MTA Looking at bringing back (F) Culver Express (NY Post)

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Exactly!! I'm NOT looking at this from a foamer approach.  I'm looking ahead a few years to when the new buildings in the Hudson Yards open and how that is going to impact the 8th Avenue line in particular.  As I would do it, it increases service on the Culver line overall, gives Culver line riders (and those at Coney Island) a new direct 8th Avenue line and Upper West Side option they don't currently have (except late nights), provides new transfer points from the and to the 8th Avenue line (again, except late nights) at Broadway-Lafayette and Essex-Delancey respectively, gives riders looking for midtown on the 8th Avenue the option of switching from the and/or at Jay Street to the , which in the new format skips lower Manhattan.  Those are side benefits to this that are also very important in my view.

Yes, you are looking at this from a foamer approach. Your plan would completely overload the line from Canal to Hoyt-Schermerhorn with 34 tph. Your plan would create delays due to northbound A and E trains merging between Lafayette and Hoyt and also at Canal with southbound A and E trains merging there. And what happens if the has to be rerouted to the Cranberry St Tunnel in an emergency with the 34 tph of the and lines already running through Cranberry? And why do the lightly-used Fulton St local stations need the frequent service provided by the ?

[Roadcruiser1]

That's it! That's all we need! There just needs to be an local and an express (which could be called or < F >, it doesn't matter), both running to Manhattan via the Rutgers St Tunnel and 6th Ave. We don't need to complicate things by getting the and trains involved.

 

The problem is the is now in the way. When the 2010 budge cuts happened it kill the chance of having the as the Culver Express due to the fact that the replaced the , and don't even think about bringing the back to it's old route. The new route proved to be extremely popular to the people living on the Jamaica Line, and they would carry pitchforks and stakes just to save the service.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Transfer to a or at West 4th Street, for 6th Ave service.

And Culver line riders can transfer at Jay St for the or for service to 8th Ave. Explain why Culver Line and Park Slope riders must have a direct ride to Penn Station or any potential new office developments on the far West Side more than anyone else.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

 

The problem is the is now in the way. When the 2010 budge cuts happened it kill the chance of having the as the Culver Express due to the fact that the replaced the , and don't even think about bringing the back to it's old route. The new route proved to be extremely popular to the people living on the Jamaica Line, and they would carry pitchforks and stakes just to save the service.

I know how popular the current service is and I am NOT in favor of bringing back the old Nassau St M service. And why would you have to if you want to run a Culver Express? The current service is not in the way, although it does limit the number of trains to/from Culver that can be run.

[Kamen Rider]

Wally's loopy plan of the day calls for the C to switch to using the Rutgers street tunnel. That means the C,F and M on the same tracks.

[Wallyhorse]

Yes, you are looking at this from a foamer approach. Your plan would completely overload the line from Canal to Hoyt-Schermerhorn with 34 tph. Your plan would create delays due to northbound A and E trains merging between Lafayette and Hoyt and also at Canal with southbound A and E trains merging there. And what happens if the has to be rerouted to the Cranberry St Tunnel in an emergency with the 34 tph of the and lines already running through Cranberry? And why do the lightly-used Fulton St local stations need the frequent service provided by the ?

 

The idea of what I'm doing is 30-32 TPH on the , & at Broadway-Lafayette, which if done efficiently should work.

 

For Cranberry, a couple of trains each hour in rush hours can be short-turned at Chambers during, which coupled with the would make for a combined 6-7 TPH from the Chambers terminal during peak hours, which would solve the problem with Cranberry.

 

If there is a delay between Jay & West 4th on the / in this setup, alternate trains as long as they are 60 foot cars can be re-routed via the / to Broadway Junction while other trains terminate at 2nd Avenue and/or Essex-Delamcey. trains would run with the while some trains are short-turned at Chambers.

 

As noted, these move anticipate long-term a considerable jump in demand for 8th Avenue line service as the new buildings of the Hudson Yards project go up over the next few years while short-term increase service overall on the Culver Line with the addition of service to Coney Island. Park Slope remains unchanged except at express stations, where riders have direct 8th Avenue access and local riders can switch to 8th Avenue service there.

 

Oh, and there's no rule that says the can't go back to being an 8th Avenue Express.  Since you would have the train, the only station affected would be Spring Street (where the would stop), and it is not too far to either Canal Street or West 4th.

[realizm]

When they get enough Cars for some of these "grand schemes" you have Wally i will let you know....

 

As of now im wondering how they are going to pull this off anyway...

 

Ah hah!! Figured so. That's the problem, not enough cars to supplement the expanded service or if they reactivate the as MTA officials are considering according to both articles posted.

 

How are they going to pull this off with a deficit in cars? That's a good question......

[GreatOne2k]

Twenty minute headway? Sure that will work during rush hours...

 

The ran like that for the pilot program

[Quill Depot]

The idea of what I'm doing is 30-32 TPH on the , & at Broadway-Lafayette, which if done efficiently should work.

 

For Cranberry, a couple of trains each hour in rush hours can be short-turned at Chambers during, which coupled with the would make for a combined 6-7 TPH from the Chambers terminal during peak hours, which would solve the problem with Cranberry.

 

If there is a delay between Jay & West 4th on the / in this setup, alternate trains as long as they are 60 foot cars can be re-routed via the / to Broadway Junction while other trains terminate at 2nd Avenue and/or Essex-Delamcey. trains would run with the while some trains are short-turned at Chambers.

 

As noted, these move anticipate long-term a considerable jump in demand for 8th Avenue line service as the new buildings of the Hudson Yards project go up over the next few years while short-term increase service overall on the Culver Line with the addition of service to Coney Island. Park Slope remains unchanged except at express stations, where riders have direct 8th Avenue access and local riders can switch to 8th Avenue service there.

 

Oh, and there's no rule that says the can't go back to being an 8th Avenue Express.  Since you would have the train, the only station affected would be Spring Street (where the would stop), and it is not too far to either Canal Street or West 4th.

 

Try to hide that better... also that makes no sense, it still has to merge with the and . Why not just send it to WTC if that happens.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

As noted, these move anticipate long-term a considerable jump in demand for 8th Avenue line service as the new buildings of the Hudson Yards project go up over the next few years while short-term increase service overall on the Culver Line with the addition of service to Coney Island. Park Slope remains unchanged except at express stations, where riders have direct 8th Avenue access and local riders can switch to 8th Avenue service there.

Oh, and there's no rule that says the can't go back to being an 8th Avenue Express.  Since you would have the train, the only station affected would be Spring Street (where the would stop), and it is not too far to either Canal Street or West 4th.

None of that development matters now. There's no guarantee about just how much is going to be built in that area. The demand for 6th Avenue is here and now and that's where the MTA's focus should be. We have to focus more on what's here now. That's why a simple split-F service makes far more sense than your extremely complicated plan.

[Snowblock]

Who the hell said anything about a service getting added???? You're living in a FANTASY WORLD, Wally!

For the record, the proposal I wrote back on page 1 would require NO additional train sets, and the same amount of crews. The F's which normally run to Coney Island during rush hour would continue to do so, except that most of them would be running express, and the F's which normally turn at Kings Highway would continue to run on the EXACT same schedule. It would be a service reduction for the local stations between Jay and Church (an 8 minute headway instead of 4), but in return would be offering riders at those stations less crowded trains in both directions. Also, riders at FHP and Prospect Park going N/B and at Bergen, Carroll, Smith & 4th could also take the to 7th Ave to wait for the if the comes before the .

[Metro CSW]

Nothing new here.... Just another one of Wallyhorse's plans that he would do, but not what the would do. A lot of foaming for just one simple proposal of an Culver Express service and even a should not have anything to do with this. Seriously, just have the express service between Bergen Street & Church Avenue and call it a weekday. There's no reason for anything else to be added and/or charged from what's current, IMO.

 

This foaming is no longer entertaining to me.

[RollOver]

The via Culver Express would work. And the to Euclid would work too. This is fun to read if you look outside of the foamer approach.

 

Then you end up reducing service on either the or and provide more service to the Fulton Street Local than the ridership there calls for, not to mention the help of the B25 bus which runs right above the Fulton Street Line. You'd also underserve World Trade Center.

[TriboroughBridge]

well, the will probably have to either, extend the , revive the , or something like that, because there is no way in hell, that the is going to run express and leave the by itself as a local.

[itmaybeokay]

Who the hell said anything about a service getting added???? You're living in a FANTASY WORLD, Wally!

 

For the record, the proposal I wrote back on page 1 would require NO additional train sets, and the same amount of crews. The F's which normally run to Coney Island during rush hour would continue to do so, except that most of them would be running express, and the F's which normally turn at Kings Highway would continue to run on the EXACT same schedule. It would be a service reduction for the local stations between Jay and Church (an 8 minute headway instead of 4), but in return would be offering riders at those stations less crowded trains in both directions. Also, riders at FHP and Prospect Park going N/B and at Bergen, Carroll, Smith & 4th could also take the to 7th Ave to wait for the if the comes before the .

 

I think this is a great plan. I wind up commuting from Prospect Park instead of from Queens fairly regularly, and the F can get mighty crowded around there. I'd happily wait a little bit longer to get on a nearly empty train.

 

I usually end up taking the to Hoyt and walking over to the 2/3 - not that it's any less crowded, but since I'm headed up to 116/Broadway I'd rather be on that line anyway. 

 

Which reminds me of my original point with all this. Less trains on culver local could mean more trains! I know there's the equipment issue - but I bet there are enough, perhaps, for two or three more 4 car sets. The G Is only about a 30 minute run, anyway - two more sets is basically 2tph more. This would mean better service for crosstown riders north of Culver, less of a reduction in service for the people along the local stops. Yes - the transfer to the Manhattan bound at Hoyt is more annoying than at Jay St - but it's a negligible difference in transfers for 8th ave riders.

well, the will probably have to either, extend the , revive the , or something like that, because there is no way in hell, that the is going to run express and leave the by itself as a local.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting the G be the solitary local along culver. Snowblock's suggestion is basically making the "Kings Highway Bound F Train" a different service. You could call it the . You could call it the . The name is not what's at issue here though.

[realizm]

I think this is a great plan. I wind up commuting from Prospect Park instead of from Queens fairly regularly, and the F can get mighty crowded around there. I'd happily wait a little bit longer to get on a nearly empty train.

 

Which reminds me of my original point with all this. Less trains on culver local could mean more trains! I know there's the equipment issue -

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting the G be the solitary local along culver. Snowblock's suggestion is basically making the "Kings Highway Bound F Train" a different service. You could call it the . You could call it the . The name is not what's at issue here though.

 

Well yes I realize you understand the equipment issue -- and yes you make sense on your points on the but I think the idea is that if the MTA reactivates the express skipping vital stations, then reactivating the (Again according to suggestions by the MTA planners) would allevaite that problem. The culver viaduct can handle the extra capacity easily. Is'nt that how the IND designed it in the first place in anticipation of hardcore rolling stock traffic because of IND second Ave Plans originally for new lines?

 

local, express and the with increased frequency and trains that are (!) actually on time. Cake. That's how I see it.

 

Here's some food for thought:

 

Keep in mind that the R211 car is on the table with the MTA Capital Program Oversight Committeeas we speak I'm sure. Plans currently are for purchase, construction and shipment an equivalent of 752 75-foot cars, and 84 growth cars. They can increase that number if they wish too since the SIRT needs new cars too. 

 

The purchase should happen as a part of the 2015-2019 capital program budget and the awarding bid for the technical consultant contract to be made soon in the upcoming months I believe if not already since last year according to the following non-contract consolidation notice posted June 14th 2012.

 

See link to PDF file: http://mta.info/nyct/procure/contracts/32016sol.pdf

 

If that happens then yes the MTA will finally have enough cars to implement this master plan for the express and the reactivated to make up for the service that the local is currently providing it's customers that are dependant on the stations in question up to Bergen Street from Caroll Street and 4th Ave stations.

 

If they want to do this any sooner, pfft, I wish the MTA the best of luck. But it would be great to see if they can pull this off at some point in the coming years so that all the problems can be considered as resolved.

 

No fomerizm here, it's just plain common sense from what the MTA Capital Plan Comittee is saying I'm assuming.

[Culver]

I think everybody misunderstood what I said. Thanks for the downvotes, folks. Sigh.

There's a limit to how many trains you can send express without pissing off Park Slope and Carrol Gardens. CBTC isn't up (and won't be for a few years) on QB yet, so you can't really squeeze in more F's without cutting E's. I said three runs per hour because that's how many you can probably do before local stop patrons b/w Jay and Church lose their shit. I know everybody likes to foam about TEH EXPRESS and such, but let's be real. The capacity isn't there and the local stations being skipped get a good share of riders. Let me make this clear: you cannot just send a bunch of trains express because you think it would be awesome. Best case: 12 tph, 3 tph.

[Joel Up Front]

Exactly!!

 

I'm NOT looking at this from a foamer approach.  I'm looking ahead a few years to when the new buildings in the Hudson Yards open and how that is going to impact the 8th Avenue line in particular. 

 

As I would do it, it increases service on the Culver line overall, gives Culver line riders (and those at Coney Island) a new direct 8th Avenue line and Upper West Side option they don't currently have (except late nights), provides new transfer points from the and to the 8th Avenue line (again, except late nights) at Broadway-Lafayette and Essex-Delancey respectively, gives riders looking for midtown on the 8th Avenue the option of switching from the and/or at Jay Street to the , which in the new format skips lower Manhattan.  Those are side benefits to this that are also very important in my view.

 

 

What am I reading?

[realizm]

I think everybody misunderstood what I said. Thanks for the downvotes, folks. Sigh.

There's a limit to how many trains you can send express without pissing off Park Slope and Carrol Gardens. CBTC isn't up (and won't be for a few years) on QB yet, so you can't really squeeze in more F's without cutting E's. I said three runs per hour because that's how many you can probably do before local stop patrons b/w Jay and Church lose their shit. I know everybody likes to foam about TEH EXPRESS and such, but let's be real. The capacity isn't there and the local stations being skipped get a good share of riders. Let me make this clear: you cannot just send a bunch of trains express because you think it would be awesome. Best case: 12 tph, 3 tph.

 

There's your up vote, cause that would make sense. That is *if* we can come up with more cars (The R211 order that is in pending status) and implement CBTC on Queens Bvld. Never even thought of that particular thanks for highlighting that. On the Queens end it would cause problems with the like a domino effect, i see what your're saying. But what I think is the grand problem here is that we just simply don't have enough rolling stock, period, hence the different theories here on what to do with limited resources.

 

I'm sticking to my guns. More rolling stock will solve the problem. And now that you mentioned it, if they can get the CBTC project going on the QBL already it will take care of the cooridination problems with the and on the QBL express caused by such a pattern of proposed service on the Brooklyn side. As well as (finally) six to 8 cr sets on the to boot. Major win, win and more win for all the neighboorhood straphangers any if these lines serve. let me throw in the fact that already in the past it was considered that they extend the to Brooklyn. So yeah the MTA thinktank is going and they are trying to figure out how to make this work. But it's too bad they started scrapping the R32's and R38's -- that would solve the problems concerning needed cars in case they decide to reactivate the to replace the local and allow for the express to do it's job without a hitch, hauling ass to Jay Street with minimal delays and even better train service to boot.

 

But the thing is that this will take time. This proposal by the MTA planners will take time. If they try this say before the SAS opens in Dec 2016 and they finally start production on the R211's AND start the CBTC instalation on the QBL, oooh yeah better believe it,  it will make a mess of things with the obvious problems as I just mentioned in the previous paragraphs. Yeah the MTA really screwed up by starting to scrap all those R32's before they had to sit back and say wait a minute, we need those cars! if it was'nt for that, then this proposal would actually be doable, now and not 3-4 years later when the R211's start rolling out of the plants and they start the IND CBTC project.

 

Something has to give with limited resources and that may be either the or the variants and as you mentioned even all the way to the QBL, service will be thrown off resulting in a mess of problems. But let's be patient. there are solutions if the MTA can put the puzzle together into a solid plan with solutions which they are actually doing. Point is this is a proposal that can work. or why else is the MTA comittee considering this in the first place? But again it will take time for many reasons as again they need to re-up on rolling stock and utilize certain changes in the signalling on the QBL end to prevent the domino effect of delays in service.

[Culver]

There's your up vote, cause that would make sense. That is *if* we can come up with more cars (The R211 order that is in pending status) and implement CBTC on Queens Bvld. Never even thought of that particular thanks for highlighting that. On the Queens end it would cause problems with the like a domino effect, i see what your're saying. But what I think is the grand problem here is that we just simply don't have enough rolling stock, period, hence the different theories here on what to do with limited resources.

 

I'm sticking to my guns. More rolling stock will solve the problem...

In theory, they could go back to the old 18 /12 balance to achieve express service with current rolling stock. That would let them send a few per hour as express.

[realizm]

That's it! That's all we need! There just needs to be an local and an express (which could be called or < F >, it doesn't matter), both running to Manhattan via the Rutgers St Tunnel and 6th Ave. We don't need to complicate things by getting the and trains involved.

 

Bingo.

 

But as Culver said, and it makes sense to me, this could cause major problems with headways and congestion on the as far as the QBL but CBTC should fix that. Indirectly it can even cause problems on 8th Ave with a sudden lack of local service because of congestion on the QBL because of the increase in frequency on the . ( and the proposed  ) And if the MTA planners decide to reactivate the ? They have a major challenge on their hands. Yep we need CBTC on the QBL for all this to work.

 

Wow this is getting complicated really fast.

[Eric B]

The policy now for an exp/local version of the same line (even if one's terminal is further out than the other) is to distinguish them with circle/diamond bullets, rather than a new letter (even though they once left the idea open for new numbers on the R62 signs). So they won't use the for this.

 

I wanted to see the go to Church Ave. so the could go express, but I also always wanted direct midtown service from over here on the , and this does seem to be more important (even if originally an afterthouught or "fringe benefit"). 

So I'm, a little torn, never liking the "split" service idea, but the only other thing I could see is extending the . But then, nothing will be using WTC, unless they send only some of them out.

[realizm]

In theory, they could go back to the old 18 /12 balance to achieve express service with current rolling stock. That would let them send a few per hour as express.

 

Hmmmm.....

 

The policy now for an exp/local version of the same line (even if one's terminal is further out than the other) is to distinguish them with circle/diamond bullets, rather than a new letter (even though they once left the idea open for new numbers on the R62 signs). So they won't use the for this.

 

I wanted to see the go to Church Ave. so the could go express, but I also always wanted direct midtown service from over here on the , and this does seem to be more important (even if originally an afterthouught or "fringe benefit"). 

So I'm, a little torn, never liking the "split" service idea, but the only other thing I could see is extending the . But then, nothing will be using WTC, unless they send only some of them out.

 

This is good insider information.

[RTOMan]

Ok this will Put the dreams to rest.....

 

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/f-train-express-b-klyn-article-1.1280550

 

 

[Culver]

Ok this will Put the dreams to rest.....

 

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/f-train-express-b-klyn-article-1.1280550

Summary: What I said in the other thread (and got 3 downvotes for saying...).