NX Express Posted February 20, 2011 Share #126 Posted February 20, 2011 I know this must have been suggested before, but probably not in such detail... Seemingly the only way to accomplish this is to recreate the as a service between 179 and Kings Hwy (Queens Blvd Express via 53rd street, Culver local) during the week. Decrease rush hour service as a result (namely all those Kings Hwy rush hour service) and a slight decrease in off-peak service. Slight decrease in service during the rush hour as well. Eliminate rush hour service to 179. 179 is the only current terminal with room for a second service (1/2 tracks for the , 3/4 tracks for the . Limited Hillside express service can be re-established during the rush hours (similar to how service runs now) as there is now dedicated local service on Hillside that still runs express after 75th as the does now. In Brooklyn, service can continue to Church as it does now along with the , express both directions during the day whenever the is running from Jay to Kings Hwy (peak after Church). With slightly less service on the and , the local 6Av tracks can handle the third service. Slight modification to the switches at Kings Highway to allow this, the current configuration does not work that well. This seemingly solves the 1-train ride (no seats as you know at Lex-53rd lol) to Hillside via 53rd and the Culver express issues without sacrificing much, and keeps the successful combination as well as squeezes in a little Hillside express in the peak direction. The might not all fit in the 53rd tunnel. If the went via 63rd, then IMO all would be good. But there's an issue with all that: service will have to be decreased, which will be an issue for 8 Av-QBL riders. As to the pic 7-11 posted, I don't know which rocket scientist thought it'd be a good idea to label the via Fulton St diversion as "via 8 Av", but they should be fired. Is the train being rerouted via Eighth Avenue proper? No. Is the train on Eighth Avenue when stopping at Spring, Chambers & Fulton Sts? No, it's on Sixth Avenue and Fulton St. Stupid programmers. It's on the Eighth Avenue Line, so via 8 Av makes sense. And via Fulton St would make it sound like it's going to Euclid. @Wallyhorse: The Cranberry tube/Jay St interlocking would not be able to handle trains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 20, 2011 Share #127 Posted February 20, 2011 Again if we are to bring back the then we should kill the current , bring back the (Mx), and send it back to Brooklyn like it always was, and this time make it a full route so it would go to Bay Parkway at all times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted February 20, 2011 Share #128 Posted February 20, 2011 Again if we are to bring back the then we should kill the current , bring back the (Mx), and send it back to Brooklyn like it always was, and this time make it a full route so it would go to Bay Parkway at all times. Foam. Go tell that to Middle Village-ers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lance25 Posted February 20, 2011 Share #129 Posted February 20, 2011 Again if we are to bring back the then we should kill the current , bring back the (Mx), and send it back to Brooklyn like it always was, and this time make it a full route so it would go to Bay Parkway at all times. So let me get this straight, you want to get rid of the current , a route that greatly helps passengers in Ridgewood & Bushwick and bring back the (Mx), a route that was barely useful in its former incarnation. And to have it run to Bay Pkwy at all times, no less? Get the **** out of here! The only way the will come back is if there's overwhelming opposition to the , which I haven't seen. Plus, it's not like the is much different from the . Outside of the fact that the doesn't stop at 2 Av, they're the same routing, just extended to Middle Village. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 20, 2011 Share #130 Posted February 20, 2011 Alright then, but there are people that used the (Mx) to get to South Brooklyn I know some of these people. How about why don't we just create another service from Nassau Street to South Brooklyn. Or we don't have to bring back the , and find some other service to run as the Culver Local. Why don't we find some way to connect the or something onto the Culver Line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted February 20, 2011 Share #131 Posted February 20, 2011 Alright then, but there are people that used the (Mx) to get to South Brooklyn I know some of these people. How about why don't we just create another service from Nassau Street to South Brooklyn. OMG. Have them take the to the . There's more Middle-Village/Jamaica line residents wanting Midtown than West End riders wanting the (Mx). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted February 20, 2011 Share #132 Posted February 20, 2011 LOL, I knew this would happen.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted February 20, 2011 Share #133 Posted February 20, 2011 horrible idea, the commute from 179th street would be much longer. Theres a reason express routes go to the furthermost ends of the system The would be truncated at 71st-Continental in his plan. The would be express to/from 179th and the would run local to/from Continental in Queens under his scenario (except at night when the would run local from 179th, which it used to do in the late 70s and early 80s). Service west of 36th Street would be unchanged - via 63rd, via 53rd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 20, 2011 Share #134 Posted February 20, 2011 Yeah that is a great idea if you want to slow the down to the speed of a typical train. We are going to here more complaints from Queens residents if this goes through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traildriver Posted February 20, 2011 Share #135 Posted February 20, 2011 Would it at all be possible to send some J or M trains onto the L line or vice versa? I beleieve there was a connection at one time at least in the case of the J and L lines at Broadway Junction. (I forgot whether the L is elevated or still in subway when it crosses Myrtle.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bus Guy Posted February 20, 2011 Author Share #136 Posted February 20, 2011 OMG. Have them take the to the . There's more Middle-Village/Jamaica line residents wanting Midtown than West End riders wanting the (Mx). Why not just extend the (J)/(Z) to bay parkway and have people transfer to the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted February 20, 2011 Share #137 Posted February 20, 2011 Why not just extend the (J)/(Z) to bay parkway and have people transfer to the You'll be messing with the and the (Z)'s skip-stop pattern thus making the service unreliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 20, 2011 Share #138 Posted February 20, 2011 LOL I am gonna piss of some people here by posting this LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted February 20, 2011 Share #139 Posted February 20, 2011 1) Why does Culver need two locals (not to mention one's going to Eighth Avenue)? Generally, people riding on Culver want Sixth Avenue service. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule (as is always the case), but for the most part, it's true. The biggest complaint that comes from people along Park Slope, especially those that live at stations with the express track is the lack of express service along that line as I understand. Having the as a full-time express (outside of overnights) and an 8th Avenue Line take over as the local can do that, especially since in that format the 8th Avenue train also stops at Broadway-Lafayette, where those affected can make a same platform transfer to the or . By the time this would take effect in 2012-'13, the transfer at Broadway-Lafayette to/from the uptown also will be in place, which also is a factor in my doing this. The being the 8th Avenue Line that diverts to go with the as the new Culver Local is to give Park Slope riders a one-seat option if going to midtown via 8th Avenue as well as a one-seat ride to the upper west side they currently don't have. It could also be the , but the to me makes more sense since it gives Park Slope riders and upper Manhattan one-seat ride option. As for the , since I would also have a new train that would effective replace the as a lower Manhattan local on 8th Avenue (since the with leave the line after West 4th), the long train can be a second 8th avenue express as well as becoming the Fulton Express with the returning to being the Fulton Local if that is an issue. The fact that the is the Far Rockaway train is why I would have the as the local to Lefferts (again, eliminating the overnight between Lefferts and Euclid), but those could be flip-flopped if necessary. Just my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lance25 Posted February 20, 2011 Share #140 Posted February 20, 2011 @RC1: Yep, you did. All the Fourth Avenue lines needs is a slight increase in trains, not the resurrection of a couple of lines that were barely useful during the rush hours, much less so at other times. @Wallyhouse: So by giving riders easy access to Eighth Avenue service, you feel that you're appeasing the folks at the local stops between Church Av & Jay St? I doubt it. If they really wanted Eighth Ave service, they can transfer across the platform at Jay St-MetroTech. Also, whether it's on Eighth Avenue or Sixth Avenue, you can't have three local trains on one set of tracks. It'll cause massive delays, much more so when the lines are FUBARed as they usually are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 20, 2011 Share #141 Posted February 20, 2011 Yeah, but another good idea the people keep bringing up is the . When the first phase of the Second Avenue Subway comes up the would have to go to 96th Street. It would be a good idea to bring back the once this happens, and have it run from Bay Parkway to Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted February 20, 2011 Share #142 Posted February 20, 2011 LOL I am gonna piss of some people here by posting this LOL. The sign is wrong because the <R> can't go to COntinental Avenue via Nassau. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 20, 2011 Share #143 Posted February 20, 2011 I know some person decided to play with the rollsign lol. Not me though. Found it online though someone was playing with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted February 20, 2011 Share #144 Posted February 20, 2011 I know some person decided to play with the rollsign lol. Not me though. Found it online though someone was playing with it. During the summer of 2009 R42s out of Jamaica were only used on the and routes. I'm not entirely sure, but I think the <R> was closer to than was and workers at 71st sometimes didn't change the side signs all the way to , and short stopped at <R> instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 20, 2011 Share #145 Posted February 20, 2011 Anyway I am sure the option is the best idea. It seems to be a good idea to see it come back once the goes to Second Avenue. It would be pretty interesting to see the back on the West End Line, but what really matters is that we have a back up line in case something happens to the . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4P3607 Posted February 20, 2011 Share #146 Posted February 20, 2011 LOL I am gonna piss of some people here by posting this LOL. This makes me miss the R42's on the Queens Blvd Line More! :cry: I remember 2 years ago I was at 36 Street (Heading to C.I. beach), and R42 comes in with most of the train signed up as . yay, A train in south Brooklyn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted February 20, 2011 Share #147 Posted February 20, 2011 Yeah that is a great idea if you want to slow the down to the speed of a typical train. We are going to here more complaints from Queens residents if this goes through. They'd still have an express service, the , to/from 6th Avenue. And it would run through the busier 53rd Street tunnel. What would there be to complain about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4P3607 Posted February 20, 2011 Share #148 Posted February 20, 2011 Well... Have suggestions... Chambers Street - Coney Island Via Brighton Via West End, Broadway & Astoria Express well keep it that way If you highlight this, then I would rather have Brown M Back IMO!!! Bring Back the , but make It Broadway Express. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted February 21, 2011 Share #149 Posted February 21, 2011 Routes that arent around... That should be...(Mx) Routes that are around... That shouldn't be... Typical foamer.:mad::tdown: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4P3607 Posted February 21, 2011 Share #150 Posted February 21, 2011 Typical foamer.:mad::tdown: Theres no reason to get Mad. So what, people have their own opinions. And so what if anybody's a foamer, get over it :cool:. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.