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  
JFK Depot

Flipping the Northern Terminals for the B and C

Recommended Posts

I think the B would be more useful if it went back to 168th and the C sent back to BPB in the Bronx.... 

the B really services no purpose past 59th right now with the current terminals... if the terminals were swapped both lines would benefit in my opinion 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly, before the (B) and (C) swap in 1998, they ran like this:

(B) - Terminated at 168 St middays, rush hours, early evenings

(C) - Terminated at Bedford Park Blvd rush hours, 145 St middays and evenings, and 168 St on weekends.

That was three different northern terminals depending on the time and day. Right now, all (C) trips terminate at 168 St, all day, every day. That's a simple service pattern; I imagine the MTA wants to keep it simple and not make it more complex just to enable some more one-seat rides. Plus I imagine having all (C) trips terminate at the same place is preferable for fleet storage/maintenance purposes.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What difference would it make? Ridership would still be the exact same.

EDIT: And to top it all off, the (A) on weekends would (unnecessarily) have to switch for local to serve riders at Amsterdam and 155th when it could just stay express the entire way. The (MTA) designed the (C) 's final service pattern to be a short-turn (A).

Edited by Jemorie
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jemorie said:

What difference would it make? Ridership would still be the exact same.

EDIT: And to top it all off, the (A) on weekends would (unnecessarily) have to switch for local to serve riders at Amsterdam and 155th when it could just stay express the entire way. The (MTA) designed the (C) 's final service pattern to be a short-turn (A).

It would make the B more relevant... the southern terminal switch for the B and D killed the B... 

Central Park West on weekends is horrible.. it could use the extra local... this is where the B comes in... honestly the B should go back to West End.. and to 168th...the D could be the Brighton Express to Coney Island 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JFK Depot said:

It would make the B more relevant... the southern terminal switch for the B and D killed the B... 

Central Park West on weekends is horrible.. it could use the extra local... this is where the B comes in... honestly the B should go back to West End.. and to 168th...the D could be the Brighton Express to Coney Island 

Flipping the (B) and (C) terminals isn't going to change anything. If anything, it would just make the (C) longer and the (B) shorter. Does Grand Concourse local service really need both the (C) and (D) running at all off-peak hours and at night? And if you think Central Park West needs more service, just increase the (C) headways a little bit from 10 minutes to 7-8 minutes. Another thing to factor is that the (C) will eventually become full-length, basically an extra 4 or 5 trains total and basically an increase of up to about 7.5 minute headways in both directions on the entire line. Like I always say, the delays, overcrowding, and irregularity on every line in the system on weekends is because of track/signal maintainers and inspectors, not the trains themselves. That's the main reason why the (B) does not run on weekends and at night, as well as other lines being partially shorten on their runs like the (5) to Bowling Green and the current (M) (until the 14th Street Tunnel closure) to Essex Street.

You say that the (B) and (D) should switch roles in Brooklyn yet you don't even bother explaining why. For starters, the local tracks on the Brighton Line head straight in and out of Coney Island, not the express tracks, they just merge with the local tracks south of Ocean Parkway. You also can't have both the (D) and (Q) terminating at Coney Island nor the latter terminating at Brighton Beach. Look at the track layout at said stations. Another thing is ridership demand, not just only track layout demand. Brighton Line local customers prefer Broadway over 6th Avenue for whatever reason. And what happens if the (B) does not run at night? What's going to serve West End customers during that time? A shuttle to Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center? West End customers want 24/7 direct service to and from Manhattan.

 

 

Edited by Jemorie
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The West End Line needs 24-7 service and the D train provides that service. For too long even before Chrystie Street came into existence, the West End Line was a victim of a thousand and one changes. The Pre-Chrystie Street service patterns included a Rush Hour West End Express to- Astoria which consisted of eight car standards, non rush hour service was the West End Local which consisted of six car standards and late night shuttle service to 36th Street Brooklyn which on many nights consisted of two Triplex units and later 4 car R-32's.

After Chrystie Street, the B West End ran to West 4th Street,57th Street, 21st Street Queensbridge in addition to 168th Street. When the MTA switched the B and D Line terminals,, it helped both the West End and Brighton  Line riders who are quite happy with the way it has worked out. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp this has been discussed before but I guess I'll explain again why.

 

The reasons why the (B) and (C) Switched northern terminals was for the following reasons and the (C) Train having alot of terminals was actually not the big issue.

 

1. They want to simplify the (C) Train route by so it can basically run as a shortened local (A) Train which believe it or not actually does make sense if you think about it.

2. It was much easier to maintain the fleet since the (A) and (C) Train shared R32s/R38s (Just like they do with the R32s and R46s today) at the time and having both lines being based out of 207th Street and Pitkin would made it much easier for the (A)(C) to borrow each other R32s and R38s fleet if needed especially since at the time, the (A) Train really didn't used alot of R32s. Same thing went for the (B)(D) trains since they both already had access to Coney Island Yard and occasionally the (B) Train would borrow a Concourse set if needed as well as the (D) Train borrowing a Coney Island Yard train (Which it still does today occasionally with just the R68/R68A rather than any Coney Island Yard Train).

 

3. It eliminated the tough Friday Nights and Sunday Nights Jobs when 4 (C) Trains deadheaded from Concourse Yard to 174th Street Yard which used to caused delays on the (A) and (D) lines since how the deadheaded worked was it changed ends at either 135 Layup Tracks or 59th Street (Depending on the situation or so) and vice versa when returning to Concourse Yard. 

 

4. Originally Yes originality, they were actually going to have weekend (C) Trains run OPTO when they were switching the terminals since it already was running 4 car sets of R32s and/or R38s during the weekends but that plan got scrapped and extended the (C) to run the 8 cars on weekends.

 

This was actually on the old SubTalk when it was explained. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2018 at 7:07 PM, Daniel The Cool said:

Welp this has been discussed before but I guess I'll explain again why.

 

The reasons why the (B) and (C) Switched northern terminals was for the following reasons and the (C) Train having alot of terminals was actually not the big issue.

 

1. They want to simplify the (C) Train route by so it can basically run as a shortened local (A) Train which believe it or not actually does make sense if you think about it.

2. It was much easier to maintain the fleet since the (A) and (C) Train shared R32s/R38s (Just like they do with the R32s and R46s today) at the time and having both lines being based out of 207th Street and Pitkin would made it much easier for the (A)(C) to borrow each other R32s and R38s fleet if needed especially since at the time, the (A) Train really didn't used alot of R32s. Same thing went for the (B)(D) trains since they both already had access to Coney Island Yard and occasionally the (B) Train would borrow a Concourse set if needed as well as the (D) Train borrowing a Coney Island Yard train (Which it still does today occasionally with just the R68/R68A rather than any Coney Island Yard Train).

 

3. It eliminated the tough Friday Nights and Sunday Nights Jobs when 4 (C) Trains deadheaded from Concourse Yard to 174th Street Yard which used to caused delays on the (A) and (D) lines since how the deadheaded worked was it changed ends at either 135 Layup Tracks or 59th Street (Depending on the situation or so) and vice versa when returning to Concourse Yard. 

 

4. Originally Yes originality, they were actually going to have weekend (C) Trains run OPTO when they were switching the terminals since it already was running 4 car sets of R32s and/or R38s during the weekends but that plan got scrapped and extended the (C) to run the 8 cars on weekends.

 

This was actually on the old SubTalk when it was explained. 

 

Very good reason Daniel! Thanks for the explanation....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/15/2018 at 4:04 PM, JFK Depot said:

It would make the B more relevant... the southern terminal switch for the B and D killed the B... 

Central Park West on weekends is horrible.. it could use the extra local... this is where the B comes in... honestly the B should go back to West End.. and to 168th...the D could be the Brighton Express to Coney Island 

Not true. The (B) gets some good usage as the Brighton Express during the AM and PM rush hours when most trains are packed in and out of Brooklyn. Keep in mind that the (B) is now a supplementary line, in that its main purpose is to assist the full-time lines. It's a blessing on Central Park West when the (A)(C)(D) are too crowded to get on.

Edited by Cabanamaner
Spelling errors.
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cabanamaner said:

Not true. The (B) gets some good usage as the Brighton Express during the AM and PM rush hours when most trains are packed in and out of Brooklyn. Keep in mind that the (B) is now a supplementary line, in that its main purpose is to assist the full-time lines. It's a blessing on Central Park West when the (A)(C)(D) are too crowded to get on.

But the (C) is just spotty on the weekends, CPW needs another line during the weekends. The (B) can end at 2nd Av and start from 145th St (or Bedford Park when the (4) is out). There should be no reason I'm waiting 15+ min for a (C) on CPW local when I see 3 or 4 (A)(D) trains pass by.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

But the (C) is just spotty on the weekends, CPW needs another line during the weekends. The (B) can end at 2nd Av and start from 145th St (or Bedford Park when the (4) is out). There should be no reason I'm waiting 15+ min for a (C) on CPW local when I see 3 or 4 (A)(D) trains pass by.

Based on that logic, the easiest solution is to turn the (C) into a functional line and have it actually run on time. Why would a new (B) service be any better, especially since it's going to have to do an express to local merge along 6 Ave at some point?

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Caelestor said:

Based on that logic, the easiest solution is to turn the (C) into a functional line and have it actually run on time. Why would a new (B) service be any better, especially since it's going to have to do an express to local merge along 6 Ave at some point?

This is the (C) we're talking about, a shortened local version of the longest line in the system, it will never run on time unless a miracle happens. A shortened (B) will at least help out people on CPW, as well as the (D) since it's headways are also horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

But the (C) is just spotty on the weekends, CPW needs another line during the weekends. The (B) can end at 2nd Av and start from 145th St (or Bedford Park when the (4) is out). There should be no reason I'm waiting 15+ min for a (C) on CPW local when I see 3 or 4 (A)(D) trains pass by.

I somewhat support weekend (B) service since the (C) can be brutal at times and for the few unfortunate souls who don't know the (B) isn't running. But the general ridership on the (B) just doesn't warrant an expansion in service. For the time being, it's fine as it is.

 

14 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

This is the (C) we're talking about, a shortened local version of the longest line in the system, it will never run on time unless a miracle happens. A shortened (B) will at least help out people on CPW, as well as the (D) since it's headways are also horrible.

Like Caelestor pointed out, the express-to-local switch the (B) would have to make to terminate at Second Ave would clog up (D) and (F) service in both directions. It's just not worth the hassle in that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

This is the (C) we're talking about, a shortened local version of the longest line in the system, it will never run on time unless a miracle happens. A shortened (B) will at least help out people on CPW, as well as the (D) since it's headways are also horrible.

I'm gonna bold the important part of that sentence for ya. I think rereading what you posted and then looking at a map of NYC should show just how much shorter the (C) is. 

Beyond the issues @Caelestor brings up, there's the fact that there simply wouldn't be space for the (B) most weekends. CPW often has some work going on, which usually requires single tracking, and always means flagging -- facts which limit corridor capacity to 15tph/direction on most weekends. Unless you want four services running on sixteen minute headways, I'd recommend you limit yourself to three lines per corridor on weekends. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, it'd make more sense to run (A) or (D) as the weekend local in Manhattan and find a northern terminal for (C) to enable (A) to stay express in Brooklyn - if a second weekend local is needed on CPW.

But, if you want a weekend (B) on CPW, it really isn't difficult to do so long as you time it for (B) to meet (A) and (D) to meet (C) at 59th St (as I believe all scheduling is done for all four CPW services, based on a line review I read a while back).

And I don't necessarily buy the delay at 2 Av thing because (V) terminated there before, but I didn't live here when (V) ran so I can't attest to that beyond the theoretical.

And I'm starting to question the "long lines are always delayed" thing since I've been in places where buses run 2 hour-long routes in congestion and still make time without bunching, and two-track hour-long or 90 minute trains still avoid holds and bunches. So I'm wondering if the difference maker is less switching and interlining and more employee morale or work ethic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Deucey said:

IMO, it'd make more sense to run (A) or (D) as the weekend local in Manhattan and find a northern terminal for (C) to enable (A) to stay express in Brooklyn - if a second weekend local is needed on CPW.

But, if you want a weekend (B) on CPW, it really isn't difficult to do so long as you time it for (B) to meet (A) and (D) to meet (C) at 59th St (as I believe all scheduling is done for all four CPW services, based on a line review I read a while back).

And I don't necessarily buy the delay at 2 Av thing because (V) terminated there before, but I didn't live here when (V) ran so I can't attest to that beyond the theoretical.

And I'm starting to question the "long lines are always delayed" thing since I've been in places where buses run 2 hour-long routes in congestion and still make time without bunching, and two-track hour-long or 90 minute trains still avoid holds and bunches. So I'm wondering if the difference maker is less switching and interlining and more employee morale or work ethic.

The (V) however did run on the local track with the (F) so there wasn’t a ton of switching that needed to be done. However for the (B) to terminate at 2nd Ave it would need to switch from the express to the local track and then going uptown it would switch from the middle express track at 2nd Ave to the local track and then back to the express track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

The (V) however did run on the local track with the (F) so there wasn’t a ton of switching that needed to be done. However for the (B) to terminate at 2nd Ave it would need to switch from the express to the local track and then going uptown it would switch from the middle express track at 2nd Ave to the local track and then back to the express track.

Which is why if you need to have a second local on CPW on weekends AND you're not sending 6th Avenue local service to either 71-Continental or 96th-2nd (outside of the (L) shutdown in the latter case), maybe on weekends you have the (M) run to 145th.  Yes, you would have it merge with the (D) in Manhattan, but that merger would come there as opposed to Grand Street with the (B) that is current.    Yes, it could be confusing, but it would be no different from when the (M) was combined with the (V) in 2010 except this would be the (M) merged on weekends with the (B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Which is why if you need to have a second local on CPW on weekends AND you're not sending 6th Avenue local service to either 71-Continental or 96th-2nd (outside of the (L) shutdown in the latter case), maybe on weekends you have the (M) run to 145th.  Yes, you would have it merge with the (D) in Manhattan, but that merger would come there as opposed to Grand Street with the (B) that is current.    Yes, it could be confusing, but it would be no different from when the (M) was combined with the (V) in 2010 except this would be the (M) merged on weekends with the (B)

That would be as ridiculous as sending the (D) to Far Rockaway or the (1) to Dyre Avenue. Such an extreme service change would baffle existing customers and shy away potential new ones. If there's a need for additional weekend service at CPW local stations, just using the existing (B) pattern would be enough.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Cabanamaner said:

That would be as ridiculous as sending the (D) to Far Rockaway or the (1) to Dyre Avenue. Such an extreme service change would baffle existing customers and shy away potential new ones. If there's a need for additional weekend service at CPW local stations, just using the existing (B) pattern would be enough.

Only those not paying attention.  The (M) would be running on 6th Avenue as it would normally otherwise.  It would just go west on 47-50.

As long as signs are correct, people paying attention would know what to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Only those not paying attention.  The (M) would be running on 6th Avenue as it would normally otherwise.  It would just go west on 47-50.

As long as signs are correct, people paying attention would know what to do.

There was once a time when subway lines had very different routings and terminals depending on the time and day. We have thankfully moved away from a time where, for example, the (B), (F), and (orangeQ) would all run to Queensbridge at different times within one day. I see no point in returning to this. Why have a subway line sometimes travel in the opposite direction from its usual route? Do you want the subway map covered in dashed lines so that everyone is aware of all the time-based service changes, and you really expect non-native NYers - many of whom come from places with either no metro system, or a far simpler one - to understand this map? It's bad enough now with all the G/Os affecting weekend service; there's no need to make regular service that confusing.

And - similarly to many of your proposals - could you really provide one reason as to why a weekend (M) to 145th is superior to better (C) service, or - if we must - added (B) service?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

There was once a time when subway lines had very different routings and terminals depending on the time and day. We have thankfully moved away from a time where, for example, the (B), (F), and (orangeQ) would all run to Queensbridge at different times within one day. I see no point in returning to this. Why have a subway line sometimes travel in the opposite direction from its usual route? Do you want the subway map covered in dashed lines so that everyone is aware of all the time-based service changes, and you really expect non-native NYers - many of whom come from places with either no metro system, or a far simpler one - to understand this map? It's bad enough now with all the G/Os affecting weekend service; there's no need to make regular service that confusing.

And - similarly to many of your proposals - could you really provide one reason as to why a weekend (M) to 145th is superior to better (C) service, or - if we must - added (B) service?

We had this issue when the Myrtle viaduct was being redone as well as the current (5) service.

The (M) had like what, 6 terminals during that time? The (5) has way more then that. We have Dyre, East 180th, Neried, Bowling Green, Flatbush, Crown Heights and New Lots Avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

There was once a time when subway lines had very different routings and terminals depending on the time and day. We have thankfully moved away from a time where, for example, the (B), (F), and (orangeQ) would all run to Queensbridge at different times within one day. I see no point in returning to this. Why have a subway line sometimes travel in the opposite direction from its usual route? Do you want the subway map covered in dashed lines so that everyone is aware of all the time-based service changes, and you really expect non-native NYers - many of whom come from places with either no metro system, or a far simpler one - to understand this map? It's bad enough now with all the G/Os affecting weekend service; there's no need to make regular service that confusing.

And - similarly to many of your proposals - could you really provide one reason as to why a weekend (M) to 145th is superior to better (C) service, or - if we must - added (B) service?

As many have pointed out, the (C)'s problem is the length of the route and rarely running on time, with sometimes long gaps on CPW where multiple (A) and (D) trains pass before a (C) finally shows up.  If you need to add a 6th Avenue service on the weekends, once the (L) shutdown is finished and assuming you otherwise are still running the (M) to Essex on weekends once that is done, I would think it would make more sense to have the (M) take the place of the (B) on weekends between 47-50 and 145th since you give Broadway-Brooklyn riders 6th Avenue service at all times other than late nights, eliminating on weekends the need for Broadway-Brooklyn riders to switch to the (F) at Essex-Delancey.  Perhaps that also might be a way to make the (M) a 24/7 route in the future if you don't have it on QB nights and weekends: Weekdays as it is now, nights and weekends to 145th/8th Avenue if you don't make it permanent nights and weekends to 96th/2nd after the (L) shutdown as this (M) would simply be combined on weekends (and possibly late nights) with the (B).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

As many have pointed out, the (C)'s problem is the length of the route and rarely running on time, with sometimes long gaps on CPW where multiple (A) and (D) trains pass before a (C) finally shows up.  If you need to add a 6th Avenue service on the weekends, once the (L) shutdown is finished and assuming you otherwise are still running the (M) to Essex on weekends once that is done, I would think it would make more sense to have the (M) take the place of the (B) on weekends between 47-50 and 145th since you give Broadway-Brooklyn riders 6th Avenue service at all times other than late nights, eliminating on weekends the need for Broadway-Brooklyn riders to switch to the (F) at Essex-Delancey.  Perhaps that also might be a way to make the (M) a 24/7 route in the future if you don't have it on QB nights and weekends: Weekdays as it is now, nights and weekends to 145th/8th Avenue if you don't make it permanent nights and weekends to 96th/2nd after the (L) shutdown as this (M) would simply be combined on weekends (and possibly late nights) with the (B). 

First of all, the (C) doesn't really have a length problem: it's 40 stops and has a 1h10 scheduled runtime on the weekends, which is pretty average. Yes, you're right that weekend (C) service is pretty dismal and often unreliable, but why can't we start just by fixing that? The (C) is a popular route on the weekends (I'd hazard it's more popular than a weekend (B)) and if it was operated well on an 8-minute headway it would do just fine. Running the (B) won't actually solve this problem, so much as put a Band-Aid over it; plus, the (C) has a better routing for weekend service, running from PABT and Penn Station where people are coming in to the city, to Central Park West and Lower Manhattan where those people are going. I'd also add that more service at Fulton local stops is probably needed more than a weekend express on Brighton, where increasing (Q) service would do more for more people than running the (B).

When the (M) is needed 24/7 on 6th Avenue - which is certainly going to happen - run it to Queens Plaza or Forest Hills, not somewhere totally out of its normal route (yes, this includes 96th Street). It's much easier to say, "the (B) doesn't run on weekends, take this train which normally parallels it instead," than it is to try to get people to understand, "there's no (B) today, but the (M) goes to Harlem (or the Upper East Side) instead of Queens just to make up for that."

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

The (C) is a popular route on the weekends (I'd hazard it's more popular than a weekend (B)) and if it was operated well on an 8-minute headway it would do just fine.

8 minute headways are not feasible in a subway system with constant weekend GO's. As it is they cut the (C) and (D) to 12 minute headways and the (A) to 10 just to fit them all thru CPW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

8 minute headways are not feasible in a subway system with constant weekend GO's. As it is they cut the (C) and (D) to 12 minute headways and the (A) to 10 just to fit them all thru CPW.

Right, but if our flagging rules weren't so primitive, and the trip down the express on CPW wasn't kneecapped by timers, you'd be able to run more frequent weekend service on more of the subway. Most improvements to service (such as a better weekend (C)) are very much tied to changing many poor operational practices.

  • Upvote 2

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.