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

I love how these same people who talk about how we can’t get rid of (M) service act like we can somehow swap (F)(G) roles on Culver without any complaints... they cut two trains during the rush and some pols are already annoyed...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

I love how these same people who talk about how we can’t get rid of (M) service act like we can somehow swap (F)(G) roles on Culver without any complaints... they cut two trains during the rush and some pols are already annoyed...

Some are born to complain because it affects THEIR rides specifically.

This is why for a real (F) express to work, all necessary work (including ADA work) needs to be done to rehab and reopen Bergen Lower so then you can have two-thirds of (F) trains run express with the remainder re-labeled as (V) while the (G) train ALSO is increased by the number of (F) trains per hour running express. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

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).  

No good. Running a (V) local on a whopping 12-minute rush hour headway with beefed up (G) service is a service plan that’s sure to be dead on arrival. It doesn’t matter if you reopen Bergen Lower. It’s just going to be too many people who are being inconvenienced by running two thirds of the combined (F)(V) service express.

No; without increasing (F) service beyond the current 15 tph, it either has to be a 50/50 split like the (MTA) recommended in its most recent (F) express study or an uneven split in favor of the local. Maybe an (F) local at 9 tph and a (V) express at 6 tph (a 60/40 split). And you would need to run the locals south of Church (perhaps terminate them at Avenue X, like the (MTA) study recommended). 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that unless you either cut the express or local trains back to 2nd, there’s really no way you can have decent Culver express service without some radical changes. In the end, these are your options:

a) Have the (M) go back to Nassau and run Metropolitan-Bay Ridge with beefed up (L) service (I’m talking 30+ TPH with tail tracks at 8th and short turn tracks at Atlantic and the like) coupled with major transfer overhauls (4th track at Essex and then closing the NB platform to kill that curve, Bowery-Grand transfer, a mezzanine under Walker St between the tunnel and Nassau platforms with a connection to the (6) so that you won’t use the bridge platforms unless you are actually heading there). In the future I’d have 6th service return by having the (B) to Metropolitan, (D) to Jamaica, (J) Essex-Bay Ridge, and the (T) and another 2nd service run 72nd lower- West End/Brighton express. Problems with this plan are that Phase 3 will take a while and that you’ll be counting on the MTA to be competent in constructing it (ha). The (V) here would run Forest Hills- Church Av via the local the whole way while the (F) runs express and the (G) goes to 18th middle; under this condition you wouldn’t rebuild Bergen lower since you would have decent service on both levels.

b) Add a connection to 8th Av local. This means that you would send the (C) local after 50th and have say the (E)(K) run out to Jamaica ( (E) to Metropolitan and the (K) to Jamaica Center to avoid confusion). This plan is in all honesty a pipe dream (when I proposed it earlier it was really just a fantasy proposal given all the issues it would bring up).

c) Try to squeeze more capacity out of Queens through aggressive deinterlining. Under this you would have the (F)<F>(M) via QBL express/63rd with each running 10 TPH while the (E) runs local from Forest Hills to WTC ( (C) runs express as said in the last proposal). Biggest issues with this are that you’d be pissing off a shit ton of QBL riders by ending express service to 8th/53rd and you’d have to split the <F> between Hillside and Archer to maintain decent service which would be confusing (the (M) would also have to run 9 car trains or have platform extensions to not lose space from 8 car trains). As for Broadway you would have (N)(Q) to 96th with (R)(W) to Astoria). 

In the end if I needed to pick something I’d probably go with A reluctantly as I’d only support it if the MTA made plans to send the (B)(D) out to northern Brooklyn. I’m not going to bother with B and C is only a little better IMO as the furthest I’d go with QBL changes is the (E)(F)(K)(M) plan I’ve proposed before as anything more will screw up people’s commutes and lead to tons of transferring at Roosevelt. I’d only consider C if the (E)(F)(K)(M) plan, CBTC with service increases, and the R211s fail to control QBL dwells and crowding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to wade through the myriad of proposals and instead just touch upon the actual service change announcement. For those complaining about the extreme limitedness of the service, I'm surprised no one has realized that this is the intention. Transit knows this service will fail, which is exactly why they plan on implementing it as such. Few people if any are going to rearrange their schedules and commutes to catch one of the two inbound express trains during the AM rush or the outbound ones in the afternoons, because as we all know, railroad style scheduling does not work on the subway. Transit also knows that they cannot run additional express trains without screwing over Windsor Terrace, Gowanus and Carroll Gardens. When this inevitably fails due to low ridership similar to the Jerome pilot back in '09, Transit can "truthfully" say they tried, but cannot do much else without negatively impacting service elsewhere.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 10

Share this post


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

I'm not going to wade through the myriad of proposals and instead just touch upon the actual service change announcement. For those complaining about the extreme limitedness of the service, I'm surprised no one has realized that this is the intention. Transit knows this service will fail, which is exactly why they plan on implementing it as such. Few people if any are going to rearrange their schedules and commutes to catch one of the two inbound express trains during the AM rush or the outbound ones in the afternoons, because as we all know, railroad style scheduling does not work on the subway. Transit also knows that they cannot run additional express trains without screwing over Windsor Terrace, Gowanus and Carroll Gardens. When this inevitably fails due to low ridership similar to the Jerome pilot back in '09, Transit can "truthfully" say they tried, but cannot do much else without negatively impacting service elsewhere.

Pretty much.

If this somehow fails to fail (as if), what comes after?

Share this post


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

Pretty much.

If this somehow fails to fail (as if), what comes after?

We'll probably get another study, a whole bunch more politicking, and the "grand compromise" will be them adding like one more express, if any. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lance said:

I'm not going to wade through the myriad of proposals and instead just touch upon the actual service change announcement. For those complaining about the extreme limitedness of the service, I'm surprised no one has realized that this is the intention. Transit knows this service will fail, which is exactly why they plan on implementing it as such. Few people if any are going to rearrange their schedules and commutes to catch one of the two inbound express trains during the AM rush or the outbound ones in the afternoons, because as we all know, railroad style scheduling does not work on the subway. Transit also knows that they cannot run additional express trains without screwing over Windsor Terrace, Gowanus and Carroll Gardens. When this inevitably fails due to low ridership similar to the Jerome pilot back in '09, Transit can "truthfully" say they tried, but cannot do much else without negatively impacting service elsewhere.

Yes, because they know Park Slope is going to moan if their precious (F) local is messed with.  
 

10 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

No good. Running a (V) local on a whopping 12-minute rush hour headway with beefed up (G) service is a service plan that’s sure to be dead on arrival. It doesn’t matter if you reopen Bergen Lower. It’s just going to be too many people who are being inconvenienced by running two thirds of the combined (F)(V) service express.

No; without increasing (F) service beyond the current 15 tph, it either has to be a 50/50 split like the (MTA) recommended in its most recent (F) express study or an uneven split in favor of the local. Maybe an (F) local at 9 tph and a (V) express at 6 tph (a 60/40 split). And you would need to run the locals south of Church (perhaps terminate them at Avenue X, like the (MTA) study recommended). 

Park Slope riders need to understand this is about the overall situation, especially for those south of Church.  Doing an (F) express at all times with enhanced (G) service and the (V) replacing the (F) as a local is about overall ridership.  Those who get a (G) would be able to switch at Bergen Lower or at Hoyt-Schermerhorn for the (A)(C).

It's too bad you can't set up Broadway-Lafayette to handle full-time (C)(F) and (M) trains even if you send a limited number of (F) trains via the Crosstown at peak hours as in that scenario, the (C) (rerouted to Rutgers with a limited number of (K) trains running Chambers-168 to accommodate those actually looking for 8th Avenue/CPW local stops from lower Manhattan AND the (E) replacing the (C) in Brooklyn to Euclid and possibly running express with the (A) in Manhattan) could then serve as the Culver Express to Coney Island (giving people on Coney Island an 8th Avenue option they don't currently have).  That would allow a full Culver Express without Park Slope riders complaining about lack of (F) service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Lance said:

I'm not going to wade through the myriad of proposals and instead just touch upon the actual service change announcement. For those complaining about the extreme limitedness of the service, I'm surprised no one has realized that this is the intention. Transit knows this service will fail, which is exactly why they plan on implementing it as such. Few people if any are going to rearrange their schedules and commutes to catch one of the two inbound express trains during the AM rush or the outbound ones in the afternoons, because as we all know, railroad style scheduling does not work on the subway. Transit also knows that they cannot run additional express trains without screwing over Windsor Terrace, Gowanus and Carroll Gardens. When this inevitably fails due to low ridership similar to the Jerome pilot back in '09, Transit can "truthfully" say they tried, but cannot do much else without negatively impacting service elsewhere.

That kind of came up in the back of my mind - that when it fails, they will say they tried and it didn’t work. Perhaps the (MTA)’s 2016 study - http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/F_express.pdf - wasn't such a bad idea after all...

13 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Park Slope riders need to understand this is about the overall situation, especially for those south of Church.  Doing an (F) express at all times with enhanced (G) service and the (V) replacing the (F) as a local is about overall ridership.  Those who get a (G) would be able to switch at Bergen Lower or at Hoyt-Schermerhorn for the (A)(C).

It's too bad you can't set up Broadway-Lafayette to handle full-time (C)(F) and (M) trains even if you send a limited number of (F) trains via the Crosstown at peak hours as in that scenario, the (C) (rerouted to Rutgers with a limited number of (K) trains running Chambers-168 to accommodate those actually looking for 8th Avenue/CPW local stops from lower Manhattan AND the (E) replacing the (C) in Brooklyn to Euclid and possibly running express with the (A) in Manhattan) could then serve as the Culver Express to Coney Island (giving people on Coney Island an 8th Avenue option they don't currently have).  That would allow a full Culver Express without Park Slope riders complaining about lack of (F) service.

Well then, you can be the one to tell them that. See for yourself how they react. 

No, running (C)(F)(M) together between West 4th and 2nd Ave is and will always be a recipe for disaster. But @R68OnBroadwayand @JeremiahC99’s suggestions to have a connection between Bowery and Spring St (C)(E) seems like a way around that. A way to still have a direct Midtown connection from the WillyB, plus have a regularly scheduled express between Jay St and Church Ave.

22 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The problem is that unless you either cut the express or local trains back to 2nd, there’s really no way you can have decent Culver express service without some radical changes. In the end, these are your options:

...

b) Add a connection to 8th Av local. This means that you would send the (C) local after 50th and have say the (E)(K) run out to Jamaica ( (E) to Metropolitan and the (K) to Jamaica Center to avoid confusion). This plan is in all honesty a pipe dream (when I proposed it earlier it was really just a fantasy proposal given all the issues it would bring up).

c) Try to squeeze more capacity out of Queens through aggressive deinterlining. Under this you would have the (F)<F>(M) via QBL express/63rd with each running 10 TPH while the (E) runs local from Forest Hills to WTC ( (C) runs express as said in the last proposal). Biggest issues with this are that you’d be pissing off a shit ton of QBL riders by ending express service to 8th/53rd and you’d have to split the <F> between Hillside and Archer to maintain decent service which would be confusing (the (M) would also have to run 9 car trains or have platform extensions to not lose space from 8 car trains). As for Broadway you would have (N)(Q) to 96th with (R)(W) to Astoria). 

...

I’d only consider C if the (E)(F)(K)(M) plan, CBTC with service increases, and the R211s fail to control QBL dwells and crowding.

Why do think option B is a pipe dream? Compared to some of the other suggestions I’ve seen here (and elsewhere, including from the (MTA) themselves), this one actually seems quite doable. 

The part I bolded probably sums up best why option C wouldn’t work. Not to mention that the Roosevelt Avenue platforms would be completely intolerable with all the transferring that would be needed between the (E) and the (F)<F>(M).

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


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

That kind of came up in the back of my mind - that when it fails, they will say they tried and it didn’t work. Perhaps the (MTA)’s 2016 study - http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/F_express.pdf - wouldn’t sound like a bad idea now...

Well then, you can be the one to tell them that. See for yourself how they react. 

No, running (C)(F)(M) together between West 4th and 2nd Ave is and will always be a recipe for disaster. But @R68OnBroadwayand @JeremiahC99’s suggestions to have a connection between Bowery and Spring St (C)(E) seems like a way around that. A way to still have a direct Midtown connection from the WillyB, plus have a regularly scheduled express between Jay St and Church Ave.

Why do think option B is a pipe dream? Compared to some of the other suggestions I’ve seen here (and elsewhere, including from the (MTA) themselves), this one actually seems quite doable. 

The part I bolded probably sums up best why option C wouldn’t work. Not to mention that the Roosevelt Avenue platforms would be completely intolerable with all the transferring that would be needed.

I’d consider B a pipe dream given the MTA’s lack of thoughtful planning. It would also be difficult in terms of transfers as you’d only have transfers to 6th and 8th (maybe have a Spring-Houston (1) transfer for 7th access). With it considered thought, here’s my way to structure service:

Have the (E) run out there via 8th local ((C) express south of 59th) with the (E) to Metropolitan and the (K) to WTC. Benefits of this plan is that you can get more terminals for the (E) but you would need to rebuild Myrtle Junction and make some bridge improvements or you’d be forcing (J) service to be stuck at 10 tph. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

I’d consider B a pipe dream given the MTA’s lack of thoughtful planning. It would also be difficult in terms of transfers as you’d only have transfers to 6th and 8th (maybe have a Spring-Houston (1) transfer for 7th access). With it considered thought, here’s my way to structure service:

Have the (E) run out there via 8th local ((C) express south of 59th) with the (E) to Metropolitan and the (K) to WTC. Benefits of this plan is that you can get more terminals for the (E) but you would need to rebuild Myrtle Junction and make some bridge improvements or you’d be forcing (J) service to be stuck at 10 tph. 

That would force the (E) into using shorter trains, given the Myrtle Avenue Line and Fresh Pond Yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lex said:

That would force the (E) into using shorter trains, given the Myrtle Avenue Line and Fresh Pond Yard.

I forgot to mention that the platforms would be extended, but then again you could just swap the (E) and (K) . (Thinking about it though, it makes more sense so the (E)s crowds are from mainly QBL while the (K)s are mainly from northern Brooklyn.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Lex said:

That would force the (E) into using shorter trains, given the Myrtle Avenue Line and Fresh Pond Yard.

In that case, there would have to be a project to expand/rearrange Jamaica and Myrtle stations to accommodate 10 car trains. What can be done is a (C) to Metro since that’s 8 cars anyways. (E) WTC and (K) via 8th Express and Fulton. Even though that creates a bottleneck, it’s still doable.

Edited by LaGuardia Link N Tra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

In that case, there would have to be a project to expand/rearrange Jamaica and Myrtle stations to accommodate 10 car trains. What can be done is a (C) to Metro since that’s 8 cars anyways. (E) WTC and (K) via 8th Express and Fulton. Even though that creates a bottleneck, it’s still doable.

Let’s not create a high frequency merge at 42nd please.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a journalist at Columbia Journalism School who is covering the contention surrounding this switch. Is anybody here interested in talking about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about having a seperate designation called the (V) which operates Culver Express but Queens Blvd Local?

Share this post


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

What about having a seperate designation called the (V) which operates Culver Express but Queens Blvd Local?

That is what I was thinking for my Nassau-8th Avenue connection plans. Here, during weekdays, the (F) and (V) would operate between the same terminals, with the same route, with the difference is that in Queens, the (F) would be express between 179th Street and 21st Street Queensbridge, and the (V) would be local between those two points. In Brooklyn, the (V) would be the Culver Express and the (F) would be the Culver Local. The reason I went down this path is to match the Brighton Line nomenclature, in which the full time line is local and the part time line is express, easing confusion and ensuring that the full time lines serve the same pattern as much as possible.

In addition, there will be service changes on the 8th Avenue Line due to the construction of the new connections. Since the (M) will be moved to the 8th Avenue Line, room needs to be made to accommodate the lines. To solve this, a new interlocking between the 59th Street interlocking (where the (B) and (D) split) and the 50th Street station would be built so that trains switching between local and express tracks would do so without interfering with 6th Avenue trains. With this, the (C) would switch to the express tracks with the (A) south of 59th Street instead of at Canal Street. In its place, the (M) would become the (K) (or Blue M is riders complain about the designation), operating between Jamaica-179th Street, via the 53rd Street Tunnel, 8th Avenue Local, the new connection with a stop at a new Broadway-Lafayette Street, and continue to Metropolitan Avenue as it does presently. This would also provide more efficient service. The (K) would join the (V) as the Queens Blvd Locals to 179 and we already know what we want with the (R) (don't feel like repeating myself here with this one)

The following services would use each line:

8th Avenue (Lower): (A)(C)(E)(K). Local routes: (E)(K). Express Routes: (A)(C)

8th Avenue (Upper): (A)(B)(C)(D) (Note: service unchanged)

6th Avenue: (B)(D)(F)(V). Local routes: (F)(V). Express Routes: (B)(D)

53rd Street: (E)(K)

63rd Street: (F)(V)

Queens Blvd Line: (E)(F)(K)(V) Local routes: (K)(V). Express routes: (E)(F).

Culver Line: (F)(G)(V). Local Routes: (F)(G). Express Routes: (V)

Astoria Line: (R)

Second Avenue Line: (N)(Q)

Broadway Line: (N)(Q)(R). Local routes: (R). Express routes: (N)(Q)

Jamaica and Myrtle Lines: (J)(Z)(K). (K) route to Metro Avenue.

Note: All other lines unchanged.

Table of service patterns: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Czt-oZZEwntZiRS_6mvz-EWhJwYK18ZE6iN-4Q6nKsk/edit?usp=sharing

A map would be available soon.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

What about having a seperate designation called the (V) which operates Culver Express but Queens Blvd Local?

Why would you run something that way when it offers absolutely no tangible benefit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If it runs to/from 71st Ave via QB local and has a different terminal in Brooklyn from the local (F), then why wouldn’t it make sense to use (V)? For now though, it makes sense to use <F>, because they’re only doing two northbound trains in the am and two southbound in the pm.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Lex said:

Why would you run something that way when it offers absolutely no tangible benefit?

I had that idea too for my Nassau-8th Avenue connection changes. I went that way to have as many services serve the same stations terminals, and routes at all times except late nights, while at the same time, taking into consideration rider demand (in short, nomenclature issues) This includes a tactic employed on the nearby Brighton Line where the part time line is express, and the full time line is local. In the case of the Brighton Line, the part-time (B) is the part-time express, and the full time (Q) is local. In the case of the Culver line, the part time (V) would be the part-time Culver express, and the (F) would continue to be the full-time Culver Local, ensuring service consistency from a customer service perspective. (V) service into Brooklyn would operate weekdays only, as the consensus seems to be that express service is to be on weekdays only. Note that the (F) and (V) would both travel south of Church Avenue.

21 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If it runs to/from 71st Ave via QB local and has a different terminal in Brooklyn from the local (F), then why wouldn’t it make sense to use (V)? For now though, it makes sense to use <F>, because they’re only doing two northbound trains in the am and two southbound in the pm.

This is why I did not elect to have one of the two lines terminate at Church Avenue. However, I am considering pulling a (B) train move and terminating the part-time (V) at Kings Hwy and letting the full time (F) run to Coney Island. Avenue U, Avenue X, Neptune Avenue, West 8th Street, and Coney Island ALL have nearby express train alternatives that are easily and readily accessible by a quick and fun bus ride (via B1, B3, B68 and others), not to mention that West 8th Street and Coney Island already have fast express service, especially the (N), whose stations were already renovated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If it runs to/from 71st Ave via QB local and has a different terminal in Brooklyn from the local (F), then why wouldn’t it make sense to use (V)? For now though, it makes sense to use <F>, because they’re only doing two northbound trains in the am and two southbound in the pm.

You're talking about running a train via Queens Boulevard Local and Culver Express. Given how both are structured, anything using Culver Express would be better suited for Queens Boulevard Express, especially once we factor distance into the equation. (This is a completely different situation from, say, White Plains Road and Eastern Parkway.)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I had that idea too for my Nassau-8th Avenue connection changes. I went that way to have as many services serve the same stations terminals, and routes at all times except late nights, while at the same time, taking into consideration rider demand (in short, nomenclature issues) This includes a tactic employed on the nearby Brighton Line where the part time line is express, and the full time line is local. In the case of the Brighton Line, the part-time (B) is the part-time express, and the full time (Q) is local. In the case of the Culver line, the part time (V) would be the part-time Culver express, and the (F) would continue to be the full-time Culver Local, ensuring service consistency from a customer service perspective. (V) service into Brooklyn would operate weekdays only, as the consensus seems to be that express service is to be on weekdays only. Note that the (F) and (V) would both travel south of Church Avenue.

This is why I did not elect to have one of the two lines terminate at Church Avenue. However, I am considering pulling a (B) train move and terminating the part-time (V) at Kings Hwy and letting the full time (F) run to Coney Island. Avenue U, Avenue X, Neptune Avenue, West 8th Street, and Coney Island ALL have nearby express train alternatives that are easily and readily accessible by a quick and fun bus ride (via B1, B3, B68 and others), not to mention that West 8th Street and Coney Island already have fast express service, especially the (N), whose stations were already renovated.

Yes, they should both travel south of Church, with one of them terminating at Kings Highway. It doesn’t necessarily have to be the express (V), and the (V) might have better ridership if it goes all the way to Coney Island. Given how the stops between KH and Church have relatively low ridership, if local (F) trains start at Kings Highway, they wouldn’t have all that many passengers on board before they begin to take on the larger crowds at the stops north of Church. I think ridership on both services would be a bit more balanced this way. However, the stops south of KH would be served by the (V) on weekdays and the (F) nights and weekends, which some might find confusing. Though having a line diagram at the Brooklyn stops with the service patterns of both the (F) and (V) might ease the confusion.

7 hours ago, Lex said:

You're talking about running a train via Queens Boulevard Local and Culver Express. Given how both are structured, anything using Culver Express would be better suited for Queens Boulevard Express, especially once we factor distance into the equation. (This is a completely different situation from, say, White Plains Road and Eastern Parkway.)

Just because one service is local in Queens doesn’t mean it also has to be local in Brooklyn.

This is also a different case from QB because you’d have the (F) local and (V) express merging back in with each other south of Church (unlike the (A) and (C), which merge from four to two tracks at Canal, then back to four after Hoyt). They have to because the (G) already terminates at Church and the relay tracks apparently are even worse at turning two services than the 71st Av relays are. So it really shouldn’t be problematic if the (V) is local in Queens, but express in Brooklyn.

Share this post


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

Just because one service is local in Queens doesn’t mean it also has to be local in Brooklyn.

What.

The point is to have logical routes based on service patterns. Having the setup you're describing isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Lex said:

What.

The point is to have logical routes based on service patterns. Having the setup you're describing isn't.

So how do you explain the (B) ?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is ever a local/express split between the (F)(V) then whichever route runs via Culver local should end at Church with the (G) to 18th middle. There’s really no reason for the local to go past Church as nobody wants a slower train and the (F) doesn’t need another merge. If we also go for 10-15 tph on the local to keep good headways, you’ll never be able to turn that many trains at Kings Highway. 

When it comes to which line from Queens runs express, it should be from QBL express as that line would run further out and thus need a shorter runtime to prevent reliability issues, especially given its longer distance. (Now before you talk about the longer QBL local route, you would cut everything from that line south of Church so it would be more justified to run whichever line was already express.)

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.