Jump to content

Culver Line/Smith-9th Station Rehab Thread


mark1447

Recommended Posts

I dunno, I mean E and G to Church Ave? Besides WTC gets extraordinary ridership during rush hours. Besides, if the E was sent down to Church Ave, it would be crowded as hell.

 

 

That could be worked around by adding a K train that would run 3-4 tph and run to 168th with the C. Those looking for Queens Plaza can then make a same platfom transfer to the E at West 4th or from lower Manhattan is near the 6 take that to Bleecker and change for the E at Broadway-Lafayette (since by then, any transfer from the Uptown 6 would be in operation).

 

That's how it could be done with the E. A side benefit of this would be those at Jay Street looking for 53rd at 7th, Lexington or 5th Avenue would be able to take the E to/from Jay Street as well.

 

And yes, I would re-open the lower level of Bergen Street for an express E on the Culver line that could replace the F to Coney Island while the F would terminate at Church Avenue with the G.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

As has been stated before, express service on the Culver line won't fly for a variety of reasons. The first of which is the limited space on the tracks in Manhattan for any type of local/express Culver service. Prior to the rerouting of the M-line, the V-line was a candidate for Culver Local service, running from Forest Hills to Church Av. With the popularity of the new orange M-line, the V-line ain't coming back. Secondly, there is a higher demand for local service on the Culver line, despite what a few residents using the line claim. Having the F-line run express and the G-line local will fly like a lead balloon. The other proposal of having alternating local and express F-trains is not ideal either since that would double the current headways. Having some other sort of local to express ratio will suffer the same fate as the time saved by using the express train will be nullified by having to wait for said express train.

 

 

Why not do every other F train, like trains to Kings Highway run local and Coney Island trains run express?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, I mean E and G to Church Ave? Besides WTC gets extraordinary ridership during rush hours. Besides, if the E was sent down to Church Ave, it would be crowded as hell.

Extending the (E) would be insane, and there is no way that the MTA would do this. It would be hell at Church Avenue for laying up. The (E) could have the option of going Express from when the tracks split at Bergen Street, but as CDTA said, the WTC station closing would be very costly for the (E), and I don't think Chambers Street can hold all of the (A)©(E) traffic. I proposed a long time ago that the (G) could run Express, but it can not because of the lack of switches.

Afterwards, I figured alternate E's would go past WTC, and since there are so many of them, it would even help with any congestion that might occur at WTC with all the arrivals, and yet provide enough service to satisfy viaduct local riders, and not too much for Church Av. to handle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's impossible to sent the E to the Culver Line. The Cranberry Tunnels are full. Putting the E in there would cause congestions and delays, and sending it to Sixth Avenue after West 4th Street will not work either since the B D F M uses all the tracks, and there isn't room to put the E in there either. Putting the E here will cause delays also. So there isn't any room to send the E. In a perfect world a new tunnel under the East River would be drilled to direct the E there and would allow the future Second Avenue Subway services to use it to get into Brooklyn and elsewhere, but again that only happens in a perfect world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's impossible to sent the E to the Culver Line. The Cranberry Tunnels are full. Putting the E in there would cause congestions and delays, and sending it to Sixth Avenue after West 4th Street will not work either since the B D F M uses all the tracks, and there isn't room to put the E in there either. Putting the E here will cause delays also. So there isn't any room to send the E. In a perfect world a new tunnel under the East River would be drilled to direct the E there and would allow the future Second Avenue Subway services to use it to get into Brooklyn and elsewhere, but again that only happens in a perfect world.

In a perfect world, our subway systerm wouldn't look the way it does today. We wouldn't have loop stations, an abandoned City Hall station, oddly-placed track switches, local stations where the express stations should be (and the other way around), two different standards for trains and tunnels, lack of transfers between stations that are like right on top of each other, and lack of subway service in large swaths of Queens. This list of imperfections could go on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's impossible to sent the E to the Culver Line. The Cranberry Tunnels are full. Putting the E in there would cause congestions and delays, and sending it to Sixth Avenue after West 4th Street will not work either since the B D F M uses all the tracks, and there isn't room to put the E in there either. Putting the E here will cause delays also. So there isn't any room to send the E. In a perfect world a new tunnel under the East River would be drilled to direct the E there and would allow the future Second Avenue Subway services to use it to get into Brooklyn and elsewhere, but again that only happens in a perfect world.

 

I forgot about that, and that is why I originally thought of it with the C rather than the E (with in that scenario the E replacing the C to Euclid and my K supplement). The C I believe does run fewer tph than the E and that might be enough to get away with three lines (C/F/M) using the local track at Broadway-Lafayette, the only stop where that would be an issue (with the rest of what I wrote of the F to Church with the G as a local and the C instead of the E to Coney Island, which would give Coney Island passengers an 8th Avenue line option they don't currently have.

 

Of course, we probably won't see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best solution would be similar to the 7 line. There would be a diamond F and a normal F.

 

I made this a few months back. This is how express service would work on the Culver Line. No farther explanation is needed since it's on the image.

 

6251719189_332eefa28e_b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lance

The only need for the Culver express is to allow trains below Church av to bypass Park Slope. As for Bergen Beach lower level, there's no need to reopen it as: G is a local and not going to Manhattan and if people need to transfer from the local to express, they can do that at Jay St. Bergen beach needs to be fixed structurally, but I don't think there needs to be a renovation for the platform.

 

 

And therein lies the problem. The G-line is a local that doesn't go into Manhattan. Shades of Queens Blvd pre-12/16/2001 anyone? I'm not downplaying the importance of the Crosstown line, but for riders at Smith-9 Sts through Bergen St wanting Manhattan-bound service would have to transfer to the A- or C-lines at Hoyt-Schermerhorn or the R-line at 4 Av-9 St in order to get that F-train if the "all F-trains express" idea is placed into effect.

 

Why not do every other F train, like trains to Kings Highway run local and Coney Island trains run express?

 

 

There's a difference between having some trains short turn at Kings Hwy, thus not stopping at three of the lowest used stops on the Culver line, and having express trains bypass some of the highest used stops on the aforementioned line. Right now, headways on the Culver line between Jay St and Kings Hwy are around five minutes. Bring in the 1:1 ratio with respect to the local and express service and you'd have a ten minute wait at the local stations. Change that ratio in favor of the locals and you'd have increasingly infrequent express service. People aren't going to waste time waiting for an F-express train when several F-locals pass by. And we all know we can't add more trains to the lines as Sixth Avenue and Queens Blvd are at or near capacity.

 

The best solution would be similar to the 7 line. There would be a diamond F and a normal F.

 

I made this a few months back. This is how express service would work on the Culver Line. No farther explanation is needed since it's on the image.

 

<image removed>

 

 

See my response to Nova RTS 9147.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't they put a Shuttle on the line? They would have minor problems with that, with the (G) ending at Church Avenue, but they could surely put a (S) from Church Ave. to Bergen Street. All they have to do is fix up the station, the tracks are already in there.

 

Lance, you seem to be coming up with some pretty good ideas why there isn't a Culver Express, I would like to hear one from you about what they should do with the Express tracks, besides going into the yard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At peak times, the (F) runs 15 tph, so there is a train every four minutes. Splitting 1:1 would mean express and local stations both have a train every 8 minutes. Looking at nearby examples of local/express splits (e.g. Brighton, which has 16 tph combined), it looks almost feasible to split service evenly.

 

 

Assuming locals go to Church and expresses to Stillwell, the ridership could/should balance evenly, especially after (G) ridership is taken into account at the Kensington/Viaduct area stations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or you could extend the G down to Kings Highway to make up for the loss of local service. That way local trains would run every 4 minutes while express trains run every 8 minutes, It would ease congestion and allow more people to go to Bergen Street for an F train to Manhattan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or you could extend the G down to Kings Highway to make up the for the loss of local service. That way local trains would run every 4 minutes while express trains run every 8 minutes,

 

 

(Almost) nobody needs the (G) there. That's a waste of money.

 

PS What is your obsession with extending the (G)? First it's to Manhattan, then Staten Island, then Laguardia Airport, now Kings Hwy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Almost) nobody needs the (G) there. That's a waste of money.

 

PS What is your obsession with extending the (G)? First it's to Manhattan, then Staten Island, then Laguardia Airport, now Kings Hwy?

 

 

I actually am not obsessed like I used to be. I thought that it would give the local residents more frequent service when the other trains are moved for express service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lance

Why don't they put a Shuttle on the line? They would have minor problems with that, with the (G) ending at Church Avenue, but they could surely put a (S) from Church Ave. to Bergen Street. All they have to do is fix up the station, the tracks are already in there.

 

Lance, you seem to be coming up with some pretty good ideas why there isn't a Culver Express, I would like to hear one from you about what they should do with the Express tracks, besides going into the yard.

 

 

It's not practical to run a Church Av-Bergen St shuttle. For starters, it isn't needed. The F- and G-lines do pretty damn well as it is, overcrowding notwithstanding. Secondly, that shuttle would serve the same purpose the current G-line does, so what's the point?

 

As for an idea for the Culver express tracks, I don't have an idea for any type of service to use them. You have to remember that when that line was envisioned and built in the '20s and '30s, the viaduct was meant to be a feeder line for a Staten Island service as well as part of the current Culver line. The IND was nothing if not overambitious. That's why those express tracks are there in the first place. One could make a case for why they weren't removed after all these years, but like the other lines that have unused express tracks, they do serve some sort of purpose, especially when it comes to yard moves and maintenance work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's impossible to sent the E to the Culver Line. The Cranberry Tunnels are full. Putting the E in there would cause congestions and delays.

 

I've always heard that the Cranberry tunnel did have more capacity (A and C service don't seem to be all that frequent, at least in practice). The old East River Crossings study had said there was more capacity, in the event of a complete Manhattan Bridge shutdown (which was the big scare back in the 90's).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything the Rutgers St tunnel could probably handle the added traffic. I don't see how you can squeeze another line on top of the A/C service via Cranberry. Not that I'm in favor of sending both E and F to Brooklyn, but you'd be better off having the E switch at 4th av with the F than to try and merge all the 8th av lines at Chambers to go thru Canberry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lance

The only problem with that (besides the abandonment of half of the Chambers St/WTC station) would be the fact that you'd have three lines (the E-, F-, and M-lines) using the same tracks between W 4 St and the Chrystie Street connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"cures" to the tunnel? Do you mean "curves"? I don't see how those fill the capacity. I don't remember ever encountering signals from traffic ahead going through there.

 

 

I made a spelling error it was curves.

 

The only problem with that (besides the abandonment of half of the Chambers St/WTC station) would be the fact that you'd have three lines (the E-, F-, and M-lines) using the same tracks between W 4 St and the Chrystie Street connection.

 

 

Exactly what I was pointing out. The local tracks on Sixth Avenue can't handle the E besides the F and M.

 

I have been pointing out that if Phase 3 of the Second Avenue Subway is built you can cancel or build provisions for phase 4, and link the T to the Rutgers Street Tunnel at around Houston Street. There you won't cause any congestion and you would give the T direct access to the Coney Island Yard as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much as I don't choose to indulge on the SAS talks, that probably would make some sense as Rutgers has the space for another service. It's 6th av that's the problem with the M in the way for that segment from W4th to B'way-Lafayette.

 

 

I understand. I don't really like to talk much about it since it might not happen or if it does it would take a long time, but it would take the cost down and give a easier option for the new subway line to go to Brooklyn if it ever gets built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything the Rutgers St tunnel could probably handle the added traffic. I don't see how you can squeeze another line on top of the A/C service via Cranberry. Not that I'm in favor of sending both E and F to Brooklyn, but you'd be better off having the E switch at 4th av with the F than to try and merge all the 8th av lines at Chambers to go thru Canberry.

 

The only problem with that (besides the abandonment of half of the Chambers St/WTC station) would be the fact that you'd have three lines (the E-, F-, and M-lines) using the same tracks between W 4 St and the Chrystie Street connection.

But I was saying only alternate (E)'s should go through. So half of Chambers would not be abandoned; but instead become less congested. (And Rutgers was not my idea)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best solution would be similar to the 7 line. There would be a diamond F and a normal F.

 

I made this a few months back. This is how express service would work on the Culver Line. No farther explanation is needed since it's on the image.

 

6251719189_332eefa28e_b.jpg

<F> can skip Av U and Terminate at Av X, and if that service was in place there would most likely be a Kings Highway (G) or even to Coney Island

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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