$$$$$. There will be delays as the G is cleared out no matter if the terminal is Smith/9th or Church.

 

The G is not going back to Smith/9th. The new terminal is Church. Virtually all crews report there and there is a new employee facilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are going to send the (M) up CPW, it needs to go to Bedford Park since it makes operations easier, it is the reason why the (;) and (C) switched northern terminals in the first place.

Naw it would be dumb b\c Concourse gets ridership also sending the (M) upto 168th would be better b\c it's an 8car 60' car and send the (C) up Concourse like before 10cars or 8car shitcans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is the (V) going to terminate, Kings Highway?
Church Ave
If the (V) should return then the best option would make it Culver Local to Church Avenue and the (F) express to Church and then Local south of Church.

 

Other than that, connecting the Chrystie tracks to 6th Ave express tracks would not only keep the (M)/(:) but also bring the (V) back without any operational problems ;), and allow the (F) to run express north of Church Ave. Now we have the best of all worlds. The only problem is what would replace the (B) in Brooklyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Church Ave

 

 

Other than that, connecting the Chrystie tracks to 6th Ave express tracks would not only keep the (M)/(:) but also bring the (V) back without any operational problems ;), and allow the (F) to run express north of Church Ave. Now we have the best of all worlds. The only problem is what would replace the (B) in Brooklyn.

 

I misread the post, sorry...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Connecting the Chrystie to the express northbound would be easy; it's southbound where it would be very difficult. Not only does the cut diverge from the local opposite from the express side, I believe the grades are totally separate as well. Chrystie express ramps up, and now going through the Chrystie local every day, it appears to grade downward. You can see in places where it looks like another tack is runnign beside it to the left and somewhat above, but it's hard to tell if that is the southbound express track (heading toward Grand) or simply the northbound local track (which I see has concrete slab "false wall" between the left side columns before the section where it ls learly running next to the northound express).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the point in sending the (M) to Upper Manhattan and/or the Bronx. What exactly will that accomplish and how would it be any better than the current (;) service? Same goes for sending the (:) to Queens. And by switching them, you'll create a potential choke point along the 6th Avenue Line because (M) trains will have to switch onto the express tracks to get to Central Park West. The (B) will have to switch onto the local tracks to get to the 53rd Street tunnel or stay on the express tracks and take the 63rd Street tunnel.

 

And you want to bring back the (V)? Wouldn't sending both the (B) and (V) into Queens just cause one service to duplicate the other? And what about fitting the (F), (M) and (V) on the same tracks? They will have to all run on the same tracks at some point in order for the (M) to access Essex Street. Something's going to have to give.

 

In order for the (V) to come back and run to/from Church Avenue, (F) and (M) service will have to be reduced significantly. Or the old (Mx) service is going to have come back as well, so the (F) can still run at its current headways. Rearranging all these services is unnecessary and it's not going to accomplish anything.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In order for the (V) to come back and run to/from Church Avenue, either (F) and (M) service will have to be reduced significantly. Or the old (Mx) service is going to have come back as well, so the (F) can still run at its current headways. Rearranging all these services is unnecessary and it's not going to accomplish anything.

 

This sir, is the best option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reduce (F), increase (E), but then you'd probably have to switch them on the Queens end as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest lance25

Wouldn't that cause more congestion along 8th Avenue with both the (C) and more (E) trains running local?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (C) probably isn't frequent enough to really cause a problem.

But then if I had my way, it would go express, with a crossover to the local at 50th St so it wouldn't conflict with the (E) at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The (C) probably isn't frequent enough to really cause a problem.

But then if I had my way, it would go express, with a crossover to the local at 50th St so it wouldn't conflict with the (E) at all.

The (E) has the option of running local or express south of 50 Street as the Queens Boulevard connection is available to both, so the (C) could also be terminated at World Trade Center while the (E) is extended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see the point in sending the (M) to Upper Manhattan and/or the Bronx. What exactly will that accomplish and how would it be any better than the current (:P service? Same goes for sending the (:P to Queens. And by switching them, you'll create a potential choke point along the 6th Avenue Line because (M) trains will have to switch onto the express tracks to get to Central Park West. The (:P will have to switch onto the local tracks to get to the 53rd Street tunnel or stay on the express tracks and take the 63rd Street tunnel.

 

And you want to bring back the (V)? Wouldn't sending both the (B) and (V) into Queens just cause one service to duplicate the other? And what about fitting the (F), (M) and (V) on the same tracks? They will have to all run on the same tracks at some point in order for the (M) to access Essex Street. Something's going to have to give.

(B) 145th to Met Av (via 6th Av EXP by connecting Chyrstie tracks to the express tracks)

(D) as it is now

(F) as it is now (except its express north of Church Av but late nights)

(V) Forest Hills to Church Av

 

What did you think.... I was proposing for the (B)(D)(F)(M)(V) to run on 6th Ave line all at the same time. Hey.... I just giving ideas so I don't care if anybody bash them, this just a forum.

 

In order for the (V) to come back and run to/from Church Avenue, (F) and (M) service will have to be reduced significantly. Or the old (Mx) service is going to have come back as well, so the (F) can still run at its current headways. Rearranging all these services is unnecessary and it's not going to accomplish anything.
That can work also.... it really don't matter to me, im just offering ideas. The (V) should come back though so the (F) can be express north of Church Av. It don't make no since the (F) is local all throughout Brooklyn and Manhattan LMBO..... That's worse than the (2) in the Bronx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It don't make no sense = It makes sense [double negative]

 

Just because the (F) is local in Brooklyn doesn't mean anything. The (D) is local in the Bronx when the (:P doesn't run. Unless the (C) were to have 600' trains, it is not fair to CPW riders to have to deal with 2 lines with short trains. There really is no major demand for the Culver express. If anything just have a <F> so that alternating (F) trains runs either as a local or an express b/w Jay St and Church Av/Kings Highway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It don't make no sense = It makes sense [double negative]

 

Just because the (F) is local in Brooklyn doesn't mean anything. The (D) is local in the Bronx when the (:P doesn't run. Unless the (C) were to have 600' trains, it is not fair to CPW riders to have to deal with 2 lines with short trains. There really is no major demand for the Culver express. If anything just have a <F> so that alternating (F) trains runs either as a local or an express b/w Jay St and Church Av/Kings Highway.

 

Yea, if it was a really big deal then the residents who use the (F) below Church Avenue would have made a deal about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It don't make no sense = It makes sense [double negative]

 

Just because the (F) is local in Brooklyn doesn't mean anything. The (D) is local in the Bronx when the (:P doesn't run. Unless the (C) were to have 600' trains, it is not fair to CPW riders to have to deal with 2 lines with short trains. There really is no major demand for the Culver express. If anything just have a <F> so that alternating (F) trains runs either as a local or an express b/w Jay St and Church Av/Kings Highway.

The (D) wouldn't need to be express in the Bronx, its only 11 to 12 stops between 205th St and 145th St. When the (C) gets R46s or NTT trains, I seriously think its to be full-length (600') trains like the (A), so I'm not pushing for the (:P to Met Ave or the (V) to Church Ave to happen now or 5 years from now, but more of a future set-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At issue still is the rare occurance here that local stops are heavy stops, and they are incidentally the only ones serving the neighborhood. Taking the primary line away from them because express tracks exist is nonsense. I know 20 stops with an M track or 2 express tracks just ruffles the feathers, but there really is nothing that really can be done, and having 3 separate lines go down the Culver is also nonsense and pure fantasy.

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.