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  
DailyDose

Stranded L Riders Could Find An Unlikely Savior In the E Train: Proposal

Recommended Posts

This is already being discussed in the (L) train decision thread. And it's not that great of a proposal because it would turn Canal and Hoyt/Schermerhorn into even bigger bottlenecks than they already are, especially Hoyt. Not to mention there may not even be enough space at Hoyt to build the switches needed to accomplish this.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight: They want the (E) to almost loop around through Manhattan and Brooklyn to go back to Queens and terminate at Court Square. 

 

This will cause so much unnecessary confusion at Court Square. There will be (E) trains going in three different directions, on two different levels. So then, people are going to be confused as to which (E) to take. I also don't think the idea of being on one line, and transferring to the same line at a completely different station sounds brilliant. This will also add more operating costs for no reason. The people who would benefit from this are people either taking the (L) to 8 Avenue, Downtown Brooklyn & Downtown Manhattan riders, and riders using the (G) north of Hoyt-Schermerhorn. For the people who are going to Midtown, they would have to go to the (G) and transfer at Court Square to the (E) , (M) , or the (7) . If the problem is that there won't be enough (G) service or frequent enough service, then it would make much more sense to add more cars and/or better frequencies on the (G)

 

Also, there would be congestion on the tunnels going into Brooklyn. Even if every other (E) went via Crosstown, that's still a lot more tph through the tunnel. The highest usage of the tunnel (in tph) towards Manhattan is from 8-9 AM. There's about 17 (A) trains, and 7 (C) trains, which is 24 tph, or a train every 2.5 minutes. Imagine adding 5-7 (E) trains into that. IDK if that's even allowed, but that would cause so moderate delays, on a good day. Sending those trains over the (F) is also not feasible, because then you hold up trains at W. 4 Street AND at Jay Street, and the (F) already has 10-15 trains per hour during that time, which could be a problem with more trains passing through Rutgers.

Edited by BM5 via WOODHAVEN BL
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere near enough capacity in either Cranberry or Houston Street to run this. 

Nowhere near enough space to install the proposed switch. 

Absolutely 100% impossible. 

(Ignoring the immense cost of the added crews and cars that this would need, on top of the cost of adding a set of switches to a line, even if it were physically possible, which it isn't)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turn some (C) trains at WTC as has been proven successful, route some (E) trains up, spend some money on a important and relatively minor change to help avoid a catastrophe for a neighborhood. Absolutely anything is possible if money is put into it, and this wouldn't be all that costly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turn some (C) trains at WTC as has been proven successful, route some (E) trains up, spend some money on a important and relatively minor change to help avoid a catastrophe for a neighborhood. Absolutely anything is possible if money is put into it, and this wouldn't be all that costly.

Unless (E) trains also going to Euclid Avenue (which on top of such a proposed semi-loop would cause confusion; you might as well use a different designation), turning (C) trains will mean double the frequencies. The (C) runs every 6-8 minutes the rush, with some 10 minute headways in there too. That would mean that waits for the (C) would increase in Brooklyn, which would lead to uneven loads of (C) 's, with some being packed, and others being light. The (E) would still be more frequent than the (C) even if half of them terminated at WTC. However, if trains have to go to cover up gaps on Fulton Avenue, you add more trains to the Cranberry Tunnel, which is almost at capacity anyways. 

 

If CIY  does not have enough train sets for added (G) service, perhaps something can come out of Jamaica Yard to be used (you can have trains every 2 minutes from Court Square to Bedford-Nostrand, to accommodate Midtown riders during the rush, every 4 minutes during middays and evenings, every 8 minutes during late evenings, and every 5 minutes during the daytime on Saturdays and Sundays). The headways would be the same south of Bedford-Nostrand except for the PM rush, which would receive a slight boost in service. Maybe it might be excessive if more (M) service is added too, but more (G) 's should be considered over sending (E) 's there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would mean that waits for the (C) would increase in Brooklyn, which would lead to uneven loads of (C) 's, with some being packed, and others being light. The (E) would still be more frequent than the (C) even if half of them terminated at WTC. However, if trains have to go to cover up gaps on Fulton Avenue, you add more trains to the Cranberry Tunnel, which is almost at capacity anyways. 

 

So run some (C) s over the (F) or something. Train loads are the lowest of concerns. 

 

but more (G) 's should be considered over sending (E) 's there.

 

The (G) is a fundamentally bad solution without a Manhattan connection. The (G)'s frequency is not the main issue, though it is one issue. Running a second line would solve the frequency problem and provide a connection. 

Edited by MHV9218

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turn some (C) trains at WTC as has been proven successful, route some (E) trains up, spend some money on a important and relatively minor change to help avoid a catastrophe for a neighborhood. Absolutely anything is possible if money is put into it, and this wouldn't be all that costly.

But because the (G) tracks lower immediately upon leaving Hoyt-Schermerhorn, it would be incredibly difficult - if not impossible - to build any switches connecting the (A)(C) tracks to the (G). I'm not sure how they could shoehorn any switches in there. Not to mention worsening the bottlenecks that already exist at Hoyt, as well as at Canal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just when I thought nobody could come up with loonier solutions, someone does.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the extra (E) trains to Court Square supposed to terminate? Jamaica Center can barely handle the current amount of (E) trains terminating and (F) riders are going to be upset if their line is delayed because the Court Square bound (E) are sent to 179th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people not realize that many more trainsets would be needed for the (E)? Where do they hope to get them from. This proposal is garbage.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do people not realize that many more trainsets would be needed for the (E)? Where do they hope to get them from. This proposal is garbage.

 

There are a ton of R143s and R160s that will not be not needed. The (L) is running a spur at much lesser frequency than before--I'd reckon a third if not more of the fleet will be redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of those cars freed from Canarsie service will be shifted from the (L) to the (J) and (M) lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the WTC's immense size and high commuter demand, it needs to keep the (E) terminus for itself (that's why that splinter was constructed in the first place), just as Hudson Yards needs to keep the (7) terminus for itself (that's why that line was extended in the first place).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the WTC's immense size and high commuter demand, it needs to keep the (E) terminus for itself (that's why that splinter was constructed in the first place)...

Actually, the World Trade Center platform, then known as the Hudson Terminal platform, was built because for some reason, the IND didn't intend for the locals to either leave their borough, as was the case with Court St station as well, or not enter Manhattan at all, which is why the Queens Blvd local tracks didn't originally offer direct Manhattan service. It just so happened the Hudson Terminal/WTC platform placement works out for the World Trade Center complex due to the offset nature of the station as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Considering the WTC's immense size and high commuter demand, it needs to keep the (E) terminus for itself (that's why that splinter was constructed in the first place), just as Hudson Yards needs to keep the (7) terminus for itself (that's why that line was extended in the first place).

WTC was constructed like that to separate the local and express trains which both terminated there when the line opened in 1932. The (E) had nothing to do with it.

 

The (7) was built there to serve the newly developing Hudson Yards neighborhood and the Javits Center. Not because it runs by itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I didn't realize that the Hudson Terminal / WTC platform was that old. Judging by the way it splinters off of the main line and aims directly at the WTC, I assumed that it was intentionally split that way for the benefit of PATH commuters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I didn't realize that the Hudson Terminal / WTC platform was that old. Judging by the way it splinters off of the main line and aims directly at the WTC, I assumed that it was intentionally split that way for the benefit of PATH commuters.

When the line first opened, local trains went from Hudson Terminal (WTC) to 168 St, and express trains went from Chambers St to 207 St.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the World Trade Center platform, then known as the Hudson Terminal platform, was built because for some reason, the IND didn't intend for the locals to either leave their borough, as was the case with Court St station as well, or not enter Manhattan at all, which is why the Queens Blvd local tracks didn't originally offer direct Manhattan service. It just so happened the Hudson Terminal/WTC platform placement works out for the World Trade Center complex due to the offset nature of the station as a whole.

Wasn't the intention to build another tunnel, connecting Hudson Terminal with Court St., so that the locals would use that tunnel, while the express use Cranberry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't the intention to build another tunnel, connecting Hudson Terminal with Court St., so that the locals would use that tunnel, while the express use Cranberry?

Well, what would they do with Broadway ((R))?

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.