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

[Grand Concourse]

I wonder, is there an equally large demand for 34th st-penn station? Because, maybe if the F really needs those 3 trains more, they could run via 53rd and then there would be no need for the 3 179th st E trains and those F trains could be express on Culver.

As for just 4 total express per hour, there needs to be a balance of local to express service, if you have too few, you make it very unpopular to use. Too high and you risk passing off the local riders. So it's a fine line that needs to be adjusted on the fly than on paper. It needs to be done for real to see what works best for everyone.

[bobtehpanda]

I wonder, is there an equally large demand for 34th st-penn station? Because, maybe if the F really needs those 3 trains more, they could run via 53rd and then there would be no need for the 3 179th st E trains and those F trains could be express on Culver.

As for just 4 total express per hour, there needs to be a balance of local to express service, if you have too few, you make it very unpopular to use. Too high and you risk passing off the local riders. So it's a fine line that needs to be adjusted on the fly than on paper. It needs to be done for real to see what works best for everyone.

 

I honestly don't know about the whole situation demand-wise, but the eastbound trains are crowded north of 34th St, so the on 53rd may not be that helpful.

 

The is the only crosstown route cutting across that section of Manhattan (There aren't as many offices by 42nd St, and the 42nd St services mostly cater to tourists and residents coming in from Flushing rather than the office worker/shopper base of the .)

[Grand Concourse]

Ok then, it was worth a shot. I know why the E has an even split with the F because it needs all the trains it can get for service to 53rd. But to me it's 3 trains, just renamed Fs to avoid the confusion of F trains going thru 53rd instead of just 63rd. I thought they could take those extra 3 trains for the culver express.

[Quill Depot]

For the to run express on the BMT section is idiotic. It will be empty. There is 0 demand for Culver Express south of Church. I'd propose:
 

179th Street-Church Ave Weekdays (other times to Coney Island) 9th Street Local 

179th Street-Coney Island Weekdays 9th Street Express

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I honestly don't know about the whole situation demand-wise, but the eastbound trains are crowded north of 34th St, so the on 53rd may not be that helpful.

The is the only crosstown route cutting across that section of Manhattan (There aren't as many offices by 42nd St, and the 42nd St services mostly cater to tourists and residents coming in from Flushing rather than the office worker/shopper base of the .)

Ok then, it was worth a shot. I know why the E has an even split with the F because it needs all the trains it can get for service to 53rd. But to me it's 3 trains, just renamed Fs to avoid the confusion of F trains going thru 53rd instead of just 63rd. I thought they could take those extra 3 trains for the culver express.

This right here could be the biggest obstacle to implementing a Culver express service. The loss of three trains per hour between QB and Penn Station could make overcrowding on the worse than it already is. That has to be taken into consideration just as much as the reduction of local service between Church and Jay that would result

from having a Culver express. I thought going back to the pre-Dec 2001 E/F split could work because they got away with running 12 E's per hour for so many years, but with no other QBL express service in the 53rd St tunne

and increased demand at Penn Station spilling onto the E, going back to 12 tph may no longer be an option.

[Culver]

This right here could be the biggest obstacle to implementing a Culver express service. The loss of three trains per hour between QB and Penn Station could make overcrowding on the worse than it already is. That has to be taken into consideration just as much as the reduction of local service between Church and Jay that would result

from having a Culver express. I thought going back to the pre-Dec 2001 E/F split could work because they got away with running 12 E's per hour for so many years, but with no other QBL express service in the 53rd St tunne

and increased demand at Penn Station spilling onto the E, going back to 12 tph may no longer be an option.

Which is why another official said it won't happen. It can't happen until CBTC is up on the IND Queens Boulevard line and Jamaica Yard has more rolling stock.

[realizm]

Which is why another official said it won't happen. It can't happen until CBTC is up on the IND Queens Boulevard line and Jamaica Yard has more rolling stock.

 

Bingo.

 

That was what I was trying to say in my posts too. As the express is indeed a good proposal and doable on the Culver Viaduct end, the bottlenecking @ the IND QBL will cause some big time serious problems. It is the one of the most congested lines in the system ranking #2 only to the IRT Lex which is an absolute mess of a crowded line right now by a million miles. CBTC and more rolling stock @ Jamaica Yard is an instrumental part of how the MTA can make this happen. Perhaps that's one of the reasons among the more pressing reasons why they are placing these projects as well as plans for the new R179's in the first place in the Capital Construction Plans for the future. In fact for those opting for express service take that observation as a hint that we may see BK express service become a reality as the SAS opens in 2016.

 

Glad to know that someone here sees what I see here. 

[Grand Concourse]

If only they could rebuild the tracks at 2nd av. If anything it seems to be more of an issue with anything queens and manhattan that prevents such a culver express service from running. If you could turn back trains coming from Brooklyn at 2nd av, you could run the express and local services needed on both segments to appease everyone and not impact the queens and northern part of manhattan. Of course the other issue would be the trains needed for this service, which is going to have to wait till new trains arrive on property.

[realizm]

If only they could rebuild the tracks at 2nd av. If anything it seems to be more of an issue with anything queens and manhattan that prevents such a culver express service from running. If you could turn back trains coming from Brooklyn at 2nd av, you could run the express and local services needed on both segments to appease everyone and not impact the queens and northern part of manhattan. Of course the other issue would be the trains needed for this service, which is going to have to wait till new trains arrive on property.

 

Never thought of that! Yeah totally. Sounds practicable. 

 

Rebuild the 2nd ave stub end tracks with track switches on the stub which existed from the IND overengineering for the once proposed South 4th St superline via tunnel to Brooklyn  I say: Have some trains depart from 2nd Ave to compensate for delays in service on the as needed if problems occur on the IND QBL or vice versa on the Culver Viaduct as needed. But that might be a two seat ride for commuters that they may not exactly be pleased with. But hey it's better then doing nothing at all until CBTC finally is up and running on the QBL so the passengers may need to consider cutting their losses, again better than nothing unless they would want to hold their breaths for CBTC activation on Queens Blvd.

 

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/trackmap/pm_lower_manhattan.pn

 

[Culver]

Never thought of that! Yeah totally. Sounds practicable. 

 

Rebuild the 2nd ave stub end tracks with track switches on the stub which existed from the IND overengineering for the once proposed South 4th St superline via tunnel to Brooklyn  I say: Have some trains depart from 2nd Ave to compensate for delays in service on the as needed if problems occur on the IND QBL or vice versa on the Culver Viaduct as needed. But that might be a two seat ride for commuters that they may not exactly be pleased with. But hey it's better then doing nothing at all until CBTC finally is up and running on the QBL so the passengers may need to consider cutting their losses, again better than nothing unless they would want to hold their breaths for CBTC activation on Queens Blvd.

 

http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/trackmap/pm_lower_manhattan.pn

 

Those who know the distances for sure should correct me, but I don't believe there is room to build a double crossover (for center tracks) and then merges to the continuing tracks (just take what is west of the station and flip to the other side) east of the station. The elevation begins to change between center and outer trackways at some point. Anybody who knows the distances care to clarify?

 

One other thing: structurally, there are likely columns that would need removing, etc, so this wouldn't have financial merit at the moment.

[realizm]

Those who know the distances for sure should correct me, but I don't believe there is room to build a double crossover (for center tracks) and then merges to the continuing tracks (just take what is west of the station and flip to the other side) east of the station. The elevation begins to change between center and outer trackways at some point. Anybody who knows the distances care to clarify?

 

One other thing: structurally, there are likely columns that would need removing, etc, so this wouldn't have financial merit at the moment.

 

You're right.

 

The stub tracks eastward does proceed on a rising grade immediately out of the station and most likely knowing a bit in IND engineering it has columns then solid walls to support the ceiling of the cut and cover tunnel. I was unsure of this as I was posting trying to remember if it did or not so I just assumed it didn't. Wont argue with that. See why below.

 

On the distance: There is none. Look at this YouTube video of a Brooklyn bound   run on a SMEE (Credits to 46aurtherdu) :

 

At the the 0:31 mark the train approaches 2nd Ave station. At the 1:24 mark the train departs from 2nd Ave, the stub tracks immediately go on a rising upgrade as the tunnel turns southward to the next stop, Delancey Street.

 

 

[Culver]

You're right.

 

The stub tracks eastward does proceed on a rising grade immediately out of the station and most likely knowing a bit in IND engineering it has columns then solid walls to support the ceiling of the cut and cover tunnel. I was unsure of this as I was posting trying to remember if it did or not so I just assumed it didn't. Wont argue with that. See why below.

 

On the distance: There is none. Look at this YouTube video of a Brooklyn bound   run on a SMEE (Credits to 46aurtherdu) :

 

At the the 0:31 mark the train approaches 2nd Ave station. At the 1:24 mark the train departs from 2nd Ave, the stub tracks immediately go on a rising upgrade as the tunnel turns southward to the next stop, Delancey Street.

Yup. Zero room.

Well we can conclude it's CBTC and more rolling stock or nothin' as far as the is concerned. Case closed.

[46Dover]

My 2 cents as to how to do the Culver Express plan involves bringing back the V and take the M out of the equation as it involves a broader plan. Have the F run as a weekday Express from Jay to Church with the G running local from Hoyt ending at Church. Have the V run rush hours only as a culver local to Kings Highway, maybe to Avenue X to yard up at the end of the run afterwards with the F running express Church-Kings in peak direction. V would use R160 cars cause I don't like 75 ft cars taking that sharp turn coming into Bergen and put the R46 cars back into the F line. Weekends F via full Culver local with R160s. Welcoming all thoughts good or bad. How do you do the bullet subway signs to post anyway?

[realizm]

I saw an R160 out of service with a diamond bullet with no letter designation tonight after running a quick errand commuting home from work in BK. If that gives a hint on how the FIND could be programmed by default....

[Culver]

I saw an R160 out of service with a diamond bullet with no letter designation tonight after running a quick errand commuting home from work in BK. If that gives a hint on how the FIND could be programmed by default....

They can program it however they want to. The good thing with electronic displays: take a short while to do a route and then just update the programming on the trains with it.

[Grand Concourse]

My 2 cents as to how to do the Culver Express plan involves bringing back the V and take the M out of the equation as it involves a broader plan. Have the F run as a weekday Express from Jay to Church with the G running local from Hoyt ending at Church. Have the V run rush hours only as a culver local to Kings Highway, maybe to Avenue X to yard up at the end of the run afterwards with the F running express Church-Kings in peak direction. V would use R160 cars cause I don't like 75 ft cars taking that sharp turn coming into Bergen and put the R46 cars back into the F line. Weekends F via full Culver local with R160s. Welcoming all thoughts good or bad. How do you do the bullet subway signs to post anyway?

you can forget about removing the M. It seems pretty popular now and I don't think riders are going to want to give it up especially with how the L could use a helper line (despite the indirect route). Any attempts for a culver express will need to be done using the existing amount of trains the F uses. Had they not eliminated the V in 2010, maybe they could've tried to see how well the culver express would've done and maybe not run the M up 6th av.

[Culver]

My 2 cents as to how to do the Culver Express plan involves bringing back the V and take the M out of the equation as it involves a broader plan. Have the F run as a weekday Express from Jay to Church with the G running local from Hoyt ending at Church. Have the V run rush hours only as a culver local to Kings Highway, maybe to Avenue X to yard up at the end of the run afterwards with the F running express Church-Kings in peak direction. V would use R160 cars cause I don't like 75 ft cars taking that sharp turn coming into Bergen and put the R46 cars back into the F line. Weekends F via full Culver local with R160s. Welcoming all thoughts good or bad. How do you do the bullet subway signs to post anyway?

Not happening. At all. Read this thread for reasons why. Sorry, but you'll have to wait for more rolling stock at Jamaica and CBTC on the IND Queens Boulevard for any sort of .

[T to Dyre Avenue]

My 2 cents as to how to do the Culver Express plan involves bringing back the V and take the M out of the equation as it involves a broader plan. Have the F run as a weekday Express from Jay to Church with the G running local from Hoyt ending at Church. Have the V run rush hours only as a culver local to Kings Highway, maybe to Avenue X to yard up at the end of the run afterwards with the F running express Church-Kings in peak direction. V would use R160 cars cause I don't like 75 ft cars taking that sharp turn coming into Bergen and put the R46 cars back into the F line. Weekends F via full Culver local with R160s. Welcoming all thoughts good or bad. How do you do the bullet subway signs to post anyway?

Absolutely not. The is NOT going to be removed from 6th Avenue, nor should it be.

[Joel Up Front]

Can I just ask where in the hell this was a call for everyone posting crappy fantasies?

[realizm]

Yup. Zero room.

Well we can conclude it's CBTC and more rolling stock or nothin' as far as the is concerned. Case closed.

 

Pretty much. Stay tuned for the next episode of the MTA Capital Construction Program show .....