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

[itmaybeokay]

If there is track capacity for more local trains on Queens Blvd, then EXTEND THE G TO 179TH ST. That should ease some of the traffic clog at 71st Av.

 

Well,

 

1) I meant more track capacity on the local tracks between 71st and Queens Plaza. Past 71 you're playing with the F again, and during some hours, the E. Adding that much length to the G line would mean way more trains would be needed, and the line would be way less reliable. 

 

2) The bottleneck at 71st is from the "fumigation" of trains as they terminate there. M and R trains have to be cleared of passengers before they lay up, only one can do this at a time, and this is the limiting factor for local TPH on that section of line. Extending the G all the hell out to 179, it'd still have to wait for the train to get fumigated at 71st and would cause delays. Or it could go in on the express track and cause delays. Also you'd need to build a new interlocking. Yeah...

 

I wasn't suggesting extending the G (well, in this instance), but was merely saying that the only feasible way to add more local TPH on western QBL is to build a stub terminal somewhere, or completely change the fumigation procedure at 71st. 

 

The capacity problems on here, by and large, are at the Jamaica Center end of the line. 

 

TL;DR: Sending trains to 179 is a demonstrably bad idea and would not solve a damn thing. 

 

 

 

 

Idea that may be worth considering here:

It occurs to me that with the current 15/15 E/F split that 3 tph of those E trains are coming from, and going to Hillside. The E is a heavily trafficked line, especially with the connection to Penn, and cutting it back to fit in these express F's would cause more problems. 

 

What if, hypothetically, there was a service that ran from Jamaica 179th to Church via 8th Ave and Culver Express. It acts like a Hillside E train until it gets to Chambers, then runs via Cranberry to Jay St and then over express to Church. No change in TPH along QBL, 6th or 8th ave, some additional express service to/from church av. 6th av riders can transfer at Jay St or W4. Direct access to 8th av for others. 

 

If Cranberry is at capacity, they can run via Rutgers switching to the 6th av line at W4. There is the track capacity for that, since the F until 2001 ran the 18tph that this service combined with the F would add. 

 

Maybe I'm missing something. But this SEEMS to solve the problems here and add some express service. No reduced service to the E (except for 3tph stopping at chambers instead of WTC.) Minimal extra rolling stock required. (maybe one or two more sets because of the added length). Express service added to Culver.

 

But: Would 3tph express actually make a difference? 

[realizm]

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

 

 

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

 

You know after a hard day's work as an IT professional, commuting home tonight among other things I was thinking about what was dscussed here.....

 

Ok Mr. RTOMan...... so there's two threads. Cool. We do need two threads to seperate fantasy from facts I agree.

 

Let's think-tank a bit just so we can get the overll scenerio on the express controversy. T/O to straphanger dependant on the public benefits services you proudly provide with dignity:

 

According to your article and your inside information as a transit worker this tentative express service is all red lights, no go, ain't happening. Fine. I'm actually neutral on this. I just want the real story on this controversy. And your it to confirm this for me, forget everyone else here.

 

Also according to your article there is only one anonymous MTA representative (Note: 1) confirming that an activation of a express is not in the capital budget according to the Capital Budget Committe.

 

However what I am reading from many official MTA documents that there is a musing over this supplemental IND CUlver Viaduct service as the R211 order is in the process of being finalized as of March 2012  to supplement the extra service with the cars needed. (aside from the other reasons -- originally to repace the aging R68's and the R46's. I would imagine that if these carsgo through yeat another GOH as we saw the R32's did on the fly in the wake of things, it will create a surplus of older cars towards increased service as an added plus as well as for express service and of course the current local service to IND 6th Ave.

 

On top of that we will see CBTC installed on the QBL to accomidate for the aftereffects of the increase of service as it will affect service on the QBL.

 

We both know that the Culver Viaduct CAN handle the increased capacity with all these proposals the other MTA reps minus one, because this is how the IND architects designed the Viaduct in the first place in anticipation of the INDSecond Ave Line projects that was as we well know killed because of world events and local politics out of the control of the transit agencies existent at that time.

 

So what is the deal sir? It's understood that the planners cannot possibly implement these gartuntian changes right now this second, however I can see this as a real possibility for the future in the years to come, once the MTA finishes up on purchasing new rolling stock, get SAS in revenue service already, and have QBL CBTC up and running.

 

References to sources provided by the MTA upon your request for your examintation by myself from my novice research on this subject as a person on the outside looking in. ( posted it in the other thread on this subject and can post more if you would like to take a look at it)

 

Thoughts? 

[Trainmaster5]

Now that you brought up turn-around points, that begs the question of why this isn't done more often on the subways? Would it cause that much of a delay or what because I can think of quite a few lines that would benefit from it.

I can only speak about the IRT but there are locations in that division where "gap" trains can be held or  trains turned if service needs are warranted. Off the top of my head

103rd St/Broadway for , , or s/b service

137th St/Broadway for service s/b

s/o Times Square for n/b or s/b , , or service

from n/o 149th St Concourse upper level to 138th St Concourse middle for s/b , service

Jackson Ave middle for s/b or service

138th St-3rd Ave for s/b service.

Nevins St Spur for s/b or n/b , , , or services.

There are other locations in the IRT where trains can be turned for service but I'm basing this list on the assumption you're talking about locations where regular service can be turned back toward the Central Business District and not service disruptions. This list is for turning trains and not for storage.

@ VG8-Remember "loading guidelines" must be taken into account !!!.

[Roadcruiser1]

I guess sarcasm isn't really understood around here. Oh well.

[qjtransitmaster]

Yeah I know it would, that's why I asked, but you see this could be cheaper than digging brand new tunnels for brand new lines if it's just a question of capacity.

Not long-term.

If your going to improve bus service deal with the shitastic outerborough non-manhattan service first the demand is there. 

Yeah I remember that whole proposal with the seats and I think the idea is ridiculous because some people need to sit and why should they have to stand when they're paying unless the train is too crowded to do so?  

 

As for you other point, yeah I agree with you 100%... For all of the train lovers, buses are much more flexible when traffic isn't an issue... Sure, trains are generally faster than buses mainly due to traffic and can hold more people, but now and days with the old infrastructure, sometimes I wonder why I even bother using the subway.  The other day there were so many people at 96th street and the trains were so delayed that I had to completely change my commute.  Took me almost 30 minutes just to get from 96th to Columbus Circle. I would've been better off going upstairs and taking the bus.  The so called "express trains" crawl along slower than most buses above ground.

 

Now that you brought up turn-around points, that begs the question of why this isn't done more often on the subways? Would it cause that much of a delay or what because I can think of quite a few lines that would benefit from it.

 

You do realize traffic is almost always an issue right? why you think QM buses queens bound are embarrassingly slow? You are not being realistic buses do not have the capacity to handle the demand it's just a band-aid on an open-wound. 

Well,

 

1) I meant more track capacity on the local tracks between 71st and Queens Plaza. Past 71 you're playing with the F again, and during some hours, the E. Adding that much length to the G line would mean way more trains would be needed, and the line would be way less reliable. 

 

2) The bottleneck at 71st is from the "fumigation" of trains as they terminate there. M and R trains have to be cleared of passengers before they lay up, only one can do this at a time, and this is the limiting factor for local TPH on that section of line. Extending the G all the hell out to 179, it'd still have to wait for the train to get fumigated at 71st and would cause delays. Or it could go in on the express track and cause delays. Also you'd need to build a new interlocking. Yeah...

 

I wasn't suggesting extending the G (well, in this instance), but was merely saying that the only feasible way to add more local TPH on western QBL is to build a stub terminal somewhere, or completely change the fumigation procedure at 71st. 

 

The capacity problems on here, by and large, are at the Jamaica Center end of the line. 

 

TL;DR: Sending trains to 179 is a demonstrably bad idea and would not solve a damn thing. 

 

 

 

 

Idea that may be worth considering here:

It occurs to me that with the current 15/15 E/F split that 3 tph of those E trains are coming from, and going to Hillside. The E is a heavily trafficked line, especially with the connection to Penn, and cutting it back to fit in these express F's would cause more problems. 

 

What if, hypothetically, there was a service that ran from Jamaica 179th to Church via 8th Ave and Culver Express. It acts like a Hillside E train until it gets to Chambers, then runs via Cranberry to Jay St and then over express to Church. No change in TPH along QBL, 6th or 8th ave, some additional express service to/from church av. 6th av riders can transfer at Jay St or W4. Direct access to 8th av for others. 

 

If Cranberry is at capacity, they can run via Rutgers switching to the 6th av line at W4. There is the track capacity for that, since the F until 2001 ran the 18tph that this service combined with the F would add. 

 

Maybe I'm missing something. But this SEEMS to solve the problems here and add some express service. No reduced service to the E (except for 3tph stopping at chambers instead of WTC.) Minimal extra rolling stock required. (maybe one or two more sets because of the added length). Express service added to Culver.

 

But: Would 3tph express actually make a difference? 

WOW not gonna lie this makes a ton of sense not much to say.

[Fresh Pond]

I guess sarcasm isn't really understood around here. Oh well.

Oh that was sarcasm? Didn't really see it there, my glasses must be broken...

[Guest Lance]

Since there's no real reason to keep both threads open (one discussing how it should be done and this one on a claim we've already touched on in the other thread) I feel that we can continue the conversation in that one.

 

Thank you for your compliance.

[realizm]

Didn't get the sarcasm either. I was too busy resetting the idiot alarm.
 

[realizm]

What's wrong with reusing the letter for the Culver Express service? Would it really be more confusing than using < F >? This would not be a revival and extension of the service that got merged with the M in June 2010. Other than running on the 6th Ave local tracks, this train would be different from the old service. It would run on the same tracks as the until Jay St, where it would run express to Church, then local to Stillwell (with the running local to/from Church). I wouldn't call that a revival of the old train that got cut in June 2010.

 

I guess it's just a matter of personal preference on the part of many in the discussion but personally speaking, I can see the logic in it as it avoids confusion with the straphangers. Matter of fact I'm wondering if the R160 FIND is programmed for a diamond bullet? I'm pretty sure the FIND programmed so the C/R can  designate the car sets as a "Culver Express", correct me if I'm wrong. Any news on that?

[itmaybeokay]

I had posted this in the other thread last night, which is now locked, but I'm still curious what people think. Adding a whole new service may seem unwarranted, and I'm not sitting here trying to redraw the whole map. This is only adding 5 stops to an existing service. Anyway, please accept my apologies for this repost - and your thoughts on this weird idea, good and bad, are welcome.

 

---

 

Idea that may be worth considering here:

It occurs to me that with the current 15/15 E/F split that 3 tph of those E trains are coming from, and going to Hillside. The E is a heavily trafficked line, especially with the connection to Penn, and cutting it back to fit in these express F's would cause more problems.

 

What if, hypothetically, there was a service that ran from Jamaica 179th to Church via 8th Ave and Culver Express. It acts like a Hillside E train until it gets to Chambers, then runs via Cranberry to Jay St and then over express to Church. No change in TPH along QBL, 6th or 8th ave, some additional express service to/from church av. 6th av riders can transfer at Jay St or W4. Direct access to 8th av for others.

 

If Cranberry is at capacity, they can run via Rutgers switching to the 6th av line at W4. There is the track capacity for that, since the F until 2001 ran the 18tph that this service combined with the F would add.

 

Maybe I'm missing something. But this SEEMS to solve the problems here and add some express service. No reduced service to the E (except for 3tph stopping at chambers instead of WTC.) Minimal extra rolling stock required. (maybe two more sets because of the added length). Express service added to Culver.

 

 

 

But: Would 3tph express actually make a difference?

[mtattrain]

I had posted this in the other thread last night, which is now locked, but I'm still curious what people think. Adding a whole new service may seem unwarranted, and I'm not sitting here trying to redraw the whole map. This is only adding 5 stops to an existing service. Anyway, please accept my apologies for this repost - and your thoughts on this weird idea, good and bad, are welcome.

 

---

 

Idea that may be worth considering here:

It occurs to me that with the current 15/15 E/F split that 3 tph of those E trains are coming from, and going to Hillside. The E is a heavily trafficked line, especially with the connection to Penn, and cutting it back to fit in these express F's would cause more problems.

 

What if, hypothetically, there was a service that ran from Jamaica 179th to Church via 8th Ave and Culver Express. It acts like a Hillside E train until it gets to Chambers, then runs via Cranberry to Jay St and then over express to Church. No change in TPH along QBL, 6th or 8th ave, some additional express service to/from church av. 6th av riders can transfer at Jay St or W4. Direct access to 8th av for others.

 

If Cranberry is at capacity, they can run via Rutgers switching to the 6th av line at W4. There is the track capacity for that, since the F until 2001 ran the 18tph that this service combined with the F would add.

 

Maybe I'm missing something. But this SEEMS to solve the problems here and add some express service. No reduced service to the E (except for 3tph stopping at chambers instead of WTC.) Minimal extra rolling stock required. (maybe two more sets because of the added length). Express service added to Culver.

 

 

 

But: Would 3tph express actually make a difference?

 

3 tph sounds kinda low to me... unless the locals trains are really really frequent. (3-4 tph on a < > would work)

[RTOMan]

When the R179s start coming in perhaps we can entertain this "Idea" then....

 

Since Car Equipment issues is the main factor....

[Metro CSW]

When the R179s start coming in perhaps we can entertain this "Idea" then....

Let's not and say we did.

[realizm]

Nuts. That's right the R179's are coming first before the R211's. Oversight on my part, bit rusty on the stats. Carry on. 

[Harry]

Topics merged.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I had posted this in the other thread last night, which is now locked, but I'm still curious what people think. Adding a whole new service may seem unwarranted, and I'm not sitting here trying to redraw the whole map. This is only adding 5 stops to an existing service. Anyway, please accept my apologies for this repost - and your thoughts on this weird idea, good and bad, are welcome.

---

Idea that may be worth considering here:

It occurs to me that with the current 15/15 E/F split that 3 tph of those E trains are coming from, and going to Hillside. The E is a heavily trafficked line, especially with the connection to Penn, and cutting it back to fit in these express F's would cause more problems.

What if, hypothetically, there was a service that ran from Jamaica 179th to Church via 8th Ave and Culver Express. It acts like a Hillside E train until it gets to Chambers, then runs via Cranberry to Jay St and then over express to Church. No change in TPH along QBL, 6th or 8th ave, some additional express service to/from church av. 6th av riders can transfer at Jay St or W4. Direct access to 8th av for others.

If Cranberry is at capacity, they can run via Rutgers switching to the 6th av line at W4. There is the track capacity for that, since the F until 2001 ran the 18tph that this service combined with the F would add.

Maybe I'm missing something. But this SEEMS to solve the problems here and add some express service. No reduced service to the E (except for 3tph stopping at chambers instead of WTC.) Minimal extra rolling stock required. (maybe two more sets because of the added length). Express service added to Culver.

But: Would 3tph express actually make a difference?

If the service runs only three tph (~20-minute headways), I don't think it will be very useful. Catching this sort of express would basically be a matter of luck and very few people would ride it. I think to make this sort of service useful, you would need to run at least six tph (~10-minute headway).

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I can only speak about the IRT but there are locations in that division where "gap" trains can be held or  trains turned if service needs are warranted. Off the top of my head

103rd St/Broadway for , , or s/b service

137th St/Broadway for service s/b

s/o Times Square for n/b or s/b , , or service

from n/o 149th St Concourse upper level to 138th St Concourse middle for s/b , service

Jackson Ave middle for s/b or service

138th St-3rd Ave for s/b service.

Nevins St Spur for s/b or n/b , , , or services.

There are other locations in the IRT where trains can be turned for service but I'm basing this list on the assumption you're talking about locations where regular service can be turned back toward the Central Business District and not service disruptions. This list is for turning trains and not for storage.

@ VG8-Remember "loading guidelines" must be taken into account !!!.

The question is what does the deem as "warranted"? Ever since the service cuts kicked in, their loading guidelines on the subways and buses for that matter have shifted from crowded to crushed sardine cans... 

 

Not long-term.

If your going to improve bus service deal with the shitastic outerborough non-manhattan service first the demand is there. 

Of course not, but having the same frequency of trains for over 10 years which essentially means doing nothing as the has done isn't the answer either.   It would be the start of a short term fix while a bigger fix could be developed and funded.

 

You do realize traffic is almost always an issue right? why you think QM buses queens bound are embarrassingly slow? You are not being realistic buses do not have the capacity to handle the demand it's just a band-aid on an open-wound. 

Oh please... Enough with talking about buses already.  The trains are just as slow these days and "train traffic" is almost always an issue #1 and #2 did I say anything about buses being the alternative?? 

[realizm]

Just have 3 tph to/from Coney Island run express b/w Jay and Church signed up as during rush hours. Don't need any more than that.

 

 

Like the three trains per hour for the express service?

 

Missed that particular RTO. Three trains per hour, no it would not work, I see what you're saying. If that was the case then we might as well have no express service at all. 8-10 TPH on the express if at all possible, or it's just not worth it. 

 

FYI: I left your reps alone and didn't touch it. All good Culver, it was a simple oversight in your post regarding that. 

 

 

Oh please... Enough with talking about buses already.  The trains are just as slow these days and "train traffic" is almost always an issue #1 and #2 did I say anything about buses being the alternative?? 

 

Lol. Yes please remind QJ he is trekking into the uncharted waters of the MTA subway subforum. He's dealing with the subway enthusiast professionals now.

 

[Culver]

 

 

Missed that particular RTO. Three trains per hour, no it would not work, I see what you're saying. If that was the case then we might as well have no express service at all. 8-10 TPH on the express if at all possible, or it's just not worth it. 

 

FYI: I left your reps alone and didn't touch it. All good Culver, it was a simple oversight in your post regarding that. 

 

 

 

Lol. Yes please remind QJ he is trekking into the uncharted waters of the MTA subway subforum. He's dealing with the subway enthusiast professionals now.

 

Again, 8-10 isn't possible because the runs 15tph as is. You can't just cut all that service to the local stations b/w Jay and Church because FOAM. As is, 6tph is the absolute max, and that's only if you bring back 12/18 / balance and still cut local service to 12tph with 6 tph express. You also don't really need any more than that since south of Church (and definitely south of Kings Highway, where most rush hour service ends right now) you don't need heavy service.

[realizm]

^^^ Now that I think about that, yeah that's more of a closer ballpark figure, I guess. I said 8-10 TPH off the top of my head without looking at the timetables and calculating how the MTA dispatchers and central command center may want to set up the TPHs between the two services.... I'm preoccupied at IT Helpdesk here with my dual screen workstation multitasking with this client via remote desktop on one monitor with this site on the other monitor as I write this, lots of things on my mind jobwise for a Friday right now.

 

Oh by the way, I'm not foaming on this here. Did'nt I just say that I'm neutral on this? If it happens then fine. If the MTA decides against carrying through then whatever. I don't use the to travel where I gotta go, I'm living in the boogie down.

 

Now if they can have the run express on the CPW and Grand Concourse 24/7.........

[CenSin]

That DOES NOT Change.  Their service would be the same as now.  What changes is there would be 8th Avenue service in addition to the 6th Avenue line for those in Park Slope plus the Coney Island terminal.  Culver el riders can make a simple same platform transfer to the 6th Avenue line at Broadway-Lafayette or to the anywhere before there.

Why can't they not simply make this simple transfer from the to the or at Jay Street instead? It's cross-platform and there is also a good chance the train is already across the platform (plus the benefits of having the combined frequency of the and ) versus standing on the Broadway–Lafayette platform and waiting a guaranteed 1~∞ minutes for the next train (and the train only) going via 8 Avenue.

Yes, this would have the , and all stopping on the local track at Broadway-Lafayette, but that would be the only stop that would be the case and I believe it would be at max 30-32 TPH. If done efficiently, it can be done with no serious delays.

This cannot be done efficiently. Full stop.

skipping lower Manhattan altogether

Skipping lower Manhattan saves 0 minutes. Look at the timetables. It takes both the and the approximately 12 minutes to get from Jay Street to West 4 Street–Washington Square.

[Eric B]

Today, 12 News is reporting that the is still looking into this. (Don't know if that was just a old report, or what).

[T to Dyre Avenue]

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.

 

Why do they need this? Other parts of the city don't have direct access the Upper West Side and 8th Avenue. Why must Culver riders have it? And why is so important to skip Lower Manhattan? What did Lower Manhattan ever do to you that you think the should skip it.

[Roadcruiser1]

Being serious this time all that is needed is a <>. Bringing back a would be a dumb idea, and it would only be accepted by foamers. Altering the Eighth Avenue Line is stupid and will not happen. The only thing needed is a <>.

[Grand Concourse]

Only one person is 'foaming' over sending the C to culver. the V would've been just a stand in for the , but yes it isn't needed. you don't have to keep beating that dead horse.