|
|
| Re: Brighton Line (1422383) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 10 of 16 |
||
|
| (1424959) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 22 16:14:06 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 22 16:05:36 2017. Huh? They did the exact OPPOSITE by sending only expresses into Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1424964) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Jan 22 16:54:00 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 22 06:27:47 2017. The D ran full time on Brighton until July 2001 - 15 1/2 years ago. |
|
|
| (1424965) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Jan 22 17:01:04 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 22 16:10:22 2017. Brighton, Sea Beach, West End and Culver still appears on R160 destination signs, R32 side signs (even though they no longer run on any of those lines), station signs and on the subway map. They haven't completely vanished just yet. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1424966) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 22 17:03:32 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Jan 22 17:01:04 2017. Because the original 1960s decision to deprecate those names has since been abandoned. |
|
|
| (1424970) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jan 22 17:19:29 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Jan 22 17:01:04 2017. We were talking about original R32 roll signs as delivered. |
|
|
| (1424974) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 18:09:47 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 22 16:05:36 2017. But on the Brighton line, there is not a whole lot of difference between local and express in running time, and never more than 3 local stops in a row, hardly worth switching for. |
|
|
| (1424977) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 18:16:05 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Jan 22 16:54:00 2017. The D always ran full time to Brighton Beach or Coney Island, from when it first took over the Culver, except for perhaps some Manhattan Bridge rebuild flips (I don't remember). |
|
|
| (1424978) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 22 18:19:55 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 21 15:24:55 2017. Doesn’t anyone remember the massive route changes of 1976 when the EE and K were eliminated? The route modifications were not that different from the current N to 96 St. In the 1976 changes, the north terminal of the B alternated between 168 St and 57/6 with the 57 St Bs running lcl on 6 Ave. Coming from Queens while all rush hour Ns operated lcl on Bway in the peak direction of traffic some trains went via bridge to Stl and some went to Whitehall and laid up, not too different from the N to 96 St instead of Astoria and nobody complained about the dual terminals on either line and unlike the situation with the N both those variations were in the peak direction of traffic. Also. aren’t the Ns that go to 96 St limited to a few AM intervals in the rush hour and not spread all day as some seem to indicate? As for PM Ns lvg 96/2 it’s of little consequence that those trains operate since they are operating against the peak direction of traffic and may save some passengers the need to change for Ns S/O 57 if they desire that service anyhow. |
|
|
| (1424980) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 18:27:42 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 22 18:19:55 2017. Correct on all counts with the B. |
|
|
| (1424982) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Jan 22 18:37:07 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 22 18:19:55 2017. Yes, It was an example of exactly what is not acceptable to do with regards to route designations. Such would never fly today, and for good reason. |
|
|
| (1424983) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jan 22 18:45:52 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 22 18:19:55 2017. Also. aren’t the Ns that go to 96 St limited to a few AM intervals in the rush hour and not spread all day as some seem to indicate?A few in the AM and a few in the PM. |
|
|
| (1424987) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jan 22 19:31:17 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jan 22 11:15:52 2017. TT carried did not use Nassau St since the designation was also used for the West End shuttle that ran between Stl and 36 St. TT was used on the 3 West End put ins that operated from Canal St to Astoria M - F mornings. |
|
|
| (1424991) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Jan 22 20:20:48 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by Joe V on Sun Jan 22 18:16:05 2017. The D has consistently operated on the Brighton Line from the time the Chrystie St connection opened in October 1967 until the Manhattan Bridge North Side tracks closed for the second time in July 2001. Even when the north side tracks closed the first time around from 1986 to 1988, the Brighton was served by the D train, but via Broadway Express. |
|
|
| (1424992) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 22 20:23:50 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 22 18:45:52 2017. And some are in the shoulder periods, not really rush hour. |
|
|
| (1424993) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 22 20:25:50 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Jan 22 20:20:48 2017. That was when they ran split B and D services. 34th St. was the transfer point. Trains from Brooklyn ran up Broadway to 57th St. while trains from upper Manhattan and the Bronx terminated at 34th St. |
|
|
| (1424995) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 22 20:34:46 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 22 18:19:55 2017. Randyo asked:"Doesn’t anyone remember the massive route changes of 1976 when the EE and K were eliminated?" YES, I DO!! That is why I think the support for this "N\Q transgender train" is just so wrong! These trains are just N-trains and should simply be labeled as such. Riders are usually intelligent human beings who are capable of READING and LISTENING to announcements. It really does not matter that the Second Avenue line opened on the Upper Eastside - those folks are similar to New Yorkers in other parts of the city. If they have been dealing with "interesting travel options" for decades - they can easily handle a few extra rush hour trains lableled "N". The whole "confuse the riders" rationale is silly. The whole "96th Street-Second Avenue Is A Q-Train terminal" rationale is also silly. Just because a certain line uses a particular terminal does not mean that every "train" that operates out of that terminal can only be labeled for that line. The "Q-train" no more "owns" the 96th Street-Second Avenue terminal than the "N-train owns the Astoria terminal." The N-train was never the only train route that operated out of Astoria. What happens when the T-train is established? Trains that were to be labeled "T" have to labeled "Q"? Silly. Silly! Euclid Avenue may currently be the Brooklyn terminal for the "C-train" by no means has every train that originated from there a "C" train. I wonder just what train route "owns" the 71st Avenue-Forest Hills terminal. When the reasons that attempt to support or justify an action are silly - then the entire operation becomes ever more silly, as folks try to further justify the operation. The idea that a computer program of the FIND system limits our options as humans is just more silliness. Who is in charge of the MTA - computers or intelligent human beings? Mike |
|
|
| (1425006) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jan 22 22:18:39 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Sun Jan 22 11:49:09 2017. I agree on the signage, at least on 2nd ave. They do it for the E on Hillside Ave (it gets maybe 2' width of the overhead signs at Union Turnpike and 179st in smaller writing that says "Limited service"). It gets the full sign at Parsons Blvd simply because it's the only thing that stops on the express track.Honestly though the thing we should all be spending our energy complaining about is the damn timers entering 57st/7av northbound. There's NO excuse for that, straight track uphill, it's not a terminal anymore, the entire interlocking is fleeted straight except for service disruptions!! |
|
|
| (1425014) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 22 23:33:17 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Sun Jan 22 20:34:46 2017. Riders are usually intelligent human beings who are capable of READING and LISTENING to announcements.That is clearly untrue. No one cares about the way trains were labeled in the old days. We’re talking about how they are labeled NOW. |
|
|
| (1425018) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 23 00:07:28 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 22 16:10:22 2017. They didn't forget.By the time the 32 were ordered, they were still planning on building new routes which would have diverted the Sea Beach line to Second Ave from Chrystie st...and divert the N Line to another branch. Yeah,I know...the sea beach Is the N..but not really. The N designation is associated With the Sea Beach...but can be rerouted to Any Southern Division route. |
|
|
| (1425027) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 23 08:08:23 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Jan 22 20:20:48 2017. Right, but there were considerable stretches where the (D) to Brooklyn was a Broadway Line due to the Manhattan Bridge closures.As I remember, there was a period after the (M) was moved where you had the (Q) as a Broadway Line and the (D) as a 6th Avenue Line. |
|
|
| (1425043) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Mon Jan 23 13:03:15 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Jan 22 20:20:48 2017. Remember the sort of shock when it became public the Brighton line was going full time Broadway with the addition of the part time B service weekdays for those who wanted Sixth Avenue while the D went to the West End. It really hadn't been expectedOf course what really upset some was the loss of easy access to Sixth Avenue service weekends and late nights with inconvenient transfers at 34th Street and/or Atlantic/Pacific when many thought that the easy solution would have been not to have the D not bypass DeKalb when the B wasn't running. One can argue it's no big deal (unless you were used to a 1 train ride to certain places like Yankee Stadium) but it was sort of disconcerting to many at the time. But they stood by their guns and never restored the easy connection for Brighton riders to Sixth Avenue especially on weekends. |
|
|
| (1425047) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Jan 23 14:14:30 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 23 08:08:23 2017. I think there were two such stretches:1. 1986-88, and 2. 2001-04, except in this case the D became known as the Q and the Brighton Express service was also called the Q, except displayed in a diamond unlike the local service. When the north side tracks reopened in 2004, it was this "diamond Q" that ended up being replaced by the weekdays-only B. If there was a period when the M was rerouted to 4th Ave and West End, leaving the Q and a D still on 6th Ave, then it must not been very short-lived, because the 1986 Manhattan Bridge service change brochures and the service advisory box on the map at the time seemed to suggest that the M was moved off the Brighton at the same time the north side tracks shut down. Part of it was so the TA could start work on rehabbing the Brighton Line itself. |
|
|
| (1425049) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Jan 23 14:34:11 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 22 23:33:17 2017. Intelligent riders are incapable of reading or listening to announcements if the reading is not prominently being displayed in a place visible to them or if the announcement is not clearly being made. Furthermore, destination is not particularly helpful for route among occasional riders. If someone is looking to transfer to the 6 at 60th/Lex, They are looking for a N. If they end up on an N going up 2nd avenue, they get stuck at 63/Lex(And may well either have to double back or pay a second fare if they do not get a free transfer). |
|
|
| (1425082) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Jan 23 18:43:08 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 22 19:31:17 2017. So we had rush hour TT's whose paths never crossed: CI to Chambers (which I remember) and Canal to Astoria (didn't know that). |
|
|
| (1425085) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Jan 23 18:57:40 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 23 00:07:28 2017. I thought the West Ends was dreamed on to be the 2nd Ave service ?That's why it was sent up to Christie, and the Sea Beach stayed on Broadway. |
|
|
| (1425098) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Jan 23 23:38:45 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by MATHA531 on Mon Jan 23 13:03:15 2017. The need - or desire - for direct Broadway service for Brighton riders must have far outweighed the need/desire for 6th Ave. |
|
|
| (1425109) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Tue Jan 24 09:05:20 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Jan 23 23:38:45 2017. I think the stats that were cited at the time was something like 55/45. Overwhelming? Make up your own mind. Again, weekdays 19/5 it makes no difference; you have both sixth avenue and Broadway. Weekends and shoulder? Well there are certain destinations which some might consider important that made things for some more difficult but could have been solved in a different manner. |
|
|
| (1425139) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jan 24 12:58:11 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Mon Jan 23 18:57:40 2017. Yeah, but the Sea Beach was supposed to be the main SAS route from Brooklyn running as far as 149th st.Sea Beach trains,not N trains. |
|
|
| (1425161) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Jan 24 14:57:52 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by MATHA531 on Tue Jan 24 09:05:20 2017. I don't know if the stats cited were "overwhelming" for Broadway or not, but that's what the MTA chose to do in 2004. Maybe the fact that Stillwell Ave Terminal was still under major reconstruction when the north side tracks reopened played a part in the decision to leave the "circle-Q" as the Brighton Local and send the full-time D train down West End, since that was the only line with access to Stillwell. But I can't say for sure.Are there other options? Perhaps there are. Expanding the B to run on weekends so Brighton can have direct service to both Broadway and 6th other than weekdays? It's possible, but does weekend Brighton ridership warrant two services? Swapping the D and Q routes in Brooklyn (D goes back to Brighton Local; Q goes to West End)? Ok, that gives Brighton direct access to DeKalb and 6th Ave full time without expanding service on any other line. Gold St would experience fewer delays because you'd no longer have trains stopping to cross in front of each other. Gold St would be "straight-railed" with all Brighton service going to the north side and 6th Ave and all 4th Ave Express service going to the south side and Broadway. The downside would be no direct access from Brighton to Broadway at all. Brighton riders who want Broadway would always have to transfer, either at Atlantic, DeKalb or 34th. |
|
|
| (1425168) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jan 24 15:32:27 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Jan 24 14:57:52 2017. To have the Q as the full-time Brighton Local made sense in 2004 because the:1) Brighton Express and 2) CPW Local from 6th Ave. . . were both part-time operations so it made sense for those two to be the same service, hence, the B. The convenience of having one part-time line cover these part-time operations outweighed the concerns of Brighton riders not having easy access to 6th Ave off-hours (anyway, from 7/2001 to 5/2004, such access did not exist at all). does weekend Brighton ridership warrant two services? It may have had a chance without the SAS, in that the argument was building that 6 TPH was not enough for the Brighton line weekends. But now it has more than 6 TPH, so the case for adding an express just got weaker. |
|
|
| (1425178) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jan 24 16:40:14 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Sun Jan 22 18:37:07 2017. It works alright with INTELLIGENT people! |
|
|
| (1425179) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Jan 24 16:47:44 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Tue Jan 24 16:40:14 2017. No, it does not.Just because an idea was tried in the past does not mean it will work, especially if it failed in the past, like the split B did. |
|
|
| (1425184) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Tue Jan 24 17:44:22 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Jan 24 14:57:52 2017. We fought this battle out in 2004 and although I no longer live in Brooklyn and no longer have a stake in this, it still seems to me then and now a group of Brighton riders were inconvenienced and while any change involved inconvenience to somebody, there were solutions then and I presume solutions now.The complaint I had then was not there was only Broadway service on the Brighton during the shoulder periods and weekends but it meant if you were heading say to NYU and W 4th Street (or heading home), to the MNH and Hayden Planetarium and at least to me, most importantly, Yankee Stadium you had an additional walk, stairs to climb and especially towards later in the day the missing of connections leading to fifteen minutes more travel time. The solution is/was always simple namely when the B is not running, the D does not bypass DeKalb. No more stairs. You get off the train at DeKalb and wait for the next train on the same platform and now you have access. The argument was the change at Atlantic/Pacific was no big deal (a walk pass the IRT platforms) and or up and downstairs at 34th Street. Yankee Stadium meant either the change at one of these two places or at Union Square. The annoying thing to me then was for nearly a century, trains coming off 4th Avenue could either stop or bypass DeKalb. It was made to seem that stopping the D at DeKalb when the B was not running was dangerous because of the condition of the switches (which have never been fixed). Again, I am long out of Brooklyn so it makes no difference to me and I am sure people have to accept time moves on and many just accept this is the way it is and has always been. Of course, since simply from a historical view, one of the purpose of the original connection of the IND and BMT was to put the D train on the Brighton line and ramp up the use of Sixth Avenue. Not complaining obviously just from a historical view of what happened. |
|
|
| (1425185) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Jan 24 17:47:23 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 22 18:19:55 2017. But didn't the 57th St B operate express during rush hours? I'd be very surprised if that B ran on the local while the rush hours-only 168th St B ran on the express at the same time. And didn't the original plan for the V train - before the Manhattan Bridge north side tracks shut down in 1986 - call for renaming the 57th St B as the V?As for the southbound N trains operating from 96/2, I have to agree that it's of little consequence. With this being a brand new service, it really shouldn't be that confusing since it's not breaking with any well established service pattern (because there isn't one). And I really don't see how calling these same trains Q's in the northbound direction is confusing, especially if they are being announced as "Q trains via the N line" in Brooklyn. When they get to Manhattan, the trains announce themselves as Q trains. I rode one. It did display "via Sea Beach," but if you're not going there, I can't possibly see how that would be confusing. |
|
|
| (1425186) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 24 17:55:31 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Tue Jan 24 16:47:44 2017. The split B did not "fail" - it was simply eliminated by the extension to Queens and the F and V trains. |
|
|
| (1425187) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 24 17:57:03 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Jan 24 17:47:23 2017. I only observed them at the 7th Avenue station, but pretty sure there were express and local "B"s. |
|
|
| (1425188) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Jan 24 18:19:57 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 24 17:57:03 2017. 7th Avenue? 7th Ave and 53rd St? B trains operating to/from 57th St didn't stop there. It's not possible for any coming from 57th and 6th to stop at 7th Ave. |
|
|
| (1425190) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 24 18:26:11 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Jan 24 17:47:23 2017. "But didn't the 57th St B operate express during rush hours? I'd be very surprised if that B ran on the local while the rush hours-only 168th St B ran on the express at the same time. And didn't the original plan for the V train - before the Manhattan Bridge north side tracks shut down in 1986 - call for renaming the 57th St B as the V?"The issues of the V-train and the B-train are really separate issues. In the mid-1970's the city's fiscal crisis led to the elimination of the EE train, the KK or K train and other changes. The rush hours only K or KK train ran between Eastern Parkway (now Broadway Junction, with an earlier edition running from 168th Street and some trains from Atlantic Avenue) to 57th Street-Sixth Avenue. In any case the 57th Street-Sixth Avenue terminal was serviced by the B-train during the non-rush hours, with B-train service operating out of the 168th Street-Washington Heights terminal of the AA train. The elimination of the K or KK train meant that B-trains had to service two terminals during the rush hours - 57th Street-Sixth Avenue AND 168th Street-Washington Heights. The usual rush hours operation of the B-train was to be an express on Sixth Avenue. The B-train also operated on the weekends as a Sixth Avenue local to 57th Street-Sixth Avenue until further budget cuts led to a short shuttle service or the sometime midnight-hours closing of the 57th Street-Sixth Avenue station. The B-train at some points was a midnight hours shuttle from 36th Street to Coney Island on the West End line. While the 63rd Street Tunnel was under construction in the mid-1970's and would receive train service in the mid/late 1980's - that segment was NOT an issue concerning the B-train service. The 1980's and 1990's were heavily concerned with the renovation work of the Manhattan Bridge which brought major changes to the B, D, N, R, W and Q, and Q-diamond train routes with both yellow and orange variations of service. --- In contrast the issues of the V-train does not come about until 2001, when the 63rd Street is attached to the Queens Blvd line, and the F-train is re-route full-time all-time to the 63rd Street Tunnel. Prior to the connection of the 63rd Street Tunnel to/from the Queens Blvd line - the "tunnel to no-where" was serviced by B, Q, F and shuttle trains, and for a time the JFK Train To The Plane. Mike |
|
|
| (1425191) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 24 18:27:35 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Jan 24 18:19:57 2017. I know that, but was referring to CPW B's. There were others that went to 57th. |
|
|
| (1425192) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 24 18:29:12 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 24 18:26:11 2017. That's right. The 57th Street B during rush hours was a patch for the discontinued K from ENY. |
|
|
| (1425194) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Jan 24 18:46:17 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 24 17:55:31 2017. It was the 1986 Manhattan Bridge track closure which ended the split B. The 63rd St Tunnel did not. All it did was give the B a different northern terminal on weekends, which already was the service pattern at the time. When the bridge tracks reopened in December 1988, the B ran to/from 168th St on weekdays, 57/6 on weekends and 36/4 late nights. The Q ran to/from 57th/6th while the B ran to/from 168. In September 1989, when the 63rd St Tunnel open for service to 21 St - Queensbridge, they simply extended the weekend B from 57th St to 21st St. |
|
|
| (1425195) | |
Re: Brighton Line |
|
|
Posted by Handbrake on Tue Jan 24 19:27:09 2017, in response to Re: Brighton Line, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Jan 24 14:57:52 2017. To provide Brighton Line customers convenient access to 6th Avenue, run 6th avenue D as a local on 4th Avenue to DeKalb on weekend days, as well as nights. Less expensive that running the B's on a weekend.Q service is frequent and very capable on weekends. Running the B Express on the Brighton will only promote hurry up and wait for a transfer to the Q Brighton local. If you live on this line, fine. If you do not, then please move to a location near one of the Brighton's local stops and then post your thoughts about Brighton express service while you wait for a connection to a Q local. I ride the Brighton line to/from work every day, beginning in 1976. I have seen all the junk routes thrown at the Brighton line, and the present service pattern is about as good as one can get. What remains is a daytime transfer to/from the D at DeKalb on weekends. |
|
|
| (1425196) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Tue Jan 24 19:33:58 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Mon Jan 23 14:34:11 2017. What about the (5) trains that go to Crown Heights - Utica Avenue during the rush? Should they be called (4) trains out of Eastchester - Dyre Avenue or Nereid Avenue? |
|
|
| (1425199) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 24 19:57:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Tue Jan 24 18:46:17 2017. It's called saved by the bell (Manny B). |
|
|
| (1425201) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 24 19:58:30 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by G1Ravage on Tue Jan 24 19:33:58 2017. These guys claim N & Q passengers do not read destination signs, even though everyone else does. |
|
|
| (1425205) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jan 24 20:16:34 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by G1Ravage on Tue Jan 24 19:33:58 2017. Yes, to be fair, the 5 to Utica is something like the Sea Beach to 96th, though the divide is in Brooklyn as opposed to Midtown Manhattan.If the cars had full FIND capability (rather than the LED strip maps), it wouldn't surprise me if there was a movement to call them 4s. But the one stop off-route (Utica) probably isn't worth having those strip maps incorrect or out of use for the entire run. |
|
|
| (1425209) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 24 20:34:10 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by G1Ravage on Tue Jan 24 19:33:58 2017. Why does everything have to be consistent? Different problems, even if they’re similar, call for different solutions. |
|
|
| (1425213) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Transportation Hub on Tue Jan 24 21:08:13 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 24 20:34:10 2017. (Q) and Rush Hour (N) Trains via Second Avenue Line |
|
|
| (1425216) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by priya12 on Tue Jan 24 21:34:10 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Transportation Hub on Tue Jan 24 21:08:13 2017. How is this relevant to the post you replied to? |
|
|
| (1425227) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Jan 24 23:12:49 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by G1Ravage on Tue Jan 24 19:33:58 2017. Not quite parallel, as the split is well outside of the CBD, but I really don't see a good reason not to call a 5 to Utica anything but 4. |
|
|
|
Page 10 of 16 |
||
