|
|
| Re: N to 96/2 (1422383) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 16 |
||
|
| (1423093) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 07:35:06 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 7 03:47:41 2017. There you have the inconsistency in policy.179th E's against 96th N's. |
|
|
| (1423094) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 07:36:16 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 7 03:46:10 2017. Then don't publish one. See how that goes over.It will probably come out anyway in Trip Planner and Google Transit. |
|
|
| (1423096) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Jan 7 07:47:35 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Jan 6 14:11:25 2017. If these trains were called N, the entrance signs at 63rd/Lex wouldn't have to say FQ, which can be read as "F__k you". Instead, they could be read as FNQ, which could be read as "F__'n Q". |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1423097) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 7 07:50:17 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Charles G on Sat Jan 7 06:37:36 2017. Awesome summary of this debate, thanks!I can think of one instance where "going to" was the prevailing thought: the R-system for SEPTA. For example there was an afternoon inbound R7 from Trenton which displayed the green R6 Norristown on the signs. |
|
|
| (1423098) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 7 07:53:39 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 07:33:45 2017. I'm starting to come over to this opinion as well, as I think about all of the apps which use the public timetable data. Google for example displays them as N trains to 96st. I am wondering if the countdown clocks are going to show them as N trains as well.If they want to call these Q trains the timetable data should be updated as such. |
|
|
| (1423099) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 07:59:25 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 7 07:50:17 2017. SEPTA did away with R# because they did not want to be locked into fixed branch pairings all the time.What I would have done all these years is have a lower case or numeric 2nd character to distinguish branch deviations of routes. J & Z would be Ja and Jb or J1 and J2. Have A1, A2, A3; 5a, 5b. We are going to have this encounter again with Culver Express F's. Will they be diamond F like we have diamond 6 and diamond 7 ? With what we have, expand the definition of diamond to show these rush hour complexities. So the 96th N is the diamond N, the Rock Park A is the diamond A, and the 179th E is the diamond E. |
|
|
| (1423101) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 7 08:10:48 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 07:59:25 2017. I agree on the re-expansion of the meaning of diamond. A few years ago the MTA made a conscious decision to reduce it to just express variants. At the time the decision was made, there were three full time weekday express services (which contradicted "rush hours only"): Q, 6 and 7. Since then the diamond Q has gone away and the midday 7 express has been eliminated due to (at first) midday work regarding station renovation and switch reconfiguration, and now due to midday CBTC work.The Culver Express Fs will absolutely get diamonds as they are an express variant. |
|
|
| (1423102) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 7 08:14:38 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 7 03:47:41 2017. They would have to sign 179st bound Es as blue Fs. This is not a problem for the FINDs. |
|
|
| (1423105) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Jan 7 09:12:50 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 6 21:53:35 2017. For the next pick, they will do one of two things:1) Change the public timetable to show some Q trains via Sea Beach, or 2) Reprogram the FIND to be able to show N trains to 96th St. Maybe you're right that 2) would be more logical, but for better or worse, they can't show that right now. The FIND program for Stillwell to 96th via Sea Beach calls it a Q, for reasons that at least seemed sensible to the people who set up the programs. While that situation prevails, it certainly makes sense to use the existing program, rather than have to make announcements that could cause large numbers of people to change trains in Manhattan during rush hour who weren't planning to. |
|
|
| (1423108) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Jan 7 09:28:35 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 7 07:53:39 2017. When I look at all the variations that are already in place, not to mention this new variation, I like the idea of bringing back double letters. Give every variation its own name and we can end all this talk of dishonesty and secrecy and confusion. NA goes to Astoria and NB goes to 96 St, all the time, every time, barring an emergency reroute. |
|
|
| (1423109) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 09:32:00 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Jan 6 13:14:23 2017. I have seen weekend GO's on 4th Avenue of rerouted Brighton trains marked as Q. |
|
|
| (1423110) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 09:34:36 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 6 15:09:46 2017. Not it is not "train buff compulsion" or acting like Wallyhorse.It is called truth-in-labeling and that is what they are called in the public timetable. And nobody is talking about physically rerouting a train from Canarsie to 96th. |
|
|
| (1423111) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Jan 7 09:38:53 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 7 03:46:10 2017. That may be true for printed timetables, but I suspect that lots more people will be looking at the official timetable via smartphone apps. The signage must match the official timetable. |
|
|
| (1423112) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 09:39:23 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Mtatransit on Fri Jan 6 18:42:16 2017. I brought that up yesterday. It will skip Dekalb, which is a major transfer point. There's another area of confusion brought to you by the Q-train crowd.The passengers are somehow supposed to know that 4th Avenue expresses, whatever they are labeled, don't make Dekalb, and they are supposed to know somehow the TA doesn't like to work the switches at Dekalb. Nobody reads the interior strip maps while they are stepping on, or deciding if they will or not. |
|
|
| (1423113) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 09:40:26 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Jan 7 07:18:30 2017. People have no idea what crews or yards trains come from. |
|
|
| (1423120) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 09:53:04 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Jan 7 09:38:53 2017. We study those pdf schedules, but the Smartphone-types will do so in a different manner. |
|
|
| (1423128) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 7 10:41:17 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 07:35:06 2017. The fact that some Es have been going to 179th for years and no politician has yet brought this up as some great crisis shows how unimportant this whole issue is. |
|
|
| (1423129) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 7 10:42:21 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Jan 7 09:28:35 2017. But the NA would be not applicable and the NB would be very worthy of note. :) |
|
|
| (1423130) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 10:45:37 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 7 10:41:17 2017. You are right. |
|
|
| (1423136) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Jan 7 11:23:20 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 09:53:04 2017. I'm not even thinking of looking at a PDF version of a printed timetable on a smartphone; I'm thinking of someone using a smartphone app that is derived from an official timetable. All it will say is "Get on the N to 96 St." If the train then pulls in signed as a Q, that's ridiculous, regardless of whether it's running with a Q crew, an N crew, or a Z crew, or whether we're out of letters, or what. One shouldn't have to be a foamer to ride the subway system as an ordinary passenger. It shouldn't have to be that hard to provide accurate, clear information to riders who do not have an encyclopedic knowledge of the subway system. And the E to 179 thing is dumb too, while we're at it. I know about that but if I'm in a hurry and other things are on my mind, I might well forget and just jump on the 179 train instead of the Jamaica Center train. After all, it said E on the front. No one cares about the TA's internal problem of not being able to send all E's to Jamaica Center.It all makes as much sense as me saying that my name is Charlie on alternate Tuesdays. |
|
|
| (1423140) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 11:25:27 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Jan 7 11:23:20 2017. No, I meant Google Transit or MTA Trip Planner on their device. |
|
|
| (1423145) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 7 11:40:44 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 6 20:27:08 2017. No one will care about DeKalb. Those used to an N on 4th Ave. won't say to themselves - oh, a Q, it will stop at DeKalb. They don't know what the Q does. |
|
|
| (1423147) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 7 11:46:26 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 7 10:42:21 2017. Oooh. It took me a minute. |
|
|
| (1423150) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jan 7 11:59:15 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 7 11:40:44 2017. But I say the system should be at least comprehensible by a decently-researched first-time rider.For example, even if I've never used the system before, there is enough public literature for me to know, if I wanted to, that I might see an E at 179th if I go there. Right now, there is no reason for me to expect to see a Q on the Sea Beach, and definitely no reason for me to expect that Q to skip DeKalb. If I wasn't on SubChat, I would have no idea what a Q was doing on the Sea Beach line. But I'd understand the other scenarios (2/5 to Utica / New Lots and E to 179th) because they are documented. |
|
|
| (1423151) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 7 12:00:54 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 09:39:23 2017. No one regularly using a 4th Ave. express has any idea that the Q stops at DeKalb or will ever expect any express that stops along 4th Ave. there to make DeKalb. |
|
|
| (1423152) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 7 12:01:35 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 09:39:23 2017. No one regularly using a 4th Ave. express has any idea that the Q stops at DeKalb or will ever expect any express that stops along 4th Ave. there to make DeKalb. |
|
|
| (1423155) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sat Jan 7 12:33:53 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jan 7 11:59:15 2017. Even the E to Jamaica 179th is not widely known. This is a bad situation for a tourist wishing to get to JFK and then finding he is on the wrong train. New Yorkers would get by in such situations but for tourists it would be scary. |
|
|
| (1423156) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sat Jan 7 12:44:47 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 6 13:16:18 2017. No. I disagree with your whole train of thought. Here's why. Let's look at how many trains are involved daily: 7.There are 3 morning N trains to 96th originating from Coney Island and running via Sea Beach. Most of the riders of these three trains get on at the Sea Beach N stations. To them, What is a Q? Just a Qonfusion. By the time these trains reach Times Square they are, in effect, in reverse peak direction. There would not be very many people on them, and of those people, a good percentage got on at Brooklyn stations. These riders are already aware that some N trains at that time interval do not go to Astoria (previously they went to 57th). So in the morning, a Q designation does not help very many people, if any at all, instead serving to confuse the majority of riders. Now let's look at the 4 afternoon N trains to 96th. I have not checked the intervals on the Sea Beach, so I have to ask the question. Is it really necessary that these four afternoon trains go via Sea Beach? Is there really too long an interval between Astoria-bound N trains in the reverse peak afternoon direction? If not, these four should be run as Q-diamond specials, via Brighton Express. They would reach midtown no less quickly than Sea Beach trains with no need of the confusing/ridiculous "Q via Sea Beach" designations. |
|
|
| (1423157) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 12:47:01 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 7 12:01:35 2017. Yes, but the ex-Pacific Street platform has the same name as the Brighton Line platform. So people who do not much about train operations can assume a Q at place called Atlantic-Barclay will stop. |
|
|
| (1423158) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 12:51:18 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sat Jan 7 12:44:47 2017. The are trying to keep the Astoria line with 1 per 1 N & W. So whatever doesn't fit gets booted up to 96th.The Q will get a reverse peak load to and from the F at 63rd. |
|
|
| (1423159) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 12:53:30 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jan 7 11:59:15 2017. Most people who see a Q on 4th Avenue/Sea Beach will think the Brighton Line is fucked up, so they are rerouting them. All the more reason they will expect it to make Dekalb to get back on path. |
|
|
| (1423160) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jan 7 12:54:03 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 12:47:01 2017. So people who do not much about train operationsAnd there are plenty of them, even among the regular clientele. Also many who can't read even the clearest of maps. I know of someone traveling from Astoria to DeKalb quite routinely via the Q train who had no idea what to do once the Q was taken from Astoria in November. But even the more knowledgeable of these people can legitimately think that a Q at Barclay Center will stop at DeKalb, no matter where it platformed. But I'm sure such a person would also have the sensibility to listen to the "next stop" announcement. |
|
|
| (1423162) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 12:58:10 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jan 7 12:54:03 2017. Then they will wind up at Canal Street and really be mad.The W train had been gone for 6+ years. Figure 20% of the commuters don't remember it and have no idea what it is (like a fellow in my office who let one go, did not want to wind up in Yonkers or some place). |
|
|
| (1423165) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sat Jan 7 13:02:43 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Jan 7 09:12:50 2017. There has been debate earlier on this topic. (I admit I'm long winded.)My point is simple - those N-trains should be labeled as N-trains in both directions. They are N-trains that happen to go to/from 96th Street, in constrast to N and W trains that go to/from Astoria. For decades other train routes have variations that are noted on the train signage, on the maps, in the time-tables, etc. That is just simpler for everybody, as well as honest. It makes learning and using the subways easier. Previously I suggested conductors make announcements if there are signage issues. One forum member that said he works for the MTA said that having conductors make annoucements would be against the rules according to a new memo sent out by MTA line management. The line management folks were enforcing this "N-train as Q-train uptown" practice - so as "not to confuse the riders." On the NY Transit Forum it was reported that N-train conductors often simply used the usual Coney Island To 57th Street FIND program, and at 57th Street simply made announcements that those N-trains are headed to 96th Street. That forum member suggested that TSS folks would be cracking down on this. I wondered why the MTA ON PURPOSE would create and use a Q-train FIND program for the 96th Street Manhattan bound-direction via Sea Beach/Fourth Avenue - but not a similar program for an N-train to 96th Street. I'm told - don't worry about that - one can not question MTA policy and practice. Since the MTA could create this Q-train really N-train program - they could just as easily create the basic N-train program. They have one for 96th Street to Coney Island for the N-train downtown direction. Then it becomes an "does the ends justify the means" issue. This whole thing is based on the idea of "not confusing the riders." That "we" are doing this for the good of the riders - and how can anyone object. The issues with the FIND program are just a diversion since simpler solutions are present. According to NYTF there is a simpler solution actually in practice! It is the promotion of a dis-honest practice, and dressing it up as "doing good for the riders!" That is the part about these Q-labeled N-trains running up Fourth Avenue - that is the dis-honesty. In the "old days" with the variable sign displays many combinations of terminal and route could be chosen reflecting the direction and path a particular train. Most people could read the signs. The idea of disguising E-trains going to/from 179th Street as F-trains is mind boggling. 179th Street terminal was the traditional home terminal of the E-train for decades! Only since 1988 has the Archer Avenue segment existed. How is that not known especially on a transit forum? Yes, there should be "truth in labeling" on the subways, in the time-tables and schedules, and other documents. No - this is not just "transit foamer stuff." These are N-trains that happen to terminate at 96th Street-2nd Avenue, while other N and W trains go to/from Astoria. Big frigging deal. Plenty of other subway routes have alternative terminals - they are listed on the maps, in the time-tables, etc. Why treat the "96th Street N-trains" differently? To not "confuse the riders" - as the main reason or goal. Are Upper Eastside train riders some kind of different brand of human? People change trains every day - every year on the subways! How is this situation different? If the N-trains are labeled properly (as in what they actually are) the riders will figure out how to get where they need to go via the subway maps, the timetables, the schedules, etc. Mike |
|
|
| (1423171) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 7 13:33:15 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jan 7 11:59:15 2017. But I say the system should be at least comprehensible by a decently-researched first-time rider.Why on earth is that your criterion? There are almost no such people. Since these are rush hour trains, isn't the most important thing that it's clear to a regular rider who doesn't do any research at all? Those are the people most likely to see a Q on the Sea Beach line. |
|
|
| (1423173) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jan 7 14:01:53 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 7 10:41:17 2017. Wasn't bought up on SubChat either until I opened my big mouth about Q via Sea Beach. |
|
|
| (1423174) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 14:02:49 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Sat Jan 7 13:02:43 2017. What I think we have is a nerdy, MTA Mucky Muck, who came up with the Q-Sea Beach, is not the one who prepares timetables, and there may be an internal turf battle.This individual also disregards the 1959 notation, first shown on the R27, that N means Sea Beach and Q means Brighton. That concept was further emphasized with the R32 in 1964 that had us forget BMT Southern branch names altogther. They still carry on with that today with GO reroute documents, i.e. The D train will follow the N line from Stillwell to 36th. |
|
|
| (1423175) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 14:05:38 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jan 7 14:01:53 2017. The cat is out of the bag. |
|
|
| (1423176) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jan 7 14:06:55 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 14:05:38 2017. And I let it out. Lesson learned. |
|
|
| (1423177) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 14:08:42 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jan 7 14:06:55 2017. What lesson ? In a democracy, we can question public authority dogma. |
|
|
| (1423178) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 7 14:09:44 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 12:47:01 2017. Those seeking a Q won't be on the N platform in the first place. |
|
|
| (1423179) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 7 14:11:27 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jan 7 12:54:03 2017. "no matter where it platformed."WHY would the be on the N platform if they were seeking the Q? They would follow the signs to the Q platform. |
|
|
| (1423180) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jan 7 14:15:47 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 14:08:42 2017. You can question it, but if I didn't mention that the superintendent ordered these trains to read "N via Sea Beach" this discussion would not have taken place. |
|
|
| (1423181) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jan 7 14:16:36 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jan 7 14:15:47 2017. Correction Q via Sea Beach. |
|
|
| (1423182) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 7 14:16:49 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 14:02:49 2017. I'll bet some techy is working a a new FIND program for Ns to 96th as we speak, and once this is in place, the Ns to 96th will be so labled and all this contretemps forgotten. |
|
|
| (1423183) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 7 14:19:00 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jan 7 14:15:47 2017. Don't you think some of us would have noticed how those trains were (mis)labeled and raised the issue here soon enough? |
|
|
| (1423186) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 7 14:34:00 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Italianstallion on Tue Jan 3 22:51:49 2017. And O sounding like 0 is not a problem, as there is no 0 train. |
|
|
| (1423187) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jan 7 14:38:25 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 7 14:11:27 2017. They could be looking for the R to DeKalb but the "Q" comes first. |
|
|
| (1423188) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jan 7 14:40:48 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 7 14:16:49 2017. Yes, let us hope so.Can't imagine the higher-ups are too pleased with the current situation no matter who's "winning." |
|
|
| (1423189) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 14:45:04 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jan 7 14:15:47 2017. Q via Sea Beach has been around for awhile for weekend GO's when they shut down the Brighton line. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 16 |
||
