G Train terminal.

Discussion relating to the past and present operations of the NYC Subway, PATH, and Staten Island Railway (SIRT).

Moderator: GirlOnTheTrain

eastwind
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: G Train terminal.

Post by eastwind » Sat May 11, 2013 7:06 pm

railfan365 wrote:Toward everyone having their facts straight, there was F express service in Brooklyn into the early 1990's. As to why that part of the service was dropped, only transport managers would know. But as with other discussions on this blog, we can still share our views on it.
I left New York in 1983 and I don't remember there being F express service in Brooklyn at that time. Can you give details on how the service was run?
Formerly of Pittsfield and Waterville (Maine), New York City, Montréal, and San Francisco.

DaveBarraza
Posts: 295
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:52 pm
Location: Out Past Ronkonkoma, NY

Re: G Train terminal.

Post by DaveBarraza » Sat May 11, 2013 7:45 pm

Park Slope and Cobble Hill will never give up the service frequencies they have now, 4-5 minutes in the rush.

Maybe the thing to do in the AM is relay half of the F's along with the G's at Church and send the empty F's out right ahead of the loaded ones coming from KHWY and CI. This would quicken the load times at 7th, Carroll, and Bergen since the trains would be much emptier. Even more unorthodox would be to cut out the door breaker on the 1st car until it the NB reached Smith/9th, since the north end of the train loads very heavy there, those passengers would have an empty car.


In the PM, you could run a diamond F on the express to Church.

railfan365
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:55 am

Re: G Train terminal.

Post by railfan365 » Sat May 11, 2013 9:14 pm

eastwind wrote:
railfan365 wrote:Toward everyone having their facts straight, there was F express service in Brooklyn into the early 1990's. As to why that part of the service was dropped, only transport managers would know. But as with other discussions on this blog, we can still share our views on it.
I left New York in 1983 and I don't remember there being F express service in Brooklyn at that time. Can you give details on how the service was run?
As alluded to in an earlier post, every F train that I've ever been on has been local only in Brooklyn, what I've read is that when there was express service on the culver line, some trains ran local all the way to Kings Highway, while others ran express from 18th Avenue to Kings Highway. Much the way that the Pelham Bay Line has express and local service in the Bronx.

SlowFreight
Posts: 278
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:27 pm
Location: The wilds of Brooklyn

Re: G Train terminal.

Post by SlowFreight » Sat May 11, 2013 9:42 pm

DaveBarraza wrote:B, D, and F all run 600' trains. F is not the "longest"
How long has it been since you've ridden the 6th Avenue? All F trains are 750'. Woe the day that the rare 600' train of Pullmans arrives during rush hour, as it kills the schedule. It can't lift the load, and just gets more delayed at every station and delays everything behind it.

But I agree with you that it makes the most sense to turn F's back at Church. Most of the ridership is off by then, and it's a convenient place to do it. There may be some combination of Church St. trains and express to Kings Highway that would improve service for more of the line.

eastwind
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: G Train terminal.

Post by eastwind » Sun May 12, 2013 2:52 am

railfan365 wrote:
eastwind wrote:
railfan365 wrote:Toward everyone having their facts straight, there was F express service in Brooklyn into the early 1990's. As to why that part of the service was dropped, only transport managers would know. But as with other discussions on this blog, we can still share our views on it.
I left New York in 1983 and I don't remember there being F express service in Brooklyn at that time. Can you give details on how the service was run?
As alluded to in an earlier post, every F train that I've ever been on has been local only in Brooklyn, what I've read is that when there was express service on the culver line, some trains ran local all the way to Kings Highway, while others ran express from 18th Avenue to Kings Highway. Much the way that the Pelham Bay Line has express and local service in the Bronx.
The express service in the early 1970's ran rush hours only, like this:

F trains marked "Coney Island" ran express both directions between Jay St and Church, stopping at Bergen (lower) and 7th Ave. Beyond Church, AM Manhattan-bound and PM Coney Island-bound, express on the center track of the Culver el stopping at 18th, Kings Highway (crossing over to the local track before entering the station), then all stops to Coney Island.

F trains marked "Kings Highway" ran local all the way between Jay St and Kings Highway, where they crossed over and laid up on the center track before turning back; they shared local stops between Bergen (upper) and Church with the GG. (In those days, express trains were designated by a single letter, locals by a double letter, which led to some discrepancies when routes were extended and a train ran express in one borough and local in another. Originally—before Chrystie Street—F trains ran express in Queens and terminated at either 34th St-6th Ave or Broadway-Lafayette in Manhattan. All stations on 6th Avenue were "express" stations before the express tunnel was completed soon after Chrystie Street.)

The service ended in 1975 or 1976.
Formerly of Pittsfield and Waterville (Maine), New York City, Montréal, and San Francisco.

DaveBarraza
Posts: 295
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:52 pm
Location: Out Past Ronkonkoma, NY

Re: G Train terminal.

Post by DaveBarraza » Sun May 12, 2013 7:55 am

How long has it been since you've ridden the 6th Avenue? All F trains are 750'.
How long since I've ridden? I don't know: a few hours. -you? But I don't need to ride to use a search engine and do a little research before I post.

The maximum length train permitted on the division is 600 feet. None of the platforms on the IND can berth a 750 foot train. (Not even 34/6th, and that's way long!)

R-160 = 60 foot cars
R-46 = 75 foot cars

10 x 60 = 600
8 x 75 = 600

By rule, when operating 75 foot equipment, T/O's are to use

10 car stop for 8 car trains
8 car stop for 6 car trains
6 car stop for 4 car trains

This is because the car stops on the B division are for 60-foot equipment.

Also, the loading issue with the "Pullmans" has to do with the fact that there are only 32 doors for a 600 foot train, not 40. This is balanced out somewhat by the extra space created by 2 fewer bulkheads and intra-car spaces.

SlowFreight
Posts: 278
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:27 pm
Location: The wilds of Brooklyn

Re: G Train terminal.

Post by SlowFreight » Sun May 12, 2013 1:02 pm

My mistake. Did not realize that R160s were not 75' cars. Regardless, they still have far higher total capacity than R46 or R68.

When R68 trains are subbed during rush hour, they cannot load the total volume of passengers that the R160s carry, witness by the number of people left on the platform by a train of R68s when R160s could handle the volume. The point still remains that demand for space on the B, D, and M (which only runs 480' trains) does not come close to the demand on the F. It's immaterial whether the service on the B or D is greater or less than the F, so much as the problem is that available space on the F is not matched to the demand.

eastwind
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: G Train terminal.

Post by eastwind » Thu May 16, 2013 10:32 pm

The obvious solution to the overcrowding problem on the F line is to run more F trains. The question is, Is that even possible?

During rush hours, F trains run every 6-8 minutes. Doubling their frequency would give a 3- to 4-minute headway. But on their present route, that is not possible.
They share the Queens Boulevard express tracks with the E. Which means a 3- or 4-minute headway on those tracks, and 6- to 8-minute headways for each line. Is it possible to squeeze anything more in there? Maybe. Probably not.
F trains have the 63rd St Connector all to themselves. Likewise the Rutgers St tunnel. Doubling frequencies on those segments would be possible.
The pinch point is the 6th Av local tracks, which they share with the M. The M runs every 8-10 minutes during rush hour, so theoretically, in a ten-minute span, there might be room for one more train, giving a 3-minute headway there. But where would such a train come from?
If it can't come from east of Roosevelt Avenue (actually, east of Queensbridge), there is no other possible terminal west of there. 57th St-6th Av has not been a terminal since the 63rd St Connector opened and, being only a two-track station, would not work as one now. Broadway-Lafayette is out. The next possibility would be 2d Av, if the track layout would permit, but how useful is that? After that is Jay St, and your train is already crowded long before that.

At the moment, I don't think there is a solution.
In the future, when SAS opens, it would be possible to run two lines on Second Avenue, not just the Q down Broadway as is proposed but another line—call it the Y—that would come down 2d Av, across 63d St and down 6th Av to supplement the F. (There are crossovers west of Lex Av-63d St that would permit that maneuver, aren't there?) That would double frequencies on 2d Av and add service on the line to Brooklyn where it's needed most. If you ran it express in Brooklyn, you wouldn't need frequencies as high as the F (which would remain local at all times), say every 10 minutes, and would avoid any confusion with F-express vs. F-local.
I think it would work. Just not now. Unless...
Unless the tail tracks to the Second Avenue Subway are already in place and usable. Then you could run the Y to/from Lex Av-63d St until SAS opens. (When the lower part of SAS opens and you have the problem of scheduling Q, Y, and T on the upper SAS... that's far enough in the future that I'm not even thinking about that.)

Them's my 2 cents.
Formerly of Pittsfield and Waterville (Maine), New York City, Montréal, and San Francisco.

railfan365
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:55 am

Re: G Train terminal.

Post by railfan365 » Thu May 16, 2013 11:11 pm

Regarding eastwind's post, I say you show some good thinking Mr. wind. While the SAS Phase I stub is not ready for use yet, and I don't whether the Broadway tracks at 63rd and Lex are exposed yet in the station, there are crossovers just West of that station that have allowed trains to/from Queens to run on either the 6th Avenue or Broadway. Once there'll be service along 2nd Avenue, it could work quite well to split the Phase I/II service between 6th Avenue and Broadway. And I concur that Phase III of the SAS is at best a long way off.

eastwind
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: G Train terminal.

Post by eastwind » Fri May 17, 2013 2:14 pm

Postings in the Second Avenue Subway thread indicate that the wall concealing the Broadway tracks is being removed.
That makes me wonder. Since the SAS is not due to open for another two or three years or so, why remove the wall now? Is somebody at headquarters thinking the same thing—that using Lex-63d as a temporary terminal for additional 6th Ave service might be a good idea? Of course, it might be simply a case of "We were going to have to do it sooner or later and now's the time we have the money and people to do it." But it does make me wonder.

In fact, this relates to the topic of this thread. It appears that the G train terminal has been extended permanently to Church Ave. This tells me that somebody is thinking along the lines of express service on at least that portion of the F line in Brooklyn. What that service might look like, I cannot conjecture (well, I can, but I've already conjectured enough), but it's a start in that direction.
Formerly of Pittsfield and Waterville (Maine), New York City, Montréal, and San Francisco.

railfan365
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:55 am

Re: G Train terminal.

Post by railfan365 » Fri May 17, 2013 3:51 pm

eastwind wrote:Postings in the Second Avenue Subway thread indicate that the wall concealing the Broadway tracks is being removed.
That makes me wonder. Since the SAS is not due to open for another two or three years or so, why remove the wall now? Is somebody at headquarters thinking the same thing—that using Lex-63d as a temporary terminal for additional 6th Ave service might be a good idea? Of course, it might be simply a case of "We were going to have to do it sooner or later and now's the time we have the money and people to do it." But it does make me wonder.

In fact, this relates to the topic of this thread. It appears that the G train terminal has been extended permanently to Church Ave. This tells me that somebody is thinking along the lines of express service on at least that portion of the F line in Brooklyn. What that service might look like, I cannot conjecture (well, I can, but I've already conjectured enough), but it's a start in that direction.
On the first point, and the removal of those walls being removed, the project has been going on for a long while already. I personally speculate that transport management decided to go ahead with it on the basis that it was going to take long enough anyway that they would have that task finished close to having through service to/from 2nd Avenue anyway. Meanwhile, it just might be a good idea to have additional service along Sixth Avenue with a Lexington Avenue terminal.

While I don't remember the source, I did read that a resumption of express service along the Culver Line was being considered.

eastwind
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:08 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: G Train terminal.

Post by eastwind » Fri May 17, 2013 7:00 pm

railfan365 wrote: the project has been going on for a long while already.
How long does it take to remove a wall?
Formerly of Pittsfield and Waterville (Maine), New York City, Montréal, and San Francisco.

railfan365
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:55 am

Re: G Train terminal.

Post by railfan365 » Sat May 18, 2013 9:56 pm

eastwind wrote:
railfan365 wrote: the project has been going on for a long while already.
How long does it take to remove a wall?
Let's not forget - that it's one thing to remove a wall generally, but it remains to be seen who long it takes NYC TA to do it, which tends to be longer than most people expect. Legitimate slowdowns include working to leave behind little or no damage to speak of, and doing so while the station is in use.

DaveBarraza
Posts: 295
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:52 pm
Location: Out Past Ronkonkoma, NY

Re: G Train terminal.

Post by DaveBarraza » Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:44 pm

Lex/63 isn't configured to be used as a terminal.

Backshophoss
Posts: 6190
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: G Train terminal.

Post by Backshophoss » Wed Aug 07, 2013 9:53 pm

Lex/63rd is a 2 level station with crossovers to the F train route,but not between levels,you would wind up running against traffic
1/2 the time till you get to 57 st crossovers(at 7th ave)
Take a look at the track maps http://www.nycsubway.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; select the 47th st -63rd st detail map.
The Land of Enchantment is not Flyover country!

Post Reply

Return to “NYC MTA Subway and Rail, PATH and SIRT”