Quill Depot Posted September 10, 2014 Share #2226 Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) This is, of course, assuming that the switch at West 4th can be used in regular service like that along with the and on the local. Considering they can't even do this during GOs, this sounds risky. Not to mention, the West 4th transfer is one of the easiest transfers to use in the system considering it's one elevator ride or two flights of stairs away, and there isn't exactly a shortage of steps between the two levels. I never understood what this whole business of wanting a Culver Express was about, anyways. Is there heavy demand for it? The switch at Jay would work. The tunnel might be maxed out, but I'm not sure it would be completely maxed. Edited September 10, 2014 by Quill Depot 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTA Dude Posted September 10, 2014 Share #2227 Posted September 10, 2014 The switch at Jay would work. The tunnel might be maxed out, but I'm not sure it would be completely maxed. It should. You are adding a train with 10 minute intervals to 2 minute intervals. Which makes me wonder, would connecting the to Montague, then making it branch off again to Jay Street (maybe do it like the at 149th) and connecting it to Culver work? Or something like that? Rush hour trains run via Culver Express, peak direction express past Culver Ave, reverse commute trains run Culver Local until Church. Or the other way around, express, local. If anything it gives riders another trunk to get to without a transfer. That is always a problem. It's just weird for to run express in Queens, local. Then at night, local, express. And now we have the problem of which would be express or local without making it look weird. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted September 10, 2014 Share #2228 Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) I never understood what this whole business of wanting a Culver Express was about, anyways. Is there heavy demand for it? It's like they're acting as if skipping just five stops (Carroll St, Smith-9 Sts, 4 Av-9 St, 15 St-Prospect Park, and Fort Hamilton Pkwy) is going to save them a miracle. This is similar to how many people on twitter caught bitchfits when they found out that the will make five extra stops in Manhattan during nights starting December. I just don't see what's the huge difference in running time on both Culver and Broadway express runs mention, when they only save a minute or two. Then, there's the plain fact that the ridership levels at those five Culver local stations mention say otherwise too. Not even worth blowing hot steam out of their asses over when it comes to saving a minute or two. Oh wait.... Edited September 10, 2014 by RollOver 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted September 10, 2014 Share #2229 Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) If you have the extra trains why not, I always thought it was a little useless for the line to just stop at WTC, when it could have some sort of connection to Brooklyn. There is no service to 8th Ave from South Brooklyn without a transfer. Plus the entire point is to bypass overcrowding, so South Brooklyn riders can have an easy connection without having their trains jam-packed. A direct bypass would be useful, which is what the trunk was made for. CPW is good comparison of the stick the crowds on the local scenario. Edited September 10, 2014 by Quill Depot 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted September 10, 2014 Share #2230 Posted September 10, 2014 And where would these extra trains and crews come from... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted September 10, 2014 Share #2231 Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) And where would these extra trains and crews come from...Possibly the unemployed living in the streets…? Anyway I'm sure there are a few crews for a light extension. They can get crews for SAS why can't they do it for the . It hasn't been hard in the past, why would it be hard now. Edited September 10, 2014 by Quill Depot 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted September 10, 2014 Share #2232 Posted September 10, 2014 And once again, where would these extra trains come from... Plus, the already has enough cars/crews for its SAS reroute anyway, you're not even thinking and that's the problem... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted September 10, 2014 Share #2233 Posted September 10, 2014 And once again, where would these extra trains come from... Plus, the already has enough cars/crews for its SAS reroute anyway, you're not even thinking and that's the problem... According to your logic there's not enough crews or trains for half the other proposals in this thread. I was just suggesting an alternative to Wally's scenario's. The will probably only need about 3 more trains, and I'm 100% sure that's lying somewhere around the system at any given time. In addition: Is there some money lying around for an Triboro RX. ENY to the Brighton Line would be a useful connection, plus the rail is already in place. Maybe some MNRR/LIRR cars and the day's done. I'm not sure how much that'd cost, maybe upwards to 20mil. Electrification, some signals, new rail, and platforms. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted September 10, 2014 Share #2234 Posted September 10, 2014 Also the would be sensible a local, because the has a connection to Fulton, and the World Financial Center 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTA Dude Posted September 10, 2014 Share #2235 Posted September 10, 2014 And once again, where would these extra trains come from... Plus, the already has enough cars/crews for its SAS reroute anyway, you're not even thinking and that's the problem... Do the math and you will find out that they have EXTRA cars. Hopefully, that means they can increase service. If not, I expect the to Brooklyn to come. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted September 10, 2014 Share #2236 Posted September 10, 2014 Do the math and you will find out that they have EXTRA cars. Hopefully, that means they can increase service. If not, I expect the to Brooklyn to come. Seriously, the damn is already at capacity (15 tph) out of Queens in the morning rush (and back into Queens in the evening rush). Combined that with the same 15 tph on the . So how the hell are you two gonna tell me? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTA Dude Posted September 10, 2014 Share #2237 Posted September 10, 2014 Seriously, the damn is already at capacity (15 tph) out of Queens in the morning rush (and back into Queens in the evening rush). Combined that with the same 15 tph on the . So how the hell are you two gonna tell me? What? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted September 10, 2014 Share #2238 Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) My bad...hold on... So you're telling me that they should just abandon WTC for the sake of such an extension when yet, the demand simply doesn't exist. All an to Church Av would do is become a hell of alot more costly due to the amount of relaying that the dispatcher tower would have to do, not to mention the frequency on the combined and , especially the former. That's too much. That's like pernamently sending the to 179 St just so the can stay on the express track, when yet, too many trains and switching east of 179 St is too much for the dispatcher tower to even handle, including the amount of money they would have to waste on too... Edited September 10, 2014 by RollOver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTA Dude Posted September 11, 2014 Share #2239 Posted September 11, 2014 My bad...hold on... So you're telling me that they should just abandon WTC for the sake of such an extension when yet, the demand simply doesn't exist. All an to Church Av would do is become a hell of alot more costly due to the amount of relaying that the dispatcher tower would have to do, not to mention the frequency on the combined and , especially the former. That's too much. Then connect WTC to Montague, then branch off to connect to culver north of Jay, then continue onto Kings Highway, with half of it terminating at Church Avenue. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted September 11, 2014 Share #2240 Posted September 11, 2014 WTC is already a platform down from Chambers, plus it's only a rush hour thing. 30tph is fine if you haven't noticed, especially when trains in non-peak direction will just deadhead. I have an even more efficient idea: express, local past Church local, terminates at Church Anyway the needs less "trains" for that scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTA Dude Posted September 11, 2014 Share #2241 Posted September 11, 2014 WTC is already a platform down from Chambers, plus it's only a rush hour thing. 30tph is fine if you haven't noticed, especially when trains in non-peak direction will just deadhead. I have an even more efficient idea: express, local past Church local, terminates at Church Anyway the needs less "trains" for that scenario. Oh yeah I haven't thought of that. That could work. But does Culver El need express service? If it does, I'd run half of the local (E)'s to Kings Highway (or all or most if it can handle that much), and the express to Kings Highway, then switching to local after. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted September 11, 2014 Share #2242 Posted September 11, 2014 Oh yeah I haven't thought of that. That could work. But does Culver El need express service? If it does, I'd run half of the local (E)'s to Kings Highway (or all or most if it can handle that much), and the express to Kings Highway, then switching to local after. Seems a little complicated, maybe returning 's could deadhead back to Church. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted September 11, 2014 Share #2243 Posted September 11, 2014 Oh yeah I haven't thought of that. That could work. But does Culver El need express service? If it does, I'd run half of the local (E)'s to Kings Highway (or all or most if it can handle that much), and the express to Kings Highway, then switching to local after. The Culver el itself doesn't need express service. It doesn't even need 15 tph above Kings Highway (where some trains currently drop out). It just so happens that the train that uses the Culver el is also a Queens Blvd express (where the 15 tph is needed). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted September 11, 2014 Share #2244 Posted September 11, 2014 If you have the extra trains why not, I always thought it was a little useless for the line to just stop at WTC, when it could have some sort of connection to Brooklyn. There is no service to 8th Ave from South Brooklyn without a transfer. Plus the entire point is to bypass overcrowding, so South Brooklyn riders can have an easy connection without having their trains jam-packed. A direct bypass would be useful, which is what the trunk was made for. CPW is good comparison of the stick the crowds on the local scenario. The entire reason it stops there is because there's not enough room in Cranberry for all of 8th Avenue to squeeze in. You'd have 23-ish TPH from the and , so tops you could fit maybe half the 15TPH of the (and you probably can't do that reliably). The also did run into Brooklyn in the past; this was stopped because the line length became excessive and the provided way too much service. The MTA is not in the business of "use every track possible" - they are in the business of "get everybody to work with the least amount of money and the least amount of headaches." This just sounds like more headaches. Then connect WTC to Montague, then branch off to connect to culver north of Jay, then continue onto Kings Highway, with half of it terminating at Church Avenue. *then spend a lot of money in the middle of two of the city's CBDs and eminent domain a lot of buildings trying to cut-and-cover these complicated flying junctions* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realizm Posted September 11, 2014 Share #2245 Posted September 11, 2014 The only way the F express could have worked is if we go back to conditions before the 2010 budget cuts with the V. The MTA in its study on how they can improve F service before they went ahead with the Culver Viaduct rehab assessed the problem of the V terminating at 2nd Avenue as it held up the F needing to access the Rutgers Street tunnel causing a chokepoint. So they concluded that it may be necessary to extend the V to Church Avenue. Well now we have the M to Forest Hills but thats another story. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted September 11, 2014 Share #2246 Posted September 11, 2014 Rush hour trains run via Culver Express, peak direction express past Culver Ave, reverse commute trains run Culver Local until Church. Or the other way around, express, local. If anything it gives riders another trunk to get to without a transfer. Same problem with my original idea of the being the Culver Express as has been noted many times: The bottleneck at Broadway-Lafayette: If that potential bottleneck at Broadway-Lafayette can be manageable with 30-32 TPH at peak times, then I would do it with: The ruinning with the after West 4th (except overnights, though if warranted the could become a 24/7 line with this). The replacing the as the Fulton Local to Euclid (rush hours some trains terminating at Chambers to avoid overflow of Cranberry. A new supplemental train running what actually was its '80s route (Chambers-168) with 2-3 TPH at all times. As I would do that (with the to Coney Island and the to Church Avenue, except overnights when it would to Coney Island), it does give Coney Island and Culver riders a new, one-seat 8th Avenue and lower Manhattan option and 8th Avenue riders looking for midtown and the UWS being able to skip lower Manhattan (on the train). It also would give riders on the a new 8th Avenue line option at Broadway-Lafayette. This was my original plan for doing so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted September 11, 2014 Share #2247 Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) I'm not going to touch on the latest entry from Wallyhorse's "greatest hits" album since I already said what I needed to on this specific idea long ago and I grow tired of repeating myself. I will however, leave you with this nugget of wisdom. Running 30TPH while possible on paper, requires optimal conditions at all times. Even if the West 4th interlocking was up to date, any unforeseen occurrences would severely back up service not only on the affected stretch of track, but other sections as well. There's also the question of whether the area you're jamming all these trains actually needs all this service in the first place. Edited September 11, 2014 by Lance 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollOver Posted September 11, 2014 Share #2248 Posted September 11, 2014 More trains=more congestion More congestion=slow service Slow service=we're right back at square one in terms of service on the Culver branch 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted September 11, 2014 Share #2249 Posted September 11, 2014 That's why I said IF the bottleneck could be managed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted September 11, 2014 Share #2250 Posted September 11, 2014 Trains would switch over at Jay St, Wallyhorse. Half of trains rush hour only. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.