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

[Pressed Steel]

It would be a lot easier to notify the thousands of passengers along the line of the line name change and reroute than it would to notify the 1+ million people who use the Queens Blvd corridor of the line name change. Queens Blvd and Lexington Ave are the system's two busiest corridors, the Nassau St Line has the lightest usage of any non-shuttle corridor.

 

IF this were to be implemented, I am for the designation of the route to be .

 

As far as the station signs go, that's why they have stickers. They'll just cover over the current signs, including blacking out the signs in South Brooklyn.

 

IMHO, I like the over the , but how about using the in Orange, instead? The trains that used to use the Chrystie St Connection were the and it is the next letter from .

[SubwayGuy]

IMHO, I like the over the , but how about using the in Orange, instead? The trains that used to use the Chrystie St Connection were the and it is the next letter from .

 

There is no in orange on any signage. Remember this is being done to cut costs and improve service for as many as possible while still cutting costs. Any way of doing this that results in added expense, even one such as including new rollsign readings on trains, will not be considered.

[Grand Concourse]

The (M)/(V) combo would be mostly R160's with 3 R32 Trainsets or more,

 

The reason why Im saying this is because you are going to need 3+ trains, The is going to be a heavy ridership line when this happens, I support it because atleast this would be something different, The uses 19 Trainsets The New would use The (M)'s equipment.

 

Also I think they should extend the down 4th ave to help the and replace the to ether to 9th ave or Bay Parkway, or just Have the run via lower Manhattan like the 90's, I know that would bring back Hell on Broadway but the can't do it alone.

 

That would make the J too long. And this is the point of the new V, they are going to cut the M to Brooklyn either way.

Now since the W is going to go away, Whitehall should be freed up. SO if there really is a need for Brooklyn-LM service, they could run a 'shuttle R' and turn the trains back at Whitehall.

[Zman]

IMHO, I like the over the , but how about using the in Orange, instead? The trains that used to use the Chrystie St Connection were the and it is the next letter from .

 

It will be the

 

That is the final answer

 

(in a bad Russian accent): AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!!!

 

And to the rest of you:

 

There will be no extended (J)'s, no non-rush service and no replacement service of any kind on 4th Avenue. These are service CUTS, remember??? CUTS!!!!!

[SubwayGuy]

It will be the

 

That is the final answer

 

(in a bad Russian accent): AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!!!

 

And to the rest of you:

 

There will be no extended (J)'s, no non-rush service and no replacement service of any kind on 4th Avenue. These are service CUTS, remember??? CUTS!!!!!

 

Een Soveeyet Rosha, forks you!

[LRG]

All this foaming over what color bullets the route should have is making me laugh.

[fishmech]

Get some brown paint and paint over the the vertical bars in the so you get a brown

[SubwayGuy]

Get some brown paint and paint over the the vertical bars in the so you get a brown

 

Brown paint costs money, so that is not going to happen.

[fishmech]

Brown paint costs money, so that is not going to happen.

 

It's a joke!

[SubwayGuy]

It's a joke!

 

and I was being sarcastic in response :cool:

[BroadwayBuffer]

That would make the J too long. And this is the point of the new V, they are going to cut the M to Brooklyn either way.

Now since the W is going to go away, Whitehall should be freed up. SO if there really is a need for Brooklyn-LM service, they could run a 'shuttle R' and turn the trains back at Whitehall.

 

It would be long, but it has been done before with the short lived RJ 168 to 95 St. There really isn't a need for a 'shuttle <R>', especially if it were only going to Whitehall, only one Lower Manh stop. The benefit with the was that it offered service to a different line. As it's already been noted that the purpose of these changes is to cut costs, so it wouldn't expect any additional trains.

[Trainmaster5]

All this foaming over what color bullets the route should have is making me laugh.

 

Exactly, people with too much time on their hands. As for eliminating the , so what? They'll just run the same amount of trains, along the same route, and call it the . That's what they did with the (1)/ yet some foamers are still crying about that. No matter what the bullet on the head-end says, if the same amount of service is provided who gives a damn?

[Zman]

As for eliminating the , so what?

 

The has been saved from the cuts.

[LRG]

Exactly, people with too much time on their hands. As for eliminating the , so what? They'll just run the same amount of trains, along the same route, and call it the . That's what they did with the (1)/ yet some foamers are still crying about that. No matter what the bullet on the head-end says, if the same amount of service is provided who gives a damn?

 

You said it, except the train is saved.

[Forest Glen]

Exactly, people with too much time on their hands. As for eliminating the , so what? They'll just run the same amount of trains, along the same route, and call it the . That's what they did with the (1)/ yet some foamers are still crying about that. No matter what the bullet on the head-end says, if the same amount of service is provided who gives a damn?

 

The makes about 200 stops from Queens to Manhattan. The is a MUCH faster alternative. The is NOT the .

[CenSin]

The makes about 200 stops from Queens to Manhattan. The is a MUCH faster alternative. The is NOT the .

You forget that the makes the same number of stops the makes whenever the is in service.

[RTOMan]

You forget that the makes the same number of stops the makes whenever the is in service.

 

Coming from a T/O who works both letters( ) three times a week you are very right, beat me too it...

[Forest Glen]

You forget that the makes the same number of stops the makes whenever the is in service.

 

When the is skip stop, it makes less stops. It saves close to 10 minutes. That's a lot better than making every monotonous stop.

[RTOMan]

When the is skip stop, it makes less stops. It saves close to 10 minutes. That's a lot better than making every monotonous stop.

 

You arent listening the and make the same amount of stops when they are doing the skip stop operation...

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Also I think they should extend the down 4th ave to help the and replace the to ether to 9th ave or Bay Parkway, or just Have the run via lower Manhattan like the 90's, I know that would bring back Hell on Broadway but the can't do it alone.

The should not revert to its 90s service pattern of running local via the Montague Tunnel 24/7. The only reason it did in the 90s is because the south side Manhattan Bridge tracks were closed for nearly the entire decade and there was no other way to get the train to Astoria. But now with all four bridge tracks open, you can run trains that way and it's faster via the bridge. By putting the back in the tunnel, all you do is duplicate service. If a train breaks down or a signal goes dark on the Broadway local tracks, you still have no service through the tunnel, whether it's one or two Broadway lines going through there.

 

While two services through the tunnel are desirable, it's much better for one of them to go via Broadway and the other to go via Nassau Street, so there is a choice of where to go in Lower Manhattan (like we have now with the and the ). But the needs to make a cut somewhere and the rush-hour Bay Parkway service isn't one that's bursting at the seems. For that matter, the through Lower Manhattan isn't exactly bursting at the seems, so there really isn't a need to run the through the tunnel to help the .

[T to Dyre Avenue]

You arent listening the and make the same amount of stops when they are doing the skip stop operation...

I think we can all agree that it makes sense for the to retain (J)/(Z) skip-stop operation as they're planning to do in the current proposed service cuts package.

[RTOMan]

I think we can all agree that it makes sense for the to retain (J)/(Z) skip-stop operation as they're planning to do in the current proposed service cuts package.

 

If they are making the (V)ictor go to Met it does make sense..

[Trainmaster5]

You arent listening the and make the same amount of stops when they are doing the skip stop operation...

 

Thanks, that was the point I was trying to bring out. Whether the bullet says or , or or or , if the same # of trains are stopping at your station who cares?

[Grand Concourse]

You arent listening the and make the same amount of stops when they are doing the skip stop operation...

 

He tends to over exhagerate. Skip stops saves what? 5-10min at most? People should also get over this 'fear' of the locals. It would probably be just a few minutes longer than the express, but at least you have more space on the train. If I lived along the J and was heading for Lower Manhattan, I'm not going back towards Sutphin to get the E or go to Broadway Junction for the A.

[SubwayGuy]

Thanks, that was the point I was trying to bring out. Whether the bullet says or , or or or , if the same # of trains are stopping at your station who cares?

 

If only the sign foamers thought this logically...

 

...but then they wouldn't be sign foamers