Culver Express?

[Roadcruiser1]

If that is a problem then extend the farther south of Church Avenue.

[CenSin]

If that is a problem then extend the farther south of Church Avenue.

I made several edits to my post while you were posting. Reread the post. Your reply is there.

 

 

Also, here's an MTA report: http://www.mta.info/mta/news/releases/pdf/flinereport.pdf

[overclocked]

I don't understand one thing, why did IND built their portion of the line with 4 tracks, even though the line south of Church Ave. only has 3, what was the point of such short bi-directional express route? The only option that comes to my mind is having operate express from Jay Street to Church Avenue and having Crosstown operate locally and terminating at Church Av. This option has some faults in it: the short crosstown trains can't handle that many people and the lay-ups would cause delays for the riders. If the express tracks connected to crosstown tracks the could operate express and have no effect on train altogether.

 

So what was the original plan regarding express tracks of IND Culver?

[Roadcruiser1]

Your answer lies here in this map (IND Second System). As you can see the IND Crosstown Line would have had lines going to Staten Island, Dyker Heights, and the Rockaways via the Rockaway Beach Branch. The Crosstown Line was supposed to be a major line, and not just the small little train you see today.

 

[overclocked]

Your answer lies here in this map (IND Second System). As you can see the IND Crosstown Line would have had lines going to Staten Island, Dyker Heights, and the Rockaways via the Rockaway Beach Branch. The Crosstown Line was supposed to be a major line, and not just the small little train you see today.

 

That's explains the express tracks, they were made for future, which sadly never came. WWII:mad:

[Roadcruiser1]

Actually it's the Great Depression and the rise of the automobile that killed it. You are correct that World War 2 killed it, but there are other reasons too.

[overclocked]

Actually it's the Great Depression and the rise of the automobile that killed it. You are correct that World War 2 killed it, but there are other reasons too.

 

Yes some of other reasons include Interstate Highways, rise of suburbs and automobile culture, all post WWII effects. With or without WWII, I don't believe most of 2nd IND could be built anyway, where did the funds came from for subways? I know Triborough was build with help from feds, but other than that I don't know. It would be nice to know ehere the funds came from and how they were distributed and did Robert Moses have any influence on public transit and expansions throughout the city?

[TwoTimer]

Not true, Work trains run on the express tracks along with put ins (sometimes).

 

And Yes, Even trains that are running late, Museum Specials, Test Trains ( If I remember right Culver Express at 18th Avenue is a testing track)

 

He was talking about revenue service, work trains use and run on ALL tracks in the system.

[CenSin]

I don't understand one thing, why did IND built their portion of the line with 4 tracks, even though the line south of Church Ave. only has 3, what was the point of such short bi-directional express route? The only option that comes to my mind is having operate express from Jay Street to Church Avenue and having Crosstown operate locally and terminating at Church Av. This option has some faults in it: the short crosstown trains can't handle that many people and the lay-ups would cause delays for the riders. If the express tracks connected to crosstown tracks the could operate express and have no effect on train altogether.

 

So what was the original plan regarding express tracks of IND Culver?

Corrections:

1. The three track setup below Church Avenue is the result of it already being built that way.

2. The line could have been extended further from Church Avenue as both the local and express tracks have a connection to a lower level south of Church Avenue. That was likely for extension southwards under one of the numbered avenues since the tracks are too short to be meant for turning back trains. (The is only able to do it because the trains are so short, and I don't think the IND ever intended to run trains of that length originally.)

3. Running the as express and as local isn't the only option. Read: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=489527&postcount=25. Either the will remain local with the , or the will be replaced on the local by another service like the as it runs express.

4. The number of people desiring a speedy ride to Manhattan outnumber the number desiring crosstown service; that's just counting the express stops alone.

 

[Roadcruiser1]

Nice try, but you can't just kill the orange . Those riders on the current would be very angry.

[2Line1291]

They could build a track switch allowing the to go express on 6th Ave to 145th St killing the and reviving the as a Culver local.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

What would replace the as the Brighton Express if they were to do that? I'm not so sure you could get away with a Brighton Line with just local service on weekdays.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Correct. However when the Culver express was discontinued it was prior to the population boom in Park Slope/Red Hook of the 1990's. Now IMO a rush hour should run 'express' after the current culver viaduct project is done. The is studying a culver line express as we speak. With that said, the only thing that is almost certain(nothing is a sure bet with the until it approved)after the re-construction is the running permament to terminate at Church Ave 24/7.:eek:

The presence of the on the 6th Avenue local tracks precludes the MTA from running the express in Brooklyn because the can't be the only train serving the local stations between Church and Bergen. That has to factor into the MTA's study, which they started before they replaced the with the . Were it not for that, perhaps the could have been extended to Brooklyn as the Culver Express.

[Roadcruiser1]

Even then the new is doing as well as an extended would because it's carrying people from somewhere to somewhere unlike the which went from somewhere and stopped at nowhere. I just wished either the Second Avenue Subway was online since it is feasible to place a connection to the Rutgers Street Tunnel from the Second Avenue Subway, or that there was some connection between the Broadway and the Sixth Avenue Lines to allow something to work there, but it won't happen.

[2Line1291]

They could build a track switch allowing the to go express on 6th Ave to 145th St killing the and reviving the as a Culver local.

I take that back!

What would replace the as the Brighton Express if they were to do that? I'm not so sure you could get away with a Brighton Line with just local service on weekdays.

That's why the Second Ave Line is needed.

[VWM]

This was the configuration of the Culver Express back in the 1970's and 1980's, and how it would operate if it existed today.

 

Noo.... Peak direction trains would run local for Av X on, there is no exp track past there.

also, local trains can turn at Avenue X, and go straight to the yards, and re- enter there.

[Roadcruiser1]

Map has been redone.

 

[MikeGerald]

Understanding subway history is very important. Sometimes folks here say that I bring up too much transit history. However knowing transit history and reviewing the track maps would stop folks from making some really bad statements.

 

In the 1930's the IND planners intended to for the conversion and capture of the BMT's Culver Line - this was planned from day 1, and would reduce some of the congestion at the DeKalb Avenue station, and to speed the removal of the BMT Fifth Avenue elevated line which also traveled over the Culver Line trackage to Coney Island. The IND subway was designed in many ways as "an elevated line killer" and this is just one example. Another well-known fact for subway fans who know their history.

 

The Church Avenue terminal, and lower level layup tracks from day 1 when they were built in the 1930's then and now remain capable of holding a 600-foot train, on all 4 tracks. Just because G-trains are now 300-feet in length does not suddenly mean that the layup tracks were shortened. Why anyone would think that those layup tracks could not hold full-length trains - I don't know. The lower level storage tracks were often used for work trains, etc before their use as the layup tracks for the G-trains.

 

In fact before the line was extended to capture the Culver trackage, the Church Avenue terminal was the home terminal for the D and F-trains that plied the line. The Church Avenue terminal as the main terminal from the 1930's to the 1950's, when the Culver line was finally captured. The D-train was the first IND route to travel to/from the IND lines to/from Coney Island. When the 1960's Chrystie Street project was completed, the D-train was moved to the Brighton line, the Brooklyn B-train was extended via West End to Coney Island, and the F-train was instituted to run down Culver to Coney Island. All known facts for subway fans who know their history.

 

In addition during the 1970's, the MTA did experiment with a rush hour Culver Express, where at first G-trains were the only local trains out of Church Avenue to Bergen Street, with all F-trains on the lower level, and where Park Slope riders had to transfer. However Park Slope riders objected to removal of direct Manhattan service, so rush hour F-trains dispatched from Kings Highway began to make the local stops between Bergen Street and Church Avenue, as well as the other local stations to King's Highway in the 1970's. However that did not please Park Slope riders due to the long waits between trains, and the very crowded trains. They enlisted their political representatives to get the MTA to make all F-trains local at all times - which was done! This was the 1980's when the MTA give up the last vestiges of the Culver Express service. This gave the residents at all of the local stations north of Kings Highway the highest frequency of service.

 

Here's the basic fact - that some transit fans just do not seem to get - it is the local stations that would be by-passed by the express trains that have the highest ridership. So every "Culver express" scheme that transit fans try to come up with really means that there will be a reduction of meaningful direct to/from Manhattan local service at the busiest Brooklyn stations. The stations in Park Slope have the heaviest ridership of the whole Brooklyn F-line, yes more ridership than every station south of Church Avenue.

 

Now, during the rush hours, F-trains arrive every 4 or 5 minutes - one of the highest frequencies of service in the system. Now just what neighborhood is going to want to give up frequent service? Every "Culver Express" scheme that transit fans has tried to come up with (and have been are plenty) would result in a reduction in local service - meaning the proposal is dead as soon as the ink is dry. Again - just what neighborhood is going to want to give up frequent train service? Again - just what well funded politically active neighborhood is not going to want to fight for their frequent train service?

 

Park Slope residents fought for and got their frequent train service. Now does anyone really think that the neighborhoods won't fight again to retain their frequent service. Especially when they will reap NONE of the benefits of an express service that will pass then by?

 

There was talk on the boards of using the "hated V-train" (yes, some transit fans hated, simply hated the V-train) either as a Brooklyn to/from Kings Highway local (thus reducing local service again), or as a Brooklyn express (something is better than nothing). However the re-routing of the current M-train through Sixth Avenue and Queens Blvd means that there is "little room" for an additional train route. Splitting current F-train service into both a local and express runs - would again reduce local service. Can we say - dead on arrival - dead as soon as the ink dries?

 

Then to top it all off there is the fact that the Kings Highway station of yesterday is not the same one as today? Why? Simple - a critical switch south of the station has been removed. Trains that leave Coney Island headed toward Manhattan on the usual local track simply have no way to enter the middle express track at/near/aft of the Kings Highway station. That switch was removed in the 1990's. What does this mean - there's no "am rush hours" express train from Coney Island toward Manhattan. Every train coming out of Coney Island is going to be local, unless some local stations near Avenue X are skipped entirely.

 

Yes, yes, during the pm rush hours, yes - south-bound trains on the middle track can be switched to the outside south-bound local track. Why are Kings Highway and Avenue X stations used as terminals by F-trains? Simple the two track Coney Island terminal is not capable of handling all of the F-train traffic - a fact long known. The 179th Street terminal in Queens is a very capable terminal for all of the F-trains - another fact long well known.

 

So as this issue is discussed (again), just keep in mind that there's a good deal of background information that is going to be needed to figure out what will work, and what will not work. Knowing your transit history, and the track maps really help in this case.

 

Mike

[Roadcruiser1]

Can that switch be put back in?

[CenSin]

Can that switch be put back in?

I can't see why not.

 

But the question should be why the configuration was made the way it is today. That has never been answered.

[Roadcruiser1]

http://www.nycsubway.org/lines/culver.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culver_Line_%28New_York_City_Subway%29#Culver_Viaduct

[Metro CSW]

Full Story:

 

On November 26, 1967, the Chrystie Street Connection was completed. D trains were rerouted via this connection, over the north side of the Manhattan Bridge, and via the BMT Brighton Line in Brooklyn. F trains replaced them on the IND Culver Line. There was rush hour express service between Jay Street – Borough Hall and Kings Highway. This was discontinued in 1986 due to track work. There has been community support for resuming express service along the Culver Line The MTA has announced that the elevated Culver Viaduct will undergo extensive renovations from 2009–2012, after which "There will be no impediment to implementing the F express."

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Except there is. That impediment is called the train. Rerouting it to 6th Avenue has made it more popular than it ever was. Reverting the back to its old (Mx) and forms is just not an option. Nor is running some trains express while running the rest local, because that will result in a reduction of service to where it's needed most. If the MTA really wants to implement a Culver express between Jay and Church, they're going to have to come up with a rather creative way of doing so. And please, nobody suggest extending the train to Brooklyn to be the Culver Express.

[Roadcruiser1]

It doesn't seem possible. Just studying the track maps there isn't any way. Not unless if you build some sort of track connection between the Canarsie and Crosstown Lines because they are the only two lines that can handle a second subway service without having to reroute the or anything like that.

[Eric B]

Now with them just digging through the Second Av. Line to the 63rd St. connection, I would wish they would put the middle track at 72nd back into the plan. (Again, how much money will a slighly narrower tunnel there really save?) That would provide an additional terminal. Though it would still require a third local on 6th Ave. That's wht I used to suggest, but now working the line and seeing all the sstuff that causes delays on the IND, it might not work, though it looks like it could be squeezed in on paper.

 

To really become "creative" using the existing infrastructure, they could switch the new line to 8th Av., terminate at Chambers, and relay in the spur there. But that would get in the way of the , and it would then be ending right next to where the ends, so you might as well join them and run the .

Or, you could do that at 14th instead, and relay in the spur track south of 34th, but it would be the same problem.

 

To expand on this, we could use the 1991 drastic cuts plan, where the would be eliminated, the would become local, and the would cover the express into Brooklyn and terminate at 34th.

So we could instead of eliminating the , make it and the new line (would probabaly end up reusing the ) the expresses and both terminate at 34th.

That would probably be the most workable solution, though as in the '91 plan, people would complain about making the 'classic' express a local. I guess they could put it back on the express north of 59th and let the ( cover the local. As slow as the express below 59th is, that probably wouldn't be much of a loss at all.