|
|
| Re: N to 96/2 (1422383) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 8 of 16 |
||
|
| (1423789) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Jan 11 20:29:07 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Tue Jan 10 23:17:33 2017. Just rejoice that your favorite train is back on the Broadway express tracks where it belongs. |
|
|
| (1423790) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Jan 11 20:30:19 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #4 Sea Beach Fred on Tue Jan 10 23:17:48 2017. Don't let Bob find out about this. |
|
|
| (1423859) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 12 23:11:43 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Wed Jan 11 00:56:19 2017. Sorta like one of those in your face things... |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1424116) | |
N to 96/2; VIDEO: R160 (Q) & Rush Hour (N) Trains via Second Avenue Line |
|
|
Posted by Transportation Hub on Sun Jan 15 17:55:53 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 7 11:25:27 2017. Here is the (Q) and Select Rush Hour (N) Trains performing Second Avenue Subway Line Action, stopping at the existing Lexington Avenue-63rd Street, and newly 72nd, 86th, and 96th Street stations along Second Avenue. The (Q) serves the new corridor at all times. Some (N) Trains serves the corridor during rush hours. Service starts at Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue, signing up as a (Q) Train via Sea Beach/4th Avenue Express in Brooklyn, skipping DeKalb Ave, heading up towards 96th St/2nd Ave. At 96th St, (Q) Trains via Sea Beach turns into the (N) via Sea Beach, back to Brooklyn.Please Enjoy The Viewing😊😉😁 Please Subscribe To The Transportation Hub Today |
|
|
| (1424122) | |
Re: N to 96/2; VIDEO: R160 (Q) & Rush Hour (N) Trains via Second Avenue Line |
|
|
Posted by chud1 on Sun Jan 15 18:50:19 2017, in response to N to 96/2; VIDEO: R160 (Q) & Rush Hour (N) Trains via Second Avenue Line, posted by Transportation Hub on Sun Jan 15 17:55:53 2017. 5 drooling stars out of 5 drooling stars for this video.chud1. :)..... |
|
|
| (1424141) | |
Re: N to 96/2; VIDEO: R160 (Q) & Rush Hour (N) Trains via Second Avenue Line |
|
|
Posted by Italianstallion on Sun Jan 15 21:42:22 2017, in response to N to 96/2; VIDEO: R160 (Q) & Rush Hour (N) Trains via Second Avenue Line, posted by Transportation Hub on Sun Jan 15 17:55:53 2017. Looks like a number of people didn't get on the downtown N because they didn't know what it was. |
|
|
| (1424657) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Fri Jan 20 13:48:45 2017, in response to N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Jan 3 02:06:40 2017. They've updated the schedule data, those Q via Sea Beach runs now appear as such and not as Ns. If you have Transit on your phone for example, you can see Q departures at Bay Parkway.The paper timetables have not been updated as of yet. |
|
|
| (1424673) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jan 20 15:45:49 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Kriston Lewis on Fri Jan 20 13:48:45 2017. Snowballing stupidity. |
|
|
| (1424674) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 20 15:48:38 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Fri Jan 20 15:45:49 2017. FALSE |
|
|
| (1424677) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 20 16:15:19 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 20 15:48:38 2017. IAWTP.They could have gone either way as far as I'm concerned. But they should make the schedule and the signage consistent. |
|
|
| (1424689) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 20 18:04:09 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Fri Jan 20 15:45:49 2017. N means Sea Beach, and has since 1959. People know the line as the N Line, not the Sea Beach.Brooklyn Branch determines the letter for Broadway trains. That has been the standard since 1959, and before that, the numeric code back to the 1920's. "Q via Sea Beach" is dumb. |
|
|
| (1424693) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 20 18:57:01 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 20 18:04:09 2017. Nobody except for railfans cares about what "has been the standard since 1959." |
|
|
| (1424694) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 20 19:02:10 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 20 18:57:01 2017. You mean there aren't still tens of thousands of ordinary people morning the loss of their treasured D train from the Brighton line? |
|
|
| (1424697) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 20 19:37:26 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 20 18:57:01 2017. "The standard from 1959 means" the non-Railfans, which is 99.9% of the patrons, call it the "N" line, not the Sea Beach.TA's own reroute service advisories make no mention of Branch names but say "The D train will run on the N line between 36th Street and Stillwell". They have spent 58 de-emphasizing BMT names - this is the price you pay. Now we have a asymmetrical routing situation in which the exact same service is called "Q via Sea Beach" northbound , but "N" southbound, with no mention of N's on 2nd Avenue at all. I don't think that has ever happened before. Then the Brighton Line people will get wind of this and complain "why are they taking Q trains away from us and giving it to them over there". |
|
|
| (1424701) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 20 20:00:37 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 20 19:37:26 2017. I don't think that has ever happened before.Agreed, but so what? A new idea can still be fine. Then the Brighton Line people will get wind of this and complain "why are they taking Q trains away from us and giving it to them over there". They won't know. |
|
|
| (1424703) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Fri Jan 20 20:03:11 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 20 16:15:19 2017. "But they should make the schedule and the signage consistent."Absolutely, and this seems like a step in the right direction. |
|
|
| (1424709) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 20 20:44:29 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 20 20:00:37 2017. Of course they will. Then they'll say they had to wait 15 minutes for a Q one morning, and they got some running up the other line, and they screwed us. |
|
|
| (1424724) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 00:53:11 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 20 19:37:26 2017. Who cares that’s “asymmetrical.” Peak direction express services are all asymmetrical. |
|
|
| (1424736) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 07:17:26 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 00:53:11 2017. And they are given the same terms. We don't call the Rock Park A, the Hillside E, and the WPR #5 different codes in each direction. The same service gets the same designation. |
|
|
| (1424753) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 11:08:50 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 07:17:26 2017. In the case of the Hillside E, it might be a good idea signing it as an F. |
|
|
| (1424759) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 21 11:33:10 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 11:08:50 2017. Unlike the N though, the F would be the wrong color, and confuse more than people going to DeKalb. Unless it's a service disruption Orange things go on 6th ave. Enough people have experienced the weekend West 4th swap to know that such a routing is possible - thus E riders boarding at WTC, Canal, and Spring would be confused. These same people may have taken an F from their boarding station to a 6th ave stop this past weekend.That said, signing it as an F from 14st onward would be ok, however the MTA really, really hates changing letters halfway through. Better to leave the confusing announcements for Forest Hills or Union Turnpike, IMO. The southbound of course should always be signed E. |
|
|
| (1424761) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 11:38:16 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 11:08:50 2017. Not happening. Northern terminals don't determine letter codes. |
|
|
| (1424763) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 11:41:49 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 11:38:16 2017. LOL! |
|
|
| (1424764) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 11:42:32 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 11:38:16 2017. Northern terminals do not have any more bearing on train identity than Southern terminals. |
|
|
| (1424767) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Sat Jan 21 11:51:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Jan 7 07:47:35 2017. I suggest that the Sea Beach to 96th Street run receive its own letter designation, to avoid confusion. With NTTs, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.I suggest "U". Station signage at 63/Lex would read "FQU". |
|
|
| (1424770) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 12:26:51 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 11:42:32 2017. Southern BMT branches determine letter codes for Broadway trains, until a few weeks ago with this Q nonsense. |
|
|
| (1424771) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 12:31:27 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 12:26:51 2017. In general, they did. So did the North end.Now that there are trains which violate such pairings, the MTA needs to think about how to sign trains. |
|
|
| (1424773) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jan 21 12:41:45 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 11:08:50 2017. Even "railfan tradition" aside, I don't think it's such a good idea to get into the habit of just focusing exclusively on a run's destination when deciding how it should be designated.The current N/Q plan has the train correctly signed in both directions along Broadway, Q northbound, N southbound. But having an "F" pull in on the E track at West 4th can lead to many going the wrong way. Also, since the "F" would be skipping extra stops east of Forest Hills, an opportunity is missed to warn people that their stop will be skipped by just calling it "F." That being said, perhaps E to 179th should appear on the subway map (dotted line) since A to Rockaway Park is practically the same service format and it's on there as such. |
|
|
| (1424775) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 12:56:50 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 12:31:27 2017. Not for the northern end. N and R swapped in Queens in the late 1980's. |
|
|
| (1424777) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 12:58:48 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 12:56:50 2017. And on the southern end, the W swapped between West End and Whitehall(+Sea Beach) in 2004 |
|
|
| (1424779) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 13:04:03 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 12:58:48 2017. W and V were extra letters than did not refer to anything specific, used whenever they needed to extra one. So was Z. Many R32 route signs do not have Jamaica/Nassau written next to it.Myrtle Avenue Line people were quite insistent in 2010 that their train be called M even though it would have been far easier for the TA to simply extend the V designation with station signage. |
|
|
| (1424780) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 13:06:14 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jan 21 12:41:45 2017. There's no southbound N on the subway map either. Are 2nd Avenue people supposed to take it on faith ? |
|
|
| (1424781) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 13:08:07 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 13:04:03 2017. W referred to West End when it ended up getting cut back to Whitehall. What remained the same was the NORTH end.The MTA had to replace most signage anyway in 2010. Most of the work had to be done either way. |
|
|
| (1424783) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 13:15:03 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 13:08:07 2017. Pure coincidence about W and West End - there was no traditional T on the route signs. That was already reserved for SAS. |
|
|
| (1424788) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sat Jan 21 13:30:45 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 07:17:26 2017. "And they are given the same terms. We don't call the Rock Park A, the Hillside E, and the WPR #5 different codes in each direction. The same service gets the same designation."I agree. The #5 train has been extended along the White Plain Road section to either 241th Street or 238th Street during the rush hours for decades, and even showing up as such on the subway map. They are simply "extra" #5 rush hour trains running along Lexington Avenue. The idea of changing train signage mid-route is just silliness. Yes, there are some transit fans that want to give every single damn variation of train route service there own number or letter - an act which borders on just more silliness. WE ARE NOT SHELDON! - From the Big Bang Theory. Plenty of subway lines easily handle train routes that have more than one terminal, even part of the time. Even plenty of bus lines do this. This is not "rocket science." Mike |
|
|
| (1424789) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 13:34:09 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Sat Jan 21 13:30:45 2017. Back in the 1960's, one 5 or the other was called 9. That did not last long. I think the WPR road ones once had a route sign for "THRU EXPRESS".Unfortunately, I think a Big Bang Theory sort of egghead at the TA came up with this Q nonsense. |
|
|
| (1424790) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jan 21 13:34:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 13:15:03 2017. I agree, coincidence. |
|
|
| (1424793) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 14:08:18 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 13:15:03 2017. What coincidence? |
|
|
| (1424795) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 14:14:55 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sat Jan 21 12:41:45 2017. I agree with the dotted line E solution. |
|
|
| (1424796) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 14:15:38 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 13:06:14 2017. What faith? They would correctly assume it’s an N running on 2nd and rejoining the N line where the Q rejoins the N. |
|
|
| (1424798) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 14:20:57 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 14:14:55 2017. Then we can have a dotted N solution. |
|
|
| (1424799) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 14:24:17 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 14:20:57 2017. But there is no need for a dotted N solution. We have the solution. It is already in place. There is no problem in need of a solution |
|
|
| (1424800) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 14:24:56 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 14:15:38 2017. And if they don't, They take the next Q, No harm done. |
|
|
| (1424813) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Jan 21 15:10:41 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 21 11:33:10 2017. Let the Geese learn to READ the destination signs!!!! |
|
|
| (1424814) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 15:12:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 14:24:17 2017. The "solution" is misleading and stupid.Would you care to (mis)label the few Brooklyn-bound "N's as well ? |
|
|
| (1424819) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 15:18:52 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 15:12:22 2017. I mean W's ? |
|
|
| (1424821) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 15:24:55 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 15:12:22 2017. N trains running to 96th Street are already misleading and from the perspective of the vast majority of riders, stupid. |
|
|
| (1424822) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 15:26:48 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sat Jan 21 15:10:41 2017. What a dismissive attitude. So you believe the subway is run for the benefit of railfans, not regular riders. |
|
|
| (1424823) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 21 15:29:53 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 14:24:56 2017. True. |
|
|
| (1424825) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Jan 21 15:31:06 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 13:34:09 2017. 9 was never used for the Lex/WPR service. 9 was the designation for the Dyre shuttle which rand from about 9PM till 100AM or so when Dyre ceased running overnight. At that time, the principal Wh Pl Rd service was the Lex (#5) except during midnight hours when the 7 Av Exp (#2) served 241 St At the time the Lex Thru expresses ran exp all the way from/to Gun Hill Rd. In 1965 when the north terminals of the 2 and 5 were swapped and the 2 became the 24/7 Wh Pl Rd service, thru expresses continued to run exp from/to Gun Hill until the passenger at the lcl station between E 180 and Guin Hill complained about the loss of their rush hour Lex service so the thru exp service operator was changed to have the 5s make lcl stops. The sides sign reading for the thru expresses was “Lexington Ave Thru Expand interestingly there was also a sign for “Bway Thru Exp” which was used by a short lived service that ran circa 1955 and used the Bway middle between 96 St and 137 St. It was unsuccessful because it had to merge with the regular service S/B S/O 103 St and N/B S/O 137 St and didn’t save any time at all. The service ran so briefly that the R types never got a chance to use the readings, only the Hi-Vs. |
|
|
|
Page 8 of 16 |
||
