|
|
| Re: N to 96/2 (1422383) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 11 of 16 |
||
|
| (1425229) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Transportation Hub on Tue Jan 24 23:18:11 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by priya12 on Tue Jan 24 21:34:10 2017. It features the (N) to/from 96th St, which is highly relevant to the post.You'd know if you watch the video. |
|
|
| (1425246) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 25 01:41:14 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Tue Jan 24 18:29:12 2017. Bs TO 57/6 ran lcl on 6 Av at all times. In the AM rush, the Bs that went to 57 St returned south to W4 St where they discharged passenger with 4 trains running light t 2 Av and laying up S/O the station and the other 4 running light to Church Av lad laying up in the Yd there. Although the schedule called for all of those trains to operate in service to Bway/Laf, in practice they went O/S at W 4 St. In the PM the trains from both locations ran light from their respective layup locations to Bway/Laf where they went in service there and operated local to 57/6. S/B however Bs from both 57/6 and 168 St ran Express on 6 Av till after the cessation of 168 St service when the B service for the rest of the evening ran only from 57 St and operated lcl on 6 Ave. |
|
|
| (1425247) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 25 01:43:50 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Jan 24 20:16:34 2017. Plus those trains operate only in The AM rush except for the last for or 5 of them after the PM rush that lay up to Utica at the close of #5 Bkln service. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1425248) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jan 25 01:46:48 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Tue Jan 24 23:12:49 2017. The 5s to Utica operate over the 5 route for most of the trip so why change the number for one station. And while we are at it there are some selected 2s that operate to N/Lts in the AM around the same time as the Utica 5s since they are lay ups and are not needed for return service back to the Bx. |
|
|
| (1425266) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Jan 25 09:01:01 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Wed Jan 25 01:46:48 2017. That is why the silliness with those "Q-trains that are really N-trains" is just pure plain silly.The way that some folks here treat it - it is as if East-side Manhattan folks mind's will explode if an N-train just happens to go 96th Street-Second Avenue. Subway riders are intelligent human beings for the huge majority of their daily lives - but when it comes to the new subway on Second Avenue these folks are simply "too stupid" to READ or LISTEN to announcements - too many folks here and at MTA suggest! Then there's the "there's no computer announcement program, etc." rationale - as if computers are the masters of intelligent human beings! For the past 100 years there were no "computer announcement programs" - why should that fact be a decisive one here? The whole disguising N-trains as Q-trains project - and trying to pass that off as rational is just pure plain silly. Mike |
|
|
| (1425283) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 25 10:11:14 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Wed Jan 25 09:01:01 2017. The problem is not that people are too stupid to pay attention to N trains going to 96th Street, but that you are so obsessed with Q trains not running via Sea Beach that you just can't understand why this is a better solution. All of the arguments against the current system essentially boil down to: it's wrong to sign these trains as Qs, let a small number of careless people be very inconvenienced just to avoid the slight weirdness of a Q via Sea Beach!Do you believe that digital signs should include a train's origin station for your railfan edification? For the past 100 years there were no "computer announcement programs" - why should that fact be a decisive one here? Who cares how they used to do it? If the old way were better, they would have stuck to the old way. |
|
|
| (1425295) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 25 10:52:58 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 25 10:11:14 2017. I agree with you. But I don't understand why people can feel so strongly about it.If they had labeled these few trains as Ns to 96th, how bothered would you really be? |
|
|
| (1425298) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 25 11:05:58 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Wed Jan 25 10:52:58 2017. I wouldn't be bothered, and if the MTA had not come up with the plan of signing them as Qs, It would have never dawned on me to do so. Just that now that I've heard of it, I realize it is the superior plan. It minimizes confusion and the only argument against it seems to be that people should be smart enough not to be confused. But why, exactly? What would be gained by keeping them as Ns? |
|
|
| (1425322) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 25 14:19:15 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 25 11:05:58 2017. Keeping them as Ns could accomplish total clarity at Comey Island such that there are not two different Q trains going different ways, and prevent anybody from skipping a good train along the Sea Beach. Do these possibilities make it worth using the N designation? Don't know but just pointing out potential gains unrelated to rail-fan dreams. |
|
|
| (1425323) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 25 14:22:05 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 25 14:19:15 2017. At Coney, the Qs and Ns have their own platforms, right? So no one will be confused as any trains on the N platform will be assumed to run up the N line. |
|
|
| (1425326) | |
Re: A Day in the Life of Joe Republican |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 25 14:28:13 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 25 14:19:15 2017. The counterpoint to that is that a Q in the wrong place means that people will assume it's rerouted and wonder how far it will stay rerouted, causing them to actually pay attention to signs and announcements.Regardless, anybody who skips a good train will only fall one train behind. A person who wants to go to Astoria and ends up at 96th is much more heavily inconvenienced. |
|
|
| (1425327) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 25 14:28:53 2017, in response to Re: A Day in the Life of Joe Republican, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 25 14:28:13 2017. It's like JayZeeBMT stole my password. And I know exactly what app is causing this. |
|
|
| (1425353) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 25 16:28:36 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 25 14:22:05 2017. Why make such an assumption? One can just as easily assume that there's a problem with the Q platform. Digital signs on trains should know more than fixed platform signs, right? Adding to the potential confusion is that the train is displaying the correct Q destination. |
|
|
| (1425356) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jan 25 16:54:09 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 25 14:28:53 2017. At least you can figure out why it's happening. The next step is preventing it from happening. :) |
|
|
| (1425360) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 25 17:10:16 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Wed Jan 25 16:28:36 2017. What is the scenario? A person wants to do a transfer from the N to the Q at CI and sees a Q and assumes he doesn't have to go upstairs?A person accidentally goes to the N platform instead of the Q platform and sees the Q there? A person is on the Q platform and sees the Q on the N platform across an empty track 3 and decides to go upstairs to get it (mind you, there will almost certainly be a Q parked on track 4 in that event)? |
|
|
| (1425367) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Jan 25 17:52:50 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 25 11:05:58 2017. Actually, they almost did - they put out public timetables as pdf docs, Trip Planner, and Google Transit that clearly stated there were N's that ran to 96th.So obviously, this was not a cut and dry issue at MTA, and some Mucky Muck won out. |
|
|
| (1425368) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Jan 25 17:58:01 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 25 14:22:05 2017. Q's and N's no longer have their own platform. They have mis-labeled some N's as Q's, and they run off the N platform.So Stillwell passengers will not know what the hell is going on, or in which direction it will depart. The Brighton people may dash over to the Sea Beach platform if they see a Q on it, thinking he Brighton line is fucked up. The Sea Beach passengers may just let it go, thinking it will run via the Brighton and take longer. This is what happens when you break naming standards of BMT branches. |
|
|
| (1425389) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Jan 25 20:36:28 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Wed Jan 25 17:58:01 2017. None of that is likely to happen. |
|
|
| (1425412) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 26 01:23:20 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Wed Jan 25 17:58:01 2017. Agreed.Just label N trains as N trains - and Q trains as Q trains. The whole effort at disguising trains is just pure sillyness - like Trump. They are telling lies - and the lying should just stop. Next thing you know the MTA will be found out as having two sets of accounting books, and other lies. Once the ball starts rolling. Really good thing to do. Mike |
|
|
| (1425413) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jan 26 01:47:06 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 26 01:23:20 2017. LOL! |
|
|
| (1425426) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 26 08:05:07 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 26 01:23:20 2017. We number and letter our trains and buses in the country by their Route, not their destination. What we have in this isolated circumstance is mis-using the route code as a destination code.So we tell northbound Sea Beach and southbound SAS passengers when this train comes along, never mind the N or Q that the map fails to document, just get on. |
|
|
| (1425427) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Jan 26 08:28:07 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jan 25 17:10:16 2017. The first would be the most likely out of the three I'd say.In any case, I am only saying that there is no reason in particular to assume that a "Q" on the N platform will likely/definitely run via the N line, unless you specifically see the portion of the destination sign that reads "via Sea Beach." |
|
|
| (1425436) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 26 10:55:12 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by New Flyer #857 on Thu Jan 26 08:28:07 2017. Even then, people don't know anymore what "Sea Beach" means. The TA's press release calling the 4th Avenue express track last week the "N Tunnel" shows how they have removed BMT line names from our lexicon, and they have been at it since 1960.And also don't expect people to understand the track diagrams at Stillwell Terminal, and whether or not a train on the Sea Beach, uhm, the "N" platform is capable of heading up the Brighton, uhm, the "Q Line", and now that definition has been murkied. |
|
|
| (1425442) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 26 11:32:14 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 26 08:05:07 2017. Look at all the so-called justifications that have been offered here in support of this lie!"It's Good For The Riders" "It's Because We Don't Have A Computer Program" "The Riders Don't & Can Not Listen For Announcements Or Read Signs" "The Conductors Are Not Capable Of Making Announcements" "It's For The Upper East Side Folks & Tourists" "It's To Not Panic Astoria Folks - It's A Traumatic Experience To Take The Wrong Train" "Because Some Mucky Muck On High Decided This - They Can Not Be Questioned" "Because The Terminal Belongs To The Q-Train" "Because This Ruse Is A Superior Thing To Telling The Truth" "Because Manhattan East Side Riders Are More Important Than Brooklyn Riders - So Let's Confuse Brooklyn Riders." "The Riders Are Simply Too Stupid For Complexity" The really tough thing about telling a lie - is that one has to remember the lie, and to repeat it. The truth does not need that much care - it just comes out effortlessly. Simply just marking those N-trains as N-trains is simple. Those are N-trains that travel to/from 96th Street-Second Avenue - big deal. Compare this to the #5 trains to Utica Avenue - which has been going on for decades. So what a number of #5 trains travel to/from Utica Avenue - it has been and is currently listed in the schedule and other places. There was never a "need" to disguise these trains as #4 trains until a certain station and then reveal that they are #5 trains, etc. The fact that until a month ago a handful of N-trains ended or began their runs at 57th Street-Seventh Avenue was not a big-deal. Extending those same trains to now end or begin at 96th Street-Second Avenue should also not be a big deal. It is the effort to make something that should be really simple - into this complex operation by disguising trains and silly justifications, etc. That is the "tell" - the indication that effort is wrong. Mike |
|
|
| (1425443) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jan 26 11:33:35 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 26 11:32:14 2017. There are Northbound Q trains which run via Sea Beach. Nobody is telling a lie. The MTA is signing trains as they should be signed. Nobody outside of this board seems to have a problem with that. |
|
|
| (1425447) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Jan 26 11:50:57 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Thu Jan 26 11:33:35 2017. And even if one thinks it would be better to sign them as Ns, it's not a "lie" to sign them as Qs. It's simply a naming convention one may find unreasonable. |
|
|
| (1425450) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 26 12:49:59 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Thu Jan 26 11:33:35 2017. As they should be, you say ?Are there gaps in the Brighton Q trains while these Sea Beach Q trains run ? NO. Are there very short gaps between regular N trains and these inserted Q trains ? NO. Therefore, they are N trains, and signing them otherwise is an "Alternative Fact" because some Nerd in MTA said so. |
|
|
| (1425451) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by GojiMet86 on Thu Jan 26 12:56:12 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Thu Jan 26 11:50:57 2017. He had no problem understanding the proposed long-term 2017 weekend (2)/(5) changes:"1) From a staff management point of view - the #2 and 5 train operators and conductors basically get assigned to their regular work places and terminals - and simply just take a different route to get to and from those terminals. Under the hood of train route names the #2 train crews travel down Lexington Avenue while the #5 crew folk travel down the west-side." Notice the Dyre Avenue-South Ferry trains are really (5) trains running via 7th Avenue, but signed up as (2). According to his 96th-Street-bound-(N)-really-should-be-(N)-not-(Q) logic, these (5) trains to South Ferry via 7th Avenue should really be called (5) trains, not (2) trains. And the (2) trains running via Lexington should be signed up as (2), not (5). |
|
|
| (1425453) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Jan 26 12:59:08 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 24 18:26:11 2017. They implemented the V in 2001. Maybe V would have been pressed into service much sooner if it hadn't been for the Manhattan Bridge renovation. Yes, I know that's just speculation. |
|
|
| (1425456) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Jan 26 13:12:23 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 26 12:49:59 2017. You do a disservice to those who are trying to hold Trump to the truth by referring to this as an "alternative fact."The MTA runs the subways. Whatever name they give a train is its name. It may be stupid but it's not false. |
|
|
| (1425457) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Jan 26 13:15:36 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Jan 26 12:59:08 2017. The V became necessary when a connection was formed between the Queens Blvd Line and the 21st-Queeensbridge line. Something had to go from Queens Plaza to 6th Ave. once the F no longer did. |
|
|
| (1425459) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jan 26 13:34:53 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 26 12:49:59 2017. Headway has nothing to do with a train's designation. As you point out, the ROUTE does. The important distinction between the ROUTES of Northbound Broadway express trains is Astoria vs 2nd Avenue. The Sea Beach to 96th street trains follow the ROUTE of the Q train north of Canal street. There is no actual downside for almost anybody with regards to signing the train as a Q. There is a MAJOR downside to signing the train as an N. External destination signs are only visible 1/3rd of the time. Route signs are constantly visible, have substantially larger text, and there are more of them. Nobody cares where the train came from. People care where the train is GOING TO. Signing a NB 2nd avenue train as an N serves only to confuse people. Nobody at all is helped. |
|
|
| (1425461) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Jan 26 13:54:55 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Thu Jan 26 13:15:36 2017. I know. But it existed on the roll signs long before its service pattern had been implemented. |
|
|
| (1425464) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Jan 26 14:10:50 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Thu Jan 26 13:34:53 2017. There is no actual downside for almost anybody with regards to signing the train as a Q.That's a bit of an overstatement of the case for the Q label. - People at Coney Island might miss the announcements that specify the route the train is taking between there and the Manhattan Bridge. - People along the N route might expect it to stop at DeKalb. - People along the N route might get scared to death and not take it, even though it goes to their destination, thus wasting 8 precious minutes of their time. |
|
|
| (1425468) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jan 26 14:53:20 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Thu Jan 26 14:10:50 2017. A rational person who sees an unexpected train will investigate what it is and where it is going. It is GOOD for them to do that. If you sign the trains as N, there will be no need to investigate until they end up at the wrong place. |
|
|
| (1425471) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 26 15:15:55 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Thu Jan 26 13:34:53 2017. There is the constant verbal repetition of the label of the train, and the train's destination"This is an N-train to 96th Street-Second Avenue" "This is a Q-train to Astoria" "This is a #5 to Dyre Avenue" and so on. Plus many of the trains constantly show in words the destinations, and the FIND and other electronic strip map displays also show the stations along the way. Mike |
|
|
| (1425472) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Jan 26 15:16:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Thu Jan 26 14:10:50 2017. If the announcement is "This is a Manhattan-bound Q train via the N line," then there should be no doubt about where it's going. And once the train stops at Canal St, it would be the normal 96th St/2nd Ave-bound Q announcement (which I know it is, because I've been on a Sea Beach Q). |
|
|
| (1425473) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Jan 26 15:24:29 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Jan 26 15:16:22 2017. I've been on a Sea Beach QSo have I, about 2 weeks ago. Are they still putting up a display that says "Listen to announcement" and announcing at every single stop that this train is headed for 96/2? |
|
|
| (1425475) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Jan 26 15:25:22 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by R30A on Thu Jan 26 14:53:20 2017. I didn't say that signing them as Q trains wasn't better. I just said that there are drawbacks to signing them as Q trains too. |
|
|
| (1425481) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Jan 26 15:55:09 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by AlM on Thu Jan 26 15:24:29 2017. I rode last Friday from Canal to 96th. It had normal northbound Q announcements. The reason I knew it was a Sea Beach Q, is because it showed "Via Sea Beach" on the side signs. I did manage to see an N going southbound at 86th St. From what I saw, nobody looked confused by it. |
|
|
| (1425484) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by transitbuff on Thu Jan 26 16:08:08 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Jan 26 15:55:09 2017. Exactly... |
|
|
| (1425489) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 26 16:53:17 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Jan 26 13:54:55 2017. The R32 side sign says "V - 6th Avenue" (nothing more).They could have made it a 2nd Ave - 57th Street shuttle if they wanted to. |
|
|
| (1425491) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jan 26 17:17:08 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 26 15:15:55 2017. So what? People don't pay attention to those unless they have to. Boarding a northbound N or Q on the Broadway Express there is no expectation that they would have to. OTOH, seeing a Q on the N line in Brooklyn, people could board and see that it will be making the N stops to Canal as the strange situation of a Q on the N necessitates paying more attention. |
|
|
| (1425515) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 26 23:51:59 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Jan 26 17:17:08 2017. Those regularly scheduled "N-trains labeled Q-trains" should just be labeled as N-trains (even to 96th Street-Second Avenue). All of the rationalizations and deceptive efforts are just not needed.These rationalizations were not needed a month ago when these every same runs ended at 57th Street-Seventh Avenue. Telling the truth is just plain simpler. Mike |
|
|
| (1425516) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 26 23:52:54 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Jan 26 15:16:22 2017. An annoncement stating “This is a Manhattan Bound N train to 96 S/2 Ave” would be just as effective as saying Q train via the N Line. Additionally, the announcement for Astoria bound Ns should state “This is a Queens bound N train to Astoria” clearly announcing the distinction between the 2 services. Making the announcements stating Manhattan bound vs Queens bound should alert the passengers to the differences. |
|
|
| (1425517) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 26 23:55:57 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Joe V on Wed Jan 25 17:52:50 2017. IN the term “Mucky Muck” I would replace the Ms with Fs!!!!! |
|
|
| (1425520) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 27 00:14:50 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by GojiMet86 on Thu Jan 26 12:56:12 2017. From a previous message:"According to his 96th-Street-bound-(N)-really-should-be-(N)-not-(Q) logic, these (5) trains to South Ferry via 7th Avenue should really be called (5) trains, not (2) trains. And the (2) trains running via Lexington should be signed up as (2), not (5)." 1) You are off-base and your conclusion is so very, very wrong. 2) Having trains that terminate at Dyre Avenue and that travel along the West-side IRT called #2 is an ACTUAL HISTORICAL PATTERN. That was the very first pattern and destinations of #2 trains with the opening of the Dyre Avenue segment in the early 1960's. 3) Having trains that traveled from the Bronx and that traveled along the West-side IRT that end at South Ferry called the #2 is also an HISTORICAL PATTERN! It was usually reserved for the midnight hours - but it existed. 4) Having trains that traveled from 241st Street-White Plains Road and along the Lexington Avenue line called the #5 IS AN ACTUAL HISTORICAL PATTERN. Until the mid/late 1950's with the Bronx Park East terminal open (where #2 trains ended) and #5 trains traveling to/through the newer East 190th Street station and along White Plain Road - so yes, the #5 route "owned" the White Plains Road line - except midnight hours and the midnight hours closing of the Bronx Park East terminal just north of the West Farms station. 5) Sorry, but having #5 trains travel from 241st Street or 238th Street along White Plains Road, along Lexington AVenue and then through Brooklyn HAS BEEN AN ESTABLISHED HISTORICAL PATTERN FOR DECADES! 6) Having N-trains that terminate at 57th Street-Seventh Avenue is an extremely long time well established historical pattern. As well as having Q-trains, QB-trains, and trains that travel the Brooklyn Brighton or West End lines terminate at 57th Street-Seventh Avenue is an extremely long time well established historical pattern (yellow B and D trains, etc). 7) The barely a month old Second Avenue subway segment is really no different than any other newly opened segment of the subway system. Why all of the deceit about "N-trains with Q-train labels uptown - but N-train signage downtown" is just silly - with the reasonings offered border on more silliness. Mike |
|
|
| (1425529) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Jan 27 00:45:32 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 26 23:51:59 2017. They are telling the truth. Now that the schedules have been changed to reflect this, these are 96st bound Q trains that run via the Sea Beach, and return as N trains. |
|
|
| (1425543) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 08:14:21 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 26 23:51:59 2017. There was no need to label those trains as Qs because there was no damage done by N riders ending up at 57th Street. They would just transfer to the next N (or W) and be no worse off.There is no deception here. OTOH you support deception by improperly labeling trains to 96th Street as Ns. |
|
|
| (1425544) | |
Re: N to 96/2 |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jan 27 08:15:23 2017, in response to Re: N to 96/2, posted by randyo on Thu Jan 26 23:52:54 2017. No, it wouldn't.But let's just say it would. Why are you so obsessed with the purity of the Sea Beach Line as the N train? |
|
|
|
Page 11 of 16 |
||
