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.

SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic


Recommended Posts

From Bergen Street, a (G) to Roosevelt Avenue would be 11 minutes faster than the (F). At the peak of weekday rush, 3 (F) trains would have gone by in that time span.

  • (G): 23 minutes from Bergen Street to Court Square + 7 minutes from Court Square to Roosevelt Avenue
  • (F): 41 minutes from Bergen Street to Roosevelt Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 26.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Isn't the G a straighter shot between those two stops over the F? The G doesn't have to cross the East River twice and serve midtown Manhattan. Then again, the F isn't supposed to be the quicker route between Brooklyn and Queens. That's historically been the job of the G, even with it permanently truncated to Court Sq. The purpose of the F is to transport riders from Queens Blvd and Culver to the CBD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Lance said:

Isn't the G a straighter shot between those two stops over the F? The G doesn't have to cross the East River twice and serve midtown Manhattan. Then again, the F isn't supposed to be the quicker route between Brooklyn and Queens. That's historically been the job of the G, even with it permanently truncated to Court Sq. The purpose of the F is to transport riders from Queens Blvd and Culver to the CBD.

I mean… that much should be obvious. But the (G) isn’t faster in practice because it’s neutered. Hence, even when I had to travel between Brooklyn and Queens, I took any train but the (G). It’s a neglected market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CenSin said:

I mean… that much should be obvious. But the (G) isn’t faster in practice because it’s neutered. Hence, even when I had to travel between Brooklyn and Queens, I took any train but the (G). It’s a neglected market.

I tend to agree. The (G) being unreliable is a self-fulfilling prophecy when the route is truncated and the headways are long and the sets are short.

I would love to see the MTA pilot a rush hour special version of the (G) [perhaps signed up as a diamond G rather than (GG) because the riding public is currently more accustomed to diamonds than double letters (however, the diamond is strictly used to denote express, so we wouldn't want to confuse people that way either)] that runs from Coney Island-Stillwell Av all the way to Jamaica-179 St or Jamaica Center (to avoid worsening terminal issues at 71 Av).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jammerbot said:

I tend to agree. The (G) being unreliable is a self-fulfilling prophecy when the route is truncated and the headways are long and the sets are short.

I would love to see the MTA pilot a rush hour special version of the (G) [perhaps signed up as a diamond G rather than (GG) because the riding public is currently more accustomed to diamonds than double letters (however, the diamond is strictly used to denote express, so we wouldn't want to confuse people that way either)] that runs from Coney Island-Stillwell Av all the way to Jamaica-179 St or Jamaica Center (to avoid worsening terminal issues at 71 Av).

The issue of running the (G) on Queens Blvd is the terminal operations at 71 Av. Turning the (M) and (R) nerfs the capacity of the local tracks to 19-20 trains per hour, including thru-running ones. The same issue is prevalent at Church Av. The (G) train fumigation delays the (F) and worsens the train bunching on Culver. The limited <F> express service has made the headways worse because now the local service is not as evenly spaced and the express is sparse. If the express / local split was more or less even, then some degree of consistency would be available on the lower Culver Line. But then it may also mess up train spacing on 6 Av, and eventually Queens Blvd

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, darkstar8983 said:

The issue of running the (G) on Queens Blvd is the terminal operations at 71 Av. Turning the (M) and (R) nerfs the capacity of the local tracks to 19-20 trains per hour, including thru-running ones. The same issue is prevalent at Church Av. The (G) train fumigation delays the (F) and worsens the train bunching on Culver. The limited <F> express service has made the headways worse because now the local service is not as evenly spaced and the express is sparse. If the express / local split was more or less even, then some degree of consistency would be available on the lower Culver Line. But then it may also mess up train spacing on 6 Av, and eventually Queens Blvd

Interesting. Maybe having a few (G)s run down Culver to Coney Island-Stillwell and also running these select trains on the Queens Blvd Express to Jamaica-179 St can not only prove the (G)s usefulness but also ameliorate some of those issues at Church Av? You don't have to do both, of course, but I think it would be a helpful addition of service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jammerbot said:

Interesting. Maybe having a few (G)s run down Culver to Coney Island-Stillwell and also running these select trains on the Queens Blvd Express to Jamaica-179 St can not only prove the (G)s usefulness but also ameliorate some of those issues at Church Av? You don't have to do both, of course, but I think it would be a helpful addition of service.

That just flies headlong into the very issue that led to the (1) being severed from Brooklyn (save for the 9/11 service changes and the occasional need to fill a severe gap in service) and the (3) ending service to/from South Ferry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CenSin said:

From Bergen Street, a (G) to Roosevelt Avenue would be 11 minutes faster than the (F). At the peak of weekday rush, 3 (F) trains would have gone by in that time span.

  • (G): 23 minutes from Bergen Street to Court Square + 7 minutes from Court Square to Roosevelt Avenue
  • (F): 41 minutes from Bergen Street to Roosevelt Avenue

Those 7 minutes has to be if the train went express in Queens (and even then, that's kinda tight). If the (G) is fully local between those two points, it's gonna take much more than 7 minutes. I highly doubt the MTA would run the (G) express, if it were to come back (which I also doubt). 

Longer trains on the (G) are something which should be looked at for sure, and decreasing headways during parts of the day also wouldn't hurt.

Regarding operating (G) trains to Coney Island, I tend to be on the same boat with the people that believe it should. However, I think that they should operate the (G) there directly on summer weekends, from like 9 AM - 11 PM more or less. Additionally, to speed up the trip, (G) trains could run express south of Church Ave in one direction (like say 9 AM - 3 PM towards Coney Island, and 3 PM - 9 PM towards Court Square), making stops at 18th Ave, Kings Hwy, Neptune Ave (maybe), West 8th Street, and Coney Island. The (F) would still be local to preserve direct service to Manhattan from Culver Line stations. That would probably keep some of the bean counters happy too.

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

Those 7 minutes has to be if the train went express in Queens (and even then, that's kinda tight). If the (G) is fully local between those two points, it's gonna take much more than 7 minutes. I highly doubt the MTA would run the (G) express, if it were to come back (which I also doubt). 

Longer trains on the (G) are something which should be looked at for sure, and decreasing headways during parts of the day also wouldn't hurt.

Regarding operating (G) trains to Coney Island, I tend to be on the same boat with the people that believe it should. However, I think that they should operate the (G) there directly on summer weekends, from like 9 AM - 11 PM more or less. Additionally, to speed up the trip, (G) trains could run express south of Church Ave in one direction (like say 9 AM - 3 PM towards Coney Island, and 3 PM - 9 PM towards Court Square), making stops at 18th Ave, Kings Hwy, Neptune Ave (maybe), West 8th Street, and Coney Island. The (F) would still be local to preserve direct service to Manhattan from Culver Line stations. That would probably keep some of the bean counters happy too.

I actually agree...we in a day in age where we need to start seeing changes in weekend service and stop seeing changes in our wallets...😄...Sending G trains to coney on summer weekends via peak express on culver would to me make traveling from manhattan to coney viceversa much diff and faster...All i know if they ever was to start a service like that i will simply use a F to G if i was going to coney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

It's honestly refreshing to see something other than just some bland looking train as well as the NYS Wrap. 

I’ll take the hypebeast L over some of the other wraps ive seen before

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8101-8104, 8145-8148 is the Supreme wrapped R143 subway train on the (L) . Occasionally, it may hit the (J) line since it has the combo strip map on there. 

Also, boarded 8773-8777 on the (G) : the outside of the train is a regular R160 but inside has a bit of the wrap. Exterior wrap was melted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The wrapped (L) train is already tagged 🤣

Of course it is... Look what the wrap is advertising....

Can't have anything nice in this city... You know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/8/2021 at 9:20 PM, Lawrence St said:

Anyone else think that extending the (G) to Coney Island during summer weekends is worth it?

The only issue is Stillwell isn’t gonna be able to handle the (F) and the (G)  together. It can barley handle the (F) now lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, MTA Bus said:

The only issue is Stillwell isn’t gonna be able to handle the (F) and the (G)  together. It can barley handle the (F) now lol

My thought to address exactly this is to have the southbound trains drop out after Ave X. You can't really insert a northbound train before Ave X without introducing a nasty at-grade crossing. 

Side note: why is it that some of the most poorly planned parts of the system tend to be BMT? Or am I wrong and there are examples of shortsighted IND planning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Calvin said:

8101-8104, 8145-8148 is the Supreme wrapped R143 subway train on the (L) . Occasionally, it may hit the (J) line since it has the combo strip map on there. 

Also, boarded 8773-8777 on the (G) : the outside of the train is a regular R160 but inside has a bit of the wrap. Exterior wrap was melted. 

8773-8777 has been like that for over a year. It used to be a coumo wrapped train it got tagged so they completely removed the wrap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, jammerbot said:

My thought to address exactly this is to have the southbound trains drop out after Ave X. You can't really insert a northbound train before Ave X without introducing a nasty at-grade crossing. 

Side note: why is it that some of the most poorly planned parts of the system tend to be BMT? Or am I wrong and there are examples of shortsighted IND planning?

It's not only the BMT that poorly plans their system, your forgetting the IRT. The infamous Rogers Junction is clear example of that poor planning. As for the IND's planning, they're usually smart about their development. Their shortsightedness was mainly do to financial issues as well as WWII being a thing. If it wasn't for either of them, we would probably be seeing more of the Second System like the SAS and whatever else the IND wanted to build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vulturious said:
22 hours ago, jammerbot said:

My thought to address exactly this is to have the southbound trains drop out after Ave X. You can't really insert a northbound train before Ave X without introducing a nasty at-grade crossing. 

Side note: why is it that some of the most poorly planned parts of the system tend to be BMT? Or am I wrong and there are examples of shortsighted IND planning?

It's not only the BMT that poorly plans their system, your forgetting the IRT. The infamous Rogers Junction is clear example of that poor planning. As for the IND's planning, they're usually smart about their development. Their shortsightedness was mainly do to financial issues as well as WWII being a thing. If it wasn't for either of them, we would probably be seeing more of the Second System like the SAS and whatever else the IND wanted to build.

Infrastructure-wise, if you can call the post-unification system “IND” then some of the more poorly done jobs would be:

  • The Chrystie Street connector
    • Look no further than last month’s weekend service changes for supporting evidence.
  • The 36 Street connector connecting 63 Street to Queens Boulevard
    • Took away much of the trackage for train storage, making it only useful for half-length trains. Arguably, storage tracks aren’t that useful from a passenger’s perspective anyway.
  • The Archer Avenue extension
    • No connection between upper and lower levels means that when one level is taken out of service for construction work, its associated routes are truncated instead of being routed to the other level.

Pre-unification, these would be great examples of poor planning on the IND’s part:

  • Court Street
    • Dead-ends in Brooklyn.
  • World Trade Center
    • No tail tracks.
  • 145 Street as a terminal for local trains
    • Though to their credit, they probably never intended 145 Street to be a regular terminal—only Bedford Park Boulevard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, CenSin said:

Infrastructure-wise, if you can call the post-unification system “IND” then some of the more poorly done jobs would be:

  • The Chrystie Street connector
    • Look no further than last month’s weekend service changes for supporting evidence.
  • The 36 Street connector connecting 63 Street to Queens Boulevard
    • Took away much of the trackage for train storage, making it only useful for half-length trains. Arguably, storage tracks aren’t that useful from a passenger’s perspective anyway.
  • The Archer Avenue extension
    • No connection between upper and lower levels means that when one level is taken out of service for construction work, its associated routes are truncated instead of being routed to the other level.

Pre-unification, these would be great examples of poor planning on the IND’s part:

  • Court Street
    • Dead-ends in Brooklyn.
  • World Trade Center
    • No tail tracks.
  • 145 Street as a terminal for local trains
    • Though to their credit, they probably never intended 145 Street to be a regular terminal—only Bedford Park Boulevard.

 

 

That's because the lines were intended to go further out east with the (J) going as far as Hollis and the (E) as far as Springfield Blvd or Rosedale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2021 at 10:24 PM, jammerbot said:

My thought to address exactly this is to have the southbound trains drop out after Ave X. You can't really insert a northbound train before Ave X without introducing a nasty at-grade crossing. 

Side note: why is it that some of the most poorly planned parts of the system tend to be BMT? Or am I wrong and there are examples of shortsighted IND planning?

On 8/15/2021 at 10:24 PM, jammerbot said:

My thought to address exactly this is to have the southbound trains drop out after Ave X. You can't really insert a northbound train before Ave X without introducing a nasty at-grade crossing. 

Side note: why is it that some of the most poorly planned parts of the system tend to be BMT? Or am I wrong and there are examples of shortsighted IND planning?

Maybe I look at the big picture differently. The system that became the BRT and then the BMT was a consolidation of different companies running services in Brooklyn. The IRT was the original subway which was consolidated with the existing elevated lines in Manhattan and the Bronx. The IND had an easier mission to create a new system without the constraints that the private had to deal with. The Depression and it's aftermath neutered the IND. It's my opinion that the private companies did a great job.  My take. Carry on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

(L) train sliding down tracks while serving the Bedford Ave station. Was this recent and has what caused this to happen? Has it ever happened before? 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CSrbxXgAKTv/?utm_medium=share_sheet

This happens all the time when the train release the brakes and part or all of the train is on an incline. Odd that this happened on a ATO route though.

Edited by trainfan22
Link to comment
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.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.