|
|
| Re: N to 96/2 (1422383) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 15 of 16 |
||
|
| (1425964) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 22:37:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 21:27:29 2017. Once again a fallacious appeal to authority.The number of stops past the split is irrelevant. It is the fact that the split between the N and Q is in the CBD and not some distance past it. |
|
|
| (1425967) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by brightonr68 on Sun Jan 29 22:44:56 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 21:13:12 2017. An experienced riders knows to take the firt train and worry about transfering latter. Just becasue it is signed for 96th street way back on Ave V in Brooklyn does not mean it will actually go there. Who knows if the next train will every come. If you are on the train at 42nd street, you can walk if there will be no other trains to 49th street |
|
|
| (1425970) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 22:51:21 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by brightonr68 on Sun Jan 29 22:44:56 2017. And that's why there's no problem signing them as Qs in Brooklyn. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1425979) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jan 30 02:10:11 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:13:14 2017. I never recall seeing any R/Nassau St (Bankers’ Specials) labeled with an S in the 19080s since all car types had R/Nassau St signs on their rollers. |
|
|
| (1425997) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 30 11:43:59 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 22:37:22 2017. "The number of stops past the split is irrelevant. It is the fact that the split between the N and Q is in the CBD and not some distance past it."In previous messages it was already discussed how B-trains during the rush hours served TWO TERMINALS in Manhattan with the "split" occurring IN MIDTOWN. Starting on August 30, 1976 to April 13, 1986 the B-train served BOTH the 57th Street-Sixth Avenue terminal (as the sole route going there), AND the 168th Street-Washington Heights terminal making local stops with the CC local on Central Park West. The MTA did not do any "re-labeling" of B-trains for their trips uptown or downtown - for over a 10-year period! The riders simply learned which B-train to take for their destination. The current Second Avenue segment has only been open a month, there's a re-labeling scheme in place. Weird! Mike |
|
|
| (1425998) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 30 11:50:12 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 30 11:43:59 2017. And it was already pointed out to you that that particular split was problematic and that it's a good thing that it's not being repeated. |
|
|
| (1426000) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Mon Jan 30 12:05:35 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 29 19:57:20 2017. IAWTP! |
|
|
| (1426001) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Mon Jan 30 12:07:52 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 20:38:14 2017. Yes, there was a logic, but it was a logic that was meaningless and not apparent to the vast majority of passengers. |
|
|
| (1426003) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jan 30 12:14:48 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Mon Jan 30 12:07:52 2017. Further, NYCT planners wisely realized that the logic of the numbering scheme limited route flexibility, and when customer needs conflicted with the numbering scheme, it was better to "ruin" the numbering scheme than to not meet customer needs. |
|
|
| (1426005) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Mon Jan 30 12:26:30 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 25 11:05:58 2017. http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/tncur.pdfEven the official (N) line timetable mentions which trains go to/from 96 Street - Second Avenue. |
|
|
| (1426007) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 30 12:28:41 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by G1Ravage on Mon Jan 30 12:26:30 2017. As a minor footnote. Plus most people don't read the timetable. |
|
|
| (1426010) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 30 13:05:32 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 20:58:34 2017. Thos Whole thread has turned from being somewhat reasonable, to downright ridiculous.Laced with crybaby bitching about Where a certain train belongs...which line i should belong to... Geez...folks should be HAPPY that the new route has More service during peak periods. But NOOOOOO...Thats not the case here. This is a seriously dead ISSUE...that should be given a decent funeral. |
|
|
| (1426011) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 30 13:05:58 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 20:58:34 2017. This Whole thread has turned from being somewhat reasonable, to downright ridiculous.Laced with crybaby bitching about Where a certain train belongs...which line i should belong to... Geez...folks should be HAPPY that the new route has More service during peak periods. But NOOOOOO...Thats not the case here. This is a seriously dead ISSUE...that should be given a decent funeral. |
|
|
| (1426012) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 30 13:06:18 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 20:58:34 2017. This Whole thread has turned from being somewhat reasonable, to downright ridiculous.Laced with crybaby bitching about Where a certain train belongs...which line it should belong to... Geez...folks should be HAPPY that the new route has More service during peak periods. But NOOOOOO...Thats not the case here. This is a seriously dead ISSUE...that should be given a decent funeral. |
|
|
| (1426013) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Jan 30 13:22:09 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 30 13:06:18 2017. RIP N to 96th (or signage thereof).Survived by N from 96th. Estate Executor: Q via Sea Beach |
|
|
| (1426014) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 30 13:41:12 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 30 11:50:12 2017. I may have missed the part where you or anyone else explained that the B-train having two rush hour terminals was in your words, "problematic?"The MTA split the B-train between two terminals during the rush hours for a ten year period - and would have continued the practice except for the 20-year Manhattan Bridge repair project, and the opening of the 63rd Street "Tunnel to Nowhere" in 1989. You were the one to suggest that somehow a split of a route to two terminals in Midtown were some kind of "novel" event - requiring the debated practice on the N-train with Q-labeled trains. When the historical pattern of a previous split is mentioned - you then want to say, "It was already pointed out to you..." You are really going to have to have a better argument. Mike |
|
|
| (1426016) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jan 30 13:53:28 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 30 13:41:12 2017. OK, let's assume for the sake of argument that S-P never said there was anything wrong with the split terminals for the B.So is your argument that if it was OK to do it with the B from 1979 to 1989, then it's OK to do it with the N in 2017? |
|
|
| (1426017) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Jan 30 14:10:59 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 30 11:43:59 2017. Like I said previously, it's entirely possible that they were considering renaming one of the B services as the V to "correct" that, but the Manhattan Bridge reconstruction sort of took care of that for them, as the 57th St B became the S (6th Ave Shuttle train) when the bridge tracks closed. |
|
|
| (1426020) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 30 14:19:55 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 30 13:41:12 2017. I never suggested that such a split was novel. Regardless, I am saying that a historical example of such is not good evidence of reviving said practice in the present day. |
|
|
| (1426022) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jan 30 14:24:45 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 30 13:06:18 2017. How the superintendent wants the trains signed up has morphed into this.If we had areal moderator the thread would now be in the reef because the same points are being made over and over and over and over..... There is nothing new to discuss because everybody has their ironclad opinion. E |
|
|
| (1426024) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Jan 30 14:30:12 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 30 11:43:59 2017. Like I said previously, it's entirely possible that they were considering renaming one of the B services as the V to "correct" that, but the Manhattan Bridge reconstruction sort of took care of that for them, as the 57th St B became the S (6th Ave Shuttle train) when the bridge tracks closed. |
|
|
| (1426025) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 30 14:56:57 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Mon Jan 30 13:53:28 2017. From a previous message:"OK, let's assume for the sake of argument that S-P never said there was anything wrong with the split terminals for the B. So is your argument that if it was OK to do it with the B from 1979 to 1989, then it's OK to do it with the N in 2017?" --- Let's look at the argument that he raised. Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 20:06:55 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 19:49:35 2017. Yes, they should be signed that way. As for the A, that is how it is there. The A alternates between Lefferts and Mott all day, every day. The divergence is listed on the map. So is the limited divergence to B116. Thus, there is less confusion than with the unadvertised N to 96th. Even more so, most passengers who board the wrong A will be on it for many stops before the point at which they would have to get off to correct their error. Not the case for the N to 96th where there are only a few busy stops leading to the split. ----- Mike's Point: Spider-Pig is basically saying that having a split route with the same labels is fine because the divergence is listed on the map, and that riders will be on the trains for many stops. In effect he is saying that a split is fine with him because it is some distance away from the CBD. ----- Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 22:37:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 21:27:29 2017. Once again a fallacious appeal to authority. The number of stops past the split is irrelevant. It is the fact that the split between the N and Q is in the CBD and not some distance past it. ----- Mike's Point: Spider-Pig basically now says that the important issue is that the split occurs in the CBD, and not some distance past - as in the case of the A-trains noted above or maybe #5 trains in the Bronx. ----- The MTA split the B-train between two terminals during the rush hours for a ten year period IN THE CBD! From August 30, 1976 to April 13, 1986 the B-train served BOTH the 57th Street-Sixth Avenue terminal (as the sole route going there), AND the 168th Street-Washington Heights terminal making local stops with the CC local on Central Park West. The riders simply learned which B-train to take for their destinations. AIM asks, "So is your argument that if it was OK to do it with the B from 1979 to 1989, then it's OK to do it with the N in 2017?" YES! Just label those N-trains as N-trains! There is no need to label these trains as "Q-trains" leaving Brooklyn for Manhattan and then re-labeling them as N-trains for the return trips to Brooklyn. There is simply no need this disguise or the effort behind the disguise - I've said this from the start. The offered reasons in support of this practice - I've said repeatedly are silly. In 1979, we did not even have automated announcements on the trains or electronic computerized signage maps! In this case the N-train is no more different than the other train lines that have split terminals, or trains that short-turn. Just label the trains properly. Mike PS1 - And to respond to another poster - I do not remember talk of labeling any of the branches of the B-train with the letter V. I've participated several online transit forums in and since the 1980's (boy do I feel old now), and I do not recall that. PS2 - The things one could do with a 300-baud modem in the early 1980's - wow! When the 1200-baud modems came out - speedy! Yes, today there are several orders of magnitude difference. But still wow! |
|
|
| (1426027) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 30 15:07:07 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jan 30 14:24:45 2017. That is a stupid reason to reef a thread. |
|
|
| (1426030) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 30 15:10:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 30 14:56:57 2017. And when it was done from 1976 to 1986 it was a BAD IDEA then and it is a bad idea now.Even if we assume that the B split was a good idea, the difference is that the split B operated all rush hour, rather than a small number of trains over the course of the day. |
|
|
| (1426032) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jan 30 15:21:33 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 30 15:10:22 2017. There are no Ns operating to 96/2 outside the rush hour shoulder periods. |
|
|
| (1426033) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jan 30 15:27:32 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Jan 30 14:10:59 2017. Why rename a service that is basically identical for most of its route. Both Bs were West End via 6 Av as far as 50/6 so except for the passengers who specifically wanted either 57/7 or points along CPW there was really no difference at all. S/B passengers boarding at points along the COPW branch of the B couldn’t cars less about trains coming from 57/6 and passengers boarding at 57/6 have no need to worry about trains coming from uptown Manhattan. For passengers boarding or exiting at stations below 50/6 the service is identical except for the N/B 57 st trains making lcl stops on 6 Av and that is minor.. |
|
|
| (1426036) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jan 30 15:30:43 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jan 30 14:24:45 2017. Except that the opinions of some of us are based on hard and fast operational experience !!!!!!! |
|
|
| (1426039) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 30 15:40:15 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Mon Jan 30 15:30:43 2017. The train's signage has little to do with operational experience. Operational experience is valid as to why they even bother with these trains as opposed to sending all Sea Beach trains to Astoria and eliminating any confusion and the need for this discussion. |
|
|
| (1426043) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jan 30 16:34:44 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 30 15:40:15 2017. And even some people with operational experience can ask questions like why don't they just send the excess Ns to Queensboro Plaza, while some people with only ridership experience know the answer to that firsthand. |
|
|
| (1426046) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Jan 30 17:35:06 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Mon Jan 30 15:27:32 2017. Right. It wasn't a big deal when the B was turning at 57th & 6th, because it was just one stop. I don't want to get too far into hypothetical service patterns here, but if the Manhattan Bridge tracks had not needed to be closed for reconstruction and the 63rd St Tunnel opened on time (the two projects were independent of each other), then it might have been necessary to make a distinction between the two B services. |
|
|
| (1426047) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Jan 30 17:46:05 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sat Jan 28 22:41:28 2017. Then I guess we'll have a few northbound N trains running on the Brighton during rush hours. Oh well, it's really not that big of a deal. And neither are the few northbound Q's running over the Sea Beach. |
|
|
| (1426050) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Jan 30 18:06:25 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 21:13:12 2017. No they would not, because with the R160 trains, you don't know where your train is going unless you see the destination on the side sign or the interior display. And because the sign cycle through the information, you won't see the destination right away. And what if you're headed for Astoria and you get on an N at 57th St and you finally see that the train is not going there AFTER the doors have closed? |
|
|
| (1426053) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jan 30 20:13:17 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Jan 30 18:06:25 2017. And what if you're headed for Astoria and you get on an N at 57th St and you finally see that the train is not going there AFTER the doors have closed?Well, at 57th, 96/2 trains are on the express track and Astoria trains are all on the local track. |
|
|
| (1426056) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jan 30 22:10:33 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 30 15:07:07 2017. Making the same points over and over is not justified in shutting down a thread?OK, fine. Your opinion, my opinion. The fact of the matter is the thread stays because moderation of this site is a big fat ZERO. |
|
|
| (1426057) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jan 30 22:15:18 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 30 15:40:15 2017. They don't go to Astoria because that will mess up the 1:1 ratio with the W. Plus there is enough congestion with the R thru the tube. These trains to 96/2 all go back south, except the last of the AM which lays up.This has been pointed out already, which is my point why the thread should be reefed. |
|
|
| (1426058) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 30 22:19:14 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jan 30 22:10:33 2017. No, it's not. Don't like it, ignore the thread. For the most part this thread has been polite and civil except for one post. Luckily no one took the flamebait so it's still good. |
|
|
| (1426059) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 30 22:20:01 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jan 30 22:15:18 2017. That fact is understood by all and not seriously in dispute. |
|
|
| (1426060) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 30 22:31:17 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 30 22:20:01 2017. Understood,perhaps.Acknowledgement of that understanding seems to take a back seat to bitching. Listen,we can discuss until the "eEarth becomes middle Earth",its won't make one bit of difference. The MTA is going to run those trains the qay They see fit...and not all of the bitching in the world is going to change it. |
|
|
| (1426061) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 30 22:31:45 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 30 22:20:01 2017. Understood,perhaps.Acknowledgement of that understanding seems to take a back seat to bitching. Listen,we can discuss until the "eEarth becomes middle Earth",its won't make one bit of difference. The MTA is going to run those trains the way They see fit...and not all of the bitching in the world is going to change it. |
|
|
| (1426062) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Jan 30 22:42:33 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jan 30 14:24:45 2017. If we had areal moderator the thread would now be in the reef because the same points are being made over and over and over and over.....That's one of the things I don't particularly like about a certain RR forum out there. Yes the thread can become repetitive but such is the nature of discussion. I actually find it more than a little arrogant when a moderator comes in and declares "everything of value for this topic has been discussed, I am closing this thread" not 2 hours after its most recent post. If everything of value had been discussed people would not continue to post (so long as the topic hadn't drifted, in which case a new thread is warranted for the new topic - SubChat empowers anyone to do this by changing the subject line). |
|
|
| (1426071) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jan 31 09:15:51 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jan 30 22:10:33 2017. Even with the same points being repeated, there is always the possibility of new information and new perspectives at some point, whether it be on the exact topic of Sea Beach - 2 Av services or somehow branched off onto some other rail topic. |
|
|
| (1426246) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Feb 2 10:05:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jan 30 22:15:18 2017. And why is a 1:1 ratio with the W important? If there are a few more Ns than Ws to Astoria, so what? |
|
|
| (1426255) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Feb 2 10:28:16 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Feb 2 10:05:22 2017. why is a 1:1 ratio with the W important?It's to maintain a uniform headway for Brooklyn bound trains over a range of service levels. If the ratio is 1:1 a service pattern might look like: NWNWNWNWNWN. Remove the W at Whitehall and the Brooklyn bound trains look like: N N N N N N. Spacing between trains is still uniform. If the ration were 2:1 a service pattern would look like: NNWNNWNNWN. Remove the W at Whitehall and the Brookly bound traains look like: NN NN NN N. The uneven gap means the N before the gap gets fewer riders and the N following the gap get its share plus the gaps. This delays the train with its follower close behind. |
|
|
| (1426268) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Feb 2 12:02:39 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Feb 2 10:28:16 2017. Yeah, I get that, but I don't think the intervals are perfectly uniform as it is. And the Ns that are coming from 96th St. have to merge into that pattern anyway. If the trains from Ditmars were NWNWNNWNWNWNNW it wouldn't be a tragedy. Now if Ditmars terminal can't handle that many trains, that's another story. (One possibility would be to end the occasional train at Astoria Blvd., but that would mean running it express from Queensboro Plaza. Maybe not the best answer. Unless Astoria Blvd. is your stop.) |
|
|
| (1426271) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Feb 2 12:30:21 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Feb 2 12:02:39 2017. The issue is not only that Ditmars can't handle it, but neither can the 60th street tunnel. |
|
|
| (1426272) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Feb 2 12:36:57 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Feb 2 12:02:39 2017. 60th st tunnel is the issue here.Three services each,with various tph merging at a major choke point. |
|
|
| (1426276) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by jrf2 on Thu Feb 2 13:11:36 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Edwards! on Thu Feb 2 12:36:57 2017. Sounds like standard MTA incompetance. |
|
|
| (1426280) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Feb 2 13:29:32 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by jrf2 on Thu Feb 2 13:11:36 2017. No. |
|
|
| (1426282) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Feb 2 13:58:28 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Feb 2 13:29:32 2017. Yes and no.I am frequently at 34th and Bway in the AM rush hour. The dispatching of trains (N trains merging into the local track from the express track) is often done poorly. Someone doesn't pay attention and an excessively long period goes by without a train departing northward from 34th. They really ought to be able to squeeze more than 23 tph onto the local track. |
|
|
| (1426324) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Thu Feb 2 18:19:08 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 30 12:28:41 2017. That reminds me, the (E) trains that go to Jamaica - 179 Street should be (F) trains out of World Trade Center. |
|
|
|
Page 15 of 16 |
||
