|
|
| Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? (1339776) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
|
| (1340015) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 15 13:22:45 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by renee gil on Sun Feb 15 05:33:01 2015. Actually, the first double letter elimination was when the KK became the k in the early 1970s and I recall seeing a few R-1/9s with one of the Ls on the LL roll sign painted out since it was also planned to make the LL into the L around the same time although ti wasn’t done at that time. One of the reasons it wasn’t done back then was the so called MTA planners couldn’t figure out what to do about the AA since it was at the time the only line that had the same letter in both a single and double letter configuration. In 1976 that problem was solved when the Bway Bkln K was eliminated and the letter K was assigned to the former AA route. |
|
|
| (1340024) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 15 14:54:35 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by randyo on Sun Feb 15 13:22:45 2015. The K didn't replace the AA until 1985. |
|
|
| (1340034) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Feb 15 15:27:43 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 15 04:58:27 2015. Easier said than done. End destination signs would have helped immeasurably, especially on the R-32s. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1340045) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 15 16:48:34 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 15 14:54:35 2015. True, but that’s because the TA wanted to put some space between the 2 distinct and different services that used the same letter. |
|
|
| (1340049) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Feb 15 18:04:20 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 15 11:36:14 2015. Isn't the night portion a shuttle G and a crosstown G at the same time? K. Trout's question was the possible relay procedure for the shuttle G, if it was ever to be used. |
|
|
| (1340053) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 15 18:36:22 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Feb 15 15:27:43 2015. They did have them originally. |
|
|
| (1340060) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Sun Feb 15 19:45:06 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 15 09:45:02 2015. right. |
|
|
| (1340061) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Sun Feb 15 19:47:58 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by randyo on Sun Feb 15 13:22:45 2015. the Broadway(Brooklyn)/6th Ave KK local route was renamed K in January 1973 when the line cut back from 168th Street station to Eastern Parkway station. |
|
|
| (1340066) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Sun Feb 15 20:34:57 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Feb 15 18:04:20 2015. Right, I was referring to the overnight operation. |
|
|
| (1340069) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Sun Feb 15 20:51:56 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by renee gil on Sun Feb 15 19:47:58 2015. IIRC, at the same time, the QJ became the J and went to Broad St only 24/7, and the M was extended to Coney Island via Brighton Local Mon-Fri "normal hours" (as they were called on the 1972 era map) 6 AM-8 PM.I was living out of state at that time, and when I returned for the summer in 1973, I had to get used to the service changes. |
|
|
| (1340076) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Sun Feb 15 22:15:22 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Sun Feb 15 20:51:56 2015. right. |
|
|
| (1340078) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Sun Feb 15 22:24:18 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 15 14:54:35 2015. Even as early as November 1984 I saw the K (instead of the AA) and C (not the CC) route bullets on a few 8th Avenue Subway station entrances such as Canal Street station for instance.It read: Canal Street Station (A) < C > (E) (K) |
|
|
| (1340079) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by INDviaCulver on Sun Feb 15 22:37:15 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by randyo on Sun Feb 15 13:22:45 2015. Speaking of double letter eliminations, I used to think that started with the BB changing to the B designation in late 1967. But no, I realize that the TA at the time was doing that to differentiate a new service that was Express for part of its' route. Other new designation were those hybrid ones like: QJ, RJ, NX......and we almost wound up with BT and QM !!!!!! |
|
|
| (1340080) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by renee gil on Sun Feb 15 22:41:02 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by INDviaCulver on Sun Feb 15 22:37:15 2015. QJ: Q - Brighton J - JamaicaRJ: R - 4th Avenue J - Jamaica NX: Sea Beach Express well that's the way I see it. |
|
|
| (1340086) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Feb 16 02:16:34 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 15 09:48:40 2015. I'm talking about Queens corridor.Thanks Joe V. |
|
|
| (1340092) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 16 07:06:49 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Feb 16 02:16:34 2015. So what - same concept - and you have no point to make.You are not welcome. |
|
|
| (1340096) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Feb 16 07:18:46 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 16 07:06:49 2015. Making the same point dozens of times is a tried and true Subchat tradition. :) |
|
|
| (1340119) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Feb 16 13:16:36 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Feb 15 18:04:20 2015. From a previous message:Isn't the night portion a shuttle G and a crosstown G at the same time? K. Trout's question was the possible relay procedure for the shuttle G, if it was ever to be used. --- Ok, let's assume that the N-train did indeed travel along and service the Archer Avenue segment, and during the times when the N-train did not run the G-train replaced it. Further assume that during the midnight hours the G-train was reduced to 2 shuttle operations - a) running between Queens Plaza and Smith-9th Streets, and b) running from the Union Turnpike-Kew Gardens station to Jamaica Center. Of course we know that this did not actually happen, but this is a "what-if" exercise. For this exercise, I'm using my copy of Tracks of the Subway by Peter Dougherty, and I'll assume that the track numbers and track switches have not changed greatly. Most likely the G-shuttle coming from Archer Avenue would use its usual ramp-track D1A and would be switched to the downtown express track D3, meaning the G-shuttle would by-pass the Briarwood-Van Wyck Blvd local station. Upon entering the Union Turnpike station on the downtown express track, the G-shuttle train would discharge riders and take on new riders for the trip back to Jamaica Center. Riders coming in from Manhattan would have to cross-over from the Queens-bound platform to the downtown platform to catch the G-shuttle. The G-shuttle would reverse direction and travel on D3 until it encountered the track switch between the express tracks that lead to the 179th Street-bound express track D4. The G-shuttle train would again then by-pass the Briarwood-Van Wyck Blvd local station, and take the usual ramp-track D2A to head to Jamaica Center. That is how I believe a midnight-hour Archer Avenue G-shuttle would have been accomplished. I also think that the above operation was also a reason why it never happened. a) Most riders really do not like it when the shuttle train requires one to walk up and down stairs from one end of the platform to the other to reach the shuttle train. Given midnight frequencies of service the prospect of riders missing their connections should be a great concern. (However the almost 20-years of the #6 midnight-hour Pelham Bay shuttle under-cuts the depth of that concern.) b) More important I think is that the G-shuttle would have hampered the operations of the Jamaica train yard. The Union Turnpike-Kew Gardens station sits on top of the train yard access tracks for both the 71st Avenue-Forest Hills station, and the train yard access tracks for the 179th Street station, and the Archer Avenue segment. It is easy to imagine that the TA sends trains bound for service during the early am hours to 179th Street and to Jamaica Center, as well as to 71st Avenue that make up the current E, F, M and R routes. Under this scenario it would be the E, F, G and N routes. As proposed E-trains would remain local out of 179th Street, F-trains express out of 179th Street, and N-trains local out of Archer Avenue. Each of the G-shuttles would most likely have been short trains that would need to be taken back to the yard to regain its other half, and then rejoin service as a local to Brooklyn. It would simply be a really interesting set of operations in the transition from midnight hour service to the full-fledged rush hour service on the Queens Blvd line. Of course it might make sense to simply divert either the E-train or the F-train to Archer Avenue midnight hours, but once the TA starts thinking in that direction other ideas become possible. Mike |
|
|
| (1340122) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Feb 16 14:04:38 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Michael549 on Mon Feb 16 13:16:36 2015. Apparently the plans called for the G to end at what today is Briarwood, not Union Tpke, complicating the method of relay. |
|
|
| (1340128) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Feb 16 14:31:38 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Feb 16 14:04:38 2015. "Apparently the plans called for the G to end at what today is Briarwood, not Union Tpke, complicating the method of relay."Ok, but if you look at the track map, such an operation, while possible is usually something the TA rarely does. Please note that the Briarwood-Van Wyck Blvd station is a simple 4-track local station with side local platforms. The operation would involve the TA to have the Manhattan-bound G-shuttle train pull on to a local track, pickup and discharge riders, then reverse direction going back to Archer on the same track. All the while having the traffic of E and F trains around them. I am hoping that the Briarwood-Van Wyck Blvd station NOW allows riders to easily pass between the Manhattan and Queens bound local platforms. The NYC-Subway.Org website says, "There is no free crossover due to center fare control in the mezzanine." If there is no free passage between directions, the G-shuttle ending at Briarwood-Van Wyck Blvd becomes a really interesting affair. The midnight hour #3 shuttle at 135th Street had a really interesting train operation for its shuttle. Maybe they were thinking of something similar? Please note of course that once the Archer Avenue tracks have ramped down under the Hillside Avenue E & F tracks, that there is a diamond cross-over switch between the pair of tracks. The operation is possible but simply a very interesting operation given the TA. Mike |
|
|
| (1340194) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Feb 16 19:15:20 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 15 09:45:02 2015. I know grandparents of my son's schoolmates still saying "Double R" and "Double L".About double lettered lines, what was the most common way of reading CC, GG and KK? I've heard both "Cee-Cee" and "Double C". OTOH, AA, EE, LL, RR, SS were always read like "Double A". |
|
|
| (1340200) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Feb 16 19:30:35 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Feb 16 19:15:20 2015. I always said R-R, C-C, L-L, and A-A. I never said double A. |
|
|
| (1340217) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 16 20:05:11 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Feb 16 19:15:20 2015. My father in the 1990's called PATH "The Tubes". |
|
|
| (1340223) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Feb 16 20:13:06 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 16 20:05:11 2015. I called it the Tubes for many years (maybe till 1980) even though by the time I first rode it it was already really the PATH. |
|
|
| (1340233) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 16 20:42:16 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Feb 14 13:57:02 2015. Not so...there was a few times when I rode a QB downtown in the AM from Queensboro Plaza. |
|
|
| (1340263) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 03:51:48 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by AlM on Mon Feb 16 07:18:46 2015. the point is that Queens can't handle more than one local service on weekends.the only way to have that discussion is to check the GO's every weekend and see if that's the case. |
|
|
| (1340264) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Feb 17 03:54:08 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 16 07:06:49 2015. thanks for attacking.My point is that Queens really can't handle two local services on the weekend. To make that point, I'll check the weekend GO's each week and see how many weekend in a 52 week year this is true. So far, it seems that it would be most weekends. |
|
|
| (1340272) | |
G PA/JC Shuttle Re: 70s: QBLVD N Express? |
|
|
Posted by b/p rupture on Tue Feb 17 07:05:45 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Michael549 on Mon Feb 16 14:31:38 2015. Apparently the plans called for the G to end at what today is Briarwood, not Union Tpke, complicating the method of relay. This method would likely have used the yard leads to relay, served Briarwood in both directions, and not required stairs to continue in the same direction. More personnel required, (Plat C/Rs, possibly SW T/Os) but easier for the users. Also no reversing/wrong railing needed. Could explain their thinking at the time, though it never came to pass. Can't comment on fare control at BVW sta. |
|
|
| (1340304) | |
Re: G PA/JC Shuttle Re: 70s: QBLVD N Express? |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Feb 17 10:39:03 2015, in response to G PA/JC Shuttle Re: 70s: QBLVD N Express?, posted by b/p rupture on Tue Feb 17 07:05:45 2015. "This method would likely have used the yard leads to relay, served Briarwood in both directions, and not required stairs to continue in the same direction. More personnel required, (Plat C/Rs, possibly SW T/Os) but easier for the users. Also no reversing/wrong railing needed. Could explain their thinking at the time, though it never came to pass."A very interesting operation, while providing for a same platform transfer. It could possibly make the morning rush hour operations quite interesting. Mike |
|
|
| (1340310) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 17 10:55:15 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Feb 15 18:04:20 2015. Yes, there were to be 2 G trains, the JC shuttle and the normal overnight run from Queens Plaza.The relay issue is one I could never figure out. They'd have to use the yard leads which connect Jamaica Yard to points east of Forest Hills. No way they could relay on the express tracks as they are needed for layups overnight. |
|
|
| (1340311) | |
Re: G PA/JC Shuttle Re: 70s: QBLVD N Express? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 17 10:57:24 2015, in response to Re: G PA/JC Shuttle Re: 70s: QBLVD N Express?, posted by Michael549 on Tue Feb 17 10:39:03 2015. it would have been a mess, probably why they reconsidered it. |
|
|
| (1340379) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Feb 17 18:03:20 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by AlM on Mon Feb 16 19:30:35 2015. You're a rare case and the first one I know who read them Ar-Ar and El-El. I've heard people saying Ay-Ay but most said Double-A. |
|
|
| (1340393) | |
Re: G PA/JC Shuttle Re: 70s: QBLVD N Express? |
|
|
Posted by FormerVanWyckBlvdUser on Tue Feb 17 18:23:16 2015, in response to G PA/JC Shuttle Re: 70s: QBLVD N Express?, posted by b/p rupture on Tue Feb 17 07:05:45 2015. If they did a simple back and forth operation on the midnight G shuttle between the Briarwood-Van Wyck station and Jamaica/Archer, how would passengers transfer from the Queens bound platform of BVW to the Manhattan bound platform to catch the shuttle?As you can tell from my handle, this was my home station for years (before they added the 'Briarwood' moniker to the station name). There used to be a way around between platforms at the Queens end of the station mezzanine (near where the restrooms were), but I guess that's been closed off for a while now. In all not a good functional system. Good thing they never really implemented it. |
|
|
| (1340395) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Feb 17 18:36:26 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Feb 17 18:03:20 2015. I have always heard and referred my self to the “Double A,” Double E,” “Double L,” and “Double R.” The remaining double letter lines were always referred to by repeating the letter as in BB, CC, GG, KK, JJ, and TT. I don’t recall how the HH was referred to, since I never recall hearing anyone either ask or give directions regarding that service. |
|
|
| (1340399) | |
Re: G PA/JC Shuttle Re: 70s: QBLVD N Express? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Feb 17 18:43:01 2015, in response to Re: G PA/JC Shuttle Re: 70s: QBLVD N Express?, posted by FormerVanWyckBlvdUser on Tue Feb 17 18:23:16 2015. I would imagine that if such an operation were implemented, the station mezzanine would have been modified to allow a transfer between S/B and N/B platforms. |
|
|
| (1340486) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Wed Feb 18 12:56:50 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by randyo on Tue Feb 17 18:36:26 2015. Why should some trains be referred to one way, and some the other? The AA, BB, and CC all ran on CPW, and I always pronounced their designations in the same manner, repeating the letter (Ay-Ay, etc.).The trains you say were called "Double something" have one thing in common: the names of the letters in question begin with vowel sounds, while the names of the letters of the other trains you list begin with consonant sounds. I guess that somehow (subconsciously?) affected the way you pronounced the names, but still can't imagine why. Actually, come to think of it, there was a slight difference between how I pronounced the trains in the first group and the trains in the second, at least when preceded by the word "the" (as they usually would be), since that word is pronounced differently when followed by a vowel. So, emphasizing that difference, the trains in your first group would be "thee Ay-Ay", "thee Ee-Ee", etc., while the trains in your second group would be "thuh Bee-Bee", "thuh Cee-Cee", etc. |
|
|
| (1340532) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Feb 18 17:23:23 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Dyre Dan on Wed Feb 18 12:56:50 2015. the names of the letters in question begin with vowel soundsI noticed that too. |
|
|
| (1340588) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 18 20:25:47 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Feb 16 19:15:20 2015. My parents and grandparents pretty much used them phonetically. We were BMT folk, and it took until the 70's to even begin using letter routes in the vernacular. The "RR" was more likely to be called the Broadway Local than RR. |
|
|
| (1340590) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 18 20:29:15 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 16 20:05:11 2015. Proving that I am my father's son, I still call it the Interborough and the Triboro Bridge.Up here, old timers still refer to Route 17M as "old route 17" even though the Rt 17 designation was moved to a highway in the 60's (and for most of it's length in NY state is also called I 86). |
|
|
| (1340591) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 18 20:31:57 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by randyo on Sun Feb 15 16:48:34 2015. They could have used a totally unused letter. |
|
|
| (1340614) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Feb 19 02:54:42 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 18 20:25:47 2015. I would think the RR would be called the “FOURTH AVENUE LOCAL” than any other name! |
|
|
| (1340615) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Feb 19 02:55:24 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 18 20:31:57 2015. What other letter did you have in mind? |
|
|
| (1340627) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Feb 19 07:45:26 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by randyo on Thu Feb 19 02:54:42 2015. Which is why it was called the RR. No single name could describe the whole route. People in Astoria and Manhattan wouldn't have had a clue what the 4th Ave local was about. The only local under 4th Ave is the "Lexington Ave." IRT, and that's only for 6 blocks. |
|
|
| (1340645) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Feb 19 13:33:37 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by AlM on Thu Feb 19 07:45:26 2015. For many years BMT lines were referred to only by their Brooklyn names without any regard for what they did in Manhattan since all Southern Div BMT lines except for the Culver operated along Broadway. It wasn’t until the TA decided to assign letters to the formerly numbered BMT lines that the designation “Bway” appeared on BMT roll signs. Even after that, the “TT” was designated simply as the “West End Local” since that service din’t operate via Bway but either via Nassau St or only as a shuttle between Stl and 36 St midnights and Sundays. |
|
|
| (1340648) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 19 13:37:28 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by randyo on Thu Feb 19 02:55:24 2015. T, W, X, Y |
|
|
| (1340676) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 20 01:54:48 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 19 13:37:28 2015. The T and w are not totally unused, and the x was used as part of the route name for the NX in 1967. Y is the only one left over and AFAIK was intended for use on the branch of the SAS that would have connected to the Dyre Av Line after it was transferred over from the IRT. |
|
|
| (1340677) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 20 01:54:48 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 19 13:37:28 2015. The T and w are not totally unused, and the x was used as part of the route name for the NX in 1967. Y is the only one left over and AFAIK was intended for use on the branch of the SAS that would have connected to the Dyre Av Line after it was transferred over from the IRT. |
|
|
| (1340678) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 20 01:54:48 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 19 13:37:28 2015. The T and w are not totally unused, and the x was used as part of the route name for the NX in 1967. Y is the only one left over and AFAIK was intended for use on the branch of the SAS that would have connected to the Dyre Av Line after it was transferred over from the IRT. |
|
|
| (1340679) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 20 01:54:48 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 19 13:37:28 2015. The T and w are not totally unused, and the x was used as part of the route name for the NX in 1967. Y is the only one left over and AFAIK was intended for use on the branch of the SAS that would have connected to the Dyre Av Line after it was transferred over from the IRT. |
|
|
| (1340680) | |
Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 20 01:54:48 2015, in response to Re: The 70s: N Queens Blvd Express?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 19 13:37:28 2015. The T and w are not totally unused, and the x was used as part of the route name for the NX in 1967. Y is the only one left over and AFAIK was intended for use on the branch of the SAS that would have connected to the Dyre Av Line after it was transferred over from the IRT. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
