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  
'89 Liberty MCI

The (2) and (5) Should Permanently Swap on the Southern End

Recommended Posts

Note: Assume regular service patterns with no GOs for this post. Anyway, that subject header is my declaration. I believe the (5) should operate to Flatbush Avenue-Nostrand Avenue at all times including overnight hours. It should operate express in Brooklyn at all times except overnight hours, when it should be local in Brooklyn except that it must skip Hoyt Street since the Lexington line tracks cannot serve Hoyt Street. See track map for clarification: http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/pm_southeast_1.png

 

The (2) should only go to Flatbush at the same hours that the (5) currently goes there. All other times except overnight hours (this includes all day Saturday/Sunday), the (2) should terminate at South Ferry. During overnight hours, when the (3) does not serve Brooklyn, the (2) should terminate at Atlantic Avenue. This way there is still overnight service from the West Side to Brooklyn as well as plenty of trackage for the (2) to lay up before heading back uptown. The (3) should also be cut back to 96 Street-Broadway in order to [partially] offset the cost of extending the (5) from East 180 Street to Brooklyn overnight.

 

I got this idea when I rode the (5) from Flatbush Avenue to Union Square yesterday. The (5) runs local in Brooklyn during this GO that has been going on for a while, but if it ran express in Brooklyn I was thinking that the swap might be a good idea.

 

It gives those living around the Nostrand Avenue corridor a direct connection to the East Side as well as a faster trip through Brooklyn at all times except overnight hours. Currently one has to take the (2) to Franklin for the (4) to reach the East Side and to get through Brooklyn faster. Additionally the only way they really benefit from the faster trip through Brooklyn is if the (4) is right there waiting for them to transfer from the (2) at Franklin or if the (4) shows up just a couple of minutes later. If the (5) serves the Nostrand Avenue corridor 24/7, then those people are guaranteed the faster trip through Brooklyn on the weekends outside of overnight hours but have the option to transfer to the local (3). This seems better than the current situation in which they are committed to the local (2) on the weekends and only benefit from the express (4) if the wait time for that train is negligible.

 

This eliminates the direct connection to the West Side, but if people have the (5) as the only train serving the Nostrand Avenue corridor, they can use the (5), running express along Eastern Parkway and Flatbush Avenue, to catch up to the (3) and then make the transfer at either Nevins Street or Borough Hall (if in the 7th or 8th car of the (5) train since that's where you have to be to be as close to the passageway at Borough Hall). Hopefully the MTA would coordinate the schedules so that the Manhattan-bound (3) arrives at Nevins a little after or at the same time as the Manhattan-bound (5). Conversely the schedules would also be coordinated so that the Flatbush-bound (5) arrives at Nevins a little after or at the same time as the New Lots-bound (3).

 

Also the current weekend headways for the (2), (3), (4) are approximately 12 minutes, 12 minutes, and 8 minutes respectively. This makes it harder to synchronize the (2) with the (4) so the people can minimize the wait time when making that connection at Franklin. If the (2) and (4) stick to their respective 12- and 8-minute headways, you could wait as long as 8 minutes to make a transfer and the headways have to be fudged here and there (trains have to be held up) in order to minimize the wait times when people make transfers.

 

The (5) runs every 12 minutes between Dyre Avenue and Bowling Green on the weekends. If it kept its 12-minute headway going into Brooklyn, it could be perfectly synchronized with the (3) barring any delays, since they both have the same weekend headway of 12 minutes.

 

So just to clarify, this is the plan:

 

During the hours that the (5) currently serves Brooklyn:

 

No changes from current service patterns for (2)(3)(4)(5).

 

During the hours that the (5) does not currently serve Brooklyn, excluding overnight hours:

 

OLD: (2) from 241 Street to Flatbush Avenue-Nostrand Avenue. Bronx local. Manhattan express. Brooklyn local.

 

NEW: (2) from 241 Street to South Ferry. Remain local in the Bronx, express in Manhattan. Use the switches north of Chambers Street to go to/from the 7th Avenue local tracks and South Ferry.

 

OLD: (5) from Dyre Avenue to Bowling Green. Bronx local. Manhattan express.

 

NEW: (5) from Dyre Avenue to Flatbush Avenue-Nostrand Avenue. Remain local in the Bronx. Remain express in Manhattan, operate express in Brooklyn as well.

 

(3) and (4) remain unchanged.

 

During overnight hours:

 

OLD: (2) from 241 Street to Flatbush Avenue-Nostrand Avenue. All local stops.

 

NEW: (2) from 241 Street to Atlantic Avenue. All local stops.

 

OLD: (3) from Lenox Terminal to Times Square. Express.

 

NEW: (3) from Lenox Terminal to 96 Street-Broadway.

 

OLD: (5) from Dyre Avenue to East 180 Street.

 

NEW: (5) from Dyre Avenue to Flatbush Avenue-Nostrand Avenue. Bronx local, Manhattan express, Brooklyn local. The (5) should only run local in Manhattan if Lexington does not have enough local service with the (4) and (6) overnight. I would be surprised if Lexington needed additional local service, especially with the M101/102/103 upstairs. The buses run smoothly at night since there is low ridership and minimal traffic during these hours.

 

(4) remains unchanged.

 

Also, just to give an idea of how the (3), (4), and (5) should be scheduled on the weekends, here is an hourly schedule. The hour is omitted. The minute of the hour is listed after the colon. This schedule pertains to Manhattan-bound service at Nevins Street and New Lots/Utica/Flatbush-bound service at Nevins Street.

 

:02 (4)

:09 (3) and (5)

:12 (4)

:19 (4)

:22 (3) and (5)

:27 (4)

:34 (3) and (5)

:36 (4)

:44 (4)

:46 (3) and (5)

:52 (4)

:58 (3) and (5)

:02 (4)

 

Five (3) trains per hour, seven (4) trains per hour, five (5) trains per hour. Repeat until schedules must be re-adjusted. This schedule can be altered slightly based on where most of the actual passenger needs are and what other connections need to be made on other sections of these routes. I came up with this with the intention of. According to this schedule the headways for the (3) and (5) remain at 12 minutes, while the headway for the (4) was stretched out to approximately 8 minutes 35 seconds. Things are never easy when you are trying to synchronize routes like these that operate on different headways. -_-

 

Replacing the local (2) with the express (5) in Brooklyn would definitely lower operating costs.

 

What I would really like, as would everybody else (I imagine), is for the (3)(4)(2)(5) to serve New Lots/Utica/Flatbush (respectively) at all times, but we cannot have everything. I think that having a Flatbush Avenue/Eastern Parkway express (5) serve the Nostrand Avenue corridor at all times is better than having a Flatbush Avenue/Eastern Parkway local (2) over there at all times. Those who live along the (3) east of Utica would get something out of this too, since they would not only have the (4) as their express connection at Utica, but the (5) as their express connection at Franklin as well. Or get off at Franklin and take whichever express arrives first.

 

I think this is a great idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is more demand for the (2) instead of the (5). For the east side, yeesh, it's called transferring to the (4)

and no. (1) and (2) trains cannot both terminate @ South ferry without choking the station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would lower operating costs during the times that the (5) is express in Brooklyn. I did not suggest that the (5) operate express in Brooklyn during overnight hours. I suggested that it operate local in Brooklyn during overnight hours. That is why I specified (2) local and (5) express. I was referring to the service patterns within Brooklyn. The (5) express, within Brooklyn, that I referred to is not something I said I wanted overnight. I said run it local overnight. When I said it would definitely lower operating costs I was referring to the times that it operates express within Brooklyn.

 

I concede/clarify that I meant that the act of operating the (5) express within Brooklyn, by itself, would be cheaper than the act of operating the (2) local within Brooklyn. It is true that I do not know whether my idea, as a whole, would turn out to be costlier or cheaper than the current setup, or cost neutral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During the weekend the (5) running to Brooklyn, maybe, cause (2) trains do get crowded, but I think the passengers on that train are coming from the west side.

 

But not during late nights. the (4) serving Livonia Ave & the (2) serving Nostrand Ave is doing just fine.

 

I dont think it would be necessary to have this service implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ OP

At the present time Brooklyn IRT has one service (2) serving the full route from the Bronx to Brooklyn via 7th Ave. It also has one service (4) serving the same boroughs via Lexington Ave. No matter how you propose it I just can't see where your proposal is better than the current service. It was studied years ago and the only change back then was the (2) and the (4) swapping overnight terminals which is why we have the present service plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ OP

At the present time Brooklyn IRT has one service (2) serving the full route from the Bronx to Brooklyn via 7th Ave. It also has one service (4) serving the same boroughs via Lexington Ave. No matter how you propose it I just can't see where your proposal is better than the current service. It was studied years ago and the only change back then was the (2) and the (4) swapping overnight terminals which is why we have the present service plan.

 

Well Sir(trainmaster) and Kamen. Not saying i endorse it but a better idea would be to 1)run the "2' express overnights in Manhattan 2)Extend the '5' to either 149th-Concourse or Grand Central for direct access overnights to the '4' line. Other than that the current IRT setup is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about this late night service:

* (2) from 241st to Time Square

* (3) from 148th to New Lots

* (4) from Woodlawn to 42nd St or 59th St

* (5) from Dyre to Flatbush Av

 

I know this is economically worse than the current plan. Out of curiosity I always read on Wiki that there's lack of (3) late night service to New Lots. Does that mean New Lots prefer East Side access or something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about this late night service:

* (2) from 241st to Time Square

* (3) from 148th to New Lots

* (4) from Woodlawn to 42nd St or 59th St

* (5) from Dyre to Flatbush Av

 

I know this is economically worse than the current plan. Out of curiosity I always read on Wiki that there's lack of (3) late night service to New Lots. Does that mean New Lots prefer East Side access or something else?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Brooklyn IRT Lines should be left the way they are. They are just fine the way they are so why fix something that is already fine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Sir(trainmaster) and Kamen. Not saying i endorse it but a better idea would be to 1)run the "2' express overnights in Manhattan 2)Extend the '5' to either 149th-Concourse or Grand Central for direct access overnights to the '4' line. Other than that the current IRT setup is fine.

 

The (2) did run express in Manhattan at all times but people at the local stops during the overnights complained so it was eliminated. Now you have the (3) using the express tracks from 96th to Times Square relegating the (2) to the local tracks. If you eliminate the (3) from the picture someone else will complain. As for the (5) running to Grand Central I would bet that somehow the (MTA) will pull out stats saying it's not needed. Sending the (5) from Dyre down to 149th St-Grand Concourse should have been done years ago IMO but I bet the agency has stats to reject that, also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well. My thing is I wanted to have the (5) going to Flatbush all the time, and in an attempt to make this idea possible while minimizing the number of different service patterns at different times of day I came up with that crazy overnight service pattern. I can see many complications arising with the switches at Atlantic and in other places.

 

To better minimize differences between my overnight and daytime service ideas, here is a new overnight idea. This would cost practically the same as the current setup:

 

OLD: (2) from 241 Street to Flatbush Avenue. All local stops.

 

NEW: (2) from 241 Street to 96 Street-Broadway. All local stops. Would save 54 minutes on paper.

 

OLD: (3) from Lenox Terminal to Times Square. Express.

 

The express run from 96 Street-Broadway to Times Square takes 7 minutes on paper. The local run takes 10 minutes. So I have to add 3 minutes right there. Then on paper it takes 48 minutes to get from Times Square to New Lots by taking the (2) to the (4) at Nevins and assuming no wait time while transferring. So:

 

NEW: (3) from Lenox Terminal to New Lots Avenue. All local stops. 3 + 48 = 51 minutes added to go from 96 Street-Broadway to New Lots on paper.

 

OLD: (4) from Woodlawn to New Lots Avenue.

 

NEW: (4) from Woodlawn to 125 Street-Lexington Avenue. Would save 61 minutes on paper.

 

OLD: (5) from Dyre Avenue to East 180 Street.

 

NEW: (5) from Dyre Avenue to Flatbush Avenue. All local stops. Would take about 75 minutes, on paper, to get from East 180 Street to Flatbush Avenue this way. I did this by adding 15 minutes on the (2) from East 180 Street to 149 Street-Grand Concourse, 49 minutes on the (4) from 149 to Franklin, and 11 minutes on the (2) from Franklin to Flatbush. This is all during overnight hours.

 

So (-54) + (51) + (-61) + (75) = 11 additional minutes of travel time per (2) and (4) pairing replaced with (3) and (5) pairing as described above. Can this not be offset by the savings from replacing the (2) with the (5) in Brooklyn, outside of overnight hours?

 

Trainmaster5: Can they really complain loudly enough about the elimination of overnight express service on the (3)? I mean this is one of those times where I have to say, "oh, come on." Not saying that to you of course, but saying it to those who would complain. Everybody has to compromise; you cannot make progress by bending over backwards to please everybody!

Edited by '89 Liberty MCI
Note to Trainmaster5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The (2) did run express in Manhattan at all times but people at the local stops during the overnights complained so it was eliminated.
By any chance, do you know why the (4) Lex Ave express became local during the nocturnal hours in 1979/1980? Financial reasons, low ridership, complains from local riders? (I know the story about Lex riders criticizing long wait times and the Pelham shuttle)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you're advocating is:

 

Bad ideas. You're actually increasing the number of trains per hour at stations that don't require it, and decreasing the number of trains per hour at stations that do require it. You're also limiting the options for riders in Brooklyn severely during offpeak hours since they now have to do more work to get a west side train when right now (especially overnight) it's as simple as choosing between the 2 and 4. But you are doubling the amount of Lexington Avenue service for no reason, which doesn't accomplish much of anything since the only people that would benefit from this (and it's really not many, save for a handful at Church Ave. on the overnights) are Nostrand Ave. riders going to the east side. However for all the folks at Franklin and the local stations, you're doubling the amount of Lexington Avenue service which to them makes no difference whether the arriving train is a (4) or (5) unless they're going to the Bronx, which most are not.

 

Additionally, 96th St. is a terrible place to terminate the (3) train by the way - ALL the switches are north of the station and the train is going to back uptown by your proposal - so either you bring the train in on the northbound track, and have to explain that the transfer to the downtown (1) and (2) is on the opposite platform. OR you bring the train in on the southbound track, and all the people trying to transfer from the uptown (1) and (2) have to cross to the downtown side to get the uptown (3). The signage for that figures to be a confusing doozy as well. AND the crossover switch the (3) would use is north of the switches the (2) uses to go local, so now you've got to lock out the (2) in one of the two directions (depending on which track you berth the (3) in) to facilitate (2) train movement should the trains need to move around the same time, which is just complicated for no reason.

 

During early evening hours and on weekends (when the (5) typically goes to Bowling Green), (1) train frequency is high enough that South Ferry could not turn all those trains AND all the (2)'s without some delays, again for no real reason other than your preference.

 

There is a reason not to run the (2)(3)(4)(5) to Brooklyn during overnights. The ridership does not warrant it, and there is no real need for express service. It inconveniences more people than it helps, and closing the express tracks to service allows work to be done on them without interruptions to service, when it is required.

 

Overnights halve the services on EPkwy effectively, from 4 (2)(3)(4)(5) to 2 (2)(4). One is an east side train, one is a west side train. It actually makes a good deal of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what you're advocating is:

 

Bad ideas. You're actually increasing the number of trains per hour at stations that don't require it, and decreasing the number of trains per hour at stations that do require it. You're also limiting the options for riders in Brooklyn severely during offpeak hours since they now have to do more work to get a west side train when right now (especially overnight) it's as simple as choosing between the 2 and 4. But you are doubling the amount of Lexington Avenue service for no reason, which doesn't accomplish much of anything since the only people that would benefit from this (and it's really not many, save for a handful at Church Ave. on the overnights) are Nostrand Ave. riders going to the east side. However for all the folks at Franklin and the local stations, you're doubling the amount of Lexington Avenue service which to them makes no difference whether the arriving train is a (4) or (5) unless they're going to the Bronx, which most are not.

 

Additionally, 96th St. is a terrible place to terminate the (3) train by the way - ALL the switches are north of the station and the train is going to back uptown by your proposal - so either you bring the train in on the northbound track, and have to explain that the transfer to the downtown (1) and (2) is on the opposite platform. OR you bring the train in on the southbound track, and all the people trying to transfer from the uptown (1) and (2) have to cross to the downtown side to get the uptown (3). The signage for that figures to be a confusing doozy as well. AND the crossover switch the (3) would use is north of the switches the (2) uses to go local, so now you've got to lock out the (2) in one of the two directions (depending on which track you berth the (3) in) to facilitate (2) train movement should the trains need to move around the same time, which is just complicated for no reason.

 

During early evening hours and on weekends (when the (5) typically goes to Bowling Green), (1) train frequency is high enough that South Ferry could not turn all those trains AND all the (2)'s without some delays, again for no real reason other than your preference.

 

There is a reason not to run the (2)(3)(4)(5) to Brooklyn during overnights. The ridership does not warrant it, and there is no real need for express service. It inconveniences more people than it helps, and closing the express tracks to service allows work to be done on them without interruptions to service, when it is required.

 

Overnights halve the services on EPkwy effectively, from 4 (2)(3)(4)(5) to 2 (2)(4). One is an east side train, one is a west side train. It actually makes a good deal of sense.

 

You did not see all of my follow-up posts, including the one in which I said send the (2) from 241 to 96 overnight, the (3) from Lenox Terminal to New Lots at all times, making local stops overnight, the (4) from Woodlawn to 125 overnight, and the (5) from Dyre to Flatbush overnight? Then there continues to be one west side train and one east side train serving Brooklyn overnight, the (3) and (5) respectively.

 

You referenced the fact that I originally wanted the (3) to terminate at 96. I said in a follow-up post within this thread, as well as in the bit of text I wrote above, that the (2) should terminate at 96. I agree that there are too many complications involving the switches there for this to be practical.

 

"The only people benefiting from this will be Nostrand Avenue riders going to the east side." But how many Nostrand riders ride the (2) all the way to the west side? I could just as easily tell you that the only people benefiting from the current setup are Nostrand Avenue riders going to the east side. I do not know whether Nostrand riders heading to the west side vastly outnumber Nostrand riders heading to the east side at all times. Even if they do, it is easier to synchronize the (3) with the (5) as they have the same weekend headway while the (2) and (4) do not. So if everything went smoothly Nostrand riders would spend no time waiting for a connecting train when transferring between the (3) and (5) under my proposal.

 

What about Livonia riders that would have more express service options at Franklin during the times that the (5) currently does not serve Brooklyn? Do any Nostrand riders wish that they had direct access to the Brooklyn express (5) at all times rather than the Brooklyn local (2) at all times?

 

Instead of terminating the (2) at 96 Street overnight, the other option is to terminate the (2) at 135 Street-Lenox Avenue. However there is not much room since the (3) trains have to come through. The other option is to terminate the (2) at the 149 Street-Grand Concourse and have an overnight shuttle bus from there to to 145 Street-Lenox Avenue or 135 Street-Lenox Avenue. It would pick up Bronx-bound passengers from the (3) at 145 or 135 and drop off at 149-GC, and pick up West side-bound passengers from the (2) at 149-GC and drop off at 145 or 135. I wish it could terminate at 145 Street but some passengers may not know that they need to be in the first 5 cars of the uptown (3) train to exit there and board the shuttle bus to the 149 Street-Grand Concourse. Additionally 145 Street-Lenox Avenue is a rather desolate area. 135 Street is busier and thus likely to be safer. This may be or probably is a case where you have to throw "anything can happen anywhere" out the window. The people would board this bus without swiping as is the case on shuttle buses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You did not see all of my follow-up posts, including the one in which I said send the (2) from 241 to 96 overnight, the (3) from Lenox Terminal to New Lots at all times, making local stops overnight, the (4) from Woodlawn to 125 overnight, and the (5) from Dyre to Flatbush overnight? Then there continues to be one west side train and one east side train serving Brooklyn overnight, the (3) and (5) respectively.

 

You referenced the fact that I originally wanted the (3) to terminate at 96. I said in a follow-up post within this thread, as well as in the bit of text I wrote above, that the (2) should terminate at 96. I agree that there are too many complications involving the switches there for this to be practical.

 

"The only people benefiting from this will be Nostrand Avenue riders going to the east side." But how many Nostrand riders ride the (2) all the way to the west side? I could just as easily tell you that the only people benefiting from the current setup are Nostrand Avenue riders going to the east side. I do not know whether Nostrand riders heading to the west side vastly outnumber Nostrand riders heading to the east side at all times. Even if they do, it is easier to synchronize the (3) with the (5) as they have the same weekend headway while the (2) and (4) do not. So if everything went smoothly Nostrand riders would spend no time waiting for a connecting train when transferring between the (3) and (5) under my proposal.

 

What about Livonia riders that would have more express service options at Franklin during the times that the (5) currently does not serve Brooklyn? Do any Nostrand riders wish that they had direct access to the Brooklyn express (5) at all times rather than the Brooklyn local (2) at all times?

 

Instead of terminating the (2) at 96 Street overnight, the other option is to terminate the (2) at 135 Street-Lenox Avenue. However there is not much room since the (3) trains have to come through. The other option is to terminate the (2) at the 149 Street-Grand Concourse and have an overnight shuttle bus from there to to 145 Street-Lenox Avenue or 135 Street-Lenox Avenue. It would pick up Bronx-bound passengers from the (3) at 145 or 135 and drop off at 149-GC, and pick up West side-bound passengers from the (2) at 149-GC and drop off at 145 or 135. I wish it could terminate at 145 Street but some passengers may not know that they need to be in the first 5 cars of the uptown (3) train to exit there and board the shuttle bus to the 149 Street-Grand Concourse. Additionally 145 Street-Lenox Avenue is a rather desolate area. 135 Street is busier and thus likely to be safer. This may be or probably is a case where you have to throw "anything can happen anywhere" out the window. The people would board this bus without swiping as is the case on shuttle buses.

 

Dude, it's like your ideas are going from bad to worse in record time. Look, I would love the see the (2) be express in Manhattan 24/7 again but I know that a lot of people need the (2) at the local stops and the (3) is express for half of the 7th Ave Line so I won't get what I want there and it's fine because in the end, it's about helping out as many riders as possible. Your plan will hurt folks rather than help them. What we have in place now is working so why go and change what works? There's no need for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though even if the (2) were to run express on the west side, wouldn't that be a nightmare for the (2) to run all the way to New Lots? 241st-New Lots would be an insanely long line with a ton of stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though even if the (2) were to run express on the west side, wouldn't that be a nightmare for the (2) to run all the way to New Lots? 241st-New Lots would be an insanely long line with a ton of stops.

 

The (A) does it every night. A few (2) intervals in the AM rush does it as well, and go back north in the PM rush. Won't people get off the whole OMG too many stops before a break routine that's the crew and union's problem to handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He'd have a better argument having the 2 and 4 swap terminals again if the goal was to give Nostrand Av line east side service.

I actually thought the '5' in the subject line was a typo, before I opened the thread....

Thought he might've meant the 4 (which I then started sayin to myself, not this again)....

 

There's an even better terminal for the 2... It's called Flatbush Ave.

Thank You.

 

You're actually increasing the number of trains per hour at stations that don't require it, and decreasing the number of trains per hour at stations that do require it.

That's basically how I summarized the OP.... increasing service where it need not be....

----------

 

 

Simply put, although I have benefitted from the weekend (5)'s to Brooklyn, it isn't necessary to have any of what's being suggested as a permanent routing pattern....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me state at the outset that I like the #5 traveling to/from Brooklyn (Flatbush) at all times as this G.O. has shown that it could be done. After all of the years/decades where the #5 has been stuck to Bowling Green or reduced to a midnight hours shuttle - this pattern is refreshing.

 

I'd love it if a way could be found on the weekends for the #5 to travel to/from Brooklyn (Flatbush Avenue or Utica Avenue) during at least the day-times 6am to 9am or so. The #5 is a useful line - and such a practice would really be helpful to the riders. One does not "have to" stop - change or modify the #2, #3 or the #4 just to have the #5 run to/from Brooklyn. It's simple - one could just run the #5 there - just more manpower and money is needed - that's easy. (Yes, I'm joking but the point is clear.)

 

The basic problem as I see it - is that to get the #5 to run at all hours - so many other adjustments have to made - as the proposals listed in this particular message stream show. Frankly some of the westside stations are really not that flexible when it comes to certain train movements, and at the same time some of the suggested ideas are really not workable. In addition a basic pattern of service has been established over the past couple of decades - the riders have adjusted to it, and that arrangement is useful enough. In the current midnight hour pattern everybody gets a little of something - where only the #2 and #4 lines serve all of the terminals in Brooklyn.

 

There is little need to twist into pretzels the current IRT subway lines just to get #5 trains to service Brooklyn. The proposals presented so far - even the frequent changes in those same proposals - simply says that the current arrangement is the best for now.

 

Just my thoughts.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though even if the (2) were to run express on the west side, wouldn't that be a nightmare for the (2) to run all the way to New Lots? 241st-New Lots would be an insanely long line with a ton of stops.

 

We used to do just that. 241st-New Lots 24/7. 5 cars on the midnights. We called it "the Beast".

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.