|
|
| Re: Replacing the M with V train (882716) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 12 |
||
|
| (883184) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 14:52:05 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 13:22:00 2010. Isn't that what I just said? |
|
|
| (883185) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by 33rd Street on Thu Jan 7 14:52:23 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 14:50:50 2010. Why would I spend a dollar more for a cup of coffee when I could make it myself. |
|
|
| (883191) | |
Re: QUESTION: Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GIS Man on Thu Jan 7 15:19:15 2010, in response to Re: QUESTION: Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by ntrainride on Wed Jan 6 22:31:27 2010. This train to Coney Island(?)Bob |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (883192) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by znufrii on Thu Jan 7 15:19:15 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by znufrii on Thu Jan 7 09:09:39 2010. And after we do that, we could send the B over to W'Burg Bridge via the Christie connection, and utilize the "shallow Christie" option for the 2nd ave connection at Grand, build a track connection to send a 2nd Ave service over the Manhattan Bridge to pick up the slack on the Brighton line. |
|
|
| (883197) | |
Re: QUESTION: Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by GIS Man on Thu Jan 7 15:31:30 2010, in response to Re: QUESTION: Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by ntrainride on Wed Jan 6 22:31:27 2010. What a confusing language Hebrew is!"Who" is "he"; "He" is "she"; and "Dog" is "fish". Bob |
|
|
| (883205) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 7 15:59:01 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 6 23:30:31 2010. No, replace the (V) train with the (M) train because the (V) train sucks. |
|
|
| (883212) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 16:19:46 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 7 15:59:01 2010. It's only a letter...what's the difference if the M was running between 71st St and Bway-Lafayette? |
|
|
| (883213) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jan 7 16:23:29 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 16:19:46 2010. The difference is that you'd have to order new decals, and reprogram the trains if you called it the M. Wouldnt have to do either calling it the V. |
|
|
| (883214) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by straphanger9 on Thu Jan 7 16:23:57 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 7 08:18:25 2010. I understand the layout of those switches. My response was addressing a poster's proposed changes to the current service pattern which would involve trains crossing paths, NOT the current service pattern itself. Regardless, No matter how the switches are set up, when a train on track B has to get to track A while a train on track A has to get to track B, all the while through service that remains on BOTH tracks A and B respectively is mixed in...it is a bad idea.(Pretend there are switches in the middle of the two tracks and you are running the following services - 1,2,3,4). 1,2 =========== 3,4 =========== A service pattern such as this one would never work, because of the delays it would cause: 1,2 =========== 1,3 3,4 =========== 2,4 That is EXACTLY what would happen at West 4 should the idea of "swapping" the South Terminals of the C and V actually occur: Delays. Now I understand that the switches at W4 would allow the following service pattern to work without actually disturbing things: 1,2 =========== 3,4 3,4 =========== 1,2 ..But that is not what was being proposed by Wallyhorse, so I didn't address it. |
|
|
| (883225) | |
UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Zman179 on Thu Jan 7 16:54:46 2010, in response to ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Chipper10 on Wed Jan 6 09:16:26 2010. I just want to make something clear on this possible deviation:THIS IS NOT A DONE DEAL THIS PLAN IS ONLY UNDER CONSIDERATION NOTHING COULD HAPPEN AND SERVICE WOULD REMAIN AS IS With all the fighting and speculation that has gone on as a result of my single post (which has grown like a wildfire onto three other boards), I am absolutely kicking myself in the ass for having said anything in the first place. What I MUST DO is keep my mouth shut and keep anything I hear to myself. I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by making things public and all of this commotion has only reinforced this. This is exactly what I get for doing favors: a numbing headache. |
|
|
| (883226) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jan 7 16:56:56 2010, in response to UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Zman179 on Thu Jan 7 16:54:46 2010. I am absolutely kicking myself in the ass for having said anything in the first place. What I MUST DO is keep my mouth shut and keep anything I hear to myself. I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by making things public and all of this commotion has only reinforced this. This is exactly what I get for doing favors: a numbing headache.Instead of a kick in the ass, give yourself a pat on the back. There's nothing wrong with sharing ideas, and discussing them on this board. |
|
|
| (883227) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 16:58:25 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 14:52:05 2010. Sort of but you left out the part about the original K that BB was talking about. |
|
|
| (883228) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Thu Jan 7 16:58:26 2010, in response to ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Chipper10 on Wed Jan 6 09:16:26 2010. WOW!Well, I never thought they would reduce the V like that, but since they're in drastic cutback mode, it's more believable, and if they're willing to do this, then, hey; it would be great for us in this area! Give us acess we've never really had. (It would be inconvenient for my wife who's going to school down by City Hall now, and she hates transferring!) But otherwise, it would show people the connection, and perhaps create demand (hope this doesn't deter them). I doubt it would require any more cars to run, than present. CTL-MET would probably be no longer than BPY-MET, and don't forget, since it would be merging two lines, you're actually running half as many cars. The service would likely still be based at ENY, though some cars would likely be stored at JYD, basically like they're stored at CIY now. More 46's would then be sent to PIT/207, and there would probably be a surplus. Perhaps the worst of the 44's would be mothballed. Wonder which district (section) it would be (North or Queens). Now, when the Culver/Gowanus viaduct work is finished, I would still hope they would run the V to Church on weekedays, and keep the MET service for weekends. They really should consider putting the third track at 72/2 back in the SAS design, because that would be a possible terminal for Met via 6th service on weekdays, should the demand to keep that service remain. Anoother thing I just realized; since the (V) always gets suspended when there are serious delays on the line or even the other lines, then this service would make it easier to stage the line (start up service again), since part of it in a remote area (Essex-MET) would still be running. |
|
|
| (883229) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Thu Jan 7 17:00:43 2010, in response to UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Zman179 on Thu Jan 7 16:54:46 2010. No, really I would just want to say thank you for giving us this information. |
|
|
| (883230) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 17:00:51 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by R30A on Thu Jan 7 16:23:29 2010. You would probably have to reprogram it either way since the cars that would have to be used on a combined service would be ENY's R-160s and not Jamaica's. |
|
|
| (883231) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 7 17:00:53 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jan 7 16:56:56 2010. One of the best posts you've ever made. |
|
|
| (883232) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 7 17:01:12 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 16:19:46 2010. The (V) train brings too many bad memories. |
|
|
| (883233) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 17:04:26 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 14:49:29 2010. But M is on every station on the M line from Met to Essex so something has to be changed anyhow. From What I understand, the reason that K wasn't used for the J Line skip stop was because after it ceased being used for the 8 Av lcl, it was planned to used it for an alternative L skip stop service which never materialized. |
|
|
| (883236) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 17:10:13 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 7 14:26:26 2010. I agree with you but I think the OP was referring to a train that had both terminals in the same borough and also passed through one or more other boroughs along its route. Services such as the Bx portion of the 3 Av el, the original Lenox lcl (145 St - So/Fy), AA lcl etc are givens since they never departed the borough as the E train did and still does. |
|
|
| (883237) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Jan 7 17:16:42 2010, in response to UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Zman179 on Thu Jan 7 16:54:46 2010. In fact, that's what appears to have happened last time service cuts came up. But thanks for letting us know it's come up again in real life. |
|
|
| (883238) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Thu Jan 7 17:19:08 2010, in response to UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Zman179 on Thu Jan 7 16:54:46 2010. Instead of kicking yourself, why not let me do it kicking for you!! :-D X-D (Especially given you have no clue how to stay in touch with anyone anymore!!! :-D)C'mon Z, you meant well, don't regret it!! Don't let silliness influence what you post here!! |
|
|
| (883243) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Thu Jan 7 17:22:45 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 17:04:26 2010. No, the J line skip stop began at the same time the 8th Ave service ended, so they would not redesignate the letter like that to a totally unrelated line. The Canarise skip stop idea came much later, and "Y" was also considered for that.The signs had been printed years earlier, and from what I have heard once, they originally considering having K be both the 8th Ave local, and additional Jamaica service by through-routing them, via Chrystie St. (V also was eyed as running through the connection, as in this latest idea!) So I imagine when this did not materialize, K ended up on the 8th Ave segment as single letter counterpart to AA (I had thought H would be better, but that was at the same time reserved for the Rockways, as it was previously), and then they had to come up with Z as the new skip stop. (They could have also made Z the 8th Ave local, so it would have been a variation of the similar sounding C, which swallowed the line anyway). |
|
|
| (883244) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 17:27:19 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Eric B on Thu Jan 7 17:22:45 2010. I worked in the planning section of the schedule office at the time there was never any plan the through route the Wash Hts service with the Bway Bkln Lcl since by the time the Bway Bkln Lcl was changed from the KK to the K the full time south terminal for the line was E/Pky and not Jamaica. |
|
|
| (883250) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Thu Jan 7 17:37:11 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 17:27:19 2010. Maybe it was earlier, then. I do remember hearing about a 168-168 service, which of course would have to be way before then. So perhaps, the letter was reserved for that, and they just used it on the 8th Av portion, or it was made blue on the new signs as a provision for that, but then, the signs came in handy for the AA double letter elimination, and you just never heard about the earlier original plan because it wasn't brought back up then.so since you were around then, did they consider running the 6th Ave shuttle through to the East? I think I may have heard something like that as well. (and the cars reportedly came from ENY). |
|
|
| (883273) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu Jan 7 17:58:00 2010, in response to UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Zman179 on Thu Jan 7 16:54:46 2010. Heh. I thought you were teasing the kids actually ... the M/V combo has reached legendary panache that only 76th Street has rivaled. Serves you right, bonnehomme. :) |
|
|
| (883282) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Thu Jan 7 18:02:44 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by straphanger9 on Thu Jan 7 16:23:57 2010. http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/detail-w4.pngThe way the switches are set up, C and V trains trains can leave and arrive at the West 4th street simultaneously and switch lines without affecting each other what so ever. |
|
|
| (883290) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 18:08:41 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by 33rd Street on Wed Jan 6 20:49:57 2010. But why? Are you going to replace the C with the V? There's no point in sending that much service to Euclid. Church Av could use a few extra trains in the rush hours. |
|
|
| (883309) | |
Re: Nassau Street loop line |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 18:26:02 2010, in response to Re: Nassau Street loop line, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 7 08:52:41 2010. There's no need for connecting the Nassau St line to the bridge again. If there's a need for Nassau St to southern Brooklyn, then they could run the Z into Brooklyn.Z skip stop with the J and maybe run it express from Broadway Junction to Marcy. Or just have the Z start only from Broadway Junction and run to Bay Parkway since it'll be rush hour only. |
|
|
| (883310) | |
Re: Nassau Street loop line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 7 18:31:58 2010, in response to Re: Nassau Street loop line, posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 18:26:02 2010. I'm talking about connecting the Nassau Street Line to the bridge in the Brooklyn-bound direction only, which would not have such connection touch the Manhattan bound track at all. |
|
|
| (883312) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 18:32:25 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by straphanger9 on Thu Jan 7 00:40:55 2010. Even if they swapped all 4 lines E-F and C-V, it wouldn't really change much. Riders on the Fulton line in Brooklyn can just easily change from 6th to 8th av lines at Jay St.The only 'benefit' for the C would be that it runs 8-car trains and would make it easier to combine with the M. |
|
|
| (883317) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 7 18:40:40 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 7 14:34:51 2010. Understand the negatives totally, however:Those who do need the Nassau Street line stations on the M in the current setup (which was likely going to be eliminated anyway regardless of the combo line) can either take a Broadway line train two blocks west or switch to the 4/5 at Atlantic-Pacific, which stops one block west of Nassau, so it would not be THAT big of a deal (an inconvience, sure, but not as bad in this case). |
|
|
| (883320) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Thu Jan 7 18:42:33 2010, in response to Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by LuchAAA on Thu Jan 7 16:56:56 2010. Some time ago, the idea was first raised here, not by NYCT.All he did was mention that NYCT was now considering it. Zman is 100% right in saying that this board concluded that the consolidation a done deal because he mentioned that NYCT was considering the idea. Nothing could be farther than the truth. I can assure the board that NYCT is considering lots of stuff that you and I haven't even thought of. They are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. That is Zman's only point. There was no idea to share. |
|
|
| (883322) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 18:45:11 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 7 07:50:48 2010. And to keep Broadway [Brooklyn] riders off the F at Essex-Delancy. |
|
|
| (883324) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 18:48:38 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 17:00:51 2010. Shouldn't all the R160s have the same programing? |
|
|
| (883325) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 18:49:10 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 7 17:01:12 2010. But it's just a letter. |
|
|
| (883328) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 7 18:59:38 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 18:49:10 2010. Not to a long time (G) rider, you wouldn't understand. |
|
|
| (883331) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 19:05:50 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jan 6 21:12:06 2010. Compared to the B and D it is reliable on 6th Av.. but I still think shortening the line would make it better. |
|
|
| (883333) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 19:08:49 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by GrandAvenue on Thu Jan 7 01:22:24 2010. Yeah, I just don't understand why they couldn't just have it signed as the M though. I mean just post signs on the Manhattan end that the J is not running at all and the M is replacing it for the weekend.Instead they had to make it the J to Metro just so that the Manhattan end doesn't get confused about what's running. And even more odd is they have the E run via 6th Av or basically the 'V'. IF the MTA was so concerned about confusion on the Manhattan end, they should've just have the V run instead of the E. |
|
|
| (883335) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 19:12:33 2010, in response to UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Zman179 on Thu Jan 7 16:54:46 2010. Simple, do not indulge certain posters with such info as they would probably blow it out of proportions. Send info to those that can 'keep a secret'.Don't let this incident deter you from sharing more insider info with the rest of us. |
|
|
| (883337) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 19:15:39 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Eric B on Thu Jan 7 16:58:26 2010. With the current set up, I don't think they can terminate trains at Essex anymore. It would have to go to Chambers. |
|
|
| (883341) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 19:27:43 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by randyo on Thu Jan 7 13:52:13 2010. It's a shame the B5 and B50 [i think] routes were combined into the B82. They should've just used the B5 name. |
|
|
| (883343) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 19:31:17 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by vfrt on Wed Jan 6 10:07:53 2010. The V isn't even full as it is. A reduction of 120' won't affect it that much. |
|
|
| (883347) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 19:35:43 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 6 23:24:56 2010. It will take pressure off the L by giving M riders a direct to Midtown line than to transfer to the L or F. But is it going to be THAT major a difference? |
|
|
| (883349) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Jan 7 19:40:41 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Jan 7 19:35:43 2010. Do the math. |
|
|
| (883395) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Jan 7 21:20:52 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by 33rd Street on Wed Jan 6 23:31:36 2010. "The only two factors that would ease the L line's overcrowding would to have the M terminate at Chambers Street on weekends, and additional service on the J line."How do either of these ease the L line's overcrowding? In fact, there isn't much of a demand for Nassau Street service as it is. The J currently terminates at Chambers on weekends and the Fulton and Broad Street stations are closed. "One idea that would make the V line even more useful is to extend it to Avenue C & East Houston Street. I bet you that ridership would drop on the M14 and in turn would help out the L line greatly in Manhattan." Agreed. That is a very good idea. But it will take hundreds of millions of dollars to build such an extension. And it's not even on the MTA's radar right now. |
|
|
| (883396) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Jan 7 21:25:18 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by 33rd Street on Wed Jan 6 23:32:13 2010. Knock it off. You are not the moderator of this board and you don't have the right to say "shut up" to someone whose opinions are different from yours. Nothing's written in stone yet, so there's no need to get bent out of shape over Wally's post. |
|
|
| (883397) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Jan 7 21:29:15 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Edwards! on Thu Jan 7 07:55:39 2010. M service to downtown Brooklyn will be cut under the MTA's "Doomsday" service plan anyway, even if the M/V combo doesn't happen. |
|
|
| (883400) | |
Re: Replacing the M with V train |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Jan 7 21:37:48 2010, in response to Re: Replacing the M with V train, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Jan 7 18:59:38 2010. Yes, but it's not like the G is going to be extended back Continental Avenue if this happens. The MTA is already planning to terminate the G at Court Square full time, with or without an M/V combo. |
|
|
| (883401) | |
Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Jan 7 21:39:36 2010, in response to Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by 33rd Street on Wed Jan 6 20:49:57 2010. "V to Euclid Avenue, hell yeah."If I may be so bold to ask, why? |
|
|
| (883404) | |
Re: UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train. |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 7 21:45:38 2010, in response to UPDATE & WHAT I THINK ... Re: ZMan, that is great news, replacing the M train with the V train., posted by Zman179 on Thu Jan 7 16:54:46 2010.  |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 12 |
||
