CPW Deinterline: 8 Av vs 6 Av: Which should go Express? + Bonus Information

[MTA Researcher]

I am siding with 8 Av Exp getting CPW Express:

 

A - 207 st - far rockaway - cpw/8 av exp - fulton st exp

K - 205 st - lefferts blvd - concourse exp (rush hours) - cpw/8 av exp - fulton st exp

C - 168 st - euclid av - unchanged

B - 168 st - brighton beach - cpw lcl - 6 av exp

D - bedford park blvd / 145 st - coney islamd - concourse lcl (rush hours) cpw lcl - 6 av exp

 

Bonus Information

I'm trying to help A train here with K train to lefferts, while deinterlining cpw. of course i would like to eliminate rock park shuttle by giving that area direct access to the city with K train, but then C would have to go to lefferts and that would make it the next R train... extremely slow.....

 

What do you think about this idea?

 

Also tell me which line should get express dibs on CPW: 8 Av or 6 Av?

[Vulturious]

3 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

I am siding with 8 Av Exp getting CPW Express:

 

A - 207 st - far rockaway - cpw/8 av exp - fulton st exp

K - 205 st - lefferts blvd - concourse exp (rush hours) - cpw/8 av exp - fulton st exp

C - 168 st - euclid av - unchanged

B - 168 st - brighton beach - cpw lcl - 6 av exp

D - bedford park blvd / 145 st - coney islamd - concourse lcl (rush hours) cpw lcl - 6 av exp

 

Bonus Information

I'm trying to help A train here with K train to lefferts, while deinterlining cpw. of course i would like to eliminate rock park shuttle by giving that area direct access to the city with K train, but then C would have to go to lefferts and that would make it the next R train... extremely slow.....

 

What do you think about this idea?

 

Also tell me which line should get express dibs on CPW: 8 Av or 6 Av?

Ok, starting off with the last question of which line should run express along CPW, there is no easy way to say which line should. For starters, having both 6 Av and 8 Av service as express give people that direct express service and for a long stretch. Because there is no easy way, I personally think the current line-up might have to stick around. This isn't like trying to de-interline Dekalb Av because all trains running along the Manhattan Bridge are running to Coney Island anyway (almost with the exception of the ). 

As for about the idea in general, I don't think it's entirely good. 

Let's focus on the  and , first we got three lines running along the same track between Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts and Canal St. Threes lines on the same track is never usually a good idea, take a look at Broadway for example. Nothing is changing with the  either in terms of service along with service for Lefferts Branch. The reason why is because the  and  have to share the same trains per hour, you can't have more service coming from one line unless you decrease the other line. Last I checked, service on the  is a split even with half of the trains running to Lefferts and the other half to the Rockaways. If the  wasn't involved along Fulton whatsoever or some other service was able to access Fulton without mixing in with the  and , you can maximize service on both lines because you don't have this weird merging issue anymore. However, nothing is being changed. Then you got the issue of those service splitting up at 145 St, half the service going to Concourse and the other half to Inwood. I don't know how well that is going to work out. While I don't mind Lefferts trains being signed up as the , it should be kept with the current service with both the  and  going to Inwood and splitting up at Rockaway Blvd. This would help get rid of confusion for anyone wanting service to Lefferts or towards JFK.

Now that we got the issue of CPW involved. We also got three different lines running along the same track which is between 59 St-Columbus Circle and 145 St, that being the , , and . Like I said earlier, three lines on the same track is never usually a good idea. In fact, it's even worse here especially for the . That line now has to deal with not only an extra line, that being the , but the  as well. How exactly is this service supposed to run? You practically doing nothing for  service except making it worse. People that live along Fulton, especially trying to take local service are shafted entirely. This also goes for people along 8 Av and CPW for anyone that want 8 Av service. The  is merging with the  and  between Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts and Canal St, then with the  between Canal St and 50 St, then finally between the  and  between 59 St-Columbus Circle and 145 St with the  splitting off and continuing with the  to 168 St. 

The next issue is  trains, that being yard access.  trains are practically running  train service pre-2001. What yard will  trains be based out of, either Coney Island or Concourse? This is an issue because it's cut back to 145 St which in a way loses that yard access to Concourse because of how far it is. Well, of course it can just deadhead all the way which will run a similar way the currently does, but for a very long time the  has always been the line the dominated Concourse. Unfortunately, Concourse is also losing service because the  is taking over. Which this does keep express service along Concourse for the most part, it's not worth it because of that service loss. 

Overall, it just isn't a good idea. While this helps alleviate the confusion, service across the all lines involved directly is greatly affect and not in a good way. 

[paulrivera]

5 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

I am siding with 8 Av Exp getting CPW Express:

 

A - 207 st - far rockaway - cpw/8 av exp - fulton st exp

K - 205 st - lefferts blvd - concourse exp (rush hours) - cpw/8 av exp - fulton st exp

C - 168 st - euclid av - unchanged

B - 168 st - brighton beach - cpw lcl - 6 av exp

D - bedford park blvd / 145 st - coney islamd - concourse lcl (rush hours) cpw lcl - 6 av exp

 

Bonus Information

I'm trying to help A train here with K train to lefferts, while deinterlining cpw. of course i would like to eliminate rock park shuttle by giving that area direct access to the city with K train, but then C would have to go to lefferts and that would make it the next R train... extremely slow.....

 

What do you think about this idea?

 

Also tell me which line should get express dibs on CPW: 8 Av or 6 Av?

Assuming you're using current service levels:

-There's too little service between 207 and 168. You would need to extend the  or  to 207 in order to provide adequate service up there.

-There's also too little service at 205th Street. You're better off keeping the  right where it's at and have the terminate at Bedford Park (see below)

-Concourse express service headways would be inadequate. You're probably better off not doing a Concourse express and send both the and  local if there's gonna be 15 minute intervals between trains on a good day.

-There's too much service on the CPW local tracks. I think sending the express in Manhattan, while also having it go to 207th Street would be more effective with what you're trying to do.

As for who should get express dibs... My answer focuses more on the uptown end. I think people from both Washington Heights and Concourse should have a CPW express. The next question which I don't have the answer to is this: Where do riders typically go? Do a lot of people from Inwood go to stops along 8th Avenue? What about people from the Concourse? There would need to be lots of ridership data to determine what lines go where at the end of the day. The last time the  really looked at the data it was in the 90's when they moved the  to 168 full-time and the  was sent up the Concourse during rush hours..

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I’m not sure they even did that when they switched the  and . I read the reason for the switch was because they wanted to cut back on the extra miles put on the R32s and R38s on the deadheading to 207th St Yard. It also made it easier to store and do minor repairs on the R68As that had been assigned to the  months earlier (previously, the  had used R40s since the mid-1980s).

FWIW, my preference has been to run the  and  express on CPW. This way the trains that run local on CPW also run local on 8th Ave (since CPW is a northern extension of 8th) and local riders would be able to ride straight down and not have to change trains at 53rd/7th.

Edited November 8, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Daniel The Cool]

12 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’m not sure they even did that when they switched the  and . I read the reason for the switch was because they wanted to cut back on the extra miles put on the R32s and R38s on the deadheading to 207th St Yard. It also made it easier to store and do minor repairs on the R68As that had been assigned to the  months earlier (previously, the  had used R40s since 

That's not entirely true. It was done for the following reasons.

 

1. To save money on the deadheads because they would used to have to send three  Trains from Concourse Yard Friday evenings to 135th Street spur and deadhead to 174th Street Yard which also caused delays. Same vice versa on Sunday Nights

 

2. Because the  Train shared its R32/R38 Equipment with the , it was easier to swap equipment if needed. It was also easier to do maintenance and work on the equipment.

 

3. Easier for the  to used each other equipment if needed.

 

4. Weekend  Trains was initially supposed to run OPTO with R44s since weekend  Train service used to run 4 Cars R32/R38. That plan was scrapped and weekend  Trains were extended to 8 Cars.

 

[mrsman]

The OP's plan isn't really a CPW deinterline.  While it provides that all CPW express stay on 8th Ave express, the CPW locals are split between 8th Ave local and 6th Ave express.  If such a plan were operated, you are necessarily limiting the amount of trains that can run on the 6th Ave express in midtown, essentially leaving a blank space in the midtown service that is filled by  trains further uptown.  Not ideal.

I agree with paulrivera, that the key to a successful re-arranging of the CPW trains is ensuring that both the Washington Heights side and the Concourse side both have some level of CPW express and CPW local.  It can run in similar operating pattern as today, except that we are going to avoid having the trains criss-cross at 59th.

So we have four services:

1) 207 St - CPW express

2) 205 St - Concourse - CPW express.  Rush hour Concourse express.

3) 168 St - CPW local

4) Bedford Park Blvd Concourse local (rush hour) OR 145th (other times) - CPW local

For a good part of history, the service pattern was: 1=  , 2 =  , 3 =  , and 4 =   [service pattern 1].  The current service pattern is 1=  , 2 =  , 3 =  , and 4 =  [service pattern 2].  A de-interlined service pattern would have 1&2 being the same color and 3&4 being the other color.  CPW express to 8th Ave would provide: 1=  , 2 =   , 3 =  , and 4 =  [service pattern 3].  CPW express to 6th Ave would provide: 1=   , 2 =  , 3 =  , and 4 =  [service pattern 4].

Now, if you are still interested in deinterlining, your choice is between service pattern 3 and 4.  To determine which is better, you may have to look at some of your other goals and figuring out what else you desire to accomplish on the other IND lines.  A good part of the analysis will involve operations, and yes, rider preferences.

My preference is service pattern 4, CPW expresses to 6th and CPW locals to 8th.  As T to Dyre Ave mentioned, there is definitely a preference to keep CPW locals as 8th Ave locals since CPW is the same street as 8th Ave.  Another factor is that when you do this, you force  trains from Queens as being an 8th Ave express.  When this happens,  trains can still stop at 50th/8th, given the track configuration and  and  will also stop there since both are local.  (If  and  were both express, then both trains will skip 50th, which is generally not desirable.) 

One key point to look at is what you want to accomplish south of Canal on the 8th Ave line.  Currently, some 8th Ave locals terminate at WTC and some merge in with the 8th Ave expresses to continue in the Cranberry tunnel.  In order to maintain this service pattern, you cannot run more than 20 TPH on the 8th Ave express.  If you do, then you are limited to not running more than 20 TPH on the local tracks, so that all of the local trains can terminate at WTC.  My deinterlining plan has QBL expresses running at 30 TPH on the local tracks approaching Canal, so I must limit the express tracks to 20 TPH, so that some of my locals can merge into the Cranberry tunnel.  I accomplish this by running a solitary  train on the 8th Ave express, which is also a QBL local originating in Forest Hills, which is also limited to 20 TPH.  I would not be able to run the entire CPW express here, because there is no way that I can limit the combination of A and C, if both are running as the CPW express, to 20TPH.

For a more complete look at my plan, see the top post on page 7 of the deinterlining thread:

https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/51985-de-interlining-problem-or-solution/page/7/#comments

 

One final word about the Fulton express service.  As others mentioned, while there is desirability in designating a difference between trains to the Rockaways and trains to Lefferts, especially to clarify the service pattern for unfamiliar riders who may be headed to JFK or the beaches, one has to view the Fulton express as being one line.  Currently, we have the  to Rockaway and the  to Lefferts.  If we were to redesigante the Lefferts service as  , we have to be sure that we are simply redesignating a portion of the existing  service, not creating a whole new line.  For all intents and purposes,  and  should be identical north of Rockaway Blvd and should be viewed as one line in terms of assigning trains and the like.  It may be easier to view it as A1 and A2, with a full A train north of Rockaway Blvd.

 

[Vulturious]

28 minutes ago, mrsman said:

One final word about the Fulton express service.  As others mentioned, while there is desirability in designating a difference between trains to the Rockaways and trains to Lefferts, especially to clarify the service pattern for unfamiliar riders who may be headed to JFK or the beaches, one has to view the Fulton express as being one line.  Currently, we have the  to Rockaway and the  to Lefferts.  If we were to redesigante the Lefferts service as  , we have to be sure that we are simply redesignating a portion of the existing  service, not creating a whole new line.  For all intents and purposes,  and  should be identical north of Rockaway Blvd and should be viewed as one line in terms of assigning trains and the like.  It may be easier to view it as A1 and A2, with a full A train north of Rockaway Blvd.

This was something I've mentioned for quite a while. The  to Lefferts would just be the  internally. Nothing should be changing for service. Hopefully, the  does actually think of this, but they better explain to people that nothing is changing in terms of service frequency because I know some people might jump to conclusions thinking there is going to be more service to Lefferts than toward the Rockaways. 

[MTA Researcher]

CPW Exp —> 6 Av Exp preferable eh?

 

I see. Then my older post wasn’t so bad as this one…

 

I only made this post to get insight and test the waters with your knowledge.

 

If anyone new here wants to see my older post, just ask

[Mtatransit]

When looking at deinterlining you have to look at the effects of the entire system, not just a specific segment. 

Let me try to break down your desired service pattern

A EXP (8th Ave) UP 207th Street - Far Rockaway 

K EXP (8th Ave) GC Norwood - Lefferts via Express

B LCL (6th Ave) UP 168th - Brighton Local

D LCL (6th Ave) GC BFP - Coney Island Local

C LCL (8th Ave) UP 168th - Euclid

In your example, you didn't really de-interline CPW, but instead more complexity to the service patterns. For example, C train still runs local on CPW alongside the 2 other 6th Ave service. In fact there is more interlining north of 145th Street between 8th Ave and Concourse service (with the K merging with the local D, and the B merging with the A).

In a true deinterline, the service pattern theoretically are extremely simple

For example

A 207th Street - Far Rockaway/Lefferts via all Local every 4 minutes

B 205th St- Coney Island via all Express every 4 minutes

Of course it wouldn't be this simple because routing all B via 4th Ave would affect the N train, and changing the N train will affect the Q and R, and changing those will affect EFM.

 

[R32 3838]

 

Here's my Idea and a more realistic approach to fixing 8th ave issues at Canal st.

 

remains the same

would operate between Bedford Pk Blvd and Euclid ave all day daily. The would run via CPW /8th Ave Express and in Brooklyn It'll be local like it is today.

The Benefit would be Concourse gets a 2nd service off peak instead of just rush hours which is needed.  Late Nights doesn't run like the current   and the would be full length R179's and R211's. The would be strictly out of pitkin yard.

would remain the same as now

would make a return as the 8th ave local to replace the in Manhattan operating between 168th street and World Trade Center, It would run daily from 6am-11pm. headways would be every 10-15 mins during peak hours and off peak about 8-10 mins. I would use the 8 car R179's that are on the for this route

 

would run to 168th st instead of Bedford Park, Otherwise service remains the same.

 

would remain the same

 

By doing this, You would eliminate that merging point at Canal st that delays service. Can't really do much with Fulton st (hoyt) since there's no other option.  

 

 

 

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

So the  and  would operate simultaneously, unlike in the past when the  / (AA) ran whenever the  /  didn’t? That would certainly help out at Canal, but would CPW be able to handle the ,  and  simultaneously. And you’d still have the  and  merging at Columbus Circle. 

[R32 3838]

52 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

So the  and  would operate simultaneously, unlike in the past when the  / (AA) ran whenever the  /  didn’t? That would certainly help out at Canal, but would CPW be able to handle the ,  and  simultaneously. And you’d still have the  and  merging at Columbus Circle. 

 

The merge isn't bad at all, It's switch is decent for moderate speed. I'm Sure CPW could handle 3 express services if done correctly. Some lines will still have to merge, You can't get around that. Just fix the ones that face major issues like this one.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

10 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

 

The merge isn't bad at all, It's switch is decent for moderate speed. I'm Sure CPW could handle 3 express services if done correctly. Some lines will still have to merge, You can't get around that. Just fix the ones that face major issues like this one.

In this case you probably could. But the  would likely have to replace either the Lefferts or Far Rockaway  and the Rockaway Park branch would have to be  service only.

[R32 3838]

5 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

In this case you probably could. But the  would likely have to replace either the Lefferts or Far Rockaway  and the Rockaway Park branch would have to be  service only.

 

sending the past Euclid would create another choke point east of Euclid. It's better if the ends at Euclid since it's already coming from the Bronx. Rock Pk riders would prefer an express vs a local.

[Theli11]

I feel like we're just going to be replacing problems but I think if we're going to deinterline it should be...
168 - WTC (Central Park West Local)
 Bedford Park Blvd - WTC (CPW Local)  
 207 - Brighton Beach** (CPW Express) 
 205th - Coney Island (CPW and Concourse Express)
Now for Fulton St, we could just use the  as the sole Express Service, and make it the sole local Route on QBL, ending at Forest Hills. This means that the and trains run express with the running to Jamaica Center and the split between JC and 179th St. the can go to Astoria with the  and the can be on 96th St. With the deinterlining of DeKalb** I think most delays are cleared up with the exception of and trains. 
Back to the , with this maximized service, you can run a line as the Express train to Far Rockaway and just have trains run full time.

[R32 3838]

34 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

I feel like we're just going to be replacing problems but I think if we're going to deinterline it should be...
168 - WTC (Central Park West Local)
 Bedford Park Blvd - WTC (CPW Local)  
 207 - Brighton Beach** (CPW Express) 
 205th - Coney Island (CPW and Concourse Express)
Now for Fulton St, we could just use the  as the sole Express Service, and make it the sole local Route on QBL, ending at Forest Hills. This means that the and trains run express with the running to Jamaica Center and the split between JC and 179th St. the can go to Astoria with the  and the can be on 96th St. With the deinterlining of DeKalb** I think most delays are cleared up with the exception of and trains. 
Back to the , with this maximized service, you can run a line as the Express train to Far Rockaway and just have trains run full time.

Replacing a full length train with an 8 car train at one of the busiest stations in Queens isn't a smart idea. JC can't handle both trains due to how the switches are located between supthin and Parsons.

 

This Idea doesn't make any sense and having the run local in Queens from Forest Hills and run to Brooklyn wouldn't make any sense at all. 

Edited November 13, 2021 by R32 3838

[Theli11]

18 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

Replacing a full length train with an 8 car train at one of the busiest stations in Queens isn't a smart idea. JC can't handle both trains due to how the switches are located between supthin and Parsons.

 

This Idea doesn't make any sense and having the run local in Queens from Forest Hills and run to Brooklyn wouldn't make any sense at all. 

Then why not to Jamaica Center and the rest of it goes to Jamaica 179. the can just go to 179th. the  would have an improved TPH due to the fact that it's the only train running on that local track. 

[R32 3838]

18 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Then why not to Jamaica Center and the rest of it goes to Jamaica 179. the can just go to 179th. the  would have an improved TPH due to the fact that it's the only train running on that local track. 

 

Jamaica Center can't handle the entire line because of obvious reasons. The uses about 45-50 trainsets (The most in the system). There's no way Jamaica center could handle the . 179th can because the terminal could turn over a lot of trains per hour. This is why 4 trains go to 179th. Jamaica Center can only handle a certain amount of trains due to the switch placement between Supthin and Parsons.

 

This is one of the main reasons why the goes to Jamaica Center and the only to 179th, LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

Yeah another busy part of Queens only using 8 car trains where most people from Northeast Queens and Nassau  County come from. Not a good idea.

[Theli11]

43 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

 

Jamaica Center can't handle the entire line because of obvious reasons. The uses about 45-50 trainsets (The most in the system). There's no way Jamaica center could handle the . 179th can because the terminal could turn over a lot of trains per hour. This is why 4 trains go to 179th. Jamaica Center can only handle a certain amount of trains due to the switch placement between Supthin and Parsons.

 

This is one of the main reasons why the goes to Jamaica Center and the only to 179th, LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

Yeah another busy part of Queens only using 8 car trains where most people from Northeast Queens and Nassau  County come from. Not a good idea.

That's why I'm saying split the between Jamaica Center and 179th. 12 trains to Jamaica Center and the rest to 179th with  being the supplement train. 

[R32 3838]

1 hour ago, Theli11 said:

That's why I'm saying split the between Jamaica Center and 179th. 12 trains to Jamaica Center and the rest to 179th with  being the supplement train. 

 

That would only confuse people, Things are set up the way they are for a reason. People from southeast queens would riot if they lost the train.

[Lawrence St]

I'd flip the northern terminals, have the  &  go to 207th St & 168th St and the  to 205th St, and have the  &  be CPW Express.

[MTA Researcher]

I love the discussion that was going on while I was AFK.

 

I have been putting thought on CPW service for a week now. Here are my thoughts so far:

CPW/8 Av Exp:

A - 207 St - Far Rockaway: CPW/8 Av Exp - Fulton St Express at all times even Late Nights

C - 205 St - Lefferts: Concourse Exp (RH), Late Nights via CPW/8 Av Exp - Fulton St Lcl at all times (C now runs in Late Nights too)

 

CPW/6 Av Lcl

B - 168 St - Lower East Side 2 Av: All Times

D - Bedford Park Blvd - Lower East Side 2 Av - No service overnight or weekends

 

Other

Q -  Jamaica 179 St - Coney Island: Queens Blvd/6 Av Exp - Brighton Lcl

- Orange Q has Hillside/Brighton Exp variant

E - JC - WTC - All local

 

Call me crazy but the craziness in this lineup might be useful long term wise.

I feel like MTA messed up putting 6 Av Exp on the Bronx and Upper Manhattan direction. 6 Av Line should be the reverse of 8th Ave pattern wise. Bronx and Upper Manhattan should have access to express service via 8th Av. Queens should have access to express service via 6th Av.

 

The MTA has to reconfigure the track feed to align this pattern.

 

And Yes upper level 50 St should be eliminated and turned to a mezzanine. Let the folks transfer at 7 Av from the BD to the E. Compromise for the greater good. 
 

The premise of this proposal comes from color patterns and the 2 Exp 1 Lcl for Bronx and Upper Manhattan and 1 Exp 2 Lcl for Queens and it’s interconnected. I have an abstract mindset approach for deinterlining the subway system.

 

 I am aware that there are some places that I didn’t cover; like the F train and Culver lacking direct access to Manhattan, or the Bronx lacking direct access to Coney Island. That’s for another topic.

[Vulturious]

1 hour ago, MTA Researcher said:

I love the discussion that was going on while I was AFK.

 

I have been putting thought on CPW service for a week now. Here are my thoughts so far:

CPW/8 Av Exp:

A - 207 St - Far Rockaway: CPW/8 Av Exp - Fulton St Express at all times even Late Nights

C - 205 St - Lefferts: Concourse Exp (RH), Late Nights via CPW/8 Av Exp - Fulton St Lcl at all times (C now runs in Late Nights too)

 

CPW/6 Av Lcl

B - 168 St - Lower East Side 2 Av: All Times

D - Bedford Park Blvd - Lower East Side 2 Av - No service overnight or weekends

 

Other

Q -  Jamaica 179 St - Coney Island: Queens Blvd/6 Av Exp - Brighton Lcl

- Orange Q has Hillside/Brighton Exp variant

E - JC - WTC - All local

 

Call me crazy but the craziness in this lineup might be useful long term wise.

I feel like MTA messed up putting 6 Av Exp on the Bronx and Upper Manhattan direction. 6 Av Line should be the reverse of 8th Ave pattern wise. Bronx and Upper Manhattan should have access to express service via 8th Av. Queens should have access to express service via 6th Av.

 

The MTA has to reconfigure the track feed to align this pattern.

 

And Yes upper level 50 St should be eliminated and turned to a mezzanine. Let the folks transfer at 7 Av from the BD to the E. Compromise for the greater good. 
 

The premise of this proposal comes from color patterns and the 2 Exp 1 Lcl for Bronx and Upper Manhattan and 1 Exp 2 Lcl for Queens and it’s interconnected. I have an abstract mindset approach for deinterlining the subway system.

 

 I am aware that there are some places that I didn’t cover; like the F train and Culver lacking direct access to Manhattan, or the Bronx lacking direct access to Coney Island. That’s for another topic.

I'm going to disagree with you. 

The  and  would have merging issues yet again. Sure, they only have to deal with each other the while way, but the merging is going to be very annoying when you include it going into Queens. Especially with it splitting to run to Lefferts at Rockaway Blvd with the  to the Rockaways. Then there's the issue of late night service. With both lines running full time, no train would be given any rest whatsoever. Both lines running together full time would cause issues for yards maintaining their fleet. The last issue is demand, there is more demand for keeping direct express service along Fulton including Manhattan. Nobody along Lefferts would stick with the  and try to get an express train at the first chance they get.

The statement about the MTA "messing up" 6 Av express is just very confusing to me. Queens shouldn't have express service from 6 Av or if they do, a 6 Av express service would still run to CPW. 6 Av Express was never built to connect to QBL, not directly at least. It was built to run to CPW, 6 Av Local was built to run along QBL Express. This isn't something the MTA did, this was how the IND intended it to be. With the Crosstown line running as the local service along QBL (which just never worked out) and the express service coming from Manhattan which also is coming from 6 Av local directly. Having the  and  running along 6 Av local just can't work because they don't have the lineup for it. It would have to crossover to the express track between Herald Square and Bryant Park. Even then, you have the issue of 50 St upper level not having any service whatsoever. It doesn't make any sense, what greater good is being compromised?????? CPW and 8 Av was built to have a connection to 8 Av Local in mind when the IND was building it, especially since 8 Av was built before 6 Av (might have to check that, but too lazy to do so). Forcing people to transfer at 7 Av is just a bad idea, especially with the direct service built for it. This is something I just do not agree with at all and many others would probably (I don't speak for everyone here, but it would make logical sense to not do this) agree with me. I also don't think you know how everything was built because of how you set up the  and  so here: https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/docs/NYC_full_trackmap.pdf. 

There is also one more thing you completely left out, the . What exactly is happening there? The  being introduced was one of the best decisions that the MTA has accidentally made and a decision they would've never made if they weren't forced to cut service. Many people from Williamsburg would usually transfer over to an  train at Essex St or another line like the  at Canal,  at Chambers St, and so on. The only people that used the  would be people living in South Brooklyn when it used to operate there. Mainly in the Downtown Brooklyn area or on West End (coming from my view, others might completely disagree). If you remove the , you remove even more direct service from Brooklyn into Midtown Manhattan. And what about the ? Yes I know that is another topic, but this is still pretty vital. "Culver lacking direct access to Manhattan," this one scares me and will definitely be shot down immediately. The IND portion of Culver is where it gets more of it's ridership than the BMT Culver. Even then, all of Culver wants direct Manhattan Service which most of it is local stations like Carroll St.

Nothing is being de-interlined here yet again, some areas might be, but there are areas like 6 Av being an issue. This is still far from being better than the current service.

[MTA Researcher]

6 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I'm going to disagree with you.

*sigh* Why must you disagree with me?

 

There have been other proposals here and you never said anything about them…. I.e. the ACD Exp and BK Lcl

On 11/13/2021 at 1:20 PM, R32 3838 said:

Here's my Idea and a more realistic approach to fixing 8th ave issues at Canal st.

 

remains the same

would operate between Bedford Pk Blvd and Euclid ave all day daily. The would run via CPW /8th Ave Express and in Brooklyn It'll be local like it is today.

The Benefit would be Concourse gets a 2nd service off peak instead of just rush hours which is needed.  Late Nights doesn't run like the current   and the would be full length R179's and R211's. The would be strictly out of pitkin yard.

would remain the same as now

would make a return as the 8th ave local to replace the in Manhattan operating between 168th street and World Trade Center, It would run daily from 6am-11pm. headways would be every 10-15 mins during peak hours and off peak about 8-10 mins. I would use the 8 car R179's that are on the for this route

 

would run to 168th st instead of Bedford Park, Otherwise service remains the same.

 

would remain the same

Anyway, If you despise me that’s fine because I like you. No homo, just being kind.

 

Anyway the F train and culver would have direct access to the Bronx via 2nd Av Subway.

F - Bronx (At the moment not sure where in Bronx should it terminate) - Coney Island: Bronx Exp, 2 Av Exp via culver

T - Somewhere in Bronx - Hanover Sq: Bronx Lcl, 2 Av Lcl

 

This is just an theoretical approach. I know 2 Av will take a century to build but if we get there; maybe consider such ideas or slightly tweak them?

 

@Vulturious Please be honest with me, what do you think about my personality? Do you object to everything I say because you find me interesting? Or do you really despise me? I’m looking forward to hearing your response.

[Vulturious]

6 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

*sigh* Why must you disagree with me?

 

There have been other proposals here and you never said anything about them…. I.e. the ACD Exp and BK Lcl

Anyway, If you despise me that’s fine because I like you. No homo, just being kind.

 

Anyway the F train and culver would have direct access to the Bronx via 2nd Av Subway.

F - Bronx (At the moment not sure where in Bronx should it terminate) - Coney Island: Bronx Exp, 2 Av Exp via culver

T - Somewhere in Bronx - Hanover Sq: Bronx Lcl, 2 Av Lcl

 

This is just an theoretical approach. I know 2 Av will take a century to build but if we get there; maybe consider such ideas or slightly tweak them?

 

@Vulturious Please be honest with me, what do you think about my personality? Do you object to everything I say because you find me interesting? Or do you really despise me? I’m looking forward to hearing your response.

I don't agree with the idea at all, 3 express services along CPW while one of them still has to make a much longer trek going into Queens either to Lefferts Blvd or to the Rockaways. If something happens, most services get screwed. I'm not even sure how the service during late nights would run either. However, this is far from making service any worse since it does actually help in some form. I don't think anything bad is really happening except for the merging involved along CPW and 6 Av still having that merging issue. The  in my eyes still isn't going to run any better, if anything it is running worse just so the merge at Canal isn't there. This is trading one problem for another while also adding even more. Now that I think about it, how is service going to run during weekends? Would it revert back to normal?

This is where you have lost me. How exactly is this new connection from Culver going to work? Would Houston St lost that service into 6 Av? 

As for this last question, I don't know who you are so I do not know what your personality is like. I don't despise you, a lot of what is going on just doesn't make sense to me. I'm in no way an expert, but I've seen my fair share of things on the internet. I just don't think a lot of what your propose can work because the current system just doesn't run like this, even if you were to rework service, it's going to be a hassle to even do so.