|
|
| Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? (819711) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
|
| (860854) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Nov 18 21:35:24 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by BMTLines on Wed Nov 18 21:25:16 2009. So where does that leave the F then? 2nd Av? |
|
|
| (860855) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Nov 18 21:35:30 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by lrg5784 on Wed Nov 18 21:23:37 2009. Why is terminating the D at 2nd Avenue nights and weekends any different than terminating the B there? |
|
|
| (860856) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Nov 18 21:35:56 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Wed Nov 18 21:30:05 2009. Well at least you had the W from 2001-4. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (860860) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Nov 18 21:39:46 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by lrg5784 on Wed Nov 18 21:28:22 2009. M used to run to 9th Av all day, the few times I rode it, it was pretty much empty. Cutting it back to Chambers was better. Though it would be nice if it ran to at least Broad st.And I agree the B could run weekends to help out the C on CPW. Also they could end the B at Prospect Park so riders can get a 6th Av line at Dekalb. Ideal of course, but sadly not gonna happen till the MTA ever has a surplus. |
|
|
| (860861) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Wed Nov 18 21:40:06 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Nov 18 21:35:30 2009. I don't know, it was just a suggestion. |
|
|
| (860864) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Nov 18 21:40:33 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by lrg5784 on Wed Nov 18 21:28:22 2009. Where would it switch then? There are no switches between Rockefeller Center and 42nd St or south of 34th until West 4th Street. Making the switch there would result in two expresses. Two 6th Avenue expresses aren't needed on weekends, but two locals might be. |
|
|
| (860867) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Wed Nov 18 21:43:53 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Nov 18 21:40:33 2009. Hmmmm, I guess that's not bad then. I was only the assumption that the (F) ran fine on its own on weekends. |
|
|
| (860920) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Wed Nov 18 22:34:20 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Nov 18 21:35:56 2009. Well at least you had the W from 2001-4.Yes we did and we also had express service on the Astoria Line for the first time in history thanks to the W. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (860925) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Wed Nov 18 22:37:29 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Wed Nov 18 22:34:20 2009. Thank goodness for the wonderful (W)! |
|
|
| (860938) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Wed Nov 18 22:49:33 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Nov 18 21:35:24 2009. There ya go :) |
|
|
| (860945) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Nov 18 22:54:33 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by lrg5784 on Wed Nov 18 21:24:33 2009. Yeah, it was really surprising, however the Manhattan-bound side was basically a ghost town. |
|
|
| (860952) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Nov 18 22:57:26 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by BMTLines on Wed Nov 18 22:49:33 2009. And then what about the V? :) |
|
|
| (860955) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Nov 18 22:59:15 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Wed Nov 18 22:34:20 2009. That must've been some ride [though not going the same direction] you at least had 3 express runs in 3 different boroughs. At least now the D has the same as well [4 express runs if you count the CPW run separate from the 6th Av run] |
|
|
| (860956) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Nov 18 22:59:43 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Wed Nov 18 22:34:20 2009. That must've been some ride [though not going the same direction] you at least had 3 express runs in 3 different boroughs. At least now the D has the same as well [*of course the exception is 4 express runs if you count the CPW run separate from the 6th Av run.] |
|
|
| (860960) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Nov 18 23:00:57 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by lrg5784 on Wed Nov 18 21:40:06 2009. It's just a letter, since both runs similar trains: R68/As, they are pretty much interchangeable. |
|
|
| (860965) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Wed Nov 18 23:03:45 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Nov 18 23:00:57 2009. If you're saying that R68s and R68As can run together, you'll be in for a real bumpy ride. The delay in the R68As braking is the reason why the two fleets can't operate together. |
|
|
| (860985) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Nov 18 23:23:20 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by lrg5784 on Wed Nov 18 23:03:45 2009. Oh no, I meant the looks. I really don't bother about trying to figure out what train is what till it pulls in and i see the number plates. That's the only thing i use to tell the difference b/w the two types. |
|
|
| (860995) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Nov 18 23:36:55 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Aug 13 12:36:26 2009. Couldn't they run the "R" to Bay Parkway in the rush, with the "M" serving 95th Street?-w- |
|
|
| (861006) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by B49 Limited on Wed Nov 18 23:55:21 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Aug 14 12:47:07 2009. I have to agree, as you can tell during the late period of rush hour you can see the demand of ridership on the M is very small. Besides in the evening (or early morning) you can always catch a W train heading to/ from the yard in its place. |
|
|
| (861025) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Thu Nov 19 00:40:27 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Nov 18 22:57:26 2009. You don't want my answer to that ;-) |
|
|
| (861026) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Nov 19 00:50:04 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Nov 18 21:13:00 2009. Still, why would you need two trains? Wouldn't it make more sense to just run Q trains more often? |
|
|
| (861030) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Nov 19 01:21:07 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by BMTLines on Thu Nov 19 00:40:27 2009. heh, let me take a stab at it:I would take it you'd have the F via 53rd St again and maybe have the Q run via 63rd St? |
|
|
| (861041) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Thu Nov 19 03:53:38 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by MATHA531 on Wed Nov 18 21:22:38 2009. From looking at the schedule, it appears to me that that situation has been corrected, as the B runs a bit later and just when it ceases the D services Dekalb. I would think that after all the station reconstruction has been completed on the Brighton that the TA should look into running the B on the weekends too. |
|
|
| (861055) | |
Re: B/D lines |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Nov 19 05:38:10 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by zac on Tue Aug 11 17:36:33 2009. A better question:Why not have the B also be a 24/7 line, even with service at reduced levels on nights and weekends (2 TPH overnights, 3-4 TPH other times, enough to supplement the D and allow those on 6th Avenue specifically looking for DeKalb to be able to go there). |
|
|
| (861056) | |
Re: B/D lines -- further thoughts |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Nov 19 05:44:31 2009, in response to Re: B/D lines, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Nov 19 05:38:10 2009. And on another front:If you did make the B a 24/7 line, perhaps during the overnight, the B could start at 168th and run local to West 4th via 8th avenue as a "Blue B" before joining the D/F at Broadway-Lafayette and then going to Brighton as it does now. This would allow the A to run express during the overnights in Manhattan (which could be done since Spring Street would be the only station affected by a cut in actual service, with the E train the lone train stopping there in the overnights), and while it would mean a two-seat ride for those at local stations along 8th avenue, it would add service as well. |
|
|
| (861058) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Nov 19 06:13:38 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Thu Nov 19 03:53:38 2009. Which, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread I would do with making the B a 24/7 line, possibly during overnights having the B run local via the 8th Avenue Line to West 4th as a "Blue B," which would allow the A to go express during the overnight (as Spring Street would be the only station affected by a service cut as only the E would stop there during overnights). |
|
|
| (861060) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Nov 19 06:21:36 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Nov 18 22:57:26 2009. Send the V to the 8th Avenue line south of West 4th then and have that go to Euclid with the A (and perhaps simply making the W 24/7 and have it become the West End Local full-time), which is what I previously suggested should be looked at once the Culver Viaduct project is completed in 2012-'13, with in the scenario suggested perhaps the D and F both going via Culver to Coney Island (with the D express in Brooklyn and the F remaining local). That would result in an overall increase in service to Coney Island while the Fulton Street line has three lines going to Brooklyn and two local lines (C and V) to Euclid. |
|
|
| (861082) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Thu Nov 19 07:29:18 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Nov 18 23:23:20 2009. Same here. The two look exactly alike so unless I see the numbers, I'll won't know which is which. |
|
|
| (861083) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Thu Nov 19 07:30:34 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Nov 18 23:36:55 2009. Why would they want to do that? I doubt there's no demand for it anyway. |
|
|
| (861113) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Nov 19 08:01:50 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Aug 13 15:15:08 2009. It was RAPID transit, not this lilly-livered leisurely transit that abounds today. You'll get there - eventually. |
|
|
| (861114) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Thu Nov 19 08:02:59 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Nov 18 23:36:55 2009. Ralph might threaten to send Moe to the moon.:) |
|
|
| (861147) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by rbseabeach on Thu Nov 19 10:21:38 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Nov 18 21:09:27 2009. Why not leave the service as is except swap the letters back. Have the "B" run full time between CI & E 205th and have the "D" be the brighton express again. Hopefully in the future they can extend the hours of the brighton express to Saturday's as well |
|
|
| (861148) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by rbseabeach on Thu Nov 19 10:25:55 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by MATHA531 on Wed Nov 18 21:22:38 2009. Great post and I agree 1000% You are so right about the DeKalb Avenue D issue. |
|
|
| (861190) | |
Re: B/D lines |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Nov 19 13:12:47 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Nov 18 21:39:46 2009. Or once there are more funds or at least the deficit is less, have the B become a 24/7 line, but during overnights if possible have the B start at 168th instead of 145th and run local via 8th Avenue as a "Blue B" to West 4th, then join the D & F at Broadway-Lafayette and then have the B go to Brighton as it does now. This would allow the A to be express in Manhattan during the overnight hours since the B would essentially be replacing the C for most of its route in Manhattan, with only Spring Street getting a service cut. |
|
|
| (861193) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k9 on Thu Nov 19 13:22:11 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Nov 18 21:18:10 2009. The off peak (B) should really end at 167th St, it would help out during some crowded midday and early evening periods, plus provide a transfer to the (4) and Metro North trains. |
|
|
| (861207) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Nov 19 14:00:09 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by TheGreatOne2k9 on Thu Nov 19 13:22:11 2009. Terminating at 167th requires fumigation, a time consuming relay, the manning of a tower which is normally not staffed and it has no permanent crew quarters.The D alone is perfectly adequate for midday Concourse service. |
|
|
| (861273) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Nov 19 17:19:20 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by edk256 on Tue Aug 11 13:32:27 2009. If I recall at one point, the B did run briefly on weekends to 168 St before the 6 Av side of the Manny B was shut down. |
|
|
| (861279) | |
Re: B/D lines -- further thoughts |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Nov 19 17:26:10 2009, in response to Re: B/D lines -- further thoughts, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Nov 19 05:44:31 2009. The problem is that there is no switch at Bway/Laff that allows S/B 8 Av trains to access the Manny B. It can only be done N/B. Also since "B" indicates a 6 Av service, it would only serve to further compromise the logic of the original IND lettering system which was already compromised by running the C which is supposed to apply to CONCOURSE services to 168 and the B which is supposed to apply to WASHINGTON HIGHTS services to Bedford Park. |
|
|
| (861282) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Nov 19 17:31:23 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Wed Nov 18 23:36:55 2009. Under the established lettering system the TA established with the delivery of the R-27s, the "R" which was originally "RR" applied to 4 Av trains operating via the Bway subway in Manhattan regardless of its north terminal. If the Qns Blvd/Bway service were to be routed via the West End Line it would need a new letter unless the TA wanted to further compromise the route lettering system like it did with the B and C. |
|
|
| (861289) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Thu Nov 19 17:39:25 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by randyo on Thu Nov 19 17:19:20 2009. Yeah. Before the 1997 B/C swap, the B ran a very convoluted service pattern. Stable on its south end, but varying wildly on the north end.Rush Hours & Middays: 168th Street to Coney Island Evenings & Weekends: 57th Street/6th Avenue (later 21st Street-Queensbridge) to Coney Island Nights: 36th Street/4th Avenue to Coney Island. |
|
|
| (861293) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Thu Nov 19 17:44:28 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Aug 12 19:48:13 2009. These days, they could still run the B on weekends but due to GOs and whatnot, its not feasible to implement it. |
|
|
| (861304) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 19 18:01:51 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Jeff Rosen on Tue Aug 11 18:05:31 2009. Correct answer. |
|
|
| (861331) | |
Re: B/D lines |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Thu Nov 19 19:11:18 2009, in response to Re: B/D lines, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Nov 19 13:12:47 2009. If anything, the (B) would only run on weekends from 145th to LES - Second Avenue. I don't see a need for night service at his time, but that's just me. |
|
|
| (861425) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Nov 19 20:58:41 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by rbseabeach on Thu Nov 19 10:21:38 2009. But why swap the letters back? And would you keep the B local on Central Park West if it were to run 24/7? |
|
|
| (861427) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Nov 19 21:06:04 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by lrg5784 on Wed Nov 18 21:43:53 2009. It might, but from what I've seen, it looks like the 23rd and 14th Street are very well-used on the weekends. Not as busy as the Broadway BMT line stops, but I think they're busy enough for a second 6th Avenue local service. |
|
|
| (861429) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Nov 19 21:11:48 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Nov 19 06:21:36 2009. I don't know... I think running both the D and F to Coney Island via the Culver line would be overkill, even if one runs express and the other runs local. This is because both would would have to run local in one direction south of Church Avenue because there are only three tracks south of Church. Also, does Fulton Street IND really need three lines? |
|
|
| (861476) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Nov 19 22:53:36 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Nov 19 21:11:48 2009. If anything, run the D express up to Church and then continuing past Church to CI. The F can run local and terminate at Church Av.Fulton IND is fine with just two lines, but maybe just rename one branch of the A to the K. If they ever build the utica branch, then a 3rd line will be needed. |
|
|
| (861478) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Nov 19 22:54:31 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by lrg5784 on Thu Nov 19 07:29:18 2009. Like the R160s, i don't bother trying to guess which it is. I'll just look at the numbers. |
|
|
| (861560) | |
Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004? |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Fri Nov 20 02:55:59 2009, in response to Re: Why were the B and D swapped in 2004?, posted by lrg5784 on Wed Nov 18 21:28:22 2009. A better idea IMHO:Run the V on the weekends and have the D run local on CPW when the B is not running. The lack of the V train on the weekends means that several connections between lines (especially between the 6 and 6th Avenue Line are lost, try getting from the Culver Line to the Upper East Side on the weekend). Despite the whining from D riders here when this suggestion is made, I can't see the D local being overly inconvenient to the Bronx riders. |
|
|
| (861733) | |
Re: B/D lines -- further thoughts |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Nov 20 15:44:09 2009, in response to Re: B/D lines -- further thoughts, posted by randyo on Thu Nov 19 17:26:10 2009. Too bad, because never mind this idea, it would allow for much more flexible service when the D on weekends has to run via 8th Avenue to West 4th as the split service would not be necessary if that were the case and the D were able to go over the Manny B. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 5 |
||
