RTOMan Posted March 7, 2013 Share #51 Posted March 7, 2013 Summary: What I said in the other thread (and got 3 downvotes for saying...). Like the three trains per hour for the express service? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted March 7, 2013 Share #52 Posted March 7, 2013 Like the three trains per hour for the express service? Because you can't really do any more than that. What, send half of trains express? Do that and see what Carroll Gardens and Park Slope say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTOMan Posted March 7, 2013 Share #53 Posted March 7, 2013 Because you can't really do any more than that. What, send half of trains express? Do that and see what Carroll Gardens and Park Slope say. Dont make sense RTO Wise thats why.. Dont matter Now RTO came to their senses(like most of us who work for them knew) they would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted March 7, 2013 Share #54 Posted March 7, 2013 Dont make sense RTO Wise thats whay... No it doesn't, but it sure as hell wasn't as bad as some of the other nonsense being proposed. Significant express service there doesn't make sense as is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTOMan Posted March 7, 2013 Share #55 Posted March 7, 2013 No it doesn't, but it sure as hell wasn't as bad as some of the other nonsense being proposed. Significant express service there doesn't make sense as is. I can understand that some of it had me going SMDH... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted March 7, 2013 Share #56 Posted March 7, 2013 Back to the back burner with this, http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/39995-mta-unlikely-to-restore-f-train-express-service-in-brooklyn/?do=findComment&comment=654303 and now we do the dance of 1000 locks :Lock: :Lock: :Lock: :Lock: :Lock: :Lock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted March 7, 2013 Share #57 Posted March 7, 2013 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. 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. But Culver also said they could go back to a 12 (E)/18 split (which existed prior to the creation of the original service), then just send a few trains (possibly designated as ) express. That might not be so bad, because Jamaica Center can only handle up to 12 tph as it is and there is almost always a wait to get into WTC during the rush. Then split the 18 's into 12 locals and six expresses. It seems pretty doable to me and it doesn't require rearranging the whole alphabet to accommodate an unneeded train on the Culver Line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted March 7, 2013 Share #58 Posted March 7, 2013 Because you can't really do any more than that. What, send half of trains express? Do that and see what Carroll Gardens and Park Slope say. Perhaps they can do six trains per hour express between Church and Jay? Will Carroll Gardens and Park Slope riders really notice if the local trains come every four minutes instead of every five? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted March 7, 2013 Share #59 Posted March 7, 2013 DISCLAIMER: Not really a super serious idea. Just being super optimistic here. I'll make one super sunny attempt at this: back to 12 tph back to 18 tph During Rush Hours: runs b/w Coney Island and Jamaica Express b/w Jay St and Church Ave Runs at 6 tph* runs b/w Kings Highway and Jamaica All local Runs at 12 tph All other times: local b/w Kings Highway**/Coney Island and Jamaica ^This is already too extreme. Why? Skipping Bergen, Carroll and 4 Ave/9 St is sub-optimal due to ridership there. 2011 annual ridership Bergen 3,452,452 Carroll 3,598,477 4 Av/9 St 4,020,665 7 Av 3,934,545 Conclusion: Not really worth it. *Too lazy to check on exact tph to Coney Island to rush hour as of current service levels; but this is likely still a cut. And as someone who uses the as my home line, I can honestly say nobody would notice. Ridership south of Ditmas isn't exactly sky high in general. **Still a couple of midday trains terminate there on the schedule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted March 7, 2013 Share #60 Posted March 7, 2013 Perhaps they can do six trains per hour express between Church and Jay? Will Carroll Gardens and Park Slope riders really notice if the local trains come every four minutes instead of every five? 15 tph local = ~4 minute wait 9 tph local = ~6 2/3 minute wait During rush hour, that makes a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metro CSW Posted March 7, 2013 Share #61 Posted March 7, 2013 What am I reading? A monstrosity at it's peak and weakness of all comprehension at MAX; you know: "Foaming gone wrong and can't go right!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S78 via Hylan Posted March 7, 2013 Share #62 Posted March 7, 2013 I'm not surprised. I kinda figured it wouldn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted March 7, 2013 Share #63 Posted March 7, 2013 Deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted March 7, 2013 Share #64 Posted March 7, 2013 Back to the back burner with this, http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/39995-mta-unlikely-to-restore-f-train-express-service-in-brooklyn/?do=findComment&comment=654303 and now we do the dance of 1000 locks :Lock: :Lock: :Lock: :Lock: :Lock: :Lock: Let the conversation continue. Reread the articles and see why we are discussing the deal behing the MTA Capital Capital Construction Comittee and their musings over such a proposal for the future. This is not a foamfest. This is a straight discusion based on speculation from factual information as per the MTA. Feel free to actually look at the articles and pdf's provided. It helps. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted March 7, 2013 Share #65 Posted March 7, 2013 Deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted March 7, 2013 Share #66 Posted March 7, 2013 Agreed. It is only Wallyhorse's needlessly complicated plan to reroute the to the Culver Line and have the take its place in Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan that is a foam fest. Almost everything else in this thread is a legitimate discussion about a service that actually is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Line Posted March 7, 2013 Share #67 Posted March 7, 2013 15 tph local = ~4 minute wait 9 tph local = ~6 2/3 minute wait During rush hour, that makes a big difference. There are about 5 tph on the Brighton Local in PM rush hour (about 12 minute wait) and the MTA doesn't care about it. That's a much bigger difference that what would be on the F Train.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted March 7, 2013 Share #68 Posted March 7, 2013 15 tph local = ~4 minute wait 9 tph local = ~6 2/3 minute wait During rush hour, that makes a big difference. I didn't say anything about running the local at 9 tph. Running on five-minute headways would assume 12 tph, not nine. My suggestion (which first I made a long time ago in a past thread) was to run local service at 10-12 tph and express service at 6-8 tph. Combined (F)/(V) service would be at 18 tph, which in turn would require the to run 12 tph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted March 7, 2013 Share #69 Posted March 7, 2013 I think the new < > trains should terminate or originate at Kings Highway during rush hours so they can either become local trains or deadhead into the Coney Island-Avenue X Yard. If I'm correct I believe that's exactly how they arranged for turnarounds when the was active. Agreed. It is only Wallyhorse's needlessly complicated plan to reroute the to the Culver Line and have the take its place in Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan that is a foam fest. Almost everything else in this thread is a legitimate discussion about a service that actually is possible. Yeah straight dope he made a mess of things. If the mods see this my suggestion is that the thread RTOMan started and most of the comments here should be merged. Wallyhorse really f**ked up the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted March 7, 2013 Share #70 Posted March 7, 2013 Let me clarify things here with this thread starter recently made: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/39995-mta-unlikely-to-restore-f-train-express-service-in-brooklyn/ The point of the other thread on this subject: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/39985-mta-looking-at-bringing-back-f-culver-express-ny-post/ is based on the MTA Capital Construction Comittee and their fututre proposals regarding changes in Culver Viaduct service, not now. The sources provided from the MTA site confirms this. Obviously the express is a no go for now for reasons that we already know (Not enough rolling stock, no CBTC on QBL yet to conpensate for possible congestion with increases in service, the dillemna with reactivating service for the previous reason stated, the adverse effects on service and comunity demand for local service) As far as i see it from the pdf documents I read and posted alludes to a plan that will be implemted in the future. I think there's a mixup here. I'll leave it up to the mods. The two threads should be merged IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted March 7, 2013 Share #71 Posted March 7, 2013 Let me clarify things here with this thread starter recently made: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/39995-mta-unlikely-to-restore-f-train-express-service-in-brooklyn/ The point of the other thread on this subject: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/39985-mta-looking-at-bringing-back-f-culver-express-ny-post/ is based on the MTA Capital Construction Comittee and their fututre proposals regarding changes in Culver Viaduct service, not now. The sources provided from the MTA site confirms this. Obviously the express is a no go for now for reasons that we already know (Not enough rolling stock, no CBTC on QBL yet to conpensate for possible congestion with increases in service, the dillemna with reactivating service for the previous reason stated, the adverse effects on service and comunity demand for local service.) As far as I see it from the pdf documents I read and posted alludes to a plan that will be implemted in the future. I think there's a mixup here. I'll leave it up to the mods. The two threads should be merged IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted March 7, 2013 Share #72 Posted March 7, 2013 I didn't say anything about running the local at 9 tph. Running on five-minute headways would assume 12 tph, not nine. My suggestion (which first I made a long time ago in a past thread) was to run local service at 10-12 tph and express service at 6-8 tph. Combined (F)/(V) service would be at 18 tph, which in turn would require the to run 12 tph. 12/6 can work. Any less local service and it makes no sense. Again, as has been stated in the other thread, it requires the old E/F balance to return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowblock Posted March 7, 2013 Share #73 Posted March 7, 2013 What the, WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT BRINGING THE BACK????? and makes a lot more sense than reviving the , especially since the is covering the 's old route now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ MC Posted March 7, 2013 Share #74 Posted March 7, 2013 What am I reading? To further sum it all up, BS. I would rather bring < > back then do something as insane as what Wally is proposing. This is the real world not some fantasy wonderworld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culver Posted March 7, 2013 Share #75 Posted March 7, 2013 Agree on the NO point. Seriously, folks, let that letter go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.