|
|
| Re: N to 96/2 (1422383) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 14 of 16 |
||
|
| (1425875) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 29 12:09:15 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 07:52:07 2017. 2nd Avenue has the N to the same extent as Sea Beach has the Q |
|
|
| (1425882) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 29 13:25:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Nilet on Sun Jan 29 08:14:55 2017. "Done. Just scroll down to "weekday service nourthbound" and you can see the trains which terminate at 96th/2nd marked with a + symbol at 57th/7th ..."Thanks! And some folks here act like it is such a huge difficulty to say on the trains themselves or in the schedules that having N-trains travel both to/from 96th Street-Second Avenue is such a horrible thing that "we have to re-label the trains on the uptown trips!" Mike |
|
|
| (1425887) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 14:41:14 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sat Jan 28 23:40:27 2017. No, it doesn’t. At present the Q runs on 2nd Avenue and the N runs on Astoria. Thus all trains to 96th Street street should be signed as Qs. Simple. If they swap the N and Q, then all trains running to 96th Street should be signed as Ns, even if they run on the Brighton Line. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1425888) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 14:42:52 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 07:47:24 2017. Why? I call people who agree with me “railfans” too. It’s not a slur.And thanks for ending this thread’s admirable streak of no personal attacks. And so soon after it was pointed out. :-( |
|
|
| (1425889) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 14:43:53 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 28 19:33:45 2017. Spoke too soon |
|
|
| (1425890) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jan 29 14:55:23 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 07:47:24 2017. Now, now...., |
|
|
| (1425891) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 14:59:25 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 14:41:14 2017. There is no law that says every northern branch may get only one designated route. The Astoria has the N & W. The WPR has the 2 & 5, which also heads to Dyre Avenue.You are just the type that wants to agree with the MTA and call all else foamers. |
|
|
| (1425892) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:00:12 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 07:49:54 2017. That is a complete false conclusion based on no evidence. I don't support labelling all trains to 96th as Qs because that's what the MTA wants, it's because it's the optimal solution. |
|
|
| (1425893) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:00:57 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 29 12:09:15 2017. Yes, unidirectional service, calling the exact same train route N in one direction and Q in the other. Nowhere else is that done. |
|
|
| (1425894) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:01:19 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 29 12:05:17 2017. That's your opinion. |
|
|
| (1425897) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:04:56 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 14:59:25 2017. The 2nd Avenue line is only the Q. It does not have a second line. The N goes only to Astoria.You are talking out of your ass when you claim that I am siding with the MTA on everything. |
|
|
| (1425898) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:05:50 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:00:57 2017. Nobody cares what happens when a train reverses direction at a terminal. Except by accident, nobody rides the same train in both directions. |
|
|
| (1425899) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:06:52 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:01:19 2017. It is an informed opinion based on minimizing passenger confusion. As opposed to your opinion based on continuity of something that only made sense in 1959. |
|
|
| (1425900) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 29 15:09:03 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:01:19 2017. No, That is fact, as The MTA determines what is the proper label, and they have determined that the proper label is Q. |
|
|
| (1425901) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:09:57 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:04:56 2017. Yes it does have a 2nd line. They are N trains that never saw the Brighton line and they are labeled Q. And when their counterparts head south, they are called N, yet no depiction of them on the map.So you expect people to read nothing but the constant letter, disregard the destination, but when the undocumented southbound N comes along, just get on, never mind the signs at all. |
|
|
| (1425902) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:13:14 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 29 12:03:32 2017. This is about as scewey as the Bankers RR in the mid-1980's. The trains were all marked "S", and they ran to Metro Avenue, not "RR" Chambers as the maps said. |
|
|
| (1425903) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:13:32 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:09:57 2017. Who cares that they never saw the Brighton Line? The Brighton Line isn't the only meaning of "Q."Why wouldn't they get on the N? If they see an N, and they don't want the N (like if they're going to Brooklyn), they won't get on. If they know where the N goes and they're OK with that, they get on. The system works. |
|
|
| (1425904) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:14:18 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:13:14 2017. That was screwy. This is not. |
|
|
| (1425905) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:16:00 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:05:50 2017. I didn't say they did, but you don't call the exact same routed service one letter in one direction and another in the other direction.Sea Beach - 96th is signed Q northbound, N southbound. That's nuts. Nobody can understand that. |
|
|
| (1425906) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:24:23 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:06:52 2017. YOUR opinion, because you assume people heading up 2nd Avenue are illiterate and incoherent.Again, these are ROUTE designations, not destination indicators. That is what you do not get. |
|
|
| (1425907) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:26:37 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 29 15:09:03 2017. I don't care what the MTA has determined. These are the clowns that gave us at one time QJ, RJ, NX, EE, called the Bankers RR the S, and none of it made sense to the public either. |
|
|
| (1425908) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:29:12 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:13:32 2017. And the Astoria line is not the only meaning of N. It has a W and we don't mark all Astoria bound trains N. |
|
|
| (1425910) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:39:04 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:16:00 2017. Nobody needs to understand that. It's a perfectly valid way of signing trains. |
|
|
| (1425911) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:42:26 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:24:23 2017. Regardless of whether you sign it as an N or a Q, it is running on the wrong route. There is no route that connects Sea Beach with 2nd. You are obsessed with having the trains have the correct signage at their origin instead of their destination where it matters. Signing them as N northbound means that the signage is incorrect for the entire route. |
|
|
| (1425912) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 29 15:43:28 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:26:37 2017. Yes, They learned. That is why they are signing the trains running between 96/2 and CI Via Sea Beach in the only way which will avoid widespread confusion. |
|
|
| (1425913) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:44:14 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:26:37 2017. These are not the "same clowns." None of those people who designed those routes were responsible for the N/Q routing at issue and a significant number of those "clowns" are probably dead now. |
|
|
| (1425914) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:45:35 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:29:12 2017. N is not the only Astoria service, but Astoria is the only meaning for a northbound N. |
|
|
| (1425915) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 29 15:57:17 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:24:23 2017. How does anybody not understand that the DESTINATION is a far more important aspect of the route than the origin when it comes to how to sign trains? |
|
|
| (1425917) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 29 17:29:41 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sat Jan 28 23:40:27 2017. Anything is swappable. Ds used to be Brighton. |
|
|
| (1425919) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 29 18:14:18 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 29 15:57:17 2017. "How does anybody not understand that the DESTINATION is a far more important aspect of the route than the origin when it comes to how to sign trains?"That actually depends. It is not as clear cut as you make it seem. For a Manhattan rider headed to Kings Highway, there are a number of routes that have Coney Island as the terminal station destination. For plenty of subway riders additional information such as the ROUTE taken to reach "Kings Highway" becomes VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. Lacking information about the cross streets or the path taken would be a big problem in giving directions. Try telling someone to "Just take any train to Kings Highway." This is a problem when there is shortened information on the signage - cross streets/avenues are very important pieces of information. This is not particular to the current N/Q debate. Some time ago, a friend of mine, Eric was told to take the D-train to 20th Avenue in Brooklyn to meet some friends, but somehow he ends up taking the N-train to 20th Avenue because that station was listed on the signage. The weird part is the Eric has lived his whole life in Brooklyn and did not realize that there would be an important difference. For plenty of riders it is the route - the path that the train takes to get to a certain place that is what matters. Many riders neither travel to or from one terminal station of a subway route to the other last stop/terminal station. Often the terminal stations are very, very far distances - 179th Street/Queens to Coney Island/Brooklyn, etc. The 42nd Street Shuttle, and the Franklin Street Shuttle are clear exceptions! Plenty, plenty of riders simply travel between various points on a subway route and often transfer among various subway routes. These riders generally want to know the ROUTE/PATH that is being taken. (Is this train going down Lexington Avenue or the west-side?) Plenty of A-train riders in Brooklyn and Queens may "know" that A-trains goes to 207th Street in Washington Heights - but very few actually travel there. Most Brooklyn and Queens riders of the A-train really just care that this is the train that will be take them along the west-side of Manhattan and to places where they can transfer to other subway lines, or close enough to their destination. Some folks may take the E-train from Archer Avenue in Queens to a destination like the World Trade Center. Plenty of E-train riders board the trains at intermediate stops for other intermediate stops. Plenty of folks board the E-train at Penn Station headed for the World Trade Center, and they would not usually not care where the E-train travels in Queens. The trip between the World Trade Center and 34th Street-Penn Station would be what's important to them. Do riders headed for Yankee Stadium really, really care that the #4 is headed toward Woodlawn or Bedford Park Blvd, or that the B or D trains are headed toward Bedford Park Blvd or 205th Street? I think not. So long as it is traveling in their general specific direction and the announcements are clear and frequent. There are other examples that can be chosen. Does the destination matter? Yes, it does but the route/the pathway also matters! The pathway matters because it signals the general direction that particular subway line is taking to get someplace. Years ago, the elevated trains had labels such as "Ninth Avenue, "Sixth Avenue", "Myrtle Avenue", "Fifth Avenue", "Lexington Avenue" - which gives one a sense of just where that train is traveling - even if the terminal stations were not the actual destinations of plenty of the riders. Should subway train signage INCLUDE THE DESTINATIONS AND THE PATHS OF THE TRAINS - YES!! Mike |
|
|
| (1425920) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 29 18:17:10 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 29 18:14:18 2017. You seem to be disagreeing with me by providing an example which proves my point. |
|
|
| (1425921) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jan 29 18:19:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 29 18:14:18 2017. What you say is true but doesn't actually address the statement you quote. Yes, the route taken is important too, though none of your examples proves that it is in general more important than the destination. But your quoted sentence refers to the origin, not the route. |
|
|
| (1425926) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 19:49:35 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:45:35 2017. NO. Astoria is not the only meaning for a northbound N. By your logic, all IRT Lex 5 trains going to Utica should be signed as 4s and all 7 Av 2 trains going to N/Lts should be signed as 3s even though in the AM rush there are selected 5s that go to Utica and elected 2s that go to N/Lts. Since the majority of the route that the 2 Av Ns operate on is the N Line then N is the proper letter to use for those trains. It is the MAJORITY of the route that the train operates on that determines the route, not a very small portion of it. That is the reason that A trains carry the same letter whether they are going to Lefferts, Far Rock or Rock Pk since all A trains regardless of their south destinations serve exactly the same stations as far as Rockaway Blvd and the Rock Pk As and Far Rock As serve the exact same stations as far as Broad Channel. The majority of A train riders ride from./to points between 207 St and Rock Blvd so the different stations served by the branches south of that point are of no consequence to them whatsoever. Once passengers become used to the fact that some Ns will go to 96/2 instead of Astoria, there will be no problem since they will know enough to look for them and avoid them if necessary. As an added benefit, should there be some N passengers who do need the SAS then they can now wait for those trains on their line so that they won’t have to change for a Q somewhere in Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1425927) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 19:55:24 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 29 17:29:41 2017. Exactly my point! In fact, pre Chrystie, D was Culver and prior to 1954, stations as far as Church Av were served by the F. If you want to go back even further, the first service to use the Smith St Line was the A and after Queens, Houston St and Fulton St opened it was the E until 6 Av opened when the F utilized Houston and Smith Sts. There is a history within the NYCTS of lines that kept their home branch and trunk lines while their foreign terminals changed. |
|
|
| (1425928) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 29 19:57:20 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 19:55:24 2017. There is no home branch. There is no foreign terminal. Anything is swappable. |
|
|
| (1425931) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 20:06:55 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 19:49:35 2017. Yes, they should be signed that way. As for the A, that is how it is there. The A alternates between Lefferts and Mott all day, every day. The divergence is listed on the map. So is the limited divergence to B116. Thus, there is less confusion than with the unadvertised N to 96th. Even more so, most passengers who board the wrong A will be on it for many stops before the point at which they would have to get off to correct their error. Not the case for the N to 96th where there are only a few busy stops leading to the split. |
|
|
| (1425934) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 20:22:03 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 29 13:25:22 2017. Looking at the timetable, I fail to see why those trains need to go to 96 St at all. If they are not needed for S/B service they can easily be sent to Qnsbro Plz in the AM to lay up for PM service. Since in the PM they are not needed to carry passengers to Astoria, those S/B intervals can be made by putting the AM layups in from Qnsbro Plz to provide the necessary S/B service S/O 57 St. |
|
|
| (1425938) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jan 29 20:35:25 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 20:22:03 2017. Looking at the timetable, I fail to see why those trains need to go to 96 St at all.There is already a jam-up of northbound trains merging at 34th to get onto the local track. They don't want to send any more trains to the 60th street tunnel than absolutely necessary to serve Astoria and CTL. So you have a northbound Sea Beach train that isn't needed in Astoria? Keep it on the express track and send it to 96/2, not QP. |
|
|
| (1425940) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 20:38:14 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 28 14:19:42 2017. There was actually a logic behind the lettering scheme that the IND developed and the so called MTA planners ruined it. I once mentioned a particular BMT service plan that ran pre Chrystie and one of the sched mgr trainees insisted that it never ran that way, despite the fact that I worked it so i know it was the way it happened. Those of you who are new to the hobby would be well advised to listen to those of us who have been around longer many of whom also have the hands on operating and in many cases managerial experience and knowledge of what happened and why! |
|
|
| (1425942) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 20:42:44 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 20:38:14 2017. I don't fall for fallacious appeals to authority. |
|
|
| (1425945) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 20:58:34 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:42:26 2017. The NYCTA assigned the letter N to the Bway/Sea Beach Line and the northern terminal was of no consequence since the N in its history has had 3 north terminals (4 if you count 96/2), 57/7, Continental, and now Astoria. The letter was intended to indicate the home branch line with the Manhattan trunk line regardless of which north terminal the train went to. In reality, the NYCTA's combination of the branch line with the Manhattan trunk line broke with BMT tradition since the original BMT line descriptors applied only to the branch lines and unlike the IND, the branches used the same route descriptor which was originally a number whether the trains operated vial Broadway or Nassau St. More correctly speaking therefore, the Sea Beach Line should carry an N whether it operates via the Bway Subway or Nassau St if such a service were ever to be operated. On the IND the D retained the same letter for its entire history and it has gone to several different terminals over its history. First it went to Hudson terminal, then to Church Ave and Stillwell via the Culver, then via the Brighton and now via the West End. Based on your logic which was the “right” part of the D Line. The answer is of course they ALL were because the home branch line and Manhattan trunk line were never disturbed. |
|
|
| (1425946) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 29 21:06:36 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 20:58:34 2017. Tradition does not matter.History beyond say 2 or 3 years is wholly irrelevant outside of proving capacity exists on a line segment or junction. |
|
|
| (1425948) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 21:10:14 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:26:37 2017. It was only the PM RR Bankers’ Special that was labeled as an S for 2 equally stupid reasons. In it’s infinite wisdom, the NYCTA suits, insisted that the Manhattan trunk line be included on the roll signs and on the R-32s and up, the branch line was completely eliminated thus all the BMT Southern Div services only read "Broadway” additionally, there was no single letter R sign included which would have properly described the AM bankers specials that went via Nassau St. That is why the letter M for Nassau St Exp was used for both the Brighton and 4 Av Bankers specials. Although the PM 4 Av Bankers specials original ran exp S./B in the PM rush, by the time the R types were assigned to the line, only the AM specials ran exp and the PM specials ran lcl. With the side signs on the R types and especially the R-32s reading for “Broadway,” the trains couldn’t even be signed for RR and nobody wanted to use any of the other Nassau St Lcl signs so the only alternative was to use the S since those trains were sort of “specials.' |
|
|
| (1425949) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 21:13:12 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 15:00:12 2017. No it’s not! As I have mentioned several time in other posts, once the passengers realized that selected Ns would run to 96 St they would be on the lookout for them and if they needed actual N stations N/O 57 St would simply avoid them and wait for an Astoria train. |
|
|
| (1425952) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jan 29 21:24:20 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 21:13:12 2017. It's even easier to avoid accidentally getting on an N to 96st if it doesn't exist. Which as of the electronic schedule change, is now the case. |
|
|
| (1425954) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 21:25:17 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jan 29 09:22:34 2017. I had though about the possibility of swapping the north terminals of the N and the Q even prior to the SAS, however, I suspect that the Brighton passengers would object to the loss of their Bway express service. Bay Ridge to the Concourse might be problematic since it would require an extra switching move at Dekalb to bring the Bay Ridge service into the Dekalb Av Manny B track. Then what would you call the service? If it considered an IND line it could properly be called the D but if it is assigned as a BMT line then R would be just as appropriate. The what would go from the Bway BMT to Qns Blvd as a replacement for the R? You would need to route another one of the Southern Div services into the Montague St tunnel and that would cause a few objections among the residents there. If it were the Q, then the problem I mentioned would exist and that being the case, the N would probably have to be sent up the SAS and a new West End/Bway service possibly a T would have to be instituted to provide Bway service to Ctl. Overnight the West End could revert to its old Stl to 36 St Shuttle or based on the present service pattern Stl to Whitehall. |
|
|
| (1425955) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 21:27:29 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 20:06:55 2017. The difference based on the number of stops between the N to Astoria and the N to 96 St is about the same as the difference between the 2 A services. By the way, how much transit planning and/or scheduling experience do you have? |
|
|
| (1425957) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 21:32:37 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 29 15:16:00 2017. The IRT has a similar situation in Bkln although the trains from the Bronx retain their northern line names even into Bkln. However, N/B in the PM there are 5s originating at Utica and 2s originating at N/Lts that are needed for their respective manhattan into Bronx services. If a passenger from 96/2 happens to need an N and is aware that a few Ns originate there the he/she may likely wait for one of them instead of having to change from a Q to an N at 57 St for the same service. |
|
|
| (1425962) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 22:34:36 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jan 29 21:24:20 2017. Excellent post. |
|
|
| (1425963) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 29 22:35:14 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 29 21:13:12 2017. Most passengers would not become aware of this. Why add to their confusion? |
|
|
|
Page 14 of 16 |
||
