(M)/(V) combo maybe happening in the future?

[Cross Harbor RR]

Arrested for what? Gimme a f***ing break.

 

It's the ******* foamer childish talk.

[NX Express]

Arrested for what? Gimme a f***ing break.

 

For violating some kind of book!

 

No, I'm just kidding.

[Far Rock Depot]

Lets look at some of the facts here:

FACT: The MTA is looking, repeat, looking into combining the M and V lines into a longer new V via 6th Ave.

FACT: V's on this new route (if implemented) WILL be 8 60' cars.

FACT: The MTA is KNOWN for changing their mind like underwear.

But IMO, this plan is logical. 2 routes combined to serve the more used portion of those 2 route. sure, the V will have more trainsets on that line, but overall between the 2 lines, less trainsets will be used, one cant compare 8-car V's with the C. 8 cars on the C is technically an option. Running 10 car trains on the Bway el is not.

 

The point of the M currently running 24/7 and and the V weekdays only is not a valid point. Does anyone really think that the Myrtle portion will go unserved overnights and weekends? to me, its a desperate arguement to keep the M.

[CenSin]

Let’s put together what we know:

Making the new route

 

• Pro: The line has had the “retractability” property for a while. No matter where its other end was, it was always anchored to the Metropolitan Avenue–Myrtle Avenue segment. Eliminate the and extend the as necessary to provide service along Queens Boulevard; the Myrtle Avenue line gets to keep all it’s (M)s. That segment was always brown, and it stays that way.
  
• Con: The change affects more people.
  
• Con: Six Avenue and Queens Boulevard lines would have to advertise service. A total of 36 (if the becomes orange) signs would be changed versus the 13 that would have to be changed if the new line were simply an extension of the current .
  
• Con: A brown line extends up the Sixth Avenue trunk line and into Queens or the becomes orange. Both of these changes are better avoided.

 

Making the new route

 

• Pro: The is already well-established and the only change would be its removal from 2 Avenue–Houston Street and an extension from Essex Street to Metropolitan Avenue. Most of the signage is kept along Queens Boulevard and Sixth Avenue. The is simply deleted.
  
• Pro: Only 13 signs have to be changed versus the 36 for Queens Boulevard and Sixth Avenue if it were to be an .
  
• Pro: The trains are already preprogrammed with an orange route from Forest Hills–71 Avenue to Middle Village–Metropolitan Avenue.
  
• Pro: The change affects less people.
  
• Con: The ’s introduction to the Metropolitan Avenue–Myrtle Avenue segment marks the first significant change in the route name. There is no characteristic of to be seen in which may surprise some at first. Well… this just sucks.

 

Feel free to disagree with anything; facts are preferred over emotionally-driven preferences.

[Far Rock Depot]

Good breakdown CenSin,

 

lets not forget other pros with the V over the WillyB, less crowds on the F, more people on the V, Which i believe was one of the reasons to create the V besides a 4th QBL train into manhattan. The V is underused. if its southern terminal is extended more peolpe will use it.

 

and its a plus for operations too.

the cars needed can come from the M. Since the MTA is in the process of moving their r46s to 207/Pitkin, they could IMO, speed that up. Move whatever 32s left to serve on the V. You now have the problem of where the cars come from and the C/R board locations solved until a more long term solution is made

[CenSin]

lets not forget other pros with the V over the WillyB, less crowds on the F, more people on the V, Which i believe was one of the reasons to create the V besides a 4th QBL train into manhattan. The V is underused. if its southern terminal is extended more peolpe will use it.

But this is regardless of the label.

[Luis1985]

Let’s put together what we know:

Making the new route

 

• Pro: The line has had the “retractability” property for a while. No matter where its other end was, it was always anchored to the Metropolitan Avenue–Myrtle Avenue segment. Eliminate the and extend the as necessary to provide service along Queens Boulevard; the Myrtle Avenue line gets to keep all it’s (M)s. That segment was always brown, and it stays that way.

• Con: The change affects more people.

• Con: Six Avenue and Queens Boulevard lines would have to advertise service. A total of 36 (if the becomes orange) signs would be changed versus the 13 that would have to be changed if the new line were simply an extension of the current .

• Con: A brown line extends up the Sixth Avenue trunk line and into Queens or the becomes orange. Both of these changes are better avoided.

 

Making the new route

 

• Pro: The is already well-established and the only change would be its removal from 2 Avenue–Houston Street and an extension from Essex Street to Metropolitan Avenue. Most of the signage is kept along Queens Boulevard and Sixth Avenue. The is simply deleted.

• Pro: Only 13 signs have to be changed versus the 36 for Queens Boulevard and Sixth Avenue if it were to be an .

• Pro: The trains are already preprogrammed with an orange route from Forest Hills–71 Avenue to Middle Village–Metropolitan Avenue.

• Pro: The change affects less people.

• Con: The ’s introduction to the Metropolitan Avenue–Myrtle Avenue segment marks the first significant change in the route name. There is no characteristic of to be seen in which may surprise some at first. Well… this just sucks.

 

Feel free to disagree with anything; facts are preferred over emotionally-driven preferences.

 

:tup:

[Far Rock Depot]

But this is regardless of the label.

 

true.

As far as the label, isnt it cheaper to just keep the V label?

i believe the only reason why they created the W and V lines is because those bullets have been on rollsigns since the late 70s when they first started constructing the SAS. Why spend $ creating new bullets when 2 unsused ones were there?

The orange represents 6th Ave service. Why spend more $ making the M orange when the V is already?

[dustclee]

Making the new route

 

• Pro: The is already well-established and the only change would be its removal from 2 Avenue–Houston Street and an extension from Essex Street to Metropolitan Avenue. Most of the signage is kept along Queens Boulevard and Sixth Avenue. The is simply deleted.

• Pro: Only 13 signs have to be changed versus the 36 for Queens Boulevard and Sixth Avenue if it were to be an .

• Pro: The trains are already preprogrammed with an orange route from Forest Hills–71 Avenue to Middle Village–Metropolitan Avenue.

 

 

 

Your numbers are not entirely correct. Keep in mind they still need to change the destination if they keep it as a . That would include every Manhattan-bound platform's signs in Queens, and every Brooklyn-bound platform's signs on 6th Ave. Changing it to an orange M or keeping the brown will still require more sign changes, but it doesn't seem, on a rough estimate, as exaggerated as 13 vs. 36 as you've stated. To me, it's like adding an extra 50 cents to make your coffee large; it's negligible.

As for the programs, they can easily program the via 6th Ave. It's not like they have to make new rollsigns to accommodate the change. Also, it could be pre-programmed already, just that it hasn't been seen (but I'll drop this second idea as soon as someone who works on R160's can prove me wrong )

To me, it'd suck if the were to go, even though this change does not affect me a lot. It's a line that I sometimes get to ride during my commutes, as opposed to the that I've used very rarely.

[Grand Concourse]

Well put CenSin. Though the MTA could also make a 'compromise' and just change the signs on both ends with an Orange . Then that would put an end over what letter should be retained. Plus the K did run from 6th Av to Brooklyn. So such a service would be restored.

[CenSin]

Your numbers are not entirely correct. Keep in mind they still need to change the destination if they keep it as a . That would include every Manhattan-bound platform's signs in Queens, and every Brooklyn-bound platform's signs on 6th Ave. Changing it to an orange M or keeping the brown will still require more sign changes, but it doesn't seem, on a rough estimate, as exaggerated as 13 vs. 36 as you've stated. To me, it's like adding an extra 50 cents to make your coffee large; it's negligible.

Is anyone well-acquainted with the costs of replacement and whether the reduction in costs (due to not having to replace more bullets) is significant?

[INDman]

Is anyone well-acquainted with the costs of replacement and whether the reduction in costs (due to not having to replace more bullets) is significant?

 

Won't matter, the TA will do what they want no matter cost.

[Far Rock Depot]

Is anyone well-acquainted with the costs of replacement and whether the reduction in costs (due to not having to replace more bullets) is significant?

 

some people just dont like change.

regardless, theres still Myrtle ave service.

theres still downtown service over the WillyB

There may be direct midtown service from Marcy Ave.

The V will have more of a purpose than just a supplement of the F

Why are so many so dead set on keeping the M?

The MTA sets the routes

IMO, this one will benefit the majority of commuters, The Broadway El is the only B division (except the G and L)route that has no direct midtown service

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Let’s put together what we know:

Making the new route

 

• Pro: The line has had the “retractability” property for a while. No matter where its other end was, it was always anchored to the Metropolitan Avenue–Myrtle Avenue segment. Eliminate the and extend the as necessary to provide service along Queens Boulevard; the Myrtle Avenue line gets to keep all it’s (M)s. That segment was always brown, and it stays that way.

• Con: The change affects more people.

• Con: Six Avenue and Queens Boulevard lines would have to advertise service. A total of 36 (if the becomes orange) signs would be changed versus the 13 that would have to be changed if the new line were simply an extension of the current .

• Con: A brown line extends up the Sixth Avenue trunk line and into Queens or the becomes orange. Both of these changes are better avoided.

 

Making the new route

 

• Pro: The is already well-established and the only change would be its removal from 2 Avenue–Houston Street and an extension from Essex Street to Metropolitan Avenue. Most of the signage is kept along Queens Boulevard and Sixth Avenue. The is simply deleted.

• Pro: Only 13 signs have to be changed versus the 36 for Queens Boulevard and Sixth Avenue if it were to be an .

• Pro: The trains are already preprogrammed with an orange route from Forest Hills–71 Avenue to Middle Village–Metropolitan Avenue.

• Pro: The change affects less people.

• Con: The ’s introduction to the Metropolitan Avenue–Myrtle Avenue segment marks the first significant change in the route name. There is no characteristic of to be seen in which may surprise some at first. Well… this just sucks.

 

Feel free to disagree with anything; facts are preferred over emotionally-driven preferences.

There are far more pros in calling the new service the . That's what I would call it. No need to create a brand-new orange M bullet or program a 6th Avenue M line into the R160s' FIND computer system. Why do that when there's already a to Metropolitan program in the system?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The V will have more of a purpose than just a supplement of the F

Why are so many so dead set on keeping the M?

The MTA sets the routes

...

The Broadway El is the only B division (except the G and L)route that has no direct midtown service

Agreed on all of these. I also wonder why so many people are fixated on keeping the designation. How many people made a big deal when the T was eliminated in favor of the 70(B) in 1967? Were they calling for the service from Coney Island to 168th Street/Broadway to be called the T? No, and it became the 70(B). So it's really not a big deal if the letter M goes the way of the .

[lilbluefoxie]

Agreed on all of these. I also wonder why so many people are fixated on keeping the designation. How many people made a big deal when the T was eliminated in favor of the 70(B) in 1967? Were they calling for the service from Coney Island to 168th Street/Broadway to be called the T? No, and it became the 70(B). So it's really not a big deal if the letter M goes the way of the .

 

back then half the trains didnt even have the letters, they were still using the archaic BMT numbered system,

[Trainmaster5]

I second that.

Another thing that has not even been brought up is the awkwardness of the route as far as direction. Met will become a southern terminal, and you'll have "southbound" (V)'s running on the same track/same direction as "northbound" (J)'s. I kind of thought that would be one reason might not want to run the line, though to outsiders it would seem to be a silly reason.

Since it was (M)'s north terminal, but now it's becoming a new route's southern termina, it would make more sense as a simple extension of the , whose southern terminal is near Essex, rather than a total rerouting and reorienting of the .

 

Also, if they were to later restore some sort of service to Bay Pkwy (It would have to be to Chambers, not Essex), that would likely be . I had tossed around the idea of , but that's only if the still runs to Met.

 

Eric B, I asked that question over 25 years ago in school car. A Manhattan bound train connects with a Manhattan bound train at Broadway Junction. They both leave the station side by side heading toward Manhattan. Are they traveling s/b or n/b? The senior M/I in schoolcar at the time thought it over and compromised with me. He said that they were Manhattan bound until they reached Essex St and then the was s/b and the was n/b. If the proposal comes to pass I guess that's how they'll make the determination. IIRC the trains I mentioned were QJ and KK at that time.

[Trainmaster5]

Agreed on all of these. I also wonder why so many people are fixated on keeping the designation. How many people made a big deal when the T was eliminated in favor of the 70(B) in 1967? Were they calling for the service from Coney Island to 168th Street/Broadway to be called the T? No, and it became the 70(B). So it's really not a big deal if the letter M goes the way of the .

 

Thank you for that post. People seem to forget that the service to Chambers St was originally a rush hour only train. Now it seems that there is this emotional attachment to the bullet. Heck, there wasn't this big time outcry when THE Myrtle Ave service, the full-time MJ was eliminated and it had more riders than the truncated has. Get over it already, it's only a letter on a train. It's not like the Myrtle service is being eliminated.

[BroadwayBuffer]

There are far more pros in calling the new service the . That's what I would call it. No need to create a brand-new orange M bullet or program a 6th Avenue M line into the R160s' FIND computer system. Why do that when there's already a to Metropolitan program in the system?

 

So perhaps the would be more suitable then ... but either way, new bullets have been created in the past. During the closure of north side of the Manny B in the 1980s, the B & D were made as yellow bullets for the temporary service to the BMT South separate from the orange & which continued service from 34/6 uptown . For the south side closure, the was changed to orange (Q6) and eventually back to & . If for some reason a line were to change a route, I doubt making a new bullet would be such a big deal especially with more electronic signage than existed previously.

 

Thank you for that post. People seem to forget that the service to Chambers St was originally a rush hour only train. Now it seems that there is this emotional attachment to the bullet. Heck, there wasn't this big time outcry when THE Myrtle Ave service, the full-time MJ was eliminated and it had more riders than the truncated has. Get over it already, it's only a letter on a train. It's not like the Myrtle service is being eliminated.

 

For some reason, people (dare I say yuppies) seem to have these emotional attachments to train letters and numbers and personify them. Another poster here pointed this out before, but even in one of the news reports which mentioned the (M)/(V) combination, one of the comments said in part, "Oh my beloved M train, how I love thee. You rumble me home to Bushwick; nary a hipster in sight! ... I will mourn you M train, even as I welcome the V." :confused:

[INDman]

"Oh my beloved M train, how I love thee. You rumble me home to Bushwick; nary a hipster in sight! ... I will mourn you M train, even as I welcome the V." :confused:

 

They is what they is, and they are a waste of space.

[Queens Surface]

Well,the via the West End isn't packed at all. But When it hit 4th Ave. it gets packed and then at Dekalb Ave. It goes empty until Broad St. After that its pretty packed for the rest of the route. Same thing for the , its not fully packed until it hits Manhattan. So, this combo will work. If you need West End service, the person could go Broadway Lafayette and crossover for the . And if you need 2nd Ave., the person could get off at Essex and go down for the or go to Broadway Lafayette and wait for a both ways. So this idea will not cause a lost in service at all.

[Grand Concourse]

Thank you for that post. People seem to forget that the service to Chambers St was originally a rush hour only train. Now it seems that there is this emotional attachment to the bullet. Heck, there wasn't this big time outcry when THE Myrtle Ave service, the full-time MJ was eliminated and it had more riders than the truncated has. Get over it already, it's only a letter on a train. It's not like the Myrtle service is being eliminated.

 

Like I said, I don't really care either, but the MTA could also end the V-M debate with an orange K. Just have the new line as the K and that'll solve the debate as neither V or M bullets would be kept. Plus it would bring back the old K service [somewhat].

[CenSin]

Like I said, I don't really care either, but the MTA could also end the V-M debate with an orange K. Just have the new line as the K and that'll solve the debate as neither V or M bullets would be kept. Plus it would bring back the old K service [somewhat].

Don't tempt the foamers. :eek:

[Grand Concourse]

Lol. Would it be worse than the keep the or the foamers? B)

[Far Rock Depot]

How about a new category of foamers?

The "i dont like change" foamers? LOL