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.
Eric B

Limited F express service coming to Brooklyn for rush hour !

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Eric B said:

To run M via 8th still doesn't solve the problem of capacity to add back the V, because they would all still be running together through Bway-Laf. That's just one station to merge in before and merge back out after, but it would still cause the same congestion.

That’s now what I’m talking about. I’m talking about constructing a new two-track connection via Broome Street from Bowery to the 8th Avenue Line south of the Spring Street stop with a single stop at Broadway and Broome Streets. This would avoid Broadway-Lafayette entirely and allow for capacity on the line for the (V) Culver express to come online. NO ONE is suggesting having the existing service use the existing Chrystie Street cut through Broadway Lafayette Avenue and switching to the 8th Avenue line. You clearly missed the long post i put up on Wednesday evening (post #14) about the new connection. READ IT!!!

5 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

An :M: via the 8th Avenue Local with that intermediate stop at Lafayette between Bowery and Spring could make for a pretty good crosstown line for Lower Manhattan too. Getting across Lower Manhattan by pretty much any wheeled vehicle can be a real chore.  

Agreed on the crosstown part. It’s super slow at times. Heck, I once walked 0.5 miles along Houston Street from First Avenue all the way to Lafayette Street following a trip, and on Wednesday, I walked from Union Square West to 6th Avenue on 14th Street because for 14th Street SBS it has a reliability factor of ZERO (Schwartz’s meddling makes it further go down to -5). How do you think I feel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Eric B said:

To run M via 8th still doesn't solve the problem of capacity to add back the V, because they would all still be running together through Bway-Laf. That's just one station to merge in before and merge back out after, but it would still cause the same congestion.

Well, you can run the (F)(M) and (V) via 6th Avenue, but then you’d essentially have to split the current (F) into a 50/50 (F) local/ (V) express operation (similar to what the (MTA) proposed in 2016. But that would result in roughly 7 or 8 tph apiece, which would likely please few people. Running an :M: over 8th would need a new connection, though, as the merging between the :M: and the (F)(V) would be nothing but trouble.

23 hours ago, RR503 said:

WillyB-8th would absolutely solve the issue, provided transfers are created to trains going downtown. The question is much more whether deinterlining before such a connection is made is wise.

I’d leave the (M) as is until such connection can be made and other improvements can be made, such as a transfer between Bowery and Grand and reopening the abandoned Canal platform. However, that would limit the amount of South Brooklyn (V) express service that can be provided. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’d leave the (M) as is until such connection can be made and other improvements can be made, such as a transfer between Bowery and Grand and reopening the abandoned Canal platform. However, that would limit the amount of South Brooklyn (V) express service that can be provided. 

With the (M) the amount of Culver express service that can be provided is almost none, since the capacity on the 6th Avenue Local tracks is 25 trains per hour, and the capacity on the Queens Blvd Local tracks, which is getting CBTC upgrades, is around 20 trains per hour. Since the (M) runs at 9 trains per hour, and the (F) 15, and the (R) at 10, we don’t have enough room for now to add a Culver express without cutting service at all three lines.

The connection between the Nassau Street Line and the 8th Avenue IND should not be that hard. If I recall correctly, at the curve between Kenmare and Centre Streets, there is a provision for a line to Spring Street. However, no plan was provided. The connection could use those bell mouths. All that’s needed is to make a tunnel from Kenmare to 6th Avenue under Spring Street, including a new stop at Spring Street between Broadway and Lafayette Streets to permit a transfer to the IRT Lexington Avenue Line. Spring Street was built with no cross under between the two platforms, so ideally the new station would have a mezzanine that would connect to both platforms. At the western end at 6th Avenue, a new potential lower level of spring street could possibly be built. However, that station was built WITH a cross under between the platforms. Ideally, the new Lower Level Spring Street station would be of two side platforms offset and below the existing platforms, just like 50th Street. A new mezzanine would replace the cross under between the platforms. North of Spring, the two track connection would have to merge with the local tracks. It could be hard, but it is possible given that we constructed the Chrystie Cut to connect pre-existing lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have we ever thought of running these "Culver Express" trains to 2nd Avenue instead by building a new junction south of 2nd Av?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor clarification, 6 Ave can support 28 tph. Ideally 2 services with 14 tph each but possibly 3 services running 9 tph each, though I never recommend running more than 2 services on a single pair of tracks.

We're all in agreement that the (M) eventually has to be taken off 6 Ave in order to increase service on Culver to its max potential. However, I'm not entirely convinced about the Broome St connection - that would permanently halve capacity on Nassau St and 8 Ave south of Spring St. The MTA should be building tunnels that can support 24+ tph.

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

Have we ever thought of running these "Culver Express" trains to 2nd Avenue instead by building a new junction south of 2nd Av?

Not recommended because this turns Culver into a reverse branch, plus the 2 Ave stop transfer exists already. A reconfiguration of the Chrystie St bridge services is probably the better option; there's a few proposals to send the Manhattan Bridge trains up 2 Ave. Then presumably the 6 Ave express tracks would be through-routed over the Williamsburg Bridge.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

We're all in agreement that the (M) eventually has to be taken off 6 Ave in order to increase service on Culver to its max potential. However, I'm not entirely convinced about the Broome St connection - that would permanently halve capacity on Nassau St and 8 Ave south of Spring St. The MTA should be building tunnels that can support 24+ tph.

Nassau street service is already halved, since demand does not call for the (J) Train at 14 trains per hour (tph) plus another train at 14 tph. Plus the line is lightly used. Bowery is one of the least used stations that it is already a dump, and the Lexington Avenue Line nearby has room for more passengers. Every other stop on the line see more passengers, even the bigger dumb that is Chambers Street, and the in-good-condition Fulton and Broad Street.

The Broome Street Connection would allow for a connection between the Jamaica Line and an uptown trunk line while at the same time, allowing a Culver express and deinterlining Queens Blvd. Three different objectives that have been expressed by various users here on the forums can all be met by this one simple connection. I’m also proposing new switches between 59th and 42nd on the 8th Avenue IND to allow for the (C) local to switch onto the express at the same time as merging/diverging (D) trains. This alone would make room for an 8th Avenue train to go via Nassau, without reducing service. Under the plans I made, the (M) would become the (K) and use the new Broome Street connection, operating with the (E) via the only possible option via 53rd Street. This allows for the (C) to use the new switches to go express with the (A), speeding up service for Central Park West riders. On the 6th Avenue, with the (M) removed, we can introduce the (V) to be the Culver Express to take on the track capacity on 6th Avenue and the 63rd Street line, where a transfer to the Second Avenue Line would be available.

For Manhattan-Queens Crossings, the (E) and (K) would use the 53rd Street Tunnel and the (F) and (V) would go via 63rd. While this deinterlines the crossings and the interlocking north of Rockefeller on the 6th Avenue, the fact that both lines would be operating at 25 trains per hour would mean that service would be more frequent on the trunks.

Now for Queens Blvd itself, removing the (R) would allow for all four lines to take advantages of the existing capacity. For this, I would keep the (E) and (F) on the express track all the way to the interlocking at Van Wyck Blvd (Briarwood), and have the (K) and (V) on the local tracks, 10 tph each. The (E) and (F) terminals would be unchanged, however, the (K) would terminate at 71st Avenue (due to capacity constraints at Jamaica Center), and the (V) would terminate at 179th with the (F) and you already know the plan for the (R).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Minor clarification, 6 Ave can support 28 tph. Ideally 2 services with 14 tph each but possibly 3 services running 9 tph each, though I never recommend running more than 2 services on a single pair of tracks.

We're all in agreement that the (M) eventually has to be taken off 6 Ave in order to increase service on Culver to its max potential. However, I'm not entirely convinced about the Broome St connection - that would permanently halve capacity on Nassau St and 8 Ave south of Spring St. The MTA should be building tunnels that can support 24+ tph.

Not recommended because this turns Culver into a reverse branch, plus the 2 Ave stop transfer exists already. A reconfiguration of the Chrystie St bridge services is probably the better option; there's a few proposals to send the Manhattan Bridge trains up 2 Ave. Then presumably the 6 Ave express tracks would be through-routed over the Williamsburg Bridge.

Or, you could just tie in the current Essex bound Chrystie tracks to the 2nd Ave. line, and run the default_M-70.png up that way. There still might be some resistance to the loss of 6th Ave. service, but it's still Midtown, and not going back to the old poorly used Nassau service. As others have said, that is too popular to give back up now.

Edited by Eric B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Eric B said:

Or, you could just tie in the current Essex bound Chrystie tracks to the 2nd Ave. line, and run the default_M-70.png up that way. There still might be some resistance to the loss of 6th Ave. service, but it's still Midtown, and not going back to the old poorly used Nassau service. As others have said, that is too popular to give back up now.

I’m thinking you’d build new trackways from the existing (M) tracks between Essex and Bway-Laf to accomplish this, while creating a second SAS service in the process. And this :M: could possibly still have the same two terminals as now and the same route in Brooklyn and Queens (Continental to Metro, but via 63rd Street and 2nd Ave, instead of 53rd and 6th like the current service). Presumably, the (V) would then run its old route via 53rd. But then you’d have the (E) and (V) merging at Queens Plaza and the (F) and :M: merging at 36th St. That could get a bit crazy. To avoid all that merging, you could do (E)(F) via 53rd and :M:(V) via 63rd, but then all the QBL expresses would be running via 53rd and there would be no direct service between the local QBL stations and Queens Plaza.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Nassau street service is already halved, since demand does not call for the (J) Train at 14 trains per hour (tph) plus another train at 14 tph. Plus the line is lightly used. Bowery is one of the least used stations that it is already a dump, and the Lexington Avenue Line nearby has room for more passengers. Every other stop on the line see more passengers, even the bigger dumb that is Chambers Street, and the in-good-condition Fulton and Broad Street.

The Broome Street Connection would allow for a connection between the Jamaica Line and an uptown trunk line while at the same time, allowing a Culver express and deinterlining Queens Blvd. Three different objectives that have been expressed by various users here on the forums can all be met by this one simple connection. I’m also proposing new switches between 59th and 42nd on the 8th Avenue IND to allow for the (C) local to switch onto the express at the same time as merging/diverging (D) trains. This alone would make room for an 8th Avenue train to go via Nassau, without reducing service. Under the plans I made, the (M) would become the (K) and use the new Broome Street connection, operating with the (E) via the only possible option via 53rd Street. This allows for the (C) to use the new switches to go express with the (A), speeding up service for Central Park West riders. On the 6th Avenue, with the (M) removed, we can introduce the (V) to be the Culver Express to take on the track capacity on 6th Avenue and the 63rd Street line, where a transfer to the Second Avenue Line would be available.

For Manhattan-Queens Crossings, the (E) and (K) would use the 53rd Street Tunnel and the (F) and (V) would go via 63rd. While this deinterlines the crossings and the interlocking north of Rockefeller on the 6th Avenue, the fact that both lines would be operating at 25 trains per hour would mean that service would be more frequent on the trunks.

Now for Queens Blvd itself, removing the (R) would allow for all four lines to take advantages of the existing capacity. For this, I would keep the (E) and (F) on the express track all the way to the interlocking at Van Wyck Blvd (Briarwood), and have the (K) and (V) on the local tracks, 10 tph each. The (E) and (F) terminals would be unchanged, however, the (K) would terminate at 71st Avenue (due to capacity constraints at Jamaica Center), and the (V) would terminate at 179th with the (F) and you already know the plan for the (R).

1.) The Nassau Street Line sees a considerable amount of ridership. Don't pull opinions out of your head unless you're a frequent (J)/(Z) Line rider like myself who experiences it's operations on a daily basis.

2.) Are you kidding me?! The Lexington Avenue Line doesn't have all the room in the world like you believe to alleviate riders from nearby lines. Even with the opening of the (Q) Second Avenue Line, people still load the (4)/(5)/(6) to the max!

 

Edited by AlgorithmOfTruth
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

1.) The Nassau Street Line sees a considerable amount of ridership. Don't pull opinions out of your head unless you're a frequent (J)/(Z) Line rider like myself who experiences it's operations on a daily basis.

14 trains per hour is definitely enough to cater to Nassau Street demand, especially at levels you experience. With the exception of Bowery, all the stations see a lot of ridership. The ridership statistics for each station are:

Essex Street: 8,128,719

Bowery: 1,327,970

Canal Street: 16,285,516

Chambers Street: 9,360,484

Fulton Street: 26,838,473

Broad Street: 2,056,754

However, with the exception of Bowery and Broad Street, all stations are bust transfer stations that serve multiple lines that serve Midtown. However, if we assume that 10% of passengers at these stations go to the Nassau Street Line, then we yes, there is considerable ridership. The Nassau Street Line does see around 2-2.5 million riders annually so that's pretty decent. However, even with this, every single station sees a higher ridership than Bowery, especially Fulton Street and Broad Street. Its anemic ridership does not warrant another 10 trains to Lower Manhattan stopping there, but if a service went to Midtown, then it could see ridership growth. That's where the proposed Broome Street cut comes in. With a new service form Nassau Street to 8th Avenue, then it could draw more ridership from midtown-bound passengers.

15 minutes ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

2.) Are you kidding me?! The Lexington Avenue Line doesn't have all the room in the world like you believe to alleviate riders from nearby lines. Even with the opening of the (Q) Second Avenue Line, people still load the (4)/(5)/(6) to the max!

Actually, there is room on the (4), (5), and (6) for additional passengers, albeit some. Three days ago, I rode the (5) from Borough Hall to Brooklyn Bridge, and the (6) from Brooklyn Bridge to Bleecker Street. Both of those lines have enough room to accommodate some of the rush hour ridership. Also, if one can walk a few blocks to Broadway, then there is a bus line, the M55, that has ample capacity to serve ridership, and the M103 can provide some service between Bowery and Chambers Street. Plus on the new line, there will be a new Broadway-Lafayette stop that will connect with the Spring Street (6) stop, so that should fill up empty (6) trains there during the PM. Also, at the other end of the connection, where the new line would stop at a new lower level below the 8th Avenue trains, the (E) has capacity for displaced Nassau passengers as well. Since the line ends at World Trade Center, it is a short distance away from Fulton Street, and there, the walk to Broad Street is not that far.

Share this post


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

2.) Are you kidding me?! The Lexington Avenue Line doesn't have all the room in the world like you believe to alleviate riders from nearby lines. Even with the opening of the (Q) Second Avenue Line, people still load the (4)/(5)/(6) to the max!

He's right on this one. Northbound AM rush hour (6) loads aren't that crazy. 

On Nassau, the line certainly gets ridership, but again, a lot of those folks are transfer pax from lines heading north. 

14 hours ago, Eric B said:

Or, you could just tie in the current Essex bound Chrystie tracks to the 2nd Ave. line, and run the default_M-70.png up that way. There still might be some resistance to the loss of 6th Ave. service, but it's still Midtown, and not going back to the old poorly used Nassau service. As others have said, that is too popular to give back up now.

Issue with this is connectivity. Unless you get 8th Avenue service to North Brooklyn somehow, 2nd Ave (M) means that (M) riders lose single transfer access to all Manhattan trunks west of 6th. 

Edited by RR503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

14 trains per hour is definitely enough to cater to Nassau Street demand, especially at levels you experience. With the exception of Bowery, all the stations see a lot of ridership. The ridership statistics for each station are:

Essex Street: 8,128,719

Bowery: 1,327,970

Canal Street: 16,285,516

Chambers Street: 9,360,484

Fulton Street: 26,838,473

Broad Street: 2,056,754

However, with the exception of Bowery and Broad Street, all stations are bust transfer stations that serve multiple lines that serve Midtown. However, if we assume that 10% of passengers at these stations go to the Nassau Street Line, then we yes, there is considerable ridership. The Nassau Street Line does see around 2-2.5 million riders annually so that's pretty decent. However, even with this, every single station sees a higher ridership than Bowery, especially Fulton Street and Broad Street. Its anemic ridership does not warrant another 10 trains to Lower Manhattan stopping there, but if a service went to Midtown, then it could see ridership growth. That's where the proposed Broome Street cut comes in. With a new service form Nassau Street to 8th Avenue, then it could draw more ridership from midtown-bound passengers.

Actually, there is room on the (4), (5), and (6) for additional passengers, albeit some. Three days ago, I rode the (5) from Borough Hall to Brooklyn Bridge, and the (6) from Brooklyn Bridge to Bleecker Street. Both of those lines have enough room to accommodate some of the rush hour ridership. Also, if one can walk a few blocks to Broadway, then there is a bus line, the M55, that has ample capacity to serve ridership, and the M103 can provide some service between Bowery and Chambers Street. Plus on the new line, there will be a new Broadway-Lafayette stop that will connect with the Spring Street (6) stop, so that should fill up empty (6) trains there during the PM. Also, at the other end of the connection, where the new line would stop at a new lower level below the 8th Avenue trains, the (E) has capacity for displaced Nassau passengers as well. Since the line ends at World Trade Center, it is a short distance away from Fulton Street, and there, the walk to Broad Street is not that far.

You have effectively contradicted yourself on all counts. First, you state that the Nassau Street Line is "lighty" used. Then, you proceed to introduce statistics that actually disprove that. I didn't even read the rest of your post afterwards considering that alone. If you want to get somewhere on here you absolutely cannot afford to be hypocritical.

Share this post


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

You have effectively contradicted yourself on all counts. First, you state that the Nassau Street Line is "lighty" used. Then, you proceed to introduce statistics that actually disprove that. I didn't even read the rest of your post afterwards considering that alone. If you want to get somewhere on here you absolutely cannot afford to be hypocritical.

I meant to say lightly used compared to other lines, since others have higher ridership. And FYI, you should read the rest of my post after that.

The point still stands. 14 trains per hour is sufficient for Nassau Street service, and Lexington Avenue service HAS room for more passengers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No Manhattan trunk line should be running at half capacity afaic, even poorly routed Nassau St. Induced demand will bring in the ridership, and for lower Manhattan a combination of

  • 6 Ave local - Rutgers St - Culver local / express
  • 6 Ave express tracks - Jamaica Line
  • 2 Ave local tracks - Manhattan Bridge
  • 2 Ave express tracks - Nassau St - 4 Ave local
  • Broadway local - Fulton local (via new tunnel)

would maximize service on all lines in Brooklyn for generations to come.

Also not running the (6) past City Hall or connecting it with PATH is very poor planning.

Edited by Caelestor
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

No Manhattan trunk line should be running at half capacity afaic, even poorly routed Nassau St. Induced demand will bring in the ridership, and for lower Manhattan a combination of

  • 6 Ave local - Rutgers St - Culver local / express
  • 6 Ave express tracks - Jamaica Line
  • 2 Ave local tracks - Manhattan Bridge
  • 2 Ave express tracks - Nassau St - 4 Ave local
  • Broadway local - Fulton local (via new tunnel)

would maximize service on all lines in Brooklyn for generations to come.

Also not running the (6) past City Hall or connecting it with PATH is very poor planning.

If the switch from BB local track to Fulton St was still there you could have had the (6) running to Bowling Green all times.

Share this post


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

If the switch from BB local track to Fulton St was still there you could have had the (6) running to Bowling Green all times.

Yes, just ignore those pesky (4)(5)s. 

  • LMAO! 1

Share this post


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

If the switch from BB local track to Fulton St was still there you could have had the (6) running to Bowling Green all times.

At the cost of (4) and (5) service into Brooklyn, I don’t think it’s worth having the (6) run to Bowling Green. Plus, there’s plenty of capacity available on the (4) and (5) lines at any hour, including rush hour in the peak.

3 hours ago, Caelestor said:

No Manhattan trunk line should be running at half capacity afaic, even poorly routed Nassau St. Induced demand will bring in the ridership, and for lower Manhattan a combination of

  • 6 Ave local - Rutgers St - Culver local / express
  • 6 Ave express tracks - Jamaica Line
  • 2 Ave local tracks - Manhattan Bridge
  • 2 Ave express tracks - Nassau St - 4 Ave local
  • Broadway local - Fulton local (via new tunnel)

 would maximize service on all lines in Brooklyn for generations to come.

14 trains per hour on Nassau Street (which is half capacity) is more than enough to cater to demand. Not to mention that Lexington Avenue service does have room for additional passengers, plus the M9, M103, and M55 bus lines can also absorb potential (J) passengers (the M103 parallels the (J) from Bowery to Chambers Street). Given all the options, it is okay for Nassau Street service to operate at half capacity (the other half can be covered by buses).

3 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Also not running the (6) past City Hall or connecting it with PATH is very poor planning.

By that vapid logic, so does not running the (1) to Brooklyn.

Edited by JeremiahC99

Share this post


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

Also not running the (6) past City Hall or connecting it with PATH is very poor planning.

I hope you realize merging two different companies is a lot harder than it looks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

I hope you realize merging two different companies is a lot harder than it looks.

That goes double for the notable difference in width.

Share this post


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

Also not running the (6) past City Hall or connecting it with PATH is very poor planning.

Had H&M only built that tunnel to Astor Place...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Had H&M only built that tunnel to Astor Place...

I thought H&M was suppose to connect with MNRR at GCT lower level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 12:15 PM, trainfan22 said:

You can't kill the (M) , Bushwick, Ridgewood, etc LOVE the (M) on 6th Ave and would riot if the Brown M was restored.

Absolutely.

What you'd need to do is do work to get Bergen Lower in order plus an OOS transfer between sides at Bergen and simply make the (F) a full-time express (except late nights) while beefing up (G) service and also having a limited number of (V) trains operating between Church Avenue and 179 (basically, two-thirds of the current (F) trains would run express while the remaining third would be re-lettered (V) and run the same as the (F) after Bergen while the (G) locals are increased to compensate for the loss of some (F) locals).  

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.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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