|
|
| Re: N to 96/2 (1422383) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 16 |
||
|
| (1422880) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Union Tpke on Thu Jan 5 17:40:53 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 5 17:33:28 2017. I am sorry that that happened to you. Clearly, you were a really responsible employee. |
|
|
| (1422884) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 5 17:45:39 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 5 17:38:27 2017. The stations are listed on the FIND and there is an announcement made at Barclays what the next stop is.I'm sorry you don't like it, but there is no program for N to 96th, and the superintendent wants a Q via Sea Beach to 96th St. posted as per memorandum. Since you have a problem with it an persist complaining, perhaps you should write a snail mail letter to NYCT, or and Email at least, to express your concerns; mentioning to them about the inconsistency of the signage of E to 179 you mentioned prior. |
|
|
| (1422889) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Union Tpke on Thu Jan 5 17:47:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 5 17:45:39 2017. I did send them an email, and they just said that it would be redirected to someone else.However, in the past, they have listened to me. At Forest Hills, there was a sign that said that the M went via 63rd Street. I emailed them and they corrected it. At Seventh Avenue, they put up the wrong sign for getting to JFK. They put up the A train one instead of the E. They fixed it after I emailed. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1422893) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 5 17:51:10 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Union Tpke on Thu Jan 5 17:47:22 2017. They do agree with you most of the time, send them another Email or snail mail them. |
|
|
| (1422895) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 5 17:53:30 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 5 17:38:27 2017. Someone getting the N disguised as Q at Atlantic would be getting it at the normal N platform (former Pacific St.). Thus they would not be looking to get on a Q there and would be unlikely to want to get off at DeKalb. |
|
|
| (1422896) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 5 17:54:27 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by N6 Limited on Thu Jan 5 15:02:28 2017. You're right! (Also, "cue".) |
|
|
| (1422897) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 5 17:55:11 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 5 17:53:30 2017. The passengers are pretty much used to having to be on a train on the local track at Barclays to go to DeKalb by now. |
|
|
| (1422911) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 5 19:02:16 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 5 17:33:28 2017. It sounds like very demeaning and hostile work environment, unnecessarily. You do not have to be a "radical" to not survive or even tolerate that. |
|
|
| (1422914) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 5 19:15:37 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 5 19:02:16 2017. And don't get me started with the crew assignment office. They don't like to answer the phone. 1 person for hundreds of t/o's, 1 person for hundreds of c/r's in each division man the phone.Never worry about a sick out, they'll never answer the one 1 sick line that every dispatcher, asst. dispatcher, tower operator, TSS, t/o and c/r must use. The A division has a crew office and the B division has a crew office. |
|
|
| (1422927) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by ftgreeneg on Thu Jan 5 20:54:04 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 5 19:15:37 2017. No one likes calling the crew office. They are the equivalent to talking to the DMV...lol On Work Trains and the people in their crew office are actually pretty nice. |
|
|
| (1422928) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 5 21:28:38 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 5 17:33:28 2017. I can respect a great work ethic.character building for those who watch what you do. |
|
|
| (1422959) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Jan 6 07:30:14 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 3 14:43:09 2017. Yes- people will hesitate, as many don't know the actual system layout. My very first ride (2007) on an R160 was on a mid-day re-routed N from Prince to Whitehall.I, having a reasonable knowledge of the system, understood that taking the "N Re-routed via Whitehall" would in fact, get me to Whitehall Street (go figure...) But many people insisted on waiting for an R or W. In 2014 or so, I saw a D pull into Times Square on the Broadway Line. Most folks seriously doubted it would get them to 5th/60th or Lex/60th....despite the announcements it was going to Astoria. |
|
|
| (1422960) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 6 08:04:30 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Jan 6 07:30:14 2017. So, yes - it is for these reasons that it should become standard practice to ON PURPOSE mis-label trains under the guise that "it won't confuse the riders!"Then to say to anyone who objects that they are crazy for thinking that the trains should be properly labeled. What a "Trumped-Up" world. Mike |
|
|
| (1422971) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Fri Jan 6 09:22:53 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Thu Jan 5 17:33:28 2017. Bill you kidding of coruse not im seeing it down here now they Firing these new folks left and right.. |
|
|
| (1422975) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 6 10:19:28 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 6 08:04:30 2017. There has always been more confusion for passengers when the (N) train that supposedly runs to Astoria actually only heads to 57th Street. It's a big pain in the ass for them. They don't know why their (N) ended at 57th Street, even if the announcements said otherwise. And especially in tourist-heavy Midtown. The same would have applied now for 96th Street, if they had decided to keep these trains signed up as (N).There has always been less confusion when an (N) train starts at 57th Street and heads to Brooklyn. I've seen it myself. People waiting at 57th for their (N) just plop into that train, no hesitation. The (N) that runs FROM 96th to Brooklyn is signed up as an (N). But it's only three stops, and people who ride the (Q) know that the (N) makes the same stops in Manhattan. Run a (Q) via Sea Beach, and people are not as confused, because they know the (Q) train makes the same stops in Manhattan. If they don't feel comfortable, then they just wait it out for their (N). They won't think much. Nor do they know that the (Q) they skipped out on is really a (N) train with an (N) crew. It is a big inconvenience for passengers to be on a train that is associated with heading to Astoria when it is actually running to 96th Street. I'll repeat my post from before: 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. |
|
|
| (1422981) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 6 11:29:28 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 6 10:19:28 2017. You can repeat your post all you want.There have been plenty of times when #2 trains have been sent down Lexington Avenue or #5 trains sent down the westside line - where even though both trains will be ending up at the same Brooklyn College terminal - folks on the platforms won't board those trains! Or vice-versa on such trains leaving Brooklyn. There are plenty of other examples to cite. Why won't the riders "ride those trains?" Any number of reasons can be suggested. However the information provided by the MTA is honest information - they told riders up-front what the train is and where it is headed, at every point along the trip. This is not the bad old days of the 1970's with the graffiti with different signage from one subway car to the next one. Where the TA was lucky to even have functioning rolling stock. Where who cared whatever the signage said the train was moving until the next red flag area. Where the trains derailed on an almost hourly basis. The TA has come a long way from that, and rightfully so. This is not a case where trains are diverted for some reason, and that is why they are on the wrong line. The issue with the Uptown Q's on the N-line that turn into downtown N's is that the MTA is being dis-honest with the riders. This is a case where ON PURPOSE the MTA is tricking the riders. That is the dis-honesty with this scheme. You can talk all you want about "non-existent programs on the FIND system" - but that is just a cover for bad decision making. Dishonesty for a "good reason" is usually never a good idea. When I get on the train at 86th Street-Fourth Avenue - I do not expect to see F-trains! You can say all want that "It's for my own good, because in Queens ..." Being dis-honest is just wrong, no matter how you try to dress it up! Mike |
|
|
| (1422994) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 6 13:03:31 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 6 11:29:28 2017. There have been plenty of times when #2 trains have been sent down Lexington Avenue or #5 trains sent down the westside line - where even though both trains will be ending up at the same Brooklyn College terminal - folks on the platforms won't board those trains! Or vice-versa on such trains leaving Brooklyn. There are plenty of other examples to cite.And what happens to the people who got on the (5) train in the Bronx find out it is heading down the West Side? Or when the (2) they board at Gun Hill Road is heading down Lexington? It is a greater inconvenience for them. It'll just be "Stupid MTA again". Those waiting on the Lexington line, as YOU said, won't board. To them, that (2) train is odd. They'll just wait for the next (4) or (5), even if it has the same stops. Same with the (Q) that winds up on the Sea Beach. It is better to have people not board a train that definitely does NOT go where they WANT, than it is to have people assume the train is heading to the regular correct terminal when it is in fact not going there. The issue with the Uptown Q's on the N-line that turn into downtown N's is that the MTA is being dis-honest with the riders. This is a case where ON PURPOSE the MTA is tricking the riders. That is the dis-honesty with this scheme. You can talk all you want about "non-existent programs on the FIND system" - but that is just a cover for bad decision making. Dishonesty for a "good reason" is usually never a good idea. Regular people do not and never will give two shits about a train that is a (Q)-but-really-a-(N)-with-(N)-crews. That is something only buffs worry and debate about. What is indeed guaranteed to happen to a good number of riders on this train if, and when, the MTA introduces the (N) to 96th Street program is that they won't pay attention to the 96th Street part. They will just see (N) and make their minds on the spot. Then they'll get that nasty surprise at 57th Street when they find out their train is not going to Astoria. Then they have to get off, or worse, some will stay. THEN those will get mad and ask why the MTA lied and was being dishonest about the (N). Then they will think the MTA is tricking them. No amount of FIND signs that explicitly said the (N) was going to 96th Street will change that. Whether by having these trains as (Q), they won't board it, period. No worries about getting OFF at the WRONG stop. When I get on the train at 86th Street-Fourth Avenue - I do not expect to see F-trains! You can say all want that "It's for my own good, because in Queens ..." And in that same manner, people do not expect the (N) to go to 96th Street. People don't expect a (Q) to show up at Bay Parkway either, but at least they will know that it is supposed to be a Second Avenue train. No matter what happens, FIND system updates and all, it will be a greater inconvenience for people when they learn their (N) is going to 96th Street, not Ditmars. |
|
|
| (1422995) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Jan 6 13:05:46 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 6 13:03:31 2017. What about running the N program to 57/7 from Coney Island to Barclay Center and then changing over to the Q to 96/2 somewhere during that 11-minute ride over the Manhattan Bridge? There's plenty of time for a decently-clear C/R to explain everything over the PA.I believe something like this was done when the F was going to Queensbridge late nights a couple of decades back. |
|
|
| (1422997) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 6 13:11:25 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Jan 6 13:05:46 2017. I thought those were not allowed. |
|
|
| (1422998) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Jan 6 13:14:23 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 6 13:11:25 2017. Any plan is going to be what formerly wasn't allowed. You weren't allowed to run a Q program while on the Sea Beach until this week. I formally suggest that a changeover on the Manhattan Bridge results in less confusion (however small the difference may be) than a Q program on the Sea Beach. |
|
|
| (1422999) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 6 13:16:18 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Jan 6 13:14:23 2017. More confusion for people to be on a (N) train that suddenly changes to a (Q) than it is for people to see a (Q) via Sea Beach or even the (N) to 96th Street. |
|
|
| (1423002) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Jan 6 13:25:20 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 6 13:16:18 2017. But the confusion occurs while the people are already "trapped" and a trained (ideally) C/R has a captive audience to really explain things. Not to mention that the next 4 stops are all the same anyway as if the changeover didn't happen."Ladies and gentlemen, this train will be making Q stops. We will still stop at Canal Street, Union Square, 34th St, Times Square, and 57th St. Please transfer to the N, R, or W for other stations." It's either do that once or twice over the Bridge, or, yelling "N stops! N stops!" practically all the way up the Sea Beach at people who are opting to stay on the platform. Also to think of the fact that there are two different Qs at Coney Island the way it is now. Yes, different platforms, but why have that? |
|
|
| (1423007) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 6 13:36:14 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 6 08:04:30 2017. They would already be "mislabeled" because N trains do not go to 96th Street! Why are you so insistent that they be signed as Ns? |
|
|
| (1423011) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Jan 6 14:11:25 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Jan 6 13:25:20 2017. There's another solution: give these anomalies a different letter. In the old days of course a diamond solved this, but that has since been reserved only for express runs.If every piece of digital equipment wasn't designed for single letters, they could call these anomalies the NQ. |
|
|
| (1423013) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 6 14:16:58 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 6 13:36:14 2017. According to the official N timetable, Ns do go to 96th. |
|
|
| (1423014) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 6 14:18:39 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Jan 6 14:11:25 2017. Th-NQ very much! |
|
|
| (1423017) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 6 15:09:46 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Jan 6 13:25:20 2017. Why confuse people like that? That's even more unnecessary. What happens to the people who thought they were on a (N) going to Ditmars? A (Q) via Sea Beach isn't as confusing.All of these reasons to have a (N) 96th Street provide more inconvenience to Manhattan and Astoria riders than a (Q) via Sea Beach. And those Brooklyn riders aren't as inconvenienced by a (Q) popping up. Honestly, this obsessive effort is derived from the train buff compulsion of seeing a train signed up as a (N) train to 96th Street. Like how Wallyhorse insists on a brown (R) to Nassau or wherever the hell he wants to send it. |
|
|
| (1423029) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 6 17:34:16 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 6 13:36:14 2017. Because the sign should match the public timetable and the public timetable is quite clear than there are N's that go to 96th. |
|
|
| (1423030) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 6 17:44:28 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 6 17:34:16 2017. OK, so they should change the Q timetable to include a few extra trains with Brighton Beach through DeKalb blanked out and the notation "via Sea Beach" instead. |
|
|
| (1423033) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jan 6 18:11:39 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 6 15:09:46 2017. With all this talk about trains going to alternate terminals doesn’t anyone realize that the same thing occurs on Lex Av every PM rush with Dyre being the regular terminal for the 5 and alternate 5s going to E 238 St? Since probably very few N passengers will be going to Astoria anyhow, confusion probably will be insignificant if there were an N program fro 96/2. |
|
|
| (1423034) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Mtatransit on Fri Jan 6 18:42:16 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Fri Jan 6 18:11:39 2017. Wait does the Q via Sea Beach stop at Dekalb? Or does it skip Dekalb like regular N to Astoria. |
|
|
| (1423035) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 6 18:48:05 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 6 17:44:28 2017. That's another approach. But how are these southbound Sea Beach trains from 96th now signed ?Should we also call the 179th Street E's the F's, blank out some time columns and say "via 8th Avenue" ? The 179th Street E is not shown on any map, nor even the strip map in the schedule, but footnoted on the schedule itself. We have three A southern terminals, and two #5 northern terminals. No passenger has committed suicide from that. So why do we play these denial games with the N ? |
|
|
| (1423036) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Mtatransit on Fri Jan 6 18:58:24 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 6 18:48:05 2017. Currently N trains are signed as N BWY/4 Av EXP |
|
|
| (1423037) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 6 19:05:05 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Mtatransit on Fri Jan 6 18:42:16 2017. I believe it acts like an N until it gets to 57th. |
|
|
| (1423039) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 6 19:34:17 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 6 19:05:05 2017. It acts like an N until 34th Street. Then it doesn't cross over to the local track. |
|
|
| (1423040) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 6 20:15:31 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 6 19:34:17 2017. Right. |
|
|
| (1423044) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 6 20:27:08 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Mtatransit on Fri Jan 6 18:58:24 2017. So, we have the anamoly of a 96th Street N labeled Q northbound and N southbound.Northbound people on the Sea Beach and 4th Avenue line are supposed to assume it will act like an N even though it is signed as a Q. It says "Sea Beach", but the TA has spent 50 years de-emphasizing BMT branch names, so people only know it only as the "N Line", but it won't make Dekalb like a real Q. Southbound SAS passengers who are supposed to get on whatever comes. What some will do is let this strange N train go - they want the Q. |
|
|
| (1423052) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 6 21:53:35 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 6 18:48:05 2017. I agree with you.- For decades #6 trains have alternated terminals between Parkchester and Pelham Bay Park. - For decades A-trains have alternated terminals between Lefferts Blvd, Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park. - For decades F-trains have alternated terminals between Kings Highway and Coney Island. - Ever since the Archer Avenue segment opened in the 1980's - E-trains have had a number of rush hour E-trains that originated or ended their runs at 179th Street, as noted on several subway maps. - For the past decade or so B-trains have alternated terminals between 145th Street and Bedford Park Blvd. During the late pm rush hours some D-trains end their runs at Bedford Park Blvd. - For decades the #5 train has alternated terminals in the Bronx between 238th Street and Dyre Avenue, and in Brooklyn between Brooklyn College and Utica Avenue. Prior to that #4 trains alternated terminals between Brooklyn College and Utica Avenue. At times both #2 and #5 trains ended their runs at East 180th Street. - In the 1970's and 1980's RR trains alternated terminals between Chambers Street and Astoria, something which Wallyhorse wanted to revive. - In the 1970's and 1980's #1 trains alternated terminals between 137th Street-City College and Van Cortlandt Park. Plus a number of #2-trains, #4 and #5 trains originate or terminate at New Lots Avenue in Brooklyn due to the train yard access. SO WHY THE HELL SHOULD THE N-TRAINS TO/FROM 96TH STREET/2ND AVENUE BE TREATED ANY DIFFERENTLY? Big frigging deal that some N-trains from Brooklyn ended at 57th Street last month, and will now go to 96th Street/2nd Avenue. Just label the trains properly as N-trains and be done with it. Why the effort to disguise these trains as "Q-trains" while they travel through Brooklyn on the N-train line. That is just dis-honest. The idea that this is being done to "reduce rider confusion" is just silliness - and all for 4 stations! It suggests that somehow "Upper Eastside riders" are kittens that need to be treated with fuzzy gloves unable to properly read train signage. That "confusing" riders in Brooklyn about the nature of those trains is preferable to "confusing Upper Eastside riders." Really? Upper Eastside riders are not God's gift to the universe. Or is it that riders in the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and in other parts of the city can better deal with traveling by subway, and in reading train signage, and in listening to directions? Mike |
|
|
| (1423057) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Jan 6 22:42:00 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 6 21:53:35 2017. LOL |
|
|
| (1423061) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by transitbuff on Fri Jan 6 23:00:37 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 6 21:53:35 2017. I couldn't agree with you more,Mike. |
|
|
| (1423078) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Sat Jan 7 01:35:45 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 6 21:53:35 2017. So you just completely forgot about the seven Astoria stations and its riders? Yeah, funny you didn't mention that. All those cases above involve a very notable and sizable chunk of service dedicated to alternate services. People know thosePeople get steamed when the (1) ends at City College. I know it because I have seen it for the last 5 years commuting there. Sure, the MTA is being honest. But people don't care. They just know they were inconvenienced. You don't care for the passenger. You have never seen the amount of people that get pissed when the (N) goes to 57th. I have seen it time and time again. Just because it works for other lines doesn't mean it works in this case. But you insist on being a foamer like Wallyhorse, go ahead. |
|
|
| (1423081) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 7 03:46:10 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 6 17:34:16 2017. Few people check the timetable. |
|
|
| (1423082) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 7 03:47:41 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 6 18:48:05 2017. The southbound Ns are still signed as Ns.And maybe they should sign the 179th-bound Es as Fs. “via 8th Avenue” doesn’t matter as if it were truly analogous, Manhattan-bound Es from 179th would still be signed as Es. |
|
|
| (1423083) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 7 03:48:19 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 6 20:27:08 2017. People aren’t that stupid. |
|
|
| (1423084) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 7 03:49:16 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Sat Jan 7 01:35:45 2017. AWESOME POST! |
|
|
| (1423086) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Sat Jan 7 06:37:36 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Sat Jan 7 01:35:45 2017. The entire debate seems to boil down to a fairly simple question -- should trains have route indicators that indicate where they are coming from, or should they have route indicators that indicate where they are going to? |
|
|
| (1423089) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Jan 7 07:18:30 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 6 11:29:28 2017. I presume that the FIND programs were set up the way they are for a reason, and that the reasoning was basically what GojiMet86 says. How is the MTA "tricking" the riders? Rather than saying it is "really" an N train displaying Q signs, I would say that it IS a Q train, that happens to be operated by an N-line crew. People don't care about the assignments of the crew operating their train. All the W trains are also operated by N-line crews, but that doesn't mean they are "really" N trains, does it? |
|
|
| (1423090) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 07:26:45 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 7 03:48:19 2017. It is a matter of awareness and familiarity. A fellow in my office refused to get on a W train in Manhattan since he had no idea what it was. All he knows is his normal train to his destination that he has been doing. |
|
|
| (1423091) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 07:32:37 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Sat Jan 7 01:35:45 2017. Short turns are a fact of life in rail transit on most routes as trains go out of service.That is bad analogy anyway. With the N, we are talking about two alternate branches, and that is a fact of life elsewhere too. We have AM rush reverse peak J's and Z's ending at ENY. The north sign is all "Jamaica". They get and wait for the next train. B-F-D. |
|
|
| (1423092) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 07:33:45 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Charles G on Sat Jan 7 06:37:36 2017. The route indicator should match the public timetable.Routes and terminals are not the same thing. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 16 |
||
