Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
MTR Admiralty

Should the R or V be extended to Jamaica 179th Street?

Recommended Posts

Ok, here's the IF scenario I have out of the blue:

How bout if we extend either the R or the V to Jamaica 179th Street, taking the local stops and the F run express to Jamaica?

F Stops:

Jamaica 179th Street

Parsons Blvd

Union Tkpe

Forest Hills

 

Extended R/V Stops:

Jamaica 179th Street

169th Street

Parsons Blvd

Sutphin Blvd

Van Wyck

Union Tkpe

75th Ave

Forest Hills

 

Just my thinking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They already send some (E)'s during Limited AM and PM rush hours...it would be nice to see some (V)'s make local stops to/from Jamaica-179th Street while the (F) can run express via Hillside Avenue. I don't understand why they have express tracks and its not being used during rush hours. I used to take the (F) when I went to a trade school back in 2003-2004 and when it was real late, it ran express on the local which make no sense @ all and the express tracks wasn't being used as lay ups. (MTA) don't think so its not going to happen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They already send some (E)'s during Limited AM and PM rush hours...it would be nice to see some (V)'s make local stops to/from Jamaica-179th Street while the (F) can run express via Hillside Avenue. I don't understand why they have express tracks and its not being used during rush hours. I used to take the (F) when I went to a trade school back in 2003-2004 and when it was real late, it ran express on the local which make no sense @ all and the express tracks wasn't being used as lay ups. (MTA) don't think so its not going to happen!

 

whether its a G.O. or a train running late, the locals rarely use the express tracks for sum odd reason.

but yea, they got the infras, y not have some express runs on the f nd a few locals to jamaica by the V?

IMO, the E coming onto the QBL at briarwood wood slow down express runs... timers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Extend the (V) to 179 St via local, and have the (F) run up there via express... see how the people like that! Just think:

 

179 St, Jamaica

Coney Island

(F) Queens Boulevard/Culver Express

6 Av/63 St Local

 

179 St, Jamaica

Kings Highway

(V) Queens Boulevard/Culver/6 Av/53 St Local

 

B):P Never gonna happen.

 

If this looks familiar... MTR did you get this idea from me? IIRC the (G) used to run up to 179 before, late nights.

 

BTW A couple of months ago, I was at Roosevelt Avenue looking to get to Woodhaven Boulevard when a (Q) train rolls up on the local track. That's right, a (Q). What it was doing there I do not know, but after I got on it ran express on the local track to Forest Hills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They already send some (E)'s during Limited AM and PM rush hours...it would be nice to see some (V)'s make local stops to/from Jamaica-179th Street while the (F) can run express via Hillside Avenue. I don't understand why they have express tracks and its not being used during rush hours. I used to take the (F) when I went to a trade school back in 2003-2004 and when it was real late, it ran express on the local which make no sense @ all and the express tracks wasn't being used as lay ups. (MTA) don't think so its not going to happen!

 

Yup this is something I always thought would be cool and make it a faster ride for those along the tips of the (F) line. They used to run ®'s to 179, but I guess it didn't work out so good b/c it was discontinued due to low ridership. Wonder what the demand might be for the extended (V) or (R) service, or perhaps more importantly, if it would allow enough track capacity to send the (G) back to QBlvd, especially considering that you wouldn't have both (R) and (V)'s relaying at CTL. However, the (G) would have to be expanded from the "4 cars of death" as a 4 car train on QBlvd wouldn't be the best thing. There is capacity on the local tracks to do it though, so I'd put my money on the reasons for no centering around the number of crews needed and the $$$ but its definitely something I'd like to see looked at more than some of the other proposals that have been thrown around here the last week B):cool::cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this looks familiar... MTR did you get this idea from me? IIRC the (G) used to run up to 179 before, late nights.

 

BTW A couple of months ago, I was at Roosevelt Avenue looking to get to Woodhaven Boulevard when a (Q) train rolls up on the local track. That's right, a (Q). What it was doing there I do not know, but after I got on it ran express on the local track to Forest Hills.

 

nope, i thought this out myself... cant believe we have the same ideas eh?

(F) will turn on the centre tracks while, the (V) use the switches used by the (F) currently...

it cant be a G.O... prolly supposed to be 57th street put-in but it ran on the (R)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nope, i thought this out myself... cant believe we have the same ideas eh?

(F) will turn on the centre tracks while, the (V) use the switches used by the (F) currently...

it cant be a G.O... prolly supposed to be 57th street put-in but it ran on the (R)

 

I guess great minds think alike. Funny we had the same idea within an hour of each other. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup this is something I always thought would be cool and make it a faster ride for those along the tips of the (F) line. They used to run ®'s to 179, but I guess it didn't work out so good b/c it was discontinued due to low ridership. Wonder what the demand might be for the extended (V) or (R) service, or perhaps more importantly, if it would allow enough track capacity to send the (G) back to QBlvd, especially considering that you wouldn't have both (R) and (V)'s relaying at CTL. However, the (G) would have to be expanded from the "4 cars of death" as a 4 car train on QBlvd wouldn't be the best thing. There is capacity on the local tracks to do it though, so I'd put my money on the reasons for no centering around the number of crews needed and the $$$ but its definitely something I'd like to see looked at more than some of the other proposals that have been thrown around here the last week B):cool::cool:

 

well, i dont think it means that it will mean increased QBL capacity, even if there is increased capacity, there wont be enuff capacity to run a frequent (G) service. i wish if the mta wood tunnel the (G) from court sq to a station between queens blvd and queensboro plaza and then create a huge interchange. perhaps, you could link it with the queensbridge station, but... idk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, here's the IF scenario I have out of the blue:

How bout if we extend either the R or the V to Jamaica 179th Street, taking the local stops and the F run express to Jamaica?

F Stops:

Jamaica 179th Street

Parsons Blvd

Union Tkpe

Forest Hills

 

Extended R/V Stops:

Jamaica 179th Street

169th Street

Parsons Blvd

Sutphin Blvd

Van Wyck

Union Tkpe

75th Ave

Forest Hills

 

Just my thinking...

 

The (R) was extended to 179st in 1988 when the Archer Ave Tunnel opened...it was extended to replace the (E)...and to allow the (F) to run express all the way to 179 St,the only problem was that passengers werent very happy about the fact that their express had been replaced with a local, so the (R) was cut back to 71st and the (F) was made local east of 71st and the (E) was made express east of 71st to Jamaica-Van Wyck

 

But since the 63rd st connection has opened , I do feel it would be better for the (R) or (V) to be exteneded to 179st to free up relay space for the (G),the (R) or (V) would have to be local with the (F)(as an option for ppl headed to local stations along Qns BL)...theres no way ppl along Hillside will stand for there express being entirely replaced by a local

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The (R) was extended to 179st in 1988 when the Archer Ave Tunnel opened...it was extended to replace the (E)...and to allow the (F) to run express all the way to 179 St,the only problem was that passengers werent very happy about the fact that their express had been replaced with a local, so the (R) was cut back to 71st and the (F) was made local east of 71st and the (E) was made express east of 71st to Jamaica-Van Wyck

 

But since the 63rd st connection has opened , I do feel it would be better for the (R) or (V) to be exteneded to 179st to free up relay space for the (G),the (R) or (V) would have to be local with the (F)(as an option for ppl headed to local stations along Qns BL)...theres no way ppl along Hillside will stand for there express being entirely replaced by a local

 

I'm sorry passengers don't know to to travel I see....the Q43 makes the same stops along Hillside Avenue as the (F) train....if they feel that they express service via Hillside Avenue is usless.....theres always another option take the Q43 bus. (F) is somewhat horrible when its local...it either takes forever to come or its late as usual!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, i dont think it means that it will mean increased QBL capacity, even if there is increased capacity, there wont be enuff capacity to run a frequent (G) service. i wish if the mta wood tunnel the (G) from court sq to a station between queens blvd and queensboro plaza and then create a huge interchange. perhaps, you could link it with the queensbridge station, but... idk

 

QBlvd EXP tks are at capacity. QBlvd LCL tks are not. They can fit more trains there. Max tph (trains per hour) on a line is generally about 30tph. IIRC QBlvd LCL runs about 20 tph. However the reason 3 trains can't use QBlvd LCL has to do with the terminal capacity at CTL. CTL can't turn around 3 services there, so fewer trains have to run on QBlvd so that can happen, hence the (G) cutback to Court Sq. As it is, it's still a battle to turn those trains. However extending one of those services, particularly the (V), could MAYBE aleviate terminal capacity enough to run a (G) service there. Buttt, then you're talking about lengthening the (G) too because 4 cars on QBlvd is just asking for slips and falls... And of course there's a lot of red tape involved in getting the go ahead to do all this even if it was on the agenda

 

There are lots of cost decisions anyone outside of NYCT management can't really know about that go into these, but as a thought experiment goes it'd be interesting to know if extending the (V) (or the (R)) would free up enough terminal capacity for the (G) to see Qblvd again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The R to 179 again IMO makes it a line way to long, but the V to 179? Makes it useful to me.

 

yea, the train crews wont be that happy about it either

 

QBlvd EXP tks are at capacity. QBlvd LCL tks are not. They can fit more trains there. Max tph (trains per hour) on a line is generally about 30tph. IIRC QBlvd LCL runs about 20 tph. However the reason 3 trains can't use QBlvd LCL has to do with the terminal capacity at CTL. CTL can't turn around 3 services there, so fewer trains have to run on QBlvd so that can happen, hence the (G) cutback to Court Sq. As it is, it's still a battle to turn those trains. However extending one of those services, particularly the (V), could MAYBE aleviate terminal capacity enough to run a (G) service there. Buttt, then you're talking about lengthening the (G) too because 4 cars on QBlvd is just asking for slips and falls... And of course there's a lot of red tape involved in getting the go ahead to do all this even if it was on the agenda

 

There are lots of cost decisions anyone outside of NYCT management can't really know about that go into these, but as a thought experiment goes it'd be interesting to know if extending the (V) (or the (R)) would free up enough terminal capacity for the (G) to see Qblvd again.

 

yea, i guess, we could turn the (G) at CTL with the (R), while (V) acts as (F)'s little sidekick.

 

I'm sorry passengers don't know to to travel I see....the Q43 makes the same stops along Hillside Avenue as the (F) train....if they feel that they express service via Hillside Avenue is usless.....theres always another option take the Q43 bus. (F) is somewhat horrible when its local...it either takes forever to come or its late as usual!

 

hmm, is the bus FASTER than the train? B);):rolleyes:

Edited by Pablo M 201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The R to 179 again IMO makes it a line way to long, but the V to 179? Makes it useful to me.

 

right, 'cause its helpful but its too long. its not like the (A) where they transfer crew lines sometimes at Euclid Ave. I mean the (R) is a local route and it would take at least 4 hours for a round trip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

make the V run local, F run express and make the V their only choice for those people on the local stops therefore kinda like forcing the MTA to make the V go on weekends too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll tell you why the (R) or (V) won't see 179th Street, as someone said, when the (R) had trips to 179th, there was low ridership. Why? Because its a damn Queens Blvd local and no one wants to stick with that all the way to Hillside. And we all know the Queens Blvd Line is just pure brutal, good thing I don't have to deal with it, unless I want to railfan it for the hell of it. Also, no one is going to want to transfer and all that nonsense. Hell, when I'm going somewhere, I like to make the least possible amount of transfers.

 

And the express service on Hillside is not all that needed. The people there are the priority for the (F) line, and rush hour (E) train riders (and I hope you all know why there are (E) trips out of 179th, like, to get people somewhere reason). If the train fills up, fine. Now, a big problem is Roosevelt Avenue, of course. Solution for there, I have not a clue yet because its complicated to come up with one that makes sense and helps alot. I had an idea to start (F) and (E) trips out of Forest Hills, but I have a bad feeling that won't go well so I scratched it.

 

Damn, I made this post longer than I expected.....

 

Well, anyways, this is all in my opinion....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always said that they should replace the (E) specials out of 179th with <Q> specials (which would run express all the way, and then via 63rd to the regular route), and then move those (E)'s to come out of the yard, and go in service at Continental, run local to Roosevelt, and then switch over. That way, you would remove at least three train loads of people switching from local to express at Roosevelt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always said that they should replace the (E) specials out of 179th with <Q> specials (which would run express all the way, and then via 63rd to the regular route), and then move those (E)'s to come out of the yard, and go in service at Continental, run local to Roosevelt, and then switch over. That way, you would remove at least three train loads of people switching from local to express at Roosevelt.

You know, that is not a bad idea actually. That is sort of what I wanted to with a few trains coming out of Forest Hills, to try to give Roosevelt Avenue a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best compromise along Queens boulevard is this:

 

(E) stays as it is

(F) runs express to 179 all the way past Forest Hills

(G) returns to the QB local to Forest Hills

(R) stays the same

(V) replaces the (F)'s old service pattern past Forest Hills

 

The QB Local is not at track capacity but at terminal capacity. If the same amount of trains are turned at Forest Hills ((G) replaces the (V) being turned at 71st), and one of the three lines goes past Forest Hills then you can have all three lines serving the area. The only problem with this is the NIMBYs screaming about losing reliable service at the local stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QBlvd EXP tks are at capacity. QBlvd LCL tks are not. They can fit more trains there. Max tph (trains per hour) on a line is generally about 30tph. IIRC QBlvd LCL runs about 20 tph. However the reason 3 trains can't use QBlvd LCL has to do with the terminal capacity at CTL. CTL can't turn around 3 services there, so fewer trains have to run on QBlvd so that can happen, hence the (G) cutback to Court Sq. As it is, it's still a battle to turn those trains. However extending one of those services, particularly the (V), could MAYBE aleviate terminal capacity enough to run a (G) service there. Buttt, then you're talking about lengthening the (G) too because 4 cars on QBlvd is just asking for slips and falls... And of course there's a lot of red tape involved in getting the go ahead to do all this even if it was on the agenda

 

There are lots of cost decisions anyone outside of NYCT management can't really know about that go into these, but as a thought experiment goes it'd be interesting to know if extending the (V) (or the (R)) would free up enough terminal capacity for the (G) to see Qblvd again.

 

Exactly Dude. Thats what I always thought would work. Extend either the (R) or (V) past 71 Av to 179, and re-instate (G) service to 71 Av. However, now that I think about it, I believe the (R) would be a better candidiate to retrun to Jamaica with the (F), because who wants 2 of the same services to the same location? If the (V) were extended to Jamaica, now you have both 6 Av Local's, terminating there. Meanwhile, if the (R) were brought up to Jamaica, at least people, have a Broadway or 6 Av Choice. By doing this, as stated in previous posts, the (G) can return to Forest Hills ( Train lenght is needed though ), Jamaica Residents have a 2 choices of routes, and Crosstrown Riders can once again be re-connected with Queens Blvd, all times. However, The Extended (R) would be utilized mostly on weekdays, so perhaps the (R) would be cut back to 71 Av on weekends. (F) & (R) would both run Local Via Hillside Av.

 

(F) Normal

(R) Extended to Jamaica-179 St, weekdays

(E) PM Rush Put Ins begin at Forest Hills, no longer to/from Jamaica-179 St

(V) Normal

(G) Forest Hills to Smith/9 Sts or Church Av, all times

 

Zachary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with the plan above me 99%....I don't see how you could discontinue the rush hour (E) trips to 179 Street, the only reason why certain (E) trains go to 179 St during Rush Hour is because Jamaica Center(which was never designed to be a terminal stop in the 1st place) cannot efficiently handle the full load of Rush Hour (E) service so in order to ease train traffic along the line(Archer Ave Line) certain (E) trains go to 179 St...where there are 4 tracks and a considerable amount of storage & relay space(east of the station) as opposed to 2 tracks with virtually no storage space

 

Rush Hour put-ins at Forest Hills may delay incoming express service on trains from Jamaica and believe it or not the morining (E) from 179st actually sees pretty decent ridership...even though service is limited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree with the plan above me 99%....I don't see how you could discontinue the rush hour (E) trips to 179 Street, the only reason why certain (E) trains go to 179 St during Rush Hour is because Jamaica Center(which was never designed to be a terminal stop in the 1st place) cannot efficiently handle the full load of Rush Hour (E) service so in order to ease train traffic along the line(Archer Ave Line) certain (E) trains go to 179 St...where there are 4 tracks and a considerable amount of storage & relay space(east of the station) as opposed to 2 tracks with virtually no storage space

 

True. However, thats Why I stated, perhaps by short turning or Beginning the rush hour (E) trips to / from Forest Hills-71 Av, instead.

 

Zachary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
right, 'cause its helpful but its too long. its not like the (A) where they transfer crew lines sometimes at Euclid Ave. I mean the (R) is a local route and it would take at least 4 hours for a round trip.

 

yea, sum crews might moan when the mta embarks on a massive expansion programme... which is prolly, unlikely

 

I'll tell you why the (R) or (V) won't see 179th Street, as someone said, when the (R) had trips to 179th, there was low ridership. Why? Because its a damn Queens Blvd local and no one wants to stick with that all the way to Hillside. And we all know the Queens Blvd Line is just pure brutal, good thing I don't have to deal with it, unless I want to railfan it for the hell of it. Also, no one is going to want to transfer and all that nonsense. Hell, when I'm going somewhere, I like to make the least possible amount of transfers.

 

And the express service on Hillside is not all that needed. The people there are the priority for the (F) line, and rush hour (E) train riders (and I hope you all know why there are (E) trips out of 179th, like, to get people somewhere reason). If the train fills up, fine. Now, a big problem is Roosevelt Avenue, of course. Solution for there, I have not a clue yet because its complicated to come up with one that makes sense and helps alot. I had an idea to start (F) and (E) trips out of Forest Hills, but I have a bad feeling that won't go well so I scratched it.

 

Damn, I made this post longer than I expected.....

 

Well, anyways, this is all in my opinion....

 

express runs starting from CTL, sumthing 2 c

 

Exactly Dude. Thats what I always thought would work. Extend either the (R) or (V) past 71 Av to 179, and re-instate (G) service to 71 Av. However, now that I think about it, I believe the (R) would be a better candidiate to retrun to Jamaica with the (F), because who wants 2 of the same services to the same location? If the (V) were extended to Jamaica, now you have both 6 Av Local's, terminating there. Meanwhile, if the (R) were brought up to Jamaica, at least people, have a Broadway or 6 Av Choice. By doing this, as stated in previous posts, the (G) can return to Forest Hills ( Train lenght is needed though ), Jamaica Residents have a 2 choices of routes, and Crosstrown Riders can once again be re-connected with Queens Blvd, all times. However, The Extended (R) would be utilized mostly on weekdays, so perhaps the (R) would be cut back to 71 Av on weekends. (F) & (R) would both run Local Via Hillside Av.

 

(F) Normal

(R) Extended to Jamaica-179 St, weekdays

(E) PM Rush Put Ins begin at Forest Hills, no longer to/from Jamaica-179 St

(V) Normal

(G) Forest Hills to Smith/9 Sts or Church Av, all times

 

Zachary

 

ur right in this point, both locals do end up at the same terminal

but the (R) will be a bit long

 

I think the best compromise along Queens boulevard is this:

 

(E) stays as it is

(F) runs express to 179 all the way past Forest Hills

(G) returns to the QB local to Forest Hills

(R) stays the same

(V) replaces the (F)'s old service pattern past Forest Hills

 

The QB Local is not at track capacity but at terminal capacity. If the same amount of trains are turned at Forest Hills ((G) replaces the (V) being turned at 71st), and one of the three lines goes past Forest Hills then you can have all three lines serving the area. The only problem with this is the NIMBYs screaming about losing reliable service at the local stops.

 

lol, both the roosevelt nd the nimby problems are hard to take care of...:(

Edited by Pablo M 201

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ur right in this point, both locals do end up at the same terminal

but the (R) will be a bit long

 

heh..."the beast" of the B Division :(:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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