A/C Train Review Almost Near to Completion and Service Changes Upcoming

[R32 3838]

You don't have to send every train to Euclid Ave, during the rush, you can still short turn (E)'s at WTC, a 10 car train that runs every 8-10 mins in Brooklyn would be good enough

[pitchblende]

You don't have to send every train to Euclid Ave, during the rush, you can still short turn (E)'s at WTC, a 10 car train that runs every 8-10 mins in Brooklyn would be good enough

 

As was highlighted in the review, there just isn't enough capacity at Hoyt-Schermerhorn or the Cranberry tunnels to send more trains when it's really needed.

[Wallyhorse]

You don't have to send every train to Euclid Ave, during the rush, you can still short turn (E)'s at WTC, a 10 car train that runs every 8-10 mins in Brooklyn would be good enough

Right, and during rush hours, as I would do it (eliminating crossovers after Canal Street):

 

Trains marked <E> would run on the local track with the to Chambers.  This would include ALL trains to and from 179th Street.

 

Trains marked would run on the express track in Manhattan with the until going local after Hoyt-Schermerhorn to Euclid.

 

All other times, the would run as it does now in Manhattan until after Canal Street, when it would switch to run with the until Euclid (extended late nights to Lefferts, eliminating the late night on Lefferts).

[T to Dyre Avenue]

You don't have to send every train to Euclid Ave, during the rush, you can still short turn (E)'s at WTC, a 10 car train that runs every 8-10 mins in Brooklyn would be good enough

I agree. Even if you run only half of the E's 15 tph, that's roughly 7-8 tph, so it's still more frequent than the C's 6 tph. And with each train having 10 cars instead of the eight on the , that's actually quite a bit of a service improvement without having to run that many more trains per hour.

As was highlighted in the review, there just isn't enough capacity at Hoyt-Schermerhorn or the Cranberry tunnels to send more trains when it's really needed.

I find that hard to believe. There are definitely not 30 tph going through the Cranberry St Tunnel. Complaints about waiting a long time for an or train are anything but few and far between. The runs 15-17 tph during the rush and the runs six. So that's no more than 24 tph. If the six C's were replaced by eight E's and the A's tph stay as is, then that's still just 26 tph. I don't see how that's maxing out the track capacity. Better dispatching could solve the problem of the merge between Lafayette and Hoyt-Schermerhorn.

Right, and during rush hours, as I would do it (eliminating crossovers after Canal Street):

Trains marked <E> would run on the local track with the to Chambers. This would include ALL trains to and from 179th Street.

Trains marked would run on the express track in Manhattan with the until going local after Hoyt-Schermerhorn to Euclid.

All other times, the would run as it does now in Manhattan until after Canal Street, when it would switch to run with the until Euclid (extended late nights to Lefferts, eliminating the late night on Lefferts).

You're moving the merge between express and local from Canal to 42nd. It's still the same merge, only in a different location. How is that any better? It's worse, actually, because you have half the trains merging with the and the other half merging with the . So now you have two merges in the same spot (42nd) instead of one at 42nd the other at Canal. And you're creating confusion by using a diamond E, when you could easily use another letter, like or . Either use a different letter for the either the Brooklyn- or WTC-bound E's, or just run all E's run local and have half of them merge with the A at Canal.

[P3F]

If they send the to Euclid Ave, they might as well fill Cranberry to 30 TPH and get some 's to the Culver Express.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Why would they need to do that? And how much do you plan to reduce , and frequencies during rush hours to fit all three lines in the Cranberry Tubes? You'd have to because that's the only way, they'll all fit. Not to mention all the additional merging that will be required, including the with the at Bergen and Jay.

[P3F]

It would be done without reducing and service, obviously. If the and provide 24 TPH, then the could have 6 TPH as well. If the and do 26 TPH, then 4 trains per hour would continue.

 

Additional merging would be only a slight problem since the would be infrequent through the short part of track it needs to share with the .

[Daniel The Cool]

It would be done without reducing and service, obviously. If the and provide 24 TPH, then the could have 6 TPH as well. If the and do 26 TPH, then 4 trains per hour would continue.

 

Additional merging would be only a slight problem since the would be infrequent through the short part of track it needs to share with the .

You do realize why sending the via Culver will be so unnecessary?

[pitchblende]

It would be done without reducing and service, obviously. If the and provide 24 TPH, then the could have 6 TPH as well. If the and do 26 TPH, then 4 trains per hour would continue.

 

Additional merging would be only a slight problem since the would be infrequent through the short part of track it needs to share with the .

 

You should read the report.  They mention that only 26tph can pass through Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts interlocking.  Right now, here is how it stands.

 

http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/AC_LineReview.pdf

 

6-7AM - 12 TPH

7-8AM - 18 TPH

8-9AM - 25 TPH

9-10AM - 15 TPH

 

I'd like to see them add to the 9AM hour but they don't need the E in order to do that.

[Missabassie]

Hmmm... should I bother saying that diamond bullet should be express, not local....? naah... guess I won't bother....

   (sips mexicoke, quietly leaves room...)

[S78 via Hylan]

Delete post.

[trainfanrod]

We just want the and to run frequent its painful to miss these trains when coming in the station in brooklyn

[2Line1291]

The problem with the is the poorly designed Fulton Corridor (local tracks dead ended at Court St) along with the mistake of the extenstion/connection to the Rockaways. Had the Rockaways been branched off Queens Blvd or it's super express counterpart (just saying) there would be no need for that many trains and all (A)'s would just run to Lefferts. Had the local tracks been tied to Montage Tunnel or a future Second Ave Tunnel then that'll be another issue remedied.

 

But in this situation couldn't the go to the Lefferts/Rockaways and the terminate at Euclid

[T to Dyre Avenue]

They did that for a while in the 1960s, where the ran local and the ran express. Possibly in the 70s as well. The must have been a very long route when it ran into Brooklyn and South Queens. That's probably why they cut it back to WTC for good in 1976 and extended the shorter / train there. Then the became the super-long route running from the Concourse to the Rockaways during rush hours, so it got cut back to Euclid Ave in 1993 and we've had the current three-terminal setup in Queens on the ever since. Some folks think this setup ain't broke and we should leave it just the way it is. I certainly don't think we should bring back the 1976-1993 pattern where the went to Rock Park. That must have been one incredibly long ride, especially as a local. And Rockaway Park service is not the biggest problem with the and lines.

 

The biggest problem is the merging at Hoyt and at Canal. The next biggest issue - the one that is more easily addressable - are the short, infrequent trains currently on the . Current ridership may not justify 10-car trains. But that's for now. What happens when (not if) gentrification creeps its way further east along Fulton Street? That's why the suggestion to run half the rush hour trains to/from Euclid should be give serious consideration. But think about what will happen if that's actually done. Now you have the on its current headways while also having 7-8 tph during the rush (remember, the would be cut back to WTC along with the other half of the rush hour E's). That would put more strain on the merge at Hoyt. Because it's the merging. I happen to agree that the best solution for the congestion and delays is to connect the Fulton St local tracks either to a new tunnel via Court St (aka the Transit Museum) or connect it to the Montague Tunnel. Neither connection would cheap or easy, although a connection to Montague would be quicker because it would connect to an underused tunnel that's already there. A revived could be the local allowing the and (or )to both run express and not have to merge at Hoyt. The (or ) could go to Lefferts, ending the confusion over where the is going in Queens. The would stop at Hoyt on the currently-unused outer tracks and those would connect to the between the Court and Lawrence St (Jay St) stations. It would certainly not be an easy connection with all the buildings, narrow streets and subway tunnels already there. But outside of waiting to see what CBTC can do for the Fulton St Line, wha other options are there?

[pitchblende]

The biggest problem is the merging at Hoyt and at Canal....

 

I think connecting the Fulton Local with the Montague Tunnel is a great idea for operational flexibility.  In addition, I think they should connect the WTC station with the Broadway Local along with the Montague Tunnel.  You would have a lot of flexibility with that setup because you could have an 8th Ave train or other train run down 4th Ave along with have a local Fulton (possibly ) go along the Broadway Local.

 

Something like this:

 

- Broadway Local/Fulton Local - 6 TPH

- 8th Ave Local/Fulton Local - 6 TPH

- 8th Ave Local/4th Local - 15 TPH to WTC with 6 TPH continuing onto 4th Ave

- Broadway Local/4th Local - 8 TPH

- 8th Ave Express/Fulton Express - 15 TPH over Cranberry tunnel

[N6 Limited]

What about connecting Court Street to Hudson terminal  as was intended?

Fulton Exp - Far Rockaway

Fulton Local Via CT St/Hudson Term - Euclid

8th Ave /Fulton Express - Lefferts Blvd

 

Or they could send the to Howard Beach somehow and advertise that both directions go to the Airport.

[Union Tpke]

I think connecting the Fulton Local with the Montague Tunnel is a great idea for operational flexibility.  In addition, I think they should connect the WTC station with the Broadway Local along with the Montague Tunnel.  You would have a lot of flexibility with that setup because you could have an 8th Ave train or other train run down 4th Ave along with have a local Fulton (possibly ) go along the Broadway Local.

 

Something like this:

 

- Broadway Local/Fulton Local - 6 TPH

- 8th Ave Local/Fulton Local - 6 TPH

- 8th Ave Local/4th Local - 15 TPH to WTC with 6 TPH continuing onto 4th Ave

- Broadway Local/4th Local - 8 TPH

- 8th Ave Express/Fulton Express - 15 TPH over Cranberry tunnel

How do you have 21 TPH?

[pitchblende]

How do you have 21 TPH?

It would only be 15 of which 6 will continue onto 4th Ave.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

What about connecting Court Street to Hudson terminal as was intended?

Fulton Exp - Far Rockaway

Fulton Local Via CT St/Hudson Term - Euclid

8th Ave /Fulton Express - Lefferts Blvd

 

Or they could send the to Howard Beach somehow and advertise that both directions go to the Airport.

When did they propose to connect Court St to Hudson Terminal (WTC)? There was a Worth St subway proposed as part of the IND Second System, but that would have gone to Williamsburg to connect with also-proposed South 4th St Line. And the connection was to have been made between Canal St and Hudson Terminal. It's probably much easier (or it should be) to connect the WTC station tracks to the at Cortlandt St and the or into Brooklyn that way. But then you wouldn't need the WTC station with Cortlandt St almost immediately to the south of WTC.

[Lance]

As I previously noted about this, what I would so during peak periods so the could perhaps replace the in Brooklyn and eliminate the mergers at Canal (even possibly in this scenario with the to Brooklyn at all times (extended late nights to Lefferts to eliminate the overnight shuttle) and the running 2-3 TPH overnights):

 

Trains going to Euclid Avenue during rush hours are marked and run on the express track in Manhattan as they would at all times.

 

Trains short-turning at Chambers (including ALL trains to/from 179th) are designated as <E> and run on the local track in Manhattan, supplementing the in midtown.  

 

 

Congratulations, you destroyed the very simple circle-local, diamond-express designations that have been in place for over a decade. Good job.

 

You guys kill him too much.

Considering trains have gone to 71 Avenue before, having the ability to reroute the via Chrystie and the ability to platform said train is a nice flexibility to have.He never said the post that he wanted the to run regular service over the .

There's a difference between a couple of random reroutes due to delays, construction, etc. and regular everyday normal service. While you're right in saying he did not suggest it as a regular service pattern, this isn't the first time he's made this idea of a Harlem-Eastern Division route and despite the many times he's been told why it won't work, he continues to propose the same idea time and again.

 

When did they propose to connect Court St to Hudson Terminal (WTC)? There was a Worth St subway proposed as part of the IND Second System, but that would have gone to Williamsburg to connect with also-proposed South 4th St Line. And the connection was to have been made between Canal St and Hudson Terminal. It's probably much easier (or it should be) to connect the WTC station tracks to the at Cortlandt St and the or into Brooklyn that way. But then you wouldn't need the WTC station with Cortlandt St almost immediately to the south of WTC.

They didn't. The IND planners intended for the 8th Avenue locals to connect to the Worth St line and Court St to the 2nd Avenue line.

[N6 Limited]

 

 

They didn't. The IND planners intended for the 8th Avenue locals to connect to the Worth St line and Court St to the 2nd Avenue line.

There was a proposal at one point to connect Ct Street and Hudson Terminal

[bobtehpanda]

There was a proposal at one point to connect Ct Street and Hudson Terminal

 

Where? When? I have never heard or seen of this information before this thread.

[Union Tpke]

Where? When? I have never heard or seen of this information before this thread.

I haven't seen any direct plan, but it is mentioned here. http://www.subchat.com/readflat.asp?Id=503663&p=1#504110

[Gotham Bus Co.]

I honestly think extending from Euclid to Lefferts is one of the best solutions out there.

 

 

The Lefferts folks don't want a local. 

 

My own dream setup (with enough equipment and funding, of course) would be ...

 

   207th to Lefferts via 8 Av Exp, Fulton Exp

 

  168th to World Trade via 8 Av Local

 

  Parsons/Archer to Euclid via Queens Blvd Exp, 8 Av Exp, Fulton Local

 

Rockaways severed from Fulton and attached to Queens Blvd Local via reactivated Rockaway Beach Line: to Far Rockaway, to Rockaway Park, to Continental. 

[Union Tpke]

The Lefferts folks don't want a local. 

 

My own dream setup (with enough equipment and funding, of course) would be ...

 

   207th to Lefferts via 8 Av Exp, Fulton Exp

 

  168th to World Trade via 8 Av Local

 

  Parsons/Archer to Euclid via Queens Blvd Exp, 8 Av Exp, Fulton Local

 

Rockaways severed from Fulton and attached to Queens Blvd Local via reactivated Rockaway Beach Line: to Far Rockaway, to Rockaway Park, to Continental. 

why sever it! That reduces flexibility, and do you seriously thing people would think this as an improvement?