|
|
| Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. (1538627) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1538920) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 21 16:29:48 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by SLRT on Fri Feb 21 12:11:13 2020. Yet within 10 years, there were plans in place to merge the BMT and IND as evidenced by the assignment of letters to formerly numbered BMT routes. |
|
|
| (1538921) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 21 16:31:35 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Feb 20 18:07:47 2020. It still existed under those letters. Also what bout passengers boarding at Culver shuttle stations who needed to go SOUTH along the West End line which they could access both at 9 Av and 36 St. |
|
|
| (1538924) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Feb 21 18:08:03 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by randyo on Fri Feb 21 16:29:48 2020. Quite so. A number of policy decisions over the years make no sense. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1538927) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Feb 21 19:05:42 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by randyo on Fri Feb 21 16:29:48 2020. According to a study done by the BOT, When the IND was in the planning stage, it was determined that letters were chosen as opposed to numbers for the new IND routes because ( according to the study) letters were easier to remember than numbers.That mind set seemed to go out the window when the IRT R12s showed up from the factory in 1948 with numbered IRT routes on their front end roll signs, but strangely enough not the sides. |
|
|
| (1538944) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 21 21:13:32 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Feb 21 19:05:42 2020. Even the R-10s lacked route letters on the side signs and If I recall, the R-16 side route signs also lacked letters. What is strange that while the BMT readings on the R-16s carried the route numbers, the IRT’s R-17s through 36s did not carry any of the IRT route numbers on their side signs at all. |
|
|
| (1538951) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Feb 22 06:58:46 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by randyo on Fri Feb 21 21:13:32 2020. Even the R-10s lacked route letters on the side signs and If I recall, the R-16 side route signs also lacked letters. What is strange that while the BMT readings on the R-16s carried the route numbers, the IRT’s R-17s through 36s did not carry any of the IRT route numbers on their side signs at all.I wonder why? Budget? Uncertainty about future line assignments? |
|
|
| (1538961) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Feb 22 11:43:28 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by LuchAAA on Sat Feb 22 06:58:46 2020. The R-10 had a number of design similarities to BMT Multis.Including route numbers/letters only on the front, side signs arranged unconventionally, ogee roofs, and higher performance than was standard. |
|
|
| (1538964) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 22 13:09:26 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by LuchAAA on Sat Feb 22 06:58:46 2020. I often wondered why the B of T even decided to number the IRT routes which, unlike the BMT didn’t gave a history of numbered routes in the first place. Instead of trying to make the front end of the R-12s almost a carbon copy of the R-10 front, a simple single destination sign centered over the end door like the WFs would have looked OK. Till Chrystie, nobody including passengers, the B of T or the TA itself never referred to the IRT lines by numbers anyhow. |
|
|
| (1538965) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 22 13:52:54 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by randyo on Sat Feb 22 13:09:26 2020. With IRT, they would have run out of letters. The BofT's real grudge was against the BMT and its innovative equipment (The Arnines were nothing but glorified Lo-V's) so de-number BMT and thru-run IND trains onto BMT turf to further de-empahasize them. They even went so far as to call a Broadway local the "EE" |
|
|
| (1538967) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Sat Feb 22 15:00:07 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 22 13:52:54 2020. so there was a double E.Linda Ronstadt was right. |
|
|
| (1538968) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 22 15:03:04 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 22 13:52:54 2020. But why bother with any sort of single or double character train ID system. Most IRT passengers referred to their trains by name like, the Bway Exp, Jerome Av Exp, Lenox Av Lcl etc. Even BMT passengers used names like Brighton, Sea Beach 4 Ave etc rather than the numbers which few BMT trains displayed anyhow. |
|
|
| (1538969) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 22 15:03:42 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Fri Feb 21 19:05:42 2020. My take on this is that when the first Triplexes started service in 1925, they carried numbers on their ends. The IND planners at this time probably did not want a competing (and confusing) number system, so they decided to use letters, instead. |
|
|
| (1538970) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 22 15:10:14 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 22 15:03:42 2020. Actually, when Mayor Hylan was no longer on office and no longer had a vendetta against the BMT, The city offered the BMT the opportunity to run the new subway lines and what eventually became IND routes, were intended to continue the BMT’s route numbering system. I have a photo of an R-1 mockup that shows a number displayed in the route sign box. The BNT declined to offer to operate the new lines unless it was allowed to raise the fare above a nickel which the city refused to do. Since the city ended up having to operate the new lines, the continuity of route designations was broken so the B of T came up with the lettering system for its new subway. |
|
|
| (1538971) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 22 15:15:06 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by randyo on Sat Feb 22 15:10:14 2020. The new R-1 car mockup had a number in front because the R-1's were to be tested and used on the BMT, if I'm not mistaken. |
|
|
| (1538972) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Sat Feb 22 15:18:23 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by randyo on Sat Feb 22 15:10:14 2020. I always thought that by now all the routes in the system would be numbered because of all the people/tourists in NYC from countries without the Roman alphabet. The B division lines could start at '20'. |
|
|
| (1538973) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 22 15:38:14 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by randyo on Sat Feb 22 15:03:04 2020. London doesn't use any letters or numbers, just historical names. The District line has (or had) 5 variations with just one station in common. I think it is a confusing mess. |
|
|
| (1538975) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Feb 22 17:25:23 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Dan on Sat Feb 22 15:18:23 2020. I wouldn't change our system for tourists. Most tourists/business travelers know enough English that they can follow the letter system. |
|
|
| (1538977) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 22 18:05:11 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Dan on Sat Feb 22 15:18:23 2020. If you aren't comfortable with the Roman alphabet and yet are traveling to NYC, you will be traveling exclusively with a tour group. |
|
|
| (1538980) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Feb 22 18:58:00 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by randyo on Sat Feb 22 15:03:04 2020. Yep, when I was a kid & my older brother would take me to Yankee Games in the old (real) Yankee Stadium, he always looked for the Woodlawn-Jerome uptown express after coming off a TS bound Flushing line train at Grand Central. In the early 60s on the Lex Ave line, we'd always seem to get a (numberless) set of Lo-Vs that were noisy as hell but seemed to fly. This was a time when post war equiptment with their front end numbers were making serious inroads in service.Point being, going to Yankee Stadium, nobody was looking for the #4 |
|
|
| (1538994) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Sun Feb 23 01:16:58 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Feb 22 18:58:00 2020. I agree, I call it Fakee Stadium |
|
|
| (1538995) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Sun Feb 23 01:20:08 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by randyo on Sat Feb 22 15:03:04 2020. Even though I was born in the mid 60s, I grew up with my relatives calling my "home" line the Sea Beach. The West End was the elevated, the 4th Avenue Local was underground |
|
|
| (1538999) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Feb 23 03:10:28 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 22 15:38:14 2020. Names seriously suck.In Singapore they have perfectly good colors but decided to use line names: North-south line (which also goes east and west) East-west line (which at its east end goes north/south) Northeast line (the only one properly named) Circle line (not a full circle, and it has a branch, because of course it does) Downtown line (all lines go downtown) Thompson East Coast line (will not go anywhere near the coast until Phase 3 opens in 20 years). |
|
|
| (1539000) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Feb 23 03:21:13 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Dan on Sat Feb 22 15:18:23 2020. That would mainly be... Eastern Europe (Cyrillic) and a few Arab countries? Asian countries do use the Roman Alphabet in corporate logos as well as transportation contexts (Tokyo Metro has route letters on signage, China uses Roman letters in their license plates, Vietnam uses the Roman alphabet as its only alphabet). |
|
|
| (1539001) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Feb 23 03:58:43 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Feb 23 03:21:13 2020. Generally people who travel to North America as tourists have more money and higher levels of education. This means they probably learned the Roman alphabet in school. Peasants who come here should learn the alphabet and if needing to use the subway helps them do so, then good.There is one advantage to using letters. If a person doesn’t know the proper English name for a letter, it’s likely that their own language’s name for that letter is similar enough that when spoken is completely understandable. So when a Spanish speakers asks for the “beh” train, you know they mean B (Spanish is a bad example with the letter J, but whatever). Numbers though can be completely different. How do you show 12 on your |
|
|
| (1539002) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Feb 23 03:59:06 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Feb 23 03:58:43 2020. fingers? |
|
|
| (1539018) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by FYBklyn1959 on Sun Feb 23 11:54:06 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 22 15:15:06 2020. IAWTP |
|
|
| (1539023) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sun Feb 23 12:23:18 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 22 15:15:06 2020. Yep! |
|
|
| (1539029) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sun Feb 23 14:12:17 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by randyo on Sat Feb 22 15:10:14 2020. The City NEVER intended what became ICOS to be operated by any private entity. They offered it the private operators, pro forma knowing that the terms of lease would be too onerous, but being able to claim that "the City tried." |
|
|
| (1539030) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 23 14:18:18 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 22 15:15:06 2020. That may or may not have been the original plan, however, the number in the photo was not an existing BMT number but a much higher number than the BMT ever had, indicating a continuation of the BMT number scheme. |
|
|
| (1539036) | |
Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign. |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Feb 23 15:27:04 2020, in response to Re: R44 'SS' Culver Shuttle rollsign., posted by AlM on Sat Feb 22 18:05:11 2020. Exactly. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
