|
|
| Re: N to 96/2 (1422383) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 7 of 16 |
||
|
| (1423423) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 8 18:24:50 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 8 18:15:51 2017. Sure, an hour is a bit of an exaggeration, but 10 minute runtime in each direction + the wait for both the SB Q and the NB N/W is not a small chunk of time. |
|
|
| (1423424) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jan 8 18:29:55 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 8 18:24:50 2017. It's half an hour. But it wouldn't happen often. Don't forget, these are rush hour trains and rush hour N riders are already used to Ns that don't go to Astoria, so they already look at the destination of the N train. |
|
|
| (1423425) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Sun Jan 8 18:38:56 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 13:44:21 2017. Nobody gives a fuck about the BMT. Only we buffs do. And yes, I am fine with that. They are better off running those uptown (N) as (Q). In fact, that is what all forms of communication should be showing.The only reason you have come up with keeping these (N) as (N) is because they should be (N) because they are (N) because they should be (N) because they are (N)..... Not one cent is payed to REALITY. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1423427) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 8 18:55:09 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Sun Jan 8 10:39:23 2017. PWQ3D! |
|
|
| (1423430) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Sun Jan 8 19:01:08 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 8 18:55:09 2017. Except the payed part. Knew there was something wrong with that spelling. |
|
|
| (1423431) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jan 8 19:12:26 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 13:46:08 2017. Yes, but that's not really a problem. The C feeds the A at most express stops anyway (that's why it only needs 8 cars). |
|
|
| (1423434) | |
Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Jan 8 19:21:59 2017, in response to Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train, posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 8 16:37:04 2017. As long as the need is there, it isn't dead, NIMBY's or no. The third track on the LIRR main line was looking dead until Gov. Cuomo took an interest in it. All it takes is for some politician to adopt the N extension to LGA and it will get done. |
|
|
| (1423437) | |
Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Jan 8 19:41:54 2017, in response to Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Jan 8 19:21:59 2017. Yep..NIMBY's aren't a brick wall. They can be overcome. They cannot & should not stand in the way of progress.The first big NIMBY defeat I'm aware of was the BMT Jamaica Ave Line extention to 168 st. back in the 1910s . The locals screamed like hell, but the El was built anyway. Point being, if there's enough political fire in the belly ( & $$$), things get built, NIMBYs or not. |
|
|
| (1423440) | |
Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 8 19:56:45 2017, in response to Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Jan 8 19:21:59 2017. Giuliani was for this, and it failed. |
|
|
| (1423441) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 8 19:58:23 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 8 16:58:49 2017. Ending up at 96th? Why wouldn't they get off at 63rd, then walk the 3 blocks south to the right train, or backtrack one stop to 57th? |
|
|
| (1423442) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 8 20:00:05 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 8 18:29:55 2017. Why would they continue to 96th instead of 63rd, and from there easily backtrack, on foot or by subway, to the right train? |
|
|
| (1423446) | |
Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 8 20:05:04 2017, in response to Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train, posted by Snarf368 on Sun Jan 8 15:55:14 2017. Agreed, but we know the NIMBY issue there.The Bronx on the other hand, especially if it has connections to the 2, 5 and 6 there I think would be very helpful, especially with the area around Queensboro Plaza having increased office space and new buildings still to come. It would give those in the Bronx looking for Queens a way to do it WITHOUT going through Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1423448) | |
Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Jan 8 20:26:15 2017, in response to Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train, posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 8 19:56:45 2017. Yesterday, it failed. Tomorrow is another day. |
|
|
| (1423449) | |
Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by brightonr68 on Sun Jan 8 20:33:49 2017, in response to Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 8 20:05:04 2017. they could build the N using an enclosed elevated design . This would minimize the affect on the area. Plus the people living in Astoria has changed greatly in 20 years. Problem is that unless you leave a space for the subway to enter the terminal you will have another airtrain jfk situation where it is a long walk from train to terminal. In many european cities the trains terminate underground with passageways up into the terminals |
|
|
| (1423450) | |
Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 8 20:42:14 2017, in response to Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train, posted by brightonr68 on Sun Jan 8 20:33:49 2017. Just have an elevated train terminal above the road that's outside the airport terminal entrance. BTW, you'd need 2 stations, one for Central Terminal, and one for Terminal C/D. |
|
|
| (1423467) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 8 22:19:13 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 8 19:58:23 2017. You think most riders know they are on the wrong train?MANY Astoria riders ended up at 96th street when the N was sent there during the Lex/60th police investigation last week. |
|
|
| (1423468) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 8 22:19:54 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 8 20:00:05 2017. I think most don't realize it until they hear "This is the last stop on this train" |
|
|
| (1423474) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jan 8 23:35:37 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 8 16:35:23 2017. This thread is too long.Because of that, the same arguments and points are being made over and over and over. Just let the thread die. |
|
|
| (1423479) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Mon Jan 9 00:57:50 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jan 8 23:35:37 2017. This has become a pissing contest. |
|
|
| (1423484) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Jan 9 06:46:34 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Kriston Lewis on Mon Jan 9 00:57:50 2017. Into the wind or onto the third rail? |
|
|
| (1423489) | |
Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 9 07:56:18 2017, in response to Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train, posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 8 16:37:04 2017. PLAN OF LION does NOT extend the Astoria el. LION is talking a single track extension to the plant with a yard build above waste ground at the plant.1) Quiet operations: Trains move at yard speed over new solid structure. 2) Trade off includesenvironmental remediation at the Con Ed site. 3) Plan includes residential development above the yards. 4) Plan includes LIVE LIONS to EAT Nimbybeests. ROAR |
|
|
| (1423490) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Mon Jan 9 07:57:04 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 8 13:46:08 2017. They get off at Broad Channel now anyway, which they could still do. Having the option to have a one-seat ride to Manhattan, even on a local, certainly wouldn't hurt people. The question is whether running the additional trains between Euclid and Broad Channel is worth it, just for the sake of consistency of lettering. |
|
|
| (1423491) | |
Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 9 08:00:23 2017, in response to Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train, posted by Snarf368 on Sun Jan 8 15:55:14 2017. NO SUBWAY TO LGA! [PERIOD]Extend LIRR through the Sunnyside yards onto HELL'S viaduct, diverge east and run above GCP to LGA. Only a few blocks between SSY and GCP are really affected. Better to have service to NYP than to Astoria. ROAR |
|
|
| (1423493) | |
Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Jan 9 08:26:32 2017, in response to Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 9 08:00:23 2017. There is no "Hell's" viaduct. |
|
|
| (1423509) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Mon Jan 9 11:15:54 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by TerrApin Station on Mon Jan 9 06:46:34 2017. If it was the third rail, it might be over by now. |
|
|
| (1423522) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 9 12:26:59 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 8 22:19:54 2017. I think most don't realize it until they hear "This is the last stop on this train""You think most riders know they are on the wrong train?" -- I do not understand this. GojiMet86 and others keeps going on and on about Astoria riders getting flumoxed because they do not understand that a handful of N-trains (disguised as Q-trains or not) went to 96th Street/2nd Avenue. He posits that such uptown riders going past the 57th Street-Seventh Avenue station would not know that they are headed in the wrong direction. Even allowing for folks listening on their cell-phones with ear buds, I'm wondering one thing. Let's see, after 57th Street-Seventh Avenue, there's two stops - Fifth Avenue, and Lexington Avenue. Then a long fast subway tunnel trip! THEN DAYLIGHT! As Astoria bound N and W trains emerge from the under the East River directly to the Queensboro Plaza elevated station! Just how does a regular routine Astoria rider "miss" that their train after a few stops is NOT OUTSIDE?? I'm sorry if this "beating a dead horse" or "pissing on the third rail". But come on. Mike |
|
|
| (1423525) | |
Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Mon Jan 9 12:43:30 2017, in response to Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 9 08:00:23 2017. That's actually not a bad idea. |
|
|
| (1423526) | |
Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Mon Jan 9 12:43:46 2017, in response to Re: Astoria Boulevard and Extending the N Train, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 9 08:00:23 2017. That's actually not a bad idea. No residences would be affected. |
|
|
| (1423527) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 9 12:51:23 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 9 12:26:59 2017. The people who can figure out so precisely how long before their train reaches daylight are the ones who would NOT be confused by the train's destination. Signing as a Q is not for them. Everyone else would not realize there is anything wrong until their train is at 96th Street (possibly earlier).In the opposite situation, if a Q ran to Astoria, 2nd Avenue riders might realize they're in the wrong place by the train hitting daylight. By which time, of course, it would be too late anyway and they've just lost a significant amount of time because foamers insisted that all trains originating on the Brighton line be signed as Q trains. |
|
|
| (1423528) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jan 9 13:10:46 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 9 12:26:59 2017. We are definitely beating a dead horse here, but why not? It doesn't hurt the horse.The time from 57/7 to daylight and the time from 57/7 to 96/2 are roughly the same. So seeing daylight would not be an effective way to tell someone who is on the wrong train that they are on the wrong train. |
|
|
| (1423530) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 9 13:27:23 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Mon Jan 9 13:10:46 2017. And daylight might be effective to tell someone they are on the wrong train, but the absence of it is not. Unless someone has an extremely precise sense of time or the underground portion is significantly longer, such as if a person intending to go to Astoria ends up on the R. But even in that example, the damage is already done even if the passenger gets off at Queens Plaza. |
|
|
| (1423531) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jan 9 13:28:41 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jan 9 13:27:23 2017. Furthermore, that only works for riders who know where the portals are. If you are a first time rider of the line and don't know Astoria is above ground, or you dont know 96th is below ground, it does absolutely nothing for you. |
|
|
| (1423545) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 9 15:01:46 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jan 8 23:35:37 2017. Doesn't really matter what we say here.MANAGEMENT has made a decision about what this service will be for the foreseeable future. If changes are needed,beefed up or curtailed, They will see to it. Bottom line,they will do whatever needs to be done to make service. This so called debate is more than pointless. |
|
|
| (1423546) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 9 15:01:46 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jan 8 23:35:37 2017. Doesn't really matter what we say here.MANAGEMENT has made a decision about what this service will be for the foreseeable future. If changes are needed,beefed up or curtailed, They will see to it. Bottom line,they will do whatever needs to be done to make service. This so called debate is more than pointless. |
|
|
| (1423547) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 9 15:01:46 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jan 8 23:35:37 2017. Doesn't really matter what we say here.MANAGEMENT has made a decision about what this service will be for the foreseeable future. If changes are needed,beefed up or curtailed, They will see to it. Bottom line,they will do whatever needs to be done to make service. This so called debate is more than pointless. |
|
|
| (1423551) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jan 9 15:18:35 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 9 15:01:46 2017. Thank you. |
|
|
| (1423590) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Handbrake on Mon Jan 9 23:35:53 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Jan 4 15:38:40 2017. Six N trains per M-F weekday rush are term/originate at/from 96/2.One N via Sea Beach (Flagged as Q) to 96/2 (Skips DeKalb, stops 49 Street) arrives Astoria 0845, and returns to CI in service as an N. SVC TO 96 ST, 4 AV EXP, BYPASS, VIA BRIDGE, EXP CNL-34 (Q SIGNAGE) |
|
|
| (1423592) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Tue Jan 10 00:28:58 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Mon Jan 9 12:26:59 2017. What surprised me this morning when practically the whole system was fouled on account of the water main break at 34/Herald Sq was how FEW people exited Queens Blvd with me at Roosevelt Ave for the 7, one of the few lines that was not affected, even after spending over half an hour going from red signal to red signal. Those who think that riders are intelligent or aware or sharp are highly overrating them. Not only that, the 7 wasn't even crush loaded itself. These are not the sort of people who can handle multiple terminals of the same name, trains that are named one thing in the schedule and something else on the signs, or even simple short-turns or express/local variations.I can't help but think of No. 6's speech in The Prisoner: "Unlike me, many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment, and will die here like rotten cabbages." If only I had a bullhorn this morning, I could have made that speech to the people who stayed on the F while I escaped to 7 freedom. These are the people who will ride a train to its terminal, past obvious signs that they are on the wrong train, thinking to the end that the MTA hired Wallyhorse and overnight built some sort of new connection that didn't exist yesterday. And these people are not unusual or exceptional-- they are the norm. |
|
|
| (1423593) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Kevin from Midwood on Tue Jan 10 00:55:06 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Handbrake on Mon Jan 9 23:35:53 2017. > One N via Sea Beach (Flagged as Q) to 96/2 (Skips DeKalb, stops 49 Street) arrives Astoria 0845, and returns to CI in service as an N.That makes no sense to me. If it's a 96/2-bound train, then it shouldn't end up in Astoria. Are you confusing these two trips? |
|
|
| (1423595) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 10 02:59:08 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Andrew Saucci on Tue Jan 10 00:28:58 2017. I'm sorry if this "beating a dead horse." And I don't wish to re-hash points made earlier.To me there is a difference between re-routing trains because "stuff happens" and deliberately mis-labeling regularly scheduled N-trains under the idea that it is "good for the riders." I did not witness the happenings at 34th Street-Herald Square, or the aftermath of the water main break. I'm sure B-D-F-M train service was completely disrupted in both directions while the dispatchers re-routed trains to and from the other working lines. Maybe the N-Q-R-W lines were affected also. Probably plenty of trains were cancelled or re-routed with the whole situation just a mess on several fronts. A total ball of confusion until normal train service resumed. Timely useful information quickly provided is best. Information is especially useful when folks trust the givers of the information. Mis-leading folks is never a good idea - even if one thinks it is for a "good purpose." Just be honest. I know that there times when one really wants to shout from the rafters, "What's wrong with you people!" The situations and the causes of that kind of sentiment are just to numerous to list. In your words, "Those who think that riders are intelligent or aware or sharp are highly overrating them." I believe that transit riders are intelligent human beings. (I reserve the right to exclude particular persons from that description. Smile) Being a transit fan is a hobby that requires millions of folks, and their millions or billions of tax dollars and fares to make it work on a regular basis. Transit works because these millions of people on a daily basis believe and know that transit gets them to where they need to go. Being honest about what is happening, how to get about, etc. - all builds trust - which is very much needed when STUFF GOES VERY WRONG. Millions of riders every day, every week, every hour go about journeys on a regular basis. These people have to have some kind of intelligence. Thousands of folks use train lines that are simple, train lines that have multiple terminals, journeys with transfers to/from buses or ferries, etc. Millions of riders every day and every hour handle their business in their daily lives. Just living life can be complicated enough. Why as "transit fans" should we call these people names such as, "geese" or claim the trains need to be "fumigated of humans", or just plain call the riders who pay good money for transit "stupid". Why do that? We transit fans need these folks. If every person in the NYC region had their own personal transport vehicle - the roadways would be clogged for years at a time. Similar to a Doctor Who episode where the cars moved a few feet every year with the roadways clogged with millions of people and vehicles. I ask that I not be confused with Wallyhorse. Wallyhorse comes up plenty of fantasy transit proposals, and applaud his energy. Yes, I debate and critique his ideas, besides it being fun, but because I tend to be more practical and I hope realistic. I'm sorry if this is "beating a dead horse." Mike |
|
|
| (1423598) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Tue Jan 10 07:06:02 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Kevin from Midwood on Tue Jan 10 00:55:06 2017. That's a nice app, showing the schedule of any train run. I'd seen it before, a while ago, but didn't know it was still available. One odd thing I noticed, looking at the schedule for some southbound N trains, is that they seem to be consistently scheduled to allow 11 minutes from 86th St., the next-to-last stop, to Coney Island, the last stop. That's as long as from Canal St. to Atlantic Ave. Why? |
|
|
| (1423603) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Tue Jan 10 08:27:40 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Dyre Dan on Tue Jan 10 07:06:02 2017. Well, the 11-minute ride from 86th St. to Stillwell Ave. doesn't happen all day, but it does at certain times of day: on trains leaving 86th St. between 10 AM and about 11:30 AM (11:31 actually), at least. |
|
|
| (1423686) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by snarf368 on Tue Jan 10 20:21:13 2017, in response to N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Jan 3 02:06:40 2017. I don't know if it was mentioned in this looooooong thread but I happen to be on an N from 96 today and noticed the signs display Bway/4 Av EXP rather than Sea Beach Exp and Broadway Express on the N originating from Astoria. |
|
|
| (1423705) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Tue Jan 10 23:17:33 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 9 15:01:46 2017. Is this some kind of joke? This is what I get from not posting here every day. Now I have to wonder if this thread is true or whether we have a case of fake news. What the hell would the "N" be doing going north to 96th street anyway? Their northernmost stop in Manhattan is and always has been Lexington Avenue. Why the change? It doesn't make sense. |
|
|
| (1423706) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Tue Jan 10 23:17:48 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 9 15:01:46 2017. Is this some kind of joke? This is what I get from not posting here every day. Now I have to wonder if this thread is true or whether we have a case of fake news. What the hell would the "N" be doing going north to 96th street anyway? Their northernmost stop in Manhattan is and always has been Lexington Avenue. Why the change? It doesn't make sense. |
|
|
| (1423711) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Jan 10 23:42:53 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Tue Jan 10 23:17:33 2017. Northbound it is a Q via Sea Beach. Southbound it is a N from 96/2. Either way, it is the same service. |
|
|
| (1423712) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Jan 11 00:56:19 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Tue Jan 10 23:17:48 2017. Without intending to prolong this discussion.No, this is not a joke. While MOST N-trains from Brooklyn from both to and from Astoria - 24/7/365 there are about 7 rush hour N-trains that until the 2017 New Year began that either start or end their runs at the 57th Street/Seventh Avenue station (the one-time full-time terminal of the N-train prior to the mid-1970's.) The MTA planned to extend the Q-train to the new 96th Street/Second Avenue station along the brand new Second Avenue subway project. New FIND computer announcement programs were created for Q-trains using the usual Brighton line and Broadway Express. For what ever reason, an additional Q-train via Sea Beach to 96th Street/Second Avenue program was created. In addition, an N-train program leaving 96th Street/Second Avenue to Coney Island was also created. However an N-train train program leaving Coney Island headed to 96th Street/Second Avenue was NOT created - for whatever reason. These are about rush 7 trains that leave Coney Island as basic N-trains uptown, and return to Coney Island as basic N-trains. The 57th Street/Seventh Avenue station which used its express tracks to terminate and relay trains - has now become a "through" station - since it is the express tracks that lead directly to/from the new Second Avenue line. Trains that did terminate or originate there are now sent to/from the 96th Street/Second Avenue station. The debate has been what to call these 7 particular "N" trains. One Side: Folks holding this view promote the idea that these trains should be called Q-trains via Sea Beach because there is a FIND computer program for the train announcements. They believe that the riders will not be confused by trains labeled "Q" making usual N-train stops in Brooklyn and Manhattan, and then heading to 96th Street/Second Avenue. Upon reaching the last stop these trains can then be labeled "N" for the return journey to Coney Island. They contend that it is "good for the riders" if these trains are mis-labeled in this way. The Other Side: Folks holding his view believe that these trains are "N" trains and should have N-train signage both to and from Manhattan. That plenty of subway routes have two terminals and that the riders can tell the difference between the N-trains to get where they are going. In effect these trains are no more different than before the New Year started - they have N-train crews, serve N-train stations, etc. It is a kind of truth in labeling. Another side: Considers the whole debate as having gone on for too long, that there are "bigger stuff" to argue about, or that the MTA will do what ever it wants. That's the debate. Mike |
|
|
| (1423723) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 11 08:26:56 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Tue Jan 10 23:17:33 2017. LOL! |
|
|
| (1423724) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Jan 11 08:38:38 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 11 08:26:56 2017. :)SBF |
|
|
| (1423726) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by William A. Padron on Wed Jan 11 09:07:31 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Tue Jan 10 23:42:53 2017. Yeah, I rode an R-160 set that way this past week, with the FIND and electronic sigms set up that way to/from 96th/2nd. However, when there was some NYPD activity at Lex-60th, an R-68 set bound for Astoria was diverted going up the 2nd Avenue line instead (lead north motor #2890).-William A. Padron ["2nd Avenue Line - IND"] |
|
|
|
Page 7 of 16 |
||
