|
|
| Re: C to Lefferts (1170248) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (1170448) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Fri Aug 3 19:32:34 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Train Dude on Fri Aug 3 17:49:00 2012. Could that be since you are retired. |
|
|
| (1170457) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Fisk ave Jim on Fri Aug 3 20:26:04 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Fri Aug 3 09:09:03 2012. "read nowadays and listen nowadays is impossible "Ive been on the #7 several times & I've seen #3 strip maps on the interior of the R62a's going back & forth to Flushing. Also the PA announcements are often garbled & unintelligable. Why is that?? Maybe employee indefference?? Maybe lax supervision?? Bottom line, lets not have the customer to blame, totaly, for any misderiction or confusion. Sure you're gonna get passengers that just don't get it, but To imply that any confusion is based soley on passenger ignorance is just plain nonsense. If the maintenance folks were doing their jobs as well to be expected, & properly supervised, there'd be no need for this post. There's enough blame to go around. To soley place the source of the problem of proper direction on the customer is just plain wrong. You should know better than that. |
|
|
| (1170463) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Fri Aug 3 20:36:25 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Fisk ave Jim on Fri Aug 3 20:26:04 2012. Also the PA announcements are often garbled & unintelligible.Then it could be a equipment problem.. If the maintenance folks were doing their jobs as well to be expected, & properly supervised, there'd be no need for this post. Yep considered they let a lot of em go so they could balance their budget so folks wont pay 3 bucks a hr to pay their fare.. I can tell you its not the norm though, but it can happen if you can't hear the PA in a car why not let one of us know? Did you let a crew member know? I have had customers come up to me and say they didnt hear the announcement in a car.. Right on the defect sheet.. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1170466) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Aug 3 20:38:19 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by randyo on Fri Aug 3 19:15:29 2012. I think it's a bit anal to quibble over seconds. |
|
|
| (1170477) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Fisk ave Jim on Fri Aug 3 21:21:57 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Railman718 on Fri Aug 3 20:36:25 2012. Aggree totaly. My point was that if customers get lost, the blame cannot be soley on the customers ignorance, or inattentiveness as Pauls post implies. But as far as letting a crew member kbnow of a defect, its kinda unrealistic in as 11 car packed train to get to a crew member to mention a defect. Last time I checked, there were only 2 crew members & if the TA gets their wish, thats gonna change.Total agreement here inasmuch as maintenance personnell are understaffed & long overdue for a diecent raise. BTW the Flushing line is one of the best maintained overall, but, as you say "It can happen" |
|
|
| (1170478) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Aug 3 21:25:03 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by LRG5784 on Fri Aug 3 15:37:38 2012. R46s too. Sometimes their digital side signs are partially blank, fully blank or signed for the wrong direction (i.e., Rockaway-bound train signed for 207th St). That's why I think the Lefferts A service should get another letter (C or K). |
|
|
| (1170499) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by LRG5784 on Fri Aug 3 22:53:06 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by randyo on Fri Aug 3 17:40:55 2012. My mistake. |
|
|
| (1170508) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Aug 4 02:55:47 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Aug 3 20:38:19 2012. You may think it's anal but to a schedule maker, it is critical to make sure that trains that interact with several lines do so with a minimum of conflict! |
|
|
| (1170519) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Aug 4 06:43:48 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Aug 3 15:32:53 2012. As I would do it, the (C) would go to Lefferts 24/7 with ALL (A) service split between Rockaway Park and Far Rockaway in the following manner:Overnights: Even Split Rush Hours: Four trains to Far Rockaway for every three to Rockaway Park. Other times: Five trains to Far Rockaway for every three to Rockaway Park. The Lefferts riders can complain, but they would be reminded as part of this, the (C) would be 24/7 and they would no longer have to deal with the late-night shuttle between Euclid and Lefferts AND that they can make a same platform transfer anywhere between Rockaway Boulevard and Grant Avenue if they want express service. A compromise could be done for Lefferts riders looking for midtown where a LIMITED number of |
|
|
| (1170520) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Aug 4 06:47:34 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Aug 3 13:34:16 2012. Actually, the benefits would be for the Casino and airport riders.If I were running Genting, I'd be willing to pay to have ALL (A) service stop at the casino and pay to have all (C) service go to Lefferts. That, of course, is also why I would also pay to rebuild the Aqueduct-North Conduit station so it is three platforms, including an island platform in the middle (below a bridge that would serve all three platforms) and the missing track re-built so it can be used as a terminal when needed. |
|
|
| (1170648) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Sat Aug 4 22:06:21 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by randyo on Fri Aug 3 18:37:25 2012. I once let 4 locals go by at Jay St., waiting for the express. We did catch up to the 4th local at Bway Junction. |
|
|
| (1170649) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Aug 4 22:08:29 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by randyo on Fri Aug 3 18:37:25 2012. The old Broadway Local-Express service would've made sense if the trains also took the center express track from 137th (or even 145th) to 96th. |
|
|
| (1170651) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Aug 4 22:11:17 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by jabrams on Sat Aug 4 22:06:21 2012. If you look at the running times, that's not always the wisest move. Of course, if you look at crime stats, it could still be a very wise move. |
|
|
| (1170691) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Aug 5 04:23:05 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by italianstallion on Sat Aug 4 22:08:29 2012. Back when there was both a Bway Lcl from 137 to So/Fy and a Bway Exp from V/C to N/Lts, there was a short lived Bway Thru Exp that did operate in rush hours on the middle between 137 and 96 in the peak direction of traffic. Since by scheduling standards, 1/2 min extra run time is allowed per station and there were only 4 stations skipped that would amount to a run time saving of only 2 min. Given that a train crossing to the exp tk would be 2 min behind its leader, that would mean the S/B thru exp would meet its leader at 103 St and a N/N thru exp would meet its leader at 137 St. That would require one train or the other to be held for clearance. Since the actual runtime saving was minimal at best and more accurately non existent, the thru express concept on Bway was dropped. |
|
|
| (1170710) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sun Aug 5 09:42:44 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by randyo on Sun Aug 5 04:23:05 2012. Wasn't there also a problem that 103rd St., 110th St. and 116th Street are among the busiest stations on Broadway north of 96th? They were providing less service to busy stations to save a few minutes for passengers from 137th St. north. |
|
|
| (1170806) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Aug 5 16:29:57 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by merrick1 on Sun Aug 5 09:42:44 2012. Besides the Bway Thru Exp, there were regular Bway express trains that made those stops so I don't think those stations suffered from a lack of service. If it had been able to work, the thru express might actually have helped since the trains crowded with passengers N/O 137 St would bypass those stations and the regular expresses would have likely have had more seats available for passengers at those stations. |
|
|
| (1170808) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Aug 5 16:50:30 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by randyo on Fri Aug 3 15:59:11 2012. I used to use the Far Rock A train on a regular basis at the longest interval system wide at any time I think: 30 minutes. I believe at Broad Channel on Sunday morning, at least in 2009, a Manhattan bound A train arrived at 6:23 and the next one wasn't until 6:53. And I don't think the shuttle connection was set up well so I would get off the Rock Park shuttle and often wait most of those 30 minutes.I see that this 30 minute interval still occurs, though 7 minutes later than it used to. |
|
|
| (1170810) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Aug 5 16:55:37 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by randyo on Sun Aug 5 16:29:57 2012. Worth revisiting, perhaps. |
|
|
| (1170816) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Aug 5 17:27:48 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by italianstallion on Sun Aug 5 16:55:37 2012. Probably not and for the same reason I indicated in my earlier post on the subject. |
|
|
| (1170818) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Aug 5 17:32:41 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Aug 5 16:50:30 2012. The reason for the 30 min intervals on early Sunday mornings is that the mainline A headway N/O Rocky Blvd is 15 min. That means that the headway out of Lefferts at that time is also 30 min. That is an unfortunate quirk of the early Sunday 15 min headways on most lines. You will probably find that late evenings when the mainline headway is 12 min, the headway to the branches correspondingly drops to 24 min. both of those wrinkles are unique since during midnight hours the headway drops down to the normal NYCTA midnight standard of 20 min. |
|
|
| (1170826) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Jsun21 on Sun Aug 5 17:55:39 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by LRG5784 on Fri Aug 3 15:37:38 2012. Or announcements aren't made often leaving very few chances to catch a mistake. MTA employees these days seem to have mic fright. Talking to a station agent consists of them mumbling through bullet proof glass instead of using the mic. Bus drivers don't make any announcements usually. Having ridden four buses today and only heard 3 total announcements. These days even train conductors simply open and close without a word. |
|
|
| (1170828) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 5 17:59:19 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by randyo on Sat Aug 4 02:55:47 2012. In retrospect, that center track on the #1 is pretty useless when it comes to providing express service. It keeps switching in and out with the local, esp. N/O of 96th St where there is no way to go between it and the express tracks. |
|
|
| (1170865) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by HANDBRAKE on Sun Aug 5 22:13:24 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by The Silence on Fri Aug 3 16:10:38 2012. Posted by The Silence on Fri Aug 3 13:12:08 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Aug 3 12:53:22 2012.dude, are you intentionaly trying to get yourself beat up? do you want whole neighborhoods crying for your head? your "ideas" are not resovling problems, they are making life WORSE for thousands of people. Slower, more complicated service for no reason other than you thinking it's a good idea. REMARK: what makes you believe that the grand schedule and route proposal changes to A/C service on this thread would ever be implemented by NYCT? Just swipe the plastic and ride that steel wheeled pony.... Who cares??? |
|
|
| (1170866) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by HANDBRAKE on Sun Aug 5 22:23:21 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by randyo on Fri Aug 3 18:37:25 2012. Express trains are the opiate of many commuters. I once scoffed at taking the old he post Chystie Street QB out of 57/7th because i wanted a swift D Express run to KH, but only to have to wait and exposed to the weather for a southbound M or QB to my local stop.I ride the Q, and ride the same rails and local stops to my home station as the old rush hour QB in the 80's. How much time did I save by waiting for a D, and a change at HK for a local as opposed to taking the QB from 57/7th, not much at all. |
|
|
| (1170869) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by HANDBRAKE on Sun Aug 5 22:34:05 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by randyo on Sun Aug 5 17:27:48 2012. Had the interlock north of 96th street been built as a flying junction, with two tracks dropping down towards Lenox Avenue, and with the tracks 3-4 merging at 103rd street, Broadway thru Express service to a Brooklyn terminal would have been feasible.The local service on Broadway is by no means a slow poke run. I would prefer a #1 local from 215th to 59th or TS to connect to Brighton line services as opposed to taking the A south from 207th (That includes a walk from 215th). This hold especially true northbound in the AM after 8:30AM when A's are taken out of service at 168th or Dyckman-200th Street for lay up when I needed to get to 207th street. |
|
|
| (1170874) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Italianstallion on Sun Aug 5 22:56:40 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by HANDBRAKE on Sun Aug 5 22:34:05 2012. The 1 above 96th is one of the fastest local runs since it is mainly level, mostly straight, has no merges, and has long stretches between stations. |
|
|
| (1170878) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Sun Aug 5 23:17:19 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Fisk ave Jim on Fri Aug 3 20:26:04 2012. I've been on the #7 several times, and I've seen #3 strip maps on the interior of the R62a's going back and forth to Flushing. Also, the PA announcements are often garbled and unintelligible. Why is that? Is it employee indifference? Lax supervision?Perhaps at the time you were riding the train, you happened to be on a car that was recently transferred from the either the 3 line or the shuttle. Getting the cars on the road is more important than the strip maps inside the car. Of all my years of riding the 7 line, my most recent experience with unintelligible announcements involves a conductor who talks too fast. It's as if the guy was trying to be John Moschitta. |
|
|
| (1170880) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Sun Aug 5 23:39:17 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by HANDBRAKE on Sun Aug 5 22:13:24 2012. you do know they read this place all the time... |
|
|
| (1170884) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 5 23:53:57 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by HANDBRAKE on Sun Aug 5 22:23:21 2012. In all honesty, I would get rather annoyed if I decided to take a local, only to have an express pass me a couple of minutes later. Probably the reason people wait for an express even after 3 locals pass by, because a derivative of Murphy's law states that there is an express right behind the local you choose to board. :-) |
|
|
| (1170893) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Mon Aug 6 02:43:18 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 5 23:53:57 2012. Agreed. |
|
|
| (1170898) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Aug 6 04:25:06 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by HANDBRAKE on Sun Aug 5 22:34:05 2012. There was a plan in place back in the IRT days to make 96 St a flying jct but probably due to lack of funds it was never implemented. |
|
|
| (1170899) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Aug 6 04:27:43 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by renee gil on Mon Aug 6 02:43:18 2012. I would tend to agree with you but unless the odds are 100 million to zero against any failure, I would opt for the first train in the direction you are going!!! |
|
|
| (1170913) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Handbrake on Mon Aug 6 08:35:18 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by randyo on Mon Aug 6 04:27:43 2012. Experience dictates. Take any train going your way, because it could be the last train you see for quite a while. |
|
|
| (1170942) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 6 12:50:51 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Aug 4 06:47:34 2012. Casino and airport riders can survive with trains running every 15 minutes. I've always liked the idea of extending the C to Lefferts and running all A trains to the Rockaways, but the fact is it would have little benefit. |
|
|
| (1170943) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Mon Aug 6 13:02:53 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Train Dude on Fri Aug 3 10:44:43 2012. 3 extra stops have a weak cry compared to the yell of an airport, casino, & beach crowd, lets not forget the increase in residents in The Rockaways. |
|
|
| (1170944) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Mon Aug 6 13:08:25 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Railman718 on Fri Aug 3 12:55:21 2012. Theres no need for extra switchmen, platform C/Rs would be needed temporary and it wont be a waste of money because both you and I know theres always gonna be aomebody to cover a job, especially with all the new guys. Only thing that gets complicated is the schedule change which will affect 3 lines, (A), (C), (H). |
|
|
| (1170949) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Aug 6 13:58:31 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by FarRock on Mon Aug 6 13:02:53 2012. I agree. Worst case scenario, give the C to Lefferts but make sure an A is always right behind it after the merge at Rockaway Blvd (Manhattan bound). Wouldn't that increase service to Lefferts anyway? So what do they want? More service or the one seat ride? |
|
|
| (1170981) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Mon Aug 6 18:21:09 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Handbrake on Mon Aug 6 08:35:18 2012. And the day you decide that, not 1 but 2 expresses pass you by. :-) |
|
|
| (1170989) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Aug 6 19:07:40 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Handbrake on Mon Aug 6 08:35:18 2012. yes. |
|
|
| (1171053) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Aug 7 03:48:21 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Train Dude on Fri Aug 3 11:21:46 2012. Yes, but unless people are THAT lazy, I don't think it would be THAT big of a deal, especially since it's a same platform transfer between Rockaway Parkway and Grant Avenue and cross-platform at Euclid.As said elsewhere, what I would do for Lefferts riders looking for midtown who want that one-seat ride is a compromise where during rush hours a LIMITED number of (C) trains run via the (F) to West 4th, skipping lower Manhattan. This also would allow those looking for the east side to switch to the (6) at Broadway-Lafayette. |
|
|
| (1171054) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Aug 7 03:51:26 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Aug 3 12:53:22 2012. Or as a compromise, Lefferts riders looking for midtown during rush hours having a LIMITED number of (C) trains running via the (F) to West 4th, with those looking for the east side then having the option of switching to the (6) at Broadway-Lafayette instead of the (4)/(5) at Fulton. |
|
|
| (1171057) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Aug 7 04:55:19 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Aug 7 03:48:21 2012. You wouldn't want to have that much of a variation in service since many of the C passengers would not necessarily mind the additional running time as long as it got them to the same places as the A would do. |
|
|
| (1171058) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Aug 7 04:55:48 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Aug 7 03:51:26 2012. See my post!!! |
|
|
| (1171091) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Tue Aug 7 10:36:07 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Aug 7 03:48:21 2012. First it is Rockaway Blvd., not Rockaway Parkway. Secondly, the A and C share the same tracks between Rock. Blvd and Euclid, so chances are that the first time an express would meet a local would be at B'way Junction (unless there is an express from Rockaway waiting to enter Rock. Blvd as the C is going over the ramp. At Bway Junction it would be difficult to get a seat on the A. |
|
|
| (1171726) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Aug 11 03:20:27 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by jabrams on Tue Aug 7 10:36:07 2012. Whoops on Rockaway Boulevard, did have those mixed up:Understand where you're coming from on the (C) and (A) and transfers, but my point is, Lefferts riders if they want a seat badly enough on the (A) can make that switch on the same platform at Rockaway Boulevard. The (C) compromise (a limited number via the (F) in rush hours) is for those on Lefferts who specifically want midtown. Those trains would at Jay Street switch to the (F) tracks and run via those tracks to West 4th, where they would switch back to their regular route. The benefit here aside from the obvious one-seat ride for those wanting midtown 8th Avenue local stations is for those riders looking for east side midtown stations because they can now switch to a not-so-crowded (6) at Broadway-Lafayette as opposed to jammed (4)/(5) trains at Fulton and also if they want 6th Avenue stations (other than West 4) can switch to ANY 6th Avenue train at Broadway-Lafayette on the same platform as opposed to the (F) at Jay Street. |
|
|
| (1171745) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Sat Aug 11 08:50:09 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Aug 11 03:20:27 2012. Rename the (A) to Lefferts (K)(C) sent back to Rockaway Park All Times |
|
|
| (1172001) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Neil Feldman on Sun Aug 12 23:15:34 2012, in response to C to Lefferts, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Aug 3 03:44:41 2012. Lack of equipment at rush hours may hurt, and not help the extra service to Lefferts unless you take stuff away from the A to add C service which wouldn't benefit riders as you will lessen TPH on the A. Another negative is you take the C's turnaround away from Euclid because they are supposed to have the oldest cars in the system in the 32's (even though now in the summer its 46's). Thirdly, C runs from 6am-9pm at all times, so then you would have to either make the A as a temp go there to Lefferts, or extend the C's hours to 12am. Leave things the way they are for now. |
|
|
| (1172078) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Aug 13 13:12:38 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by Neil Feldman on Sun Aug 12 23:15:34 2012. The C runs til about 11. not 9... |
|
|
| (1172084) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Handbrake on Mon Aug 13 13:37:41 2012, in response to C to Lefferts, posted by MATHA531 on Fri Aug 3 03:44:41 2012. NYCT is giving consideration to extending C line service to Lefferts, making Euclid a through station. Also, R32-R46 equipment swaps begin in September between A & C routes, The summer seson is over in the land of transit. |
|
|
| (1172126) | |
Re: C to Lefferts |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon Aug 13 15:27:49 2012, in response to Re: C to Lefferts, posted by R36 #9346 on Fri Aug 3 07:56:38 2012. Why complicate matters? "C" to Lefferts and "A" to the Rockaways. "S" Lefferts shuttle during midnights. When the "E" ran express in Brooklyn, years ago, they sent 3 trains to/from Lefferts, during the rush hours. If need be, send 5 of the "A" trains to Lefferts, during rush hours. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
