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

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

So how do you explain the (B) ?

And how, exactly, does the (B) fit into this?

I'm specifically talking about a combination of service on two outer 4-track lines, a local/express pattern somewhat akin to a theoretical White Plains Road Express swap, and an overlap that was actually employed by the B44 during the early SBS days (with a few exceptions, buses from both ends would actually run from one end to a midpoint, then double back, as opposed to the current setup, which is more logical, as buses serving one end will serve the other, while buses starting at a midpoint will end at a midpoint).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2019 at 11:05 AM, 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.

The enthusiasm of some posters never ceases to amaze me. If they would only stop,  take a deep breath and then look at reality I think they would see the big picture.  Any plans for new construction are DOA. New tunneling and interlockings appears to be fantasy IMO. I doubt that phase 2 of the SAS will ever be completed. I'm looking at these grandiose plans for the Nassau Street line and it appears that many people have overlooked the obvious. Those tracks and platforms were abandoned because the MTA deemed them unnecessary and a waste of money to maintain. Bergen lower is another location where the MTA doesn't see the need to rehab and re-open. When a few of us asked about the removal of the switches at Freeman St on the WPR line we were told that they were removed to save money,  period. Never mind the loss of operational flexibility.  Never mind that our old G.O.s took out service from Freeman to East 180 and buses were provided now a G.O. in that area means bus service from Third Avenue to East 180 instead . It's my opinion that many of the posts,  however well thought out,  will never be considered if they cost money or political capital. My subway posters should pay more attention to the Surface threads.  Those folks know the routine.  If it's not cost neutral  it's not happening.  Maybe someone should put a bug in Andrew's ear. He is the only person who can change that mantra.  My opinion.  Carry on.

  • Thanks 1
  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

My subway posters should pay more attention to the Surface threads.  Those folks know the routine.  If it's not cost neutral it's not happening.

What's never considered is that (so-called) cost neutrality represents the top of the proverbial totem pole.... It's put out there (not necessarily by you, but by the MTA & whoever else puts stock in it) as if it's the ultimate aim, when it is not.... If (or should I say, when) some service alteration of some sort ends up resulting in a fiscal savings, that's when the real success is achieved...

Fact of the matter is that there's just so many cuts (whether on the physical routes themselves or service levels) that the buses have underwent over the years, that you hardly see much of anyone in the bus section posting ideas anymore; esp. the outlandish ones..... For me, it's to the point I don't even want to discuss the ridership figures that just came out....

If, analogously speaking, trying to fix the bus network is like trying to piece together a jigsaw puzzle, then I'd say trying to fix the subway network is akin to untangling tangled wires.... All boils down to how "untangled" some believe the subway system to be over others on here, I suppose.... In any case, I've never said it (up until this point anyway), but ever since I started perusing transit forums (the first being RD/Straps), I have always gotten the sense that those that make subway proposals do so, for no other reason, except for the sake of experiencing a new & different service pattern - not for any benefit for any commuter whatsoever...

On ‎7‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 11:05 AM, 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.

I've gotten used to dodging subway bullets.... If I see a post with a plethora of them, to be quite frank, I gloss right over it.... Whether fairly or unfairly, it's dismissed as some proposal discussion I want zero part of.....

Anyway, this bit reminds me of the (E) to/from 179th.... IIRC, it's only what, 3 trains each way or w/e..... Much of how many of any masses are (not) planning their commutes around that, is right; esp. for the PM rush....

Edited by B35 via Church
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

Anyway, this bit reminds me of the (E) to/from 179th.... IIRC, it's only what, 3 trains each way or w/e..... Much of how many of any masses are (not) planning their commutes around that, is right; esp. for the PM rush....

Hell, if they could turn more trains at Jamaica Center, I seriously doubt those trains would even serve Hillside Avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ten bucks says this dies by this time next year. I just don't see a path to success for a service that runs at 2tph frequencies on a line with the reliability issues of the (F). People will look at the clocks, see the train they thought would arrive in 5 will arrive in 15 and just take the local. 

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Ten bucks says this dies by this time next year. I just don't see a path to success for a service that runs at 2tph frequencies on a line with the reliability issues of the (F). People will look at the clocks, see the train they thought would arrive in 5 will arrive in 15 and just take the local. 


You could bet a lot more than that. Northbound F express trips would save seven minutes of running time; southbound f express trips would save six minutes. In the morning, the schedules of local F trips on either side of the expresses would be adjusted to even out headways, increasing average wait times at the six local stops between Church Avenue and Jay Street-MetroTech by one to one-and-a-half minutes during that brief period.

Trains are supposed to run every 4 minutes. Won't this screw up schedules on the (G) , (M) , (J), (Z) , and worst of all the (E)?

 

This gets me very annoyed:

Given the overall ridership level on the F in Brooklyn, and the fact that the F must share tracks with the M in Manhattan and the E in Queens, additional service on the F in Brooklyn is not warranted or practical, which means that any express operation of the F must be accomplished by converting existing local trips to express trips.

It absolutely is needed, and can be done with deinterlining!
 

Edited by Union Tpke
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Trains are supposed to run every 4 minutes. Won't this screw up schedules on the (G) , (M) , (J), (Z) , and worst of all the (E)?

This is a good point. I have a feeling they’ll put some holds in to make merges work on paper, but yeah, this could get ugly. Making a mental note to track it...

4 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

It absolutely is needed, and can be done with deinterlining!

I live along the (F), but don’t use it for my commute to Lower Manhattan because a) the transfer to the (R) is bad and b) trains get so crowded that when I do take that route, I frequently have to pass up a train. I walk the mile or so to the IRT and use that instead. Culver is bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RR503 said:

This is a good point. I have a feeling they’ll put some holds in to make merges work on paper, but yeah, this could get ugly. Making a mental note to track it...

I live along the (F), but don’t use it for my commute to Lower Manhattan because a) the transfer to the (R) is bad and b) trains get so crowded that when I do take that route, I frequently have to pass up a train. I walk the mile or so to the IRT and use that instead. Culver is bad. 

I never have had to pass up a train because I always get right near the doors before they open, take my backpack on my back and find my way into the center of the car. But, yes, the (F) is awful, which is why the <F> will make things worse.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly I think this will die by Christmas...

I also can't wait until they throw a R46 on the <F> and they don't have the diamond F symbol and all hell breaks loose...

22 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

This gets me very annoyed:

Given the overall ridership level on the F in Brooklyn, and the fact that the F must share tracks with the M in Manhattan and the E in Queens, additional service on the F in Brooklyn is not warranted or practical, which means that any express operation of the F must be accomplished by converting existing local trips to express trips.

It absolutely is needed, and can be done with deinterlining!

Frankly the Jamaica line-6th Avenue connection is more valuable to the movement of people than Culver express and that's why you shouldn't deinterline that.

However if you were to do that you could:

-extend the (brownM) to Bay Ridge at all times

-cut the (R) back to Whitehall-Astoria Ditmars (eliminating the (W))

-institute the (K) on 8th/QBL

-bring back the (V) (via 63rd this time) from Forest Hills to Church Av

however there would be a lot of infrastructure improvements you'd have to make for that to work and not overcrowd Essex and Canal...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

They should do 4 Express (F) trains instead of 2 during rush hours.

Edited by bwwnyc123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

Frankly the Jamaica line-6th Avenue connection is more valuable to the movement of people than Culver express and that's why you shouldn't deinterline that.

However if you were to do that you could:

-extend the (brownM) to Bay Ridge at all times

-cut the (R) back to Whitehall-Astoria Ditmars (eliminating the (W))

-institute the (K) on 8th/QBL

-bring back the (V) (via 63rd this time) from Forest Hills to Church Av

however there would be a lot of infrastructure improvements you'd have to make for that to work and not overcrowd Essex and Canal...

I was thinking of a (K) service via 8th Avenue when coming up with plans for an 8th Avenue-Nassau connector. This would replace the (M), and would operate on the same route. The difference is that service would be via 8th Avenue instead of 6th Avenue. This would allow for a Culver express service to return in the form of the (V), which would operate the Culver Express routing during weekdays and terminate at 2nd Avenue on weekends. This service will be a duplicate of the (F), except via Culver Express In Brooklyn and Queens Blvd Local in Queens all the way to 179th Street. The result would be that the (K) and (V) would be on the local track and be (E) and (F) would be unchanged on the express.

Since the (K) would be operating on Queens Blvd Local with the (V), both at 10 trains per hour, there is no room for the (R). Here, the (R) would be rerouted to Astoria full time, and the (N) would join the (Q) to 96th Street. I’m also considering connecting Whitehall Street to Hoyt-Schemerhorn’s outer local tracks via provisions south of Whitehall, a new under river tunnel, and the Court Street station, which is now the NY Transit Museum. With this, I am proposing to reroute the (R) from Bay Ridge and use this new link to Hoyt-Schmerhorn. From there, the line would run local to Euclid Avenue. This would allow for the (R)’s fleet of cars to be maintained at Pitkin Yard with direct access, and with the (R) running at 15 trains per hour merge free, local service on both Broadway Local and Fulton Local would be more frequent.

With the (K) on Lower 8th Avenue, and the (R) on Fulton Street, the (C) would be moved to the express tracks south of 59th Street. New construction of switches south of 59th Street would allow (C) trains to make this switch simultaneously with merging (D) trains. In addition (C) service would run express on the Fulton Line and out to the lightly-used Rockaway Park Branch, letting the more frequent (A) use the heavily used Lefferts Blvd and Far Rockaway Branches. Both local and express service would be more frequent with local (R) at 15 trains per hour and express (A)(C) at 25 trains per hour combined, and this won’t create any delays since there will be ZERO merging.

To replace (R) service to Bay Ridge, (J)(Z) service would be extended from Broad Street to Bay Ridge-95th Street. At 14 trains per hour, 4th Avenue Local service would become more frequent. At night, a (J) shuttle would operate between Whitehall and 95th Street, and (J) service would terminate at Broad st. I’m still working this one out.

What exists now is a new system that removes most interlines and makes both local and express service more frequent. In addition,  ew service that have not been tried in a long time are created and operated at a good frequency. Most passengers will still have a one-seat ride to their area, with only a slight walk needed. Those who do need to transfer, with frequent services, the wait time won’t be long.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the MTA's track record on capital projects, I would not expect to see the 8th Avenue-Nassau Street connection built in my lifetime even if they announced it tomorrow...

Any deinterlining scheme would require working within the constraints of the existing track layout in order to be successful.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/19/2019 at 3:59 PM, Union Tpke said:


You could bet a lot more than that. Northbound F express trips would save seven minutes of running time; southbound f express trips would save six minutes. In the morning, the schedules of local F trips on either side of the expresses would be adjusted to even out headways, increasing average wait times at the six local stops between Church Avenue and Jay Street-MetroTech by one to one-and-a-half minutes during that brief period.

Trains are supposed to run every 4 minutes. Won't this screw up schedules on the (G) , (M) , (J), (Z) , and worst of all the (E)?

 

This gets me very annoyed:

Given the overall ridership level on the F in Brooklyn, and the fact that the F must share tracks with the M in Manhattan and the E in Queens, additional service on the F in Brooklyn is not warranted or practical, which means that any express operation of the F must be accomplished by converting existing local trips to express trips.

It absolutely is needed, and can be done with deinterlining!
 

<F> express service is needed, but additional service on the (F) is not warranted? Extra trains per hour definitely aren’t practical, not with all the merging you mentioned.  

The (MTA)’s 2016 study called for an even split between local and express service to make the merge between them at Bergen as smooth as possible. Then again, this being the New York City subway, no merge is ever really smooth.  

On 7/20/2019 at 4:34 PM, Around the Horn said:

With the MTA's track record on capital projects, I would not expect to see the 8th Avenue-Nassau Street connection built in my lifetime even if they announced it tomorrow...

Any deinterlining scheme would require working within the constraints of the existing track layout in order to be successful.

This is true. Truth be told, while a Nassau -8th Avenue connection might be a big help with deinterlining, it will not be cheap to do and it will take years of being studied to death just before ground can be broken on it. And truthfully, the current (M) service is working. Nassau-8th is a “nice-to-have” project, but it isn’t necessarily needed. 

And as far having a practical version of the <F> express goes that isn’t the (MTA)’s 2016 recommendation, I feel like it’s either bring back the separate (brownM) and (V) services or squeeze more tph out of Queens through deinterlining, perhaps something along the lines of what @R68OnBroadway suggested up thread (the option C in his post on page 3). But maybe not with the (E) running as the sole Queens Blvd local/53rd Street service.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had wondered if some (E)'s could be extended to Church to allow the  (F) to run express, though the objection is usually that Cranberry is at capacity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Eric B said:

I had wondered if some (E)'s could be extended to Church to allow the  (F) to run express, though the objection is usually that Cranberry is at capacity. 

That will cause a service cut in the opposite direction towards Queens during PM rush hour, which arguably has higher ridership than (F) local stations along Culver (that’s assuming the MTA doesn’t add any additional trains)

Edited by Mtatransit

Share this post


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

I had wondered if some (E)'s could be extended to Church to allow the  (F) to run express, though the objection is usually that Cranberry is at capacity. 

Do that and you make the Canal St merge worse, and you add the MetroTech merge to slow (A)(C)(F). Or you slow the entire Manhattan IND because of merges at West 4th.

Although I do wonder how it is that vintage (E) ran to Brooklyn way back when without all he’ll breaking loose.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Do that and you make the Canal St merge worse, and you add the MetroTech merge to slow (A)(C)(F). Or you slow the entire Manhattan IND because of merges at West 4th.

Although I do wonder how it is that vintage (E) ran to Brooklyn way back when without all he’ll breaking loose.

Less timers? Less speed restrictions? More TPH? With the way the system is, I don’t doubt that this system’s shortcomings are so much more apparent with even just a little more pressure.

Share this post


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

Do that and you make the Canal St merge worse, and you add the MetroTech merge to slow (A)(C)(F). Or you slow the entire Manhattan IND because of merges at West 4th.

Although I do wonder how it is that vintage (E) ran to Brooklyn way back when without all he’ll breaking loose.

Wouldn't you be removing the merge at Canal St if the (E) were to continue to Brooklyn?

Share this post


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

Wouldn't you be removing the merge at Canal St if the (E) were to continue to Brooklyn?

Nope. All you'd be doing is a bit of shuffling at that point, to say nothing of Brooklyn or Cranberry...

Share this post


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

Wouldn't you be removing the merge at Canal St if the (E) were to continue to Brooklyn?

Nope. To go to Bk, (C) merges onto the express track. Local goes to WTC.

Share this post


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

Although I do wonder how it is that vintage (E) ran to Brooklyn way back when without all he’ll breaking loose.

8 hours ago, CenSin said:

Less timers? Less speed restrictions? More TPH? With the way the system is, I don’t doubt that this system’s shortcomings are so much more apparent with even just a little more pressure.

We have to Consider a few advantages that no longer exist. The (E) ran to Church as part of the initial IND-Culver Pattern. When the (E) ran to Church the 6th ave line didn't exist at all. Coming in and out of W4th they would only have to compete for track space with the CC which did all of the local lifting at this point in the history of the system, it then had an unopposed run out to Church. Trains during this period varied between 4-8cars although they quickly upgraded to 10 (and even 11) car trains post war. So they had trains with better acceleration/deceleration, that were shorter (thus clearing the interlocking faster), fewer conflicting moves, yes fewer timers,  and even the downstream conflicts were fewer (the (G) didn't yet run on QBL). The (E) ran QBL all by its lonesome until the (G) was finished and took up QBL local duties. During this entire period there were no merges at Queens Plaza, or 36th or 53rd. All the way until 1955 when the QT extended to Continental through the 11th St Cut when finally something resembling today's service pattern begins to form, even then the QT was day time only. The (G) was easier to manage since it was a short shuttle basically and the QT was part time, after 7pm service ramped down to basically the (E)(F) running the whole show. 

1940s-1950s:

Merge at 53rd, Semi-merge Continental (which can mainly be controlled by dispatching rates at Hillside). 


1960s-1970s:

Merge at 53rd, 36th, Semi-merge at CTLl.

1970-1980s:

53rd, 36th, CTL merge

Archer Street:

53rd, 36th, CTL  or Briarwood low volume terminal at Jamaica Center 

2001 onward:

53rd, QP, 36th, CTL  or Briarwood low volume terminal at Jamaica Center, (G) effectively removed from QBL and replaced with full length (V) or (M) which people actually ride, thus increasing dwell and clear times.

Today:

53rd, QP, 36th, CTL  or Briarwood low volume terminal at Jamaica Center, (M), construction on QBL impacting the (F) or other construction impacting the lines that influence the (F). 

It isn't that the system is under slightly more pressure it has more expansive service without the requisite improvements to terminals. In an ideal world, 179 would have all the express  service and JC would have all the local routes with Continental reduced to a short turn location. But the amount of effort needed to get JC to a 24tph terminal and the political suicide of 'Mah Express Service!' will never allow that.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Jsunflyguy said:

It isn't that the system is under slightly more pressure it has more expansive service without the requisite improvements to terminals. In an ideal world, 179 would have all the express  service and JC would have all the local routes with Continental reduced to a short turn location. But the amount of effort needed to get JC to a 24tph terminal and the political suicide of 'Mah Express Service!' will never allow that.

All express to 179 means no more service to Supthin/Hillside. Flipping that could work, but then you end up with the reverse of the political situation you describe. 

I’m not sure I agree with your thesis on terminal capacity. Between CTL and 179, QB has, since the 50s, been endowed with more terminal capacity than can be used (provided that capacity is operated well, of course). Our terminals suffer in that latter respect, but all the same I think the sheer complexity of modern day service patterns and the unforgiving modern operating environment are more contributors to the (E)’s malaise than a lack of turning capacity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, RR503 said:

All express to 179 means no more service to Supthin/Hillside. Flipping that could work, but then you end up with the reverse of the political situation you describe. 

 

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. I refer to the (E)(F) going to 179th full time with the E/F running Hillside Local/Express as they have for generations. With the (M)(R) running local to Jamaica Center. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What could they do is extend (M) and making local stops between Forest Hills 71 and 179 St, meanwhile (F) operate Express weekdays or Rush hours only. (E) service remain the same and (R) service remain the same.

Edited by bwwnyc123

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.