|
|
| Re: N to 96/2 (1422383) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 16 |
||
|
| (1422561) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Italianstallion on Tue Jan 3 22:55:00 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Tue Jan 3 22:39:09 2017. It's less if a problem if an Astoria bound person has to get off at 57th than if he accidentally winds up at 96th! |
|
|
| (1422563) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 23:08:50 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 3 22:45:07 2017. You have it totally wrong. The northbound Q via Sea Beach program was created DELIBERATELY! They could call them Ns but they choose not to. Why do you consider it so wrong to call them Qs? |
|
|
| (1422564) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Tue Jan 3 23:11:34 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Tue Jan 3 22:39:09 2017. Seems like that's still happening. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1422565) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Tue Jan 3 23:16:21 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Jan 3 21:29:39 2017. I think any of those letters could be used if needed. What's wrong with a Y train, or a U train? The bit about "IOU" was clever, but shouldn't really prevent use of any of those letters. Wasn't there actually a plan for a P train at one point, in the event of an LIRR strike? |
|
|
| (1422566) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 3 23:24:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 23:08:50 2017. You said:"The northbound Q via Sea Beach program was created DELIBERATELY! They could call them Ns but they choose not to." I said: "For some reason there is a Q-train announcement program for the uptown routing of a Q-train via Fourth Avenue & Sea Beach to 96th Street." As in the MTA could spend the resources to create such an announcement program, but not one for the few N-trains that would be traveling to 96th Street/2nd Avenue? You said: "They could call them Ns but they choose not to. Why do you consider it so wrong to call them Qs?" My answer: If the MTA could create a Q-train announcement program for the uptown routing of a Q-train via Fourth Avenue & Sea Beach to 96th Street - then the MTA could ALSO create such a program for this direction of the N-train - to match the downtown/Brooklyn bound N-train announcement program. Especially since the MTA knew that a few (some) N-trains would regularly travel to/from 96th Street/2nd Avenue. If there were an uptown/Manhattan bound N-train announcement program as well as a downtown/Brooklyn bound N-train announcement program (which there is) - then those few N-trains would simply be labeled N-trains for both directions. Simple. Just like #5 trains to 238th Street, or A-trains to/from the Rockaways as compared to Lefferts trains. The N-train line would be treated just like other subway routes that have a few trains that get diverted to another terminal. In the case where signage for a diversion did not exist, or "stuff happens" the conductors simply make announcements as they have done for decades. Mike |
|
|
| (1422567) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 23:26:59 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 3 23:24:22 2017. Except that labelling them Q trains is BETTER! |
|
|
| (1422568) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Jan 3 23:28:12 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Kriston Lewis on Tue Jan 3 23:11:34 2017. If true, then these c/r's were not following the directive of the superintendant. They'll be caught up to by the TSS. |
|
|
| (1422569) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Jan 3 23:30:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 23:26:59 2017. Yes because by doing it this way there is less chance for a passenger to wind up at the wrong destination. |
|
|
| (1422571) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Wed Jan 4 02:01:23 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 23:08:50 2017. You have it totally wrong. The northbound Q via Sea Beach program was created DELIBERATELY! They could call them Ns but they choose not to.Ding ding ding! |
|
|
| (1422572) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by DA74 on Wed Jan 4 02:59:49 2017, in response to N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Jan 3 02:06:40 2017. Does the Sea Beach 96/2 Q train depart from Q or N platform in Stillwell? |
|
|
| (1422600) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 4 09:18:27 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Italianstallion on Tue Jan 3 22:55:00 2017. Agreed. But I wasn't talking about that issue. |
|
|
| (1422608) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Wed Jan 4 09:49:01 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 3 22:45:07 2017. Bring back marker lights! :)--Mark |
|
|
| (1422617) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Jan 4 10:22:46 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Mark S. Feinman on Wed Jan 4 09:49:01 2017. Ha! Ha!Mike |
|
|
| (1422639) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Wed Jan 4 12:05:24 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 23:26:59 2017. Exactly.I was on a 57th Street R68 (N) a month ago. It was signed up as Astoria, but it ended at 57th Street. The Conductor made (barely audible) announcements at 34th Street and 42nd Street that the train was a 57th Street-bound train. Many people still stayed on thinking it was an Astoria train. I know this because I had to help a group of 6 heading to LaGuardia, and many others getting off at 57th Street went across the platform to wait for the (N) train. Now, this was with an R68, with its paper signs and not so loud intercom. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The R160s that head to 57th Street say the (N) 57th Street program. But when people on the platform look to see what train is coming, they see the FRONT end first, and they see (N). They don't stop to see the side signs, because they EXPECT their (N) to be NORMAL. And the people who see the SIDE signs want to see the LETTER, not the other information. They already know from their prior everyday knowledge and what the MTA has told them that (N) trains run express and run to Astoria. And when the train READS it is running to ANOTHER destination other than where is it supposed to go, the first thought is "It's WRONG". It is not "This is a short-turn (N) that ends at 57th Street because the Astoria can't handle that many Trains-Per-Hour". It is only until the conductor makes the MANUAL announcement and the intercom makes that loud DING sound that people realize that the train is running to 57th Street. Then it is a hassle for them. They think "Great, I now have to transfer" or "Why is ending early? Is there something wrong?" or "What did he/she say?" Whatever the signs say, it is the Conductor's own announcement that people look to as the ultimate announcement. That is why Conductors on any model of train repeat information when a train is diverted or when a train is running express when it is supposed to be running local. The NTT automated announcements say their piece once and they say the same information. People become accustomed to the messages, so they don't pay attention to them. People know the DING means the Conductor has to make a different announcement from the usual routine. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Run a train that says (Q) via Sea Beach, and people will very likely take the train. Many people know that the (Q) makes the same EXPRESS stops as the (N) in Manhattan and think "I can take this train to Manhattan, because I know it stops at Midtown and I know it stops at my stop (Canal, 14th, 34th, 42nd)". Those going to the Manhattan local stops will do the same thing that they do with their usual (N) routine: Transfer to the local train. Those going to Astoria think "I can transfer to a (W) train, because when I know the (W) goes to Astoria". --------------------------------------------------------------------- I have observed that in general, it is a lot harder to get people off a train than it is to get them on. Which is why running a (Q) train via Sea Beach is better than running a (N) to 96th Street. |
|
|
| (1422642) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 4 12:22:55 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Wed Jan 4 12:05:24 2017. Also if the people on Sea Beach see a Q train, they may be confused enough to actually read the side signs or pay attention to the announcement inside the train, figuring that if the train doesn't go to where they want it to, they can decide to get off at the next stop or somewhere else given that they figure that the train will allow a transfer to a real N if necessary at least one more stop down the line. Seeing a train signed as an N they will ignore everything else. |
|
|
| (1422673) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by transitbuff on Wed Jan 4 14:49:56 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 3 22:45:07 2017. Where does the 0901 N Stillwell lay up after reaching 96/2? |
|
|
| (1422675) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Jan 4 15:22:08 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by DA74 on Wed Jan 4 02:59:49 2017. N platform. |
|
|
| (1422680) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Jan 4 15:38:40 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by transitbuff on Wed Jan 4 14:49:56 2017. City Hall Yard. For the PM rush it leaves from Canal St. as a W. At Astoria it becomes an N.This is what I was able to desipher from the NYCT internally timetable. Now if anybody wants to get out there and investigate...... |
|
|
| (1422701) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Wed Jan 4 17:56:06 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Italianstallion on Tue Jan 3 22:55:00 2017. This may be a dumb question at some level, but if they're signing a train as Q... why not run it on the line where everyone expects a Q to exist? If one needs to do otherwise, then program the &%^* sign. Someone who has not been taking the subway forever will expect a Q to go where it shows on the map, they won't and don't want to know the position of stations and terminal locations they don't personally use.Perhaps an all-purpose "this train will run a non-standard route" symbol can be programmed, it's just lights on a matrix. Heck, the thing could be programmed to alternate the letters Q and N, which would prompt people to look at the side signs, listen for an announcement or blow it off in frustration. The last option means less crowding ;-). Srsly, there's 100 ways to do this and there are people who specialize in figuring which ones to use. MTA could have picked several and preloaded them into the display. This is a trivial programming task, which could be done in 5 minutes and tested in 5 hours, or allow 5 days for MTA time. There's no excuse for not having had that done in advance as a contingency plan. |
|
|
| (1422702) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Snarf368 on Wed Jan 4 18:05:07 2017, in response to N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Jan 3 02:06:40 2017. All N trains (some W) were running to 96/2 this afternoon/evening due to an investigation at 59/Lex. |
|
|
| (1422703) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 4 18:17:13 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Steamdriven on Wed Jan 4 17:56:06 2017. SMH.There are trains that run via the Sea Beach line that end up at 96/2. The decision was made to sign them as Qs instead of Ns in the northbound direction to minimize confusion. These trains are run because there is a need for a certain frequency of trains on the Sea Beach Line but not all of them can go to Astoria. By signing it as an N people will expect it to go to Astoria. By signing it as a Q people will expect it to go to 96th Street. Therefore such trains are signed correctly. There is no N to 96th Street program precisely because they do not want one to be used and NOT due to laziness, indifference or some oversight. |
|
|
| (1422704) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 4 18:23:30 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 4 18:17:13 2017. I mostly buy your argument. I also think it's not a very important issue.However, until 1/1/2017, NYCT didn't care that people headed for 49th Street had to pay close attention to what type of N they were riding on, and it didn't concern them enough to sign 57/7-bound Ns as Qs. PS. There were occasions prior to 2017 when the destination of the N was changed from Astoria to 57/7 after the train left Coney Island, for reasons of congestion or load balancing. I'm sure that will happen again and occasional Ns will suddenly become Qs in mid-trip. |
|
|
| (1422708) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Jan 4 18:49:31 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Snarf368 on Wed Jan 4 18:05:07 2017. Correct.Report that the crew on a train in the tube heard some kind of a crashing sound and correctly stopped the train. IDK what came out of it but personnel from various departments came down to aid in the investigation. IDK if it was a problem with the train or not, but things are slowly getting back to normal now. |
|
|
| (1422712) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Jan 4 18:53:40 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Snarf368 on Wed Jan 4 18:05:07 2017. That means an R68 or two ran up there ? |
|
|
| (1422720) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Wed Jan 4 19:29:59 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Wed Jan 4 18:53:40 2017. Yep, at least one ran up there. |
|
|
| (1422722) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Jan 4 19:35:56 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Dyre Dan on Tue Jan 3 23:16:21 2017. Regarding U, We already have "double U". That said it will probably work. Regarding Y, it would be the butt of many jokes, though not as many as the P would be.I just want to try and merge the C into the A. The overnight service pattern would be easier to explain... the (A) is the full time 8th ave local between 168st and Euclid Av. Late nights it is extended to 207st and Far Rockaway. During daytime hours there is an express variant denoted with a diamond which goes to Lefferts, Far Rockaway, or Rockaway Park. It also would be a nice sneaky way to get the Lefferts people to not notice if we want to give them the C. "You'll keep the A, you just only get the local version" while the diamond version goes to the Rockaways :). |
|
|
| (1422723) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 4 19:45:46 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 4 18:23:30 2017. I guess I don't get why this is different from all the 4s and 5s in Brooklyn that go to non- standard terminals in rush hour. People can seem to figure that out. |
|
|
| (1422724) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 4 19:46:39 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Snarf368 on Wed Jan 4 18:05:07 2017. What were the Rs doing? |
|
|
| (1422726) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 4 19:51:32 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 4 19:45:46 2017. Yep. That's why I don't think it's that important. |
|
|
| (1422728) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Jan 4 19:56:17 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 4 19:45:46 2017. Thank you - I already said that.Mike |
|
|
| (1422729) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 4 20:04:52 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Wed Jan 4 10:22:46 2017. Considering that some master towers like Dekalb have had closed circuit TV cameras installed at interlocking points so that the Tw/Os can physically see the trains to verify their identity, markers might not be a bad idea since it seems that the MTA can’t trust the reliability of the T/Os’ punch. |
|
|
| (1422731) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Jan 4 20:06:13 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by zac on Tue Jan 3 14:54:52 2017. The Norton Express in Manhattan is back with a vengeance! |
|
|
| (1422736) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Wed Jan 4 20:11:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 4 19:46:39 2017. Operating via the 63rd Street Tube. |
|
|
| (1422744) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 4 20:16:19 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Jan 4 19:35:56 2017. Actually, if the MTA persists in the stupidity of having eliminated double letters the letter C could legitimately be replace by the letter H since the Rockaway shuttle does not use that letter and H was the original letter (in its double form) for a Fulton St Lcl which was intended to run between Court St and ENY and which now would simply apply to the service between 168 St and Euclid. |
|
|
| (1422745) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Jan 4 20:21:35 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Jan 3 23:30:22 2017. So then, we have some E's that run to 179th. Should they be relabeled F when they hit Jackson Hts ? It is just as much a service oddity as the N to SAS. |
|
|
| (1422751) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Jan 4 20:35:31 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Jan 3 22:49:59 2017. Are the call letters "Quincy" or are they using Nancy/November? That might be why some conductors are still using the N to 57st display if they're supposed to identify themselves as N trains over the radio... |
|
|
| (1422754) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Snarf368 on Wed Jan 4 21:21:05 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 4 19:46:39 2017. R already on Bway ran via Q n/o 57 then F n/o 63. R s/o Dekalb ran via bridge, 6 Ave, 63. |
|
|
| (1422755) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Wed Jan 4 21:31:49 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 4 18:17:13 2017. Well, that makes sense. If it works, it works, good enough. |
|
|
| (1422757) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Jan 4 22:11:32 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Wed Jan 4 20:21:35 2017. If the E train to 179 leaving WTC was labeled F, passengers could get confused that the train was going to get switched to Sixth Ave. @ W.4th. |
|
|
| (1422759) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Jan 4 22:17:06 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Jan 4 20:35:31 2017. For radio transmissions they would be considered N's because they are N crews and are going via Sea Beach.If they are using 57 St. designations they are not following orders of supervision. They are supposed to be using "Q via Sea Beach" because the line super instructed them to do so. |
|
|
| (1422762) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by transitbuff on Wed Jan 4 22:28:35 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Jan 4 15:38:40 2017. Thank you, Bill! |
|
|
| (1422764) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 4 22:41:40 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 4 19:45:46 2017. Perhaps they should change those too. |
|
|
| (1422768) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 4 22:53:37 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Jan 4 22:11:32 2017. I disagree. Most are unaware that is possible. Those who are aware, while not necessarily railfans, are the kinds of people who pay more attention. |
|
|
| (1422780) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 5 01:40:15 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 4 22:53:37 2017. Therefore perhaps JoeV should write a snail letter to NYCT asking why the inconsistency between the Q via Sea Beach and the E to 179?Note to all who have questioned and second guessed me in this thread: I am just reporting what is going on with the N's to 96. I am not a transit spokesperson to justify anything. I stick up for the signage because the only way I survived down there was keeping my mouth shut and following orders. Therefore I should not be taking any grief!!!!! |
|
|
| (1422786) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Thu Jan 5 07:40:07 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Wed Jan 4 20:21:35 2017. Per the official schedule and signage, those Es are supposed to run Express after 71st/Forest Hills. Theoretically they make only 2 F line stops: Parsons/Hillside and 179st.In practice, the AM trains drop OOS at Union Turnpike on the express track and the PM runs are sent local by the 71st Tower Operator so that they are effectively F trains from that point onward. |
|
|
| (1422848) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Union Tpke on Thu Jan 5 14:47:54 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Thu Jan 5 07:40:07 2017. Those three in the morning that end at Union Turnpike are official. |
|
|
| (1422852) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Thu Jan 5 15:02:28 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Italianstallion on Tue Jan 3 22:51:49 2017. And even the Q train sounds like a word: (Queue) |
|
|
| (1422870) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 5 17:04:48 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 5 01:40:15 2017. Good going.Keep your head low do the job..go home. |
|
|
| (1422874) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 5 17:33:28 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 5 17:04:48 2017. For 34+ years did what they wanted. 3rd anniversary of retirement on Jan. 11.No suspension days off. No operational write-ups. One day administrative suspension, reduced to a written reinstruction, because they did not accept a letter that my father had emergency surgery. No doctors name on letterhead. But I still lost a day as I had to take a day off to go to a hearing to fight it. Lousy scumbags! You do the job what they pay you to do with your mouth shut because they're the ones signing your paycheck. I doubt if most posters on this site could survive working for transit. Bunch of radicals here! |
|
|
| (1422877) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 5 17:38:27 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Thu Jan 5 07:40:07 2017. N to 96th is a regularly scheduled service, it is in the public timetables. A regularly scheduled service in the public timetable should have LED signs programmed for it, even if it runs just 4 times.These N's disguised at Q's probably don't stop at Dekalb. Normal Q's do. Someone getting on at Atlantic-Barclay would expect it to make Dekalb regardless of the fact it is running on the 4th Avenue line because that is what Q trains do. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 16 |
||
