Culver Express service pattern

[asidrane]

I have been thinking about how a Culver Express could be implemented. With the four current lines on 6th ave, it is my understanding that there is no more room for service there, but what about 8th ave? Couldn't a Culver Express train switch to join the A/C at either Jay St. or West 4th? Why could or couldn't a service pattern like this work?

[LRG]

It is way too early to tell.

[NX Express]

I have been thinking about how a Culver Express could be implemented. With the four current lines on 6th ave, it is my understanding that there is no more room for service there, but what about 8th ave? Couldn't a Culver Express train switch to join the A/C at either Jay St. or West 4th? Why could or couldn't a service pattern like this work?

 

1. Switching would cause too many delays.

2. We'll see when it happens.:tup:

[Roadcruiser1]

The Culver Express won't be considered till they finish the rehab of the Culver Viaduct. The original Culver Express would have the run express between Bergen Street-Church Avenue, and from Church Avenue-Coney Island would be peak directional express service, because there is only one express track south of Church Avenue.

[asidrane]

1. Switching would cause too many delays.

2. We'll see when it happens.:tup:

 

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I don't see this as being anything other than a pipe dream, but indulge me for a second. As someone who has nothing to do with trains other than riding them, why does switching cause delays? In a perfect world where trains operated flawlessly, couldn't the routes be created in such a way so that delays wouldn't happen? Yes, I know the world isn't perfect, but since this service pattern is a fantasy, let's accept more fantasies for the sake of discussion.

 

Also, why are the switches there to begin with? Were they built this way to allow for reroutes and stuff? There has never been regular service that went along culver to 8th ave, has there?

[NX Express]

As someone who has nothing to do with trains other than riding them, why does switching cause delays?

Trains have to slow down to pass over switches and sometimes trains have to wait for the switches to be set for them.

[asidrane]

The Culver Express won't be considered till they finish the rehab of the Culver Viaduct. The original Culver Express would have the run express between Bergen Street-Church Avenue, and from Church Avenue-Coney Island would be peak directional express service, because there is only one express track south of Church Avenue.

 

I know that Culver Express service wont be on the table for a few years, but I got to thinking about this yesterday when my train was going to run along the from West 4th to Jay. It is my understand that the original Culver Express service failed for a few reasons, one of which was that the service pattern you described wasn't that useful. To me, Culver to 8th could be useful, hence why I posed the question.

[TrainFanatic]

To add on to what NX said, most switches require motormen to operate no more than 10-15 mph.

[MikeGerald]

The idea of Culver Express Service has been debated on other forums before, and here are some of the issues:

 

1) From where does the express trains come from? For example a Sixth Avenue line, and Eighth Avenue line?

 

For a long time on the forums, the V-train was thought of as a line that could be extended to serve as a Culver Express - leaving F-trains as local. There was debate about the V-train being the Culver local, because plenty of folks "like" the F-train as the express route - even if the Manhattan stops are the same.

 

It should be noted that the conversion and combination of the former M-route, and V-train - into the current M-train - makes the above question more pressing, and difficult.

 

2) The stations with the most ridership, and the most politically active and vocal ridership exist at the stations that would not be served by the express route. These stations are in Park Slope, while the stations further out toward Coney Island have much less ridership. So just who will the express service help?

 

Plenty of these Park Slope riders have a one-train ride into Manhattan. Under an express scheme will these riders now have to transfer to another train? What will be the frequency of service for the riders at those local stations. These riders have had efficient F-train service especially during the rush hours for decades, so will the Culver express service TAKE AWAY from their local service?

 

Remember that Park Slope riders petitioned through their political allies in 1970's to have F-express service removed, so that the local stations (their stations) would have more frequent service, and a direct ride to Manhattan. Yes, they won that battle - and there's been no real express service since.

 

3) The Bergen Street station no longer has a passenger ready working lower level, so using the shortened G-trains as the only local route between Bergen Street and Church Avenue is not going to work.

 

4) Why do transit fans seem to want to create every express route variation the transit system is capable of - while at the same time to think of local service as a poor cousin to be pitied?

 

5) The IND system as it presently exists has zero midtown terminals - meaning that the Culver Express route (where ever it travels) will have to pass through mid-town to some where else. What function will this route have in that "other place"?

 

6) Separating the F-trains into "Kings Highway" trains that say run local, and "Coney Island" trains that say run express - still means a reduction in local service at those very same Park Slope stations.

 

7) The Kings Highway station is often thought of as a terminal for the Culver local service, and the start point for the Culver express service. In recent years the track switch pattern both fore and aft of the Kings Highway station has been changed from the track switch pattern that existed in the 1970's, an important switch was removed. Accomplishing some of the aims of a Culver local route, and a Culver express route might be difficult.

 

8) The MTA is broke - yes - the same story - so where will the money come from?

 

--------

 

I bring these points up - not to limit discussion - but to highlight some of the issues involved.

 

Mike

[asidrane]

1) From where does the express trains come from? For example a Sixth Avenue line, and Eighth Avenue line?

 

My thought was that the would remain the same and the new express would serve the 8th ave line. I guess these could be reversed, it doesn't really matter. As long as local stations aren't solely served by the then I think there should be sufficient service.

 

Back to the question of patterns. Starting from Coney Island and Kings Highway, you have the express and local services. I'm not sure how this service was or could be configured, so I wont go further into this part of it. The local makes all stops headed to the city after Church Ave, while the express stops at Church, 7th ave, Bergen and Jay. At this point, one train switches to join the A/C, or they both head towards E. Broadway with one eventually switching at West 4th.

 

2) The stations with the most ridership, and the most politically active and vocal ridership exist at the stations that would not be served by the express route. These stations are in Park Slope, while the stations further out toward Coney Island have much less ridership. So just who will the express service help?

7th Ave. is actually the only stop the makes in Park Slope. 15th st is Windsor Terrace and 4th Ave/9th St. is on the outskirts of Park Slope and has only started to become popular recently. Smith St./9th st. is Gowanus and Carroll St. is Carroll Gardens.

 

This express pattern would speed up peoples' commutes in the morning getting to Manhattan and in the evening coming home. Since this plan doesn't involve a reduction of service, I don't see how anyone would be bothered by it.

 

3) The Bergen Street station no longer has a passenger ready working lower level, so using the shortened G-trains as the only local route between Bergen Street and Church Avenue is not going to work.

Excuse my naivete, but restoring lower Bergen to be functional enough for revenue service shouldn't be too difficult. From what I understand, the switch is the biggest issue.

 

4) Why do transit fans seem to want to create every express route variation the transit system is capable of - while at the same time to think of local service as a poor cousin to be pitied?

There is express service in Brooklyn on Brighten and also on 4th ave. From York st to Church ave, there certainly seems to be enough ridership to warrant express service there as well.

 

5) The IND system as it presently exists has zero midtown terminals - meaning that the Culver Express route (where ever it travels) will have to pass through mid-town to some where else. What function will this route have in that "other place"?

The 8th Ave. Culver line (who knows if it is local or express yet) would terminate at either 145th or 168th st in Manhattan or travel to the Bronx like the used to do.

 

Perhaps there is no point to the service, but I think it would be welcome by riders. When I lived by 7th ave and the started stopping there it was a very welcome addition. Now imagine how great it would be to have a train that traveled to Manhattan instead of one that brought you to Hoyt-Schermerhorn only to have you run upstairs to transfer to a Manhattan bound A/C.

[NX Express]

Excuse my naivete, but restoring lower Bergen to be functional enough for revenue service shouldn't be too difficult. From what I understand, the switch is the biggest issue.

Someone said easy to restore?

[Gorgor]

What about just extending the train?

[asidrane]

Someone said easy to restore?

 

The work that would need to be done to Lower Bergen is mainly cosmetic, no? Considering the tracks and platforms are currently unused, they could be spruced up without disrupting service. Compare this to what just took place at Jay/Lawrence and Broadway-Lafayette and it seems like the work needed would be easier. If I am wrong, please don't hesitate to tell me how I am.

[LRG]

We're just beating a deadhorse on this to the point that it's not going to end well. What's the point? It's going to be years before the work is done and Culver Express service is even considered so why discuss it now? It's a waste of time.

 

That said, cue the locks :lock:

[asidrane]

We're just beating a deadhorse on this to the point that it's not going to end well. What's the point? It's going to be years before the work is done and Culver Express service is even considered so why discuss it now? It's a waste of time.

 

That said, cue the locks :lock:

 

What discussion on the forum amounts to anything other than database entries and page loads? The point of the discussion is twofold, education and exercise of the imagination. Remember, my original question was to learn why a service pattern from Culver to 8th ave. in regular service could or could not work. I guess the mistake I made was using the term express in the thread title.

 

If you aren't interested in this then please don't need to participate in the discussion. Comments like yours add nothing, they simply distract from whatever constructive conversation is actually taking place.

[Guest lance25]

What about just extending the train?

Then what will stop at the World Trade Center and please don't say the and trains?

 

The work that would need to be done to Lower Bergen is mainly cosmetic, no? Considering the tracks and platforms are currently unused, they could be spruced up without disrupting service. Compare this to what just took place at Jay/Lawrence and Broadway-Lafayette and it seems like the work needed would be easier. If I am wrong, please don't hesitate to tell me how I am.

 

Based on the picture posted, it looks like a little more than cosmetic work would need to be put in for Bergen St (Lower) to be a functioning station. There's obviously a water issue there, among other things that were photographed. And that's probably not even the worst part. Keep in mind that this part of the station hasn't seen passenger service in nearly 40 years.

[Gorgor]

Then what will stop at the World Trade Center and please don't say the and trains?

 

Are you serious? I use that station quite often and from what I see the train platform isn't that with the one. Definitely less than 42nd street and I don't think that removing the from there would make much of a difference.

[LRG]

What discussion on the forum amounts to anything other than database entries and page loads? The point of the discussion is twofold, education and exercise of the imagination. Remember, my original question was to learn why a service pattern from Culver to 8th ave. in regular service could or could not work. I guess the mistake I made was using the term express in the thread title.

 

If you aren't interested in this then please don't need to participate in the discussion. Comments like yours add nothing, they simply distract from whatever constructive conversation is actually taking place.

 

You obviously brought up the topic, about, THREE years early.

 

This discussion is pointless.

[Roadcruiser1]

Well they can shut the World Trade Center station down, and replace it with Cortlandt Street which is located just right in front of the WTC. They can just call it Cortlandt Street-World Trade Center . I think the is sufficient enough to replace the at it's job on the World Trade Center.

[NX Express]

Well they can shut the World Trade Center station down, and replace it with Cortlandt Street which is located just right in front of the WTC. They can just call it Cortlandt Street-World Trade Center . I think the is sufficient enough to replace the at it's job on the World Trade Center.

 

Or have the people take the at WTC and transfer!

[Roadcruiser1]

A better idea would be to create a <> to be the Culver Express.

[Guest lance25]

You could call it the "Who Gives A ****" line because really, who gives a ****? The point still remains that, like Mike said, the express would skip the important stops on the Culver line.

[Roadcruiser1]

I kind of agree with you there. One of the important stations the express would skip is 4th Avenue-9th Street which is one of the important transfer points to the besides Jay Street-Metrotech.

[TwoTimer]

Going back to the original proposal of 8th ave Culver service, the reason that isn't done except reroutes and GO's is cause there's too much service between the and along to accomodate another day service. Also, something will be plugged when this new (or extended ) comes into Jay and there's an or sitting there as well. Backups galore. Or how about this new service sits in the tunnel between High and Jay (an will be a prime example of this) and awaits a to go by while there's an in High and a sittin in the tube waiting behind it... all that just to cut 2-3 mins from a well designed route. Lets remember the doesnt go through lower Manhattan like the Lex, 7Av, Bway local or 8Av does. It already enjoys a quicker ride into midtown then those other services, just like the lines that go over the Manhattan bridge. The presence of the has taken some of the crowds away from the too.

 

Also there's no place to terminate this service uptown. 168 is already used for the , it does not need another service, and CPW does not need another local or express, either. 145 middle is only for ( service, during rush hours (which is I guess when you want to run the service I presume), 145 is NOT a terminal, the goes thru there in the peak direction as the Concourse express. Bedford Pk is the ( terminal as well during the rush, and serves as a relay or spur track for Concourse yard other times.

 

Evidently Queens is packed full of service, no argument there of course lol.

[Mark 1]

These Culver express topics always flare up at the right time.

 

To me, this all depends on how far the express would go. In my opinion, the better option is to have Coney Island trains run local and Kings Highway trains express to minimize switching at Kings Highway. This also gives direct Manhattan service for all stations and the G can take riders going to intermediate areas between Church Av and Hoyt/Schermerhorn St. The G has really helped the F since they started running to Church Av full time again.

 

Restoring the V would do no good because then you may have to reduce the frequency of F trains plus Kings Highway is not really a terminal to turn 2 services. 3 lines on the Culver would be overkill and any 8 Av line to Brooklyn proposal should be immediately shot down. Lets remember that there is the possibility of keeping the service as is once the viaduct work is finally complete.