|
|
| Re: N to 96/2 (1422383) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 9 of 16 |
||
|
| (1424830) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 15:51:02 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 15:24:55 2017. Your are wrong, period.Then E's to 179 are Misleading and stupid. Then A's to Rock Park are misleading and stupid. Then 5's to WPR are misleading and stupid. The fact is, this is not Toronto. We have multiple destinations for the same designated service. You want a dotted E line to 179th, but not a dotted N line to 96th, instead mis-label the train from Brooklyn. That is not consistent policy. |
|
|
| (1424832) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 15:59:09 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 15:26:48 2017. Regular riders can read destintaion sides.Seems to me you are the railfan here, expecting regular riders to know what the hell "Sea Beach" means. Today's article on the closure of the 4th Avenue Express tracks calls it the "N Tunnel". Your buddies at the TA spent 58 years eradicating line names and refuse to use them. Now you expect the riding public to understand them. |
|
|
| (1424834) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 21 16:52:29 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 15:59:09 2017. S-P has buddies at the TA? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1424837) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 16:58:38 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 15:51:02 2017. Why do you need policy to be consistent? And yes, branching trains are confusing and stupid. Anything that would make the subway more incomprehensible and thus less usable is bad. |
|
|
| (1424838) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 21 17:00:47 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 14:14:55 2017. I like the dotted E solution as well. |
|
|
| (1424839) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 17:00:58 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 15:59:09 2017. No, I don't expect anyone to know what "Sea Beach" means. You are obviously confused. |
|
|
| (1424841) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 17:09:19 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 17:00:58 2017. Well then, you must be. You think people are supposed to know what "Q via Sea Beach" means.While your at it, you should recommend White Plains Road bound 5's be called "2 via Lexington". We can't have mulitple destinations or more than 1 designation on a physical line. |
|
|
| (1424842) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 17:10:41 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 16:58:38 2017. Nobody seems confused. This is a solution looking for a problem. |
|
|
| (1424844) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 17:23:35 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 17:09:19 2017. No, I don't expect them to know that. It's just your own foamerism that you would assume that any regular riders would call these trains "Q via Sea Beach." Your suggestion that northbound WPR 5s be signed as 2s just shows that you are completely oblivious to the usefulness of signing all trains to 96/2 as Qs. |
|
|
| (1424845) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 17:25:10 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 17:10:41 2017. Nobody seems confused because the MTA took the correct option from day 1. People would be confused by your insistence of signing al Sea Beach trains as Ns because what happened in 1959 is still somehow relevant. |
|
|
| (1424846) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 17:32:44 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 17:25:10 2017. What happened in 1959 also happens every single day for 58 years on every train: they are all N, regardless of where in Queens or Manhattan they go. LETTERS determine ROUTE, not destination.You must take people to be illiterate, can't read more than the letter Q or N, and can't interpret DESTINATION readouts. Your concocting of a "problem" and "confusion", which is a condition of multiple destinations and short turns, is entirely your imagination. |
|
|
| (1424847) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 17:38:08 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 17:23:35 2017. The LED signs says "Q via Sea Beach". That is REALITY, not foamerism.My suggestion for WPR 5's be called 2 is EXACTLY what you are doing with these 96th Street N's - designating by destination, not route. It is you who cannot grasp analogies nor consistency. |
|
|
| (1424848) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 21 17:44:34 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 17:38:08 2017. Really, dude.It doesn't matter. Its what the MTA has decided to do. |
|
|
| (1424851) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 18:02:17 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 15:51:02 2017. The NB Q via Sea Beach to 96th is not mislabeled. The only way to mislabel it is to call it an N. |
|
|
| (1424853) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 18:04:04 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 17:32:44 2017. Destinations of trains are not particularly prominently displayed. N/Q is consistently shown. N/Q is the only thing which can be reasonably relied on. |
|
|
| (1424854) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 18:41:19 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 18:04:04 2017. Exactly. And N/Q riders don't tend to pay attention to the destination, like A riders past Rockaway Blvd have for decades. |
|
|
| (1424855) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 18:48:16 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 17:38:08 2017. No, your analogy doesn't make sense because the "via Sea Beach," while accurate, is irrelevant. While a 2 via Lexington does not minimize confusion, but increases it. |
|
|
| (1424856) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 19:31:03 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 18:48:16 2017. It makes total sense. You want the train designated by northern terminal, regardless of route. That is the concept. You want it in one place, but not another. |
|
|
| (1424857) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 19:34:08 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 18:41:19 2017. They paid attention when they terminated at 57th rather than Queens.Poor excuse. |
|
|
| (1424858) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 19:35:33 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 18:02:17 2017. Read my lips: LABELS stand for ROUTE, not destination.Only here is that not true. |
|
|
| (1424860) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 20:07:28 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 19:34:08 2017. No they didn't. They just ended up at a station they could continue on from. |
|
|
| (1424861) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 20:08:07 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 19:35:33 2017. Destinations are aspects of Routes. |
|
|
| (1424863) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Jan 21 20:13:44 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 19:35:33 2017. Here is the reasoning from the GTFS people themselves:There are seven weekday northbound trips which are timetabled as N trains but signed as Q trains (and thus given a GTFS route_id of 'Q') because they operate in Manhattan as Q trains, and terminate at the Q terminal (96 St - 2 Av) rather than the N terminal (Astoria-Ditmars). |
|
|
| (1424864) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 20:15:57 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 19:31:03 2017. No, you completely miss the point. The whole point is to minimize confusion. Sending a 2 train up the East Side does not such thing. |
|
|
| (1424882) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 21 23:17:55 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 19:31:03 2017. Making a big deal about a little something, brah. |
|
|
| (1424886) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Sun Jan 22 00:06:27 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 21 23:17:55 2017. All for the aesthetics. |
|
|
| (1424894) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 22 06:27:47 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 20 19:02:10 2017. Probably not, since that was last 30 years ago and most who are on that line wanted full-time Broadway service anyway. |
|
|
| (1424896) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 22 06:30:16 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sat Jan 21 15:10:41 2017. Exactly!The problem is, we are in a very short-attention span society and that is the problem. |
|
|
| (1424898) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 22 06:50:57 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 21 17:32:44 2017. The real problem is, we live in a short-attention span society where many don't pay attention like many of do have always been taught to.That is the real problem. |
|
|
| (1424903) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 07:55:46 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 22 06:27:47 2017. Wonder how they felt about that in 1967 when the the QB was reduced to a rush hour only special of 7 or 8 trains ? |
|
|
| (1424904) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 07:58:40 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 20:07:28 2017. But the poor babies can't read 96th & 2nd, even though everyone else on every other splitting route can. You haven't convinced me of anything. |
|
|
| (1424905) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 08:00:18 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sat Jan 21 20:13:44 2017. That sentence says nothing of Brooklyn, where most people are getting on. |
|
|
| (1424907) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 08:08:11 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sat Jan 21 20:08:07 2017. Multiple destinations can and do exist for individual routes.I don't hear of anyone bitching that someone wounds up at 238th when they wanted Dyre Ave. This Q/N thing is an adaptation for sloppy map-making. |
|
|
| (1424911) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 22 08:47:53 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 20 18:04:09 2017. The R-27s and the extension of the letter code were introduced in 1960. |
|
|
| (1424912) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 22 08:49:33 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 07:55:46 2017. That came about by popular demand. The intent was to link all Brighton local service with Nassau St., depriving local passengers of a one-seat ride to midtown Manhattan. That plan backfired. |
|
|
| (1424914) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jan 22 09:14:19 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 22 08:47:53 2017. Yes, but I think a lot of discussion has to do with the description after the letter.The R27/30 displayed Sea Beach, West End, Brighton, 4th Ave. When the 32's came out it only read Broadway. Sea Beach and to a smaller extent the other 3 Brooklyn route designations became forgotten. |
|
|
| (1424916) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 09:53:29 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 22 08:49:33 2017. The must have also seen the Brighton Local as nothing more than a feeder to the Brighton Express - same policy as the Queens Blvd Line with the GG. |
|
|
| (1424917) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 09:56:11 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jan 22 09:14:19 2017. R32 has West End Local for TT, but that was about it. I am surprised it was not called Nassau Street Local as were the J and K variations.Those route names have been in remission ever since, yesterday calling the 4th Avenue Express tracks the "N Tunnel". |
|
|
| (1424918) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jan 22 09:59:34 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 08:08:11 2017. Here's where I'm at.The 2/5, the E to 179th, and A to Rockaway Park (and even the entire Z line service in some ways) involve routine service with specific hours, even if relatively infrequent. They are also related to ends-of-routes and not Manhattan trunks. The N/Q is more unique than those cases for a couple of reasons. First, the runs are scattered about the day. They do not have specific hours, beginning and ending times, where you can tell passengers on the Sea Beach that within 20 minutes you'll definitely see a 96th St bound train. Also, the division of the N from the Q occurs in Manhattan, unlike all those other special cases where the break-off / variance occurs far outside Manhattan. This means that the busy Broadway line stations have people who not only want the correct train (as everybody does) but they need the correct train right away - there is little to no time to explain that they are on the wrong train. They won't be taken 90% to where they want to go and then find themselves on the wrong branch. Rather they will almost immediately be taken the wrong way. I dislike Q via Sea Beach, not only as a railfan but because it is confusing so long as it is not advertised on signage or maps. Right now, it is probably the right move, but I would hope that they do something to patch it up. Writing "Sometimes Q to 96th St stops here" is good enough for me for the Sea Beach / 4 Ave platform signs. That tells you that there may be a Q but you shouldn't wait for it, which is all people really have to know. I don't think it should be on the map because then people may be waiting for a Q when it is still hours away. And although Z is given its own letter even though there are only a few runs per day, I'm not so sure that N/Q needs its own letter, primarily because the Z has set service hours, while the N/Q runs are sporadic. Still, however the train is designated, in my opinion there should be a clear and extensive preset announcement for everyone on the Manhattan Bridge, where there is a captive audience and people can be properly warned that the train they are on is not entirely normal. |
|
|
| (1424919) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 10:14:27 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jan 22 09:59:34 2017. Think about how you would give directions for someone on the Sea Beach and 4th Avene lines headed to 63rd - 96th."Take the N, and change to the Q once in Manhattan, UNLESS the train shows up as a Q, in which case take it all the way. Coming back back, take the N. If the Q shows up, DON"T take it - you'll wind up in Prospect Park". There's the problems with asymmetry - what works in one direction does not in the other. |
|
|
| (1424920) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jan 22 11:15:52 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 09:56:11 2017. TT yes, but I ignored it since it was never seen on Broadway. |
|
|
| (1424923) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 22 11:33:30 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 10:14:27 2017. "Take the N, and change to the Q once in Manhattan, UNLESS the train shows up as a Q, in which case take it all the way."This makes perfect sense, as they want to end up on the Q no matter what. "Coming back back, take the N. If the Q shows up, DON"T take it - you'll wind up in Prospect Park". You would never tell any one this, as there are few and far-between Ns arriving at no particular time of day. You would say take the Q, change to the N at 57th. If you happen to see an N on 2d Ave., then do take it of course. |
|
|
| (1424925) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 22 11:39:31 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jan 22 09:59:34 2017. I think this is the best analysis so far. The other lines with diverging branches all operate primarily during rush, they are geared to serve regular commuters with more choices for one-seat rides, and are generally well known among their users. The also diverge in the outer boroughs, where there will be more actual residents rather than casual users such as out-of-towners.The N and Q diverge smack in midtown with a higher chance of someone not familiar with the the line's idiosyncrasies being inconvenienced. Also, the N's (now labeled Qs) to 96th do NOT stop at 49th St., a major destination, unlike normal Ns. So, after studying the debate, I conclude that labeling the northbound Ns to 96th as Qs is a good solution. |
|
|
| (1424929) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jan 22 11:49:09 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 22 11:39:31 2017. Thank you. I was once neutral about it (my original plan being a northbound changeover on the Manhattan Bridge, which has its pros and cons I suppose), but now have come around.I would add that signage should reflect the possibility of seeing an unlikely train. For Sea Beach that should be "Sometimes Q to 96th St stops here," and for 2nd Ave that should be "Sometimes N via Sea Beach stops here." |
|
|
| (1424940) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 22 12:29:51 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 07:58:40 2017. Destination signs are not nearly as prominent as the route letter. |
|
|
| (1424942) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 22 12:41:31 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 10:14:27 2017. This is little different than giving directions on the A Rockaway Park Branch: Take the Shuttle to Broad Channel, then transfer to the A, but if an A shows up, enjoy.Take the A to Far Rockaway and only the A to Far Rockaway (not Lefferts Boulevard) to Broad Channel then transfer to the Shuttle. Although if the train that shows up is a an A to Rockaway Park, stay on it. Also, if the person giving the directions is unaware of the Q direct service, he would just simply tell them to take the N and transfer to the Q, but the rider who encounters the Q directly would still get on because they know the Q is what they want in the end. Even if they didn’t, they just end up one train back. Little harm done. No one would be told not to take the Q. See italianstallion’s response. |
|
|
| (1424943) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 12:48:58 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 22 12:29:51 2017. But you expect people to make sense a Q northbound in Brooklyn and a southbound N on 2nd Avenue where no map or strip map says it belongs. So that adds to confusion, or at best gives the impression service is disrupted and rerouted. |
|
|
| (1424947) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 22 13:41:59 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 12:48:58 2017. It doesn’t add to confusion. People will see a Q and figure it is a rerouted Q and the N is a rerouted N. It is just like an F rerouted to run along the G. The worst case scenario is that they will wait for the next train. BFD. |
|
|
| (1424955) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 22 16:05:36 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 09:53:29 2017. Historically locals fed expresses. The IND tried to put a stop to that by building very few local-only stations south of 59th St-CC. |
|
|
| (1424958) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 22 16:10:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jan 22 09:14:19 2017. The TA brass decided to base all route names on Manhattan trunk lines, overlooking the fact that BMT Southern Division routes branched out and wound up at Coney Island (except the 4th Ave. local) via several different lines. |
|
|
|
Page 9 of 16 |
||
