|
|
| Re: N to 96/2 (1422383) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 12 of 16 |
||
|
| (1425553) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 09:41:31 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 27 00:14:50 2017. NO ONE CARES about "actual historical pattern[s]." It's all about making the subways comprehensible to non-railfans. That is the whole point of the Unimark signage and the letter/number scheme. Signing northbound trains to 96th Street as Ns despite the fact that they don't go to Astoria, where all other Ns go serves no purpose other than railfan purity. |
|
|
| (1425559) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 27 10:06:07 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 09:41:31 2017. NO ONE CARES about "actual historical pattern[s]."They might in terms of not rocking the boat. Would you want NYCT to relabel 5 trains to Nereid as 2 trains via Lexington? Probably not, because historically they have been called 5 trains. |
|
|
| (1425560) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 27 10:07:19 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 27 00:14:50 2017. You have given no actual explanation as to why I am wrong. All I read was subway history, which in and of itself is nice to read, but bears no relevance. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1425563) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 10:43:13 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 27 10:06:07 2017. In 2004 when 6th Avenue service was restored to the Brighton and West End lines, the B was sent to Brighton and the D to West End despite the "actual historical pattern" being the opposite. And most people still remembered the old pattern. The MTA rightly ignored the old pattern and instead implemented something that reflected a more modern reality.And the B/C terminal swap in 1998 broke an "actual historical pattern" dating back to the very beginning of that line. |
|
|
| (1425567) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 27 11:14:33 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 10:43:13 2017. I agree. You change the historical pattern when it has value and is worth the customer confusion, but you leave it alone when the value of changing it is less than the cost in customer confusion.Hah! I didn't realize the B/C swap was so recent. it feels like it's been longer. Which helps to prove your point. :) |
|
|
| (1425588) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 27 13:33:53 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Fri Jan 27 10:07:19 2017. You are trying to say that I've taken one position on one situation, and then another position on what you feel is a similar situation. In effect that I am being contradictory, if not hypocritical.AND I FLATLY DIS-AGREE!! I believe that I've made my position on the "N-trains labeled Q-trains" issue well known. Some might say that I have gone over-board in explaining my position, and some might support that positions that I've taken. As part of this discussion there were always two separate issues: 1) Something that was or is done on a regular on-going basis as policy. Whether that policy, practice or idea is a good one, a bad one, and various other aspects. All of the six w's are in play. versus 2) Something that is done to respond to a G.O. or something that is done to respond to an emergency situation. And yes, all of the six w's are in play. What ever your opinion is on the "N-trains labeled Q-trains" we can agree that it is not in response to a G.O. or an emergency situation. What ever your opinion is on the past switching of B and D train lines/terminals in Brooklyn - we can agree that it is not response to a G.O. or an emergency situation. What ever your opinion is on the V-train, the M-train, the G-train or a host of other issues - we here often argue and debate about policies and practices, the who, the what, the when, the where, the how and the why. Do we go over the G.O. and emergency stuff - yes, we sure do. But the whatever is the G.O. and emergency stuff - we know that it is limited, and that there will be a return to the usual policy and practice stuff. So we here - do not confuse the two. Mike |
|
|
| (1425589) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Jan 27 13:37:43 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Thu Jan 26 15:25:22 2017. But my argument is: those aren't drawbacks. They are FEATURES!People SHOULD question where that train is going all along the Sea Beach and Fourth Avenue lines. Signing them at Q makes them do that. Signing them as N does not. |
|
|
| (1425590) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Jan 27 13:42:01 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 10:43:13 2017. Yup it also broke the "clockwise" lettering scheme. A & BB at the extreme west, CC & D at the concourse. EE, E, F, G on Queens Blvd. HH Fulton St.When it came time to letter the BMT, you can tell they made an effort to continue it by ignoring the inner terminals and the routes that were extended from existing IND routes. J at Jamaica, K at Eastern Parkway, LL Canarsie, M Brighton, N Sea Beach, RR Bay Ridge. The only anomaly was the Q (er, QB). So, the Q doing it's own thing and breaking tradition is a tradition in and of itself :). |
|
|
| (1425606) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 27 15:48:20 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 09:41:31 2017. In about a year, "Q-via-Sea Beach" will be a historical pattern. |
|
|
| (1425609) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jan 27 15:56:10 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 08:15:23 2017. Because the BMT line letters were establish based on the home BRANCH line in Bkln rather than any other criterion. I feel the same way about the IND Letter designations which were ruined recently by the cesspool of incompetence that passes for NYCT planning. The original IND route letters were set up to combine the uptown branch lines with the Manhattan trunk lines. B belongs to Wash Hts and C belongs to the Concourse but the misguided elimination of double letters caused the confusion that exists today. Even with the elimination of the double letters, a more “correct” naming of routes can be established bringing back the intended purpose of the letters. |
|
|
| (1425611) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 27 15:58:38 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Fri Jan 27 15:56:10 2017. The only intended purpose of the letters (or numbers) is to designate a line or route. Theredoes not need to be any rationality to the letter scheme. They can be wholly random, and still serve their intended purpose. |
|
|
| (1425616) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jan 27 16:15:39 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Jan 27 13:42:01 2017. Under the original lettering system as originally applied to the BMT, the NYCTA exhibited a certain amount of logic in naming the Eastern Division lines. J/JJ for Jamaica and M for what was then Myrtle.Chambers made perfect sense. KK was used for the Bway Bkln Lcl service as originally operated to Canal St although by the time the KK was eventually used, the Bway Bkln Lcl was no longer a Nassau St service but became a 6 Av service. The only thing about the lettering that didn’t make sense was the insistence on BMT lines becoming Manhattan centric by the eventual elimination of the branch line names which was the way all BMT lines were described for years. The 14 St line used the designation LL to keep it within the Eastern Div grouping. After the M, the next letter in order was N which was used for the Sea Beach followed by the rest of the letters in the alphabet which were use to this day. The unfortunate result of the Manhattan centric thinking of the TA was that certain services ended up as they are today, misnamed. The PROPER way to have named BMT routes would have been to use ONLY the branch names of the lines and leave out the name “Bway” since with the exception of the Sea Beach all Southern Division lines had both Bway and Nassau St services. The only reading that was proper was the “TT/West End Lcl” which was used both for West End Lcls via Nassau St and West End shuttle operating between Stl and 36/4. If all the Southern Div signs had been made this way, then Bright Exps via Nassau could have used the letter Q instead of being mislabeled with an M. The letter M was also used for the 4 Av Expresses to Chambers St since the TA Planners failed to provide an “R/4 Ave Express” sign for that service or a “RR/4 Ave Local” for the PM returning service which ran lcl instead of express. |
|
|
| (1425618) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jan 27 16:31:00 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 08:14:21 2017. As I have mentioned in several posts, most of the line designations are based on the home branch of the line, usually combined with its Manhattan trunk line regardless of the destination at the opposite end of the line. The N was always that Sea Beach whether it ran to T/Sq as it originally did, 57/7, Ctl which it did during the 1970s and 80s or Astoria as it does now and the few that go to 96/2. On the IND end, the D started off terminating at Hudson Terminal, then routed via the Smith St Line in Bkln, then via the Brighton Lina and now via the West End but it is still a D regardless of its south terminals. The E also had multiple terminals over the years and even had different terminals at the same time ranging from Hudson Terminal to Bway/ENY to Euclid, the Rockaways and even a few in the rush hour to Lefferts.but they were still E trains because E meant Queens/Manhattan regardless of the south terminal. |
|
|
| (1425619) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Jan 27 16:31:26 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 26 11:32:14 2017. WHY DOES ANYBODY CARE??!Seriously, I spend so much time munching popcorn and watching people on SubChat squabble over nothing that I cancelled my Netflix. Just to stir things up a bit— how about the trains under discussion be labeled "(N) to 57th/7th" when leaving Coney Island and change their signs to "(Q) to 96th/2nd" upon reaching Canal Street? It would produce a minimum of confusion— every train would always be on the "correct" line and the signs would always be meaningful to the people at every stop. |
|
|
| (1425624) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jan 27 16:55:53 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Fri Jan 27 13:37:43 2017. Although I disagree with the “Q via Sea Beach” concept, I’ll add a little fuel to the fire. Pre Chrystie, there was a Brighton Lcl (QT) that went to Ctl in the AM rush and it was signed “RR/Bway-4th Ave Lcl.” that was a case of the 4 Av Lcl via the Brighton. |
|
|
| (1425625) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 27 17:03:12 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Nilet on Fri Jan 27 16:31:26 2017. Allegedly NYCT doesn't like the idea of switching a train's designation in mid-trip. |
|
|
| (1425626) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 27 17:07:00 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Nilet on Fri Jan 27 16:31:26 2017. I'm so glad that we are entertaining you.But did you really give up Netflix? For us? Really? Wow! (Smile) Mike |
|
|
| (1425630) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 27 17:32:29 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 08:15:23 2017. Because it is no longer called the Sea Beach line. In every press release and service disruption report - it is called the N line. So now what the hell is it ? |
|
|
| (1425631) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 27 17:35:08 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 09:41:31 2017. Only railfans know it is the Sea Beach Line." Signing northbound trains to 96th Street as Ns despite the fact that they don't go to Astoria, where all other Ns go serves no purpose other than railfan purity. " That shows that you cannot grasp the concept that the Letter is a Route, not a destination code. |
|
|
| (1425632) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 27 17:36:52 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 10:43:13 2017. The B & C swap caused both 8th Avenue services to go to Wash Hts and both 6th Avenue services go to to the Bronx. Without double letters, there was no other option. |
|
|
| (1425633) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 27 17:39:52 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Fri Jan 27 13:37:43 2017. We have other examples of that. The only excuse here is that the route splits at 57th Street, and the TA is still too stupid to document it on the maps. |
|
|
| (1425635) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 18:05:03 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 27 17:35:08 2017. What you cannot grasp is that there is no route from the Sea Beach Line to the Second Avenue Line. The question of which letter to use for such an unofficial routing is what is being argued here.The popular knowledge of "Sea Beach Line" or lack thereof is a red herring. |
|
|
| (1425636) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 18:07:19 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Fri Jan 27 16:15:39 2017. All of that is academic. |
|
|
| (1425637) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 27 18:09:25 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 27 17:36:52 2017. Without double letters, there was no other option.Huh? Why can't they send the B to 168th, weekdays only, and the C to 145th except to BPB in rush hour? I'm not saying it's a good idea, but what's stopping them? |
|
|
| (1425638) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 18:11:09 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 27 15:58:38 2017. AWESOME POST! |
|
|
| (1425639) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 18:13:35 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Fri Jan 27 16:31:00 2017. The concept of "home branch" is ridiculous. Astoria is as much a home branch of the N as Sea Beach.The majority of people do not know nor care where trains ran before they were born. |
|
|
| (1425641) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Jan 27 18:21:11 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 27 17:07:00 2017. HA! :D |
|
|
| (1425642) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Jan 27 18:21:56 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 27 17:03:12 2017. That's up to them I guess. |
|
|
| (1425644) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 19:00:52 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 27 17:32:29 2017. And from time to time, Q trains are routed over the N line. What is the big deal? |
|
|
| (1425645) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 19:02:57 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 27 17:39:52 2017. They could document it, but they rightly decided that the trains are too rare to justify that. Like the 179th Street E. |
|
|
| (1425647) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 27 19:05:02 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 18:13:35 2017. IAWTP |
|
|
| (1425648) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 27 19:06:31 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Nilet on Fri Jan 27 16:31:26 2017. Well, of course, the N to 57th signs would be incorrect since the train would continue to 96th. |
|
|
| (1425649) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 27 19:07:03 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Fri Jan 27 16:55:53 2017. AHA! |
|
|
| (1425651) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 27 19:10:06 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 27 17:36:52 2017. What does the lack of double letters have to do with it? |
|
|
| (1425653) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 27 19:10:41 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 19:02:57 2017. Yes! |
|
|
| (1425664) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 27 23:31:37 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 27 19:10:06 2017. In the IND scheme of naming routes - single letters were for train routes that were express somewhere along the route, while double letters were for all local routes. Often but not always the express route was intended to travel further than the local route of the same "line."Prior to the mid/late 1970's there was the A, and the AA train routes, and in the 1930's the C and the CC. These sets of route illustrate the concept. The A train route was basically as we know it today, a route that is express in Manhattan along Eighth Avenue from 169th Street to Chambers Street and over time both local and express in Brooklyn. The AA local train route was all local in Manhattan except for rush hours where it was replaced by the B-train. Thus the AA local route both started and ended somewhere along the A-route. Prior to the opening of the Sixth Avenue line in the 1940's there were the C and CC train routes that ran along both the Concourse route in the Bronx and along Eighth Avenue in Manhattan. The C-train was the EXPRESS route traveling to/from the Hoyt-Schermerhorn Street station in Brooklyn, while the CC all local route traveled from Bedford Park Blvd to Hudson Terminal - today's WTC station. Again the CC local route both started and end somewhere along the C-route, with the express route traveling a further distance. When the Sixth Avenue line opened only the local tracks existed - so there was a rush-hours only BB service. When the express tracks and the connection over the Manhattan were built - the B-train came into existence. While there were A, AA, B, BB, C, CC, D, E, F, GG, and HH routes over the course of events - the DD, the FF, G and H were possibly on the roll signs. Things get interesting with the expansion and consolidation of the subways. Any decent transit fan could note that there was the E-train and prior to the mid-1970's the EE train. The EE train however did not travel along Queens Blvd and Eighth AVenue as a local companion to the E express train, but rather traveled along Queens Blvd and the BMT Broadway line in Manhattan to Whitehall Street during the weekdays from 6am to 8pm. The GG of course was an all local route between Brooklyn and Queens, where was not an express counterpart along Queens Blvd or the Smith Street segment in Brooklyn. Using the current G name for the G-train route implies that it should be an express route but now it is largely over a local-only set of tracks, AND even the Smith Street segment requires the trains labeled G to run along the local tracks to reach their destination. Under the IND scheme of naming things, the current C train route should really be named the AA! Why - It starts at 168th Street-Washington Heights and ends at Euclid Avenue in Brooklyn. Like the previous pattern of the AA local route, the C local both starts and ends somewhere along the A-route - so that is why it could really be called the AA. The basic reason that it does not is due to a history of route pattern changes over the years. Mike |
|
|
| (1425665) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 27 23:35:47 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Nilet on Fri Jan 27 16:31:26 2017. "Seriously, I spend so much time munching popcorn and watching people on SubChat squabble over nothing that I cancelled my Netflix."If you really want to tie yourself in knots define what is a local station, and define what is an express station. If you really want to have a fun evening - just think about answering that question. Is a local station "local" because a LOCAL train stops there? Is an express station "express" because an EXPRESS train stops there? Is a local station "local" because of its physical characteristics as in lacking express tracks or in having express tracks that by-pass the station? Is an "express" station "express" if it has "express tracks" that are rarely if ever used or not capable of being used? Is an express train route "express" when it stops at a series of stations one after the other where there are no by-pass tracks? These kinds of questions have bedeviled map makers and signage staff for decades. There have been serious debates of how to define an express route, a local route, a local station, an express station, etc. Does the physical characteristics of the stations along the line matter to the definition of "local" or "express"? Looking at previous subway maps and other documents put out over the decades - what seems like a simple question has a variety of answers. The floor is open! Remember that you gave up your Netflix for this! Mike |
|
|
| (1425668) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sat Jan 28 00:21:59 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 27 23:35:47 2017. If you really want to tie yourself in knots define what is a local station, and define what is an express station.If I say "59th Street is an express stop on the IND," do you understand the meaning of that statement? If so, we're done. The point of language is to communicate; if it's serving its purpose then there's no need to nitpick it. The idea of one-size-fits-all definitions is pointless because it fails to understand the purpose of language; it results in a lot of effort being spent on crafting definitions to cover all possible use cases when it would be far easier to simply define a one-off use whenever the generally understood (if vague) definition doesn't suffice. Or in other words, it's the perfect thing for SubChatters to argue about! So my definition is this: An express station is served by a train operating express on that line. A local station is either bypassed by an express train or located on a line with no express service. This applies regardless of track or platform layout. So: 7th Avenue   = Express station; served by the express.7th Avenue   = Local station; no express on that route.Elmhurst Avenue   = Local station; bypassed by  expresses.
|
|
|
| (1425681) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 28 09:03:26 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 27 18:09:25 2017. They want consistent north terminals and likely their equipment yarded in north terminals with similar equipment on south terminals so as not to risk mixing up their equipmenti.e. Pitkin = 207th street and both Concourse and CIY have R68's. |
|
|
| (1425682) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 28 09:04:45 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 27 19:10:06 2017. The original IND system allotted A & B to Wash Hts, C & D Bronx, etc.Now what are they to do when Wash Hts gets 2 services from the same 8th Avenue ? |
|
|
| (1425683) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 28 09:06:53 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 27 23:31:37 2017. 1967 broke all the rules with EE and B.On some R32 and R38 side route signs , they pasted a "B" with a white background and black font over "BB" so that it would read B - 6th Avenue Local. |
|
|
| (1425684) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 28 09:08:23 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 18:05:03 2017. There is no route from Sea Beach to 2nd Avenue ?Yes there is. And it called "Q", which is also the Brighton service. |
|
|
| (1425685) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 28 09:10:41 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 19:02:57 2017. Which is called E, not F. You don't have a problem with that do you, or people winding up bewildered on the wrong side of Jamaica ? I guess you expect Jamaica-bound people to listen and read, but not the rich snots headed up 2nd Avenue. |
|
|
| (1425686) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 28 09:13:21 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 19:00:52 2017. You mean RE-routed due to a service disruption. |
|
|
| (1425687) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 28 09:28:23 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 28 09:08:23 2017. Correction, it called the Q northbound, N Southbound. |
|
|
| (1425698) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 28 10:28:11 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 28 09:03:26 2017. Yes, but that has nothing to do with the absence of double letters. |
|
|
| (1425699) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 28 10:30:11 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 28 09:08:23 2017. 6 trains a day, not even all in the rush hours, don't make a useful route, any more than there is a useful route from 8th Ave to 179th/Hillside Ave. |
|
|
| (1425704) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 28 11:32:31 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 28 09:10:41 2017. I've already suggested that it be called the F and a reasonable argument was made against that proposition. No such reasonable argument was made against the Q via Sea Beach. |
|
|
| (1425705) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 28 11:47:16 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 27 23:31:37 2017. Michael, thank you for the history lesson. You are one if the mist knowledgeable ones here. But I know all this stuff. And none of it answered my question. |
|
|
| (1425706) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 28 11:49:05 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 28 09:04:45 2017. ??? Wash Hts already gets 2 services from 8th Ave. |
|
|
|
Page 12 of 16 |
||
