FamousNYLover Posted May 16, 2010 Share #1 Posted May 16, 2010 When I was looking for something on Forgotten-NY, I came to this article. http://www.forgotten-ny.com/SUBWAYS/retired.letters/VW.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted May 16, 2010 Share #2 Posted May 16, 2010 That's a great article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted May 16, 2010 Share #3 Posted May 16, 2010 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lance25 Posted May 16, 2010 Share #4 Posted May 16, 2010 That was an interesting article. Thanks for the find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted May 16, 2010 Share #5 Posted May 16, 2010 Very nice article indeed. My friend's R32 train photo was even used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robhue Posted May 16, 2010 Share #6 Posted May 16, 2010 Cool, I had no idea there was ever a <W> and that the (K)/(KK) originally ran via 6 AV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted May 16, 2010 Share #7 Posted May 16, 2010 Cool, I had no idea there was ever a <W> and that the (K)/(KK) originally ran via 6 AV. A the original R40/42/68/A rollsigns have the diamond <W>, but were replaced with a ...the R32 still has the <W> reading, and not . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nova RTS 9147 Posted May 16, 2010 Share #8 Posted May 16, 2010 Lovely article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted May 16, 2010 Share #9 Posted May 16, 2010 Nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest Glen Posted May 17, 2010 Share #10 Posted May 17, 2010 After 8 years the train is finally gone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted May 17, 2010 Share #11 Posted May 17, 2010 After 8 years the train is finally gone! I guess you'd rather have trains running ten minutes apart on Queens Boulevard during rush hours...oh well, whatever floats your boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted May 17, 2010 Share #12 Posted May 17, 2010 Yup, either way it doesn't change that trains still will run via 63rd. failed because the MTA refuses to send it beyond 2nd Av. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted May 17, 2010 Share #13 Posted May 17, 2010 Yup, either way it doesn't change that trains still will run via 63rd. failed because the MTA refuses to send it beyond 2nd Av. Come 2015 when the Culver project wraps up and the TA will have no choice but to reintroduce the and send it down the Culver. THEN let's hear about it being unuseful. He bickers about a line that he probably never even used...totally judgmental and hypocritical if you ask me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted May 17, 2010 Share #14 Posted May 17, 2010 He wants to cram himself on an overcrowded that's his choice. If I was a regular QB line rider, I'd take the because I know my commute won't be stressful. The rest of the day is going to be stressful, why add to it? I just leave the house earlier. As for the , well it depends on how much demand is needed at least up to Church Av. Plus the (M2) at the moment to Bay Pkwy really doesn't seem to be needed as much. I'm just going to wait for the week of the to see if this line will be of any good or not as the eastern division has been treated like 2nd class citizens for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest Glen Posted May 17, 2010 Share #15 Posted May 17, 2010 My gag order prevents me from talking about 63rd Street. Goodnight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted May 17, 2010 Share #16 Posted May 17, 2010 My gag order prevents me from talking about 63rd Street. Goodnight. smh.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted May 18, 2010 Share #17 Posted May 18, 2010 Come 2015 when the Culver project wraps up and the TA will have no choice but to reintroduce the and send it down the Culver. THEN let's hear about it being unuseful. He bickers about a line that he probably never even used...totally judgmental and hypocritical if you ask me.... There is nothing forcing the MTA to reintroduce the V for the Culver line in 2015. The F/G is sufficient for Culver service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EE Broadway Local Posted May 19, 2010 Share #18 Posted May 19, 2010 If a Culver express is reintroduced in 2015 or 2016, it might be the train, or it could even be alternating trains during weekday rush hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted May 19, 2010 Share #19 Posted May 19, 2010 There is nothing forcing the MTA to reintroduce the V for the Culver line in 2015. The F/G is sufficient for Culver service. The won't help because Park Slope residents want Manhattan and the is incapable of operating express in Brooklyn. They will need to have a third service to accompdate local and express service to Manhattan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTrain Posted May 19, 2010 Share #20 Posted May 19, 2010 I don't think the would ever be suited for Brooklyn, the and are enough. As for the , you do have that occurrence of it running along the to Kings Highway, even though the map and timetables don't mention it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted May 19, 2010 Share #21 Posted May 19, 2010 I don't think the would ever be suited for Brooklyn, the and are enough. As for the , you do have that occurrence of it running along the to Kings Highway, even though the map and timetables don't mention it. Trust me, they're gonna need a third line. Doesn't "Culver Viaduct Rehab" ring a bell??? I'll just sit back and see for myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTrain Posted May 19, 2010 Share #22 Posted May 19, 2010 Trust me, they're gonna need a third line.Doesn't "Culver Viaduct Rehab" ring a bell??? I'll just sit back and see for myself. Okay, what about the going to Kings Highway, does that sound like help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted May 19, 2010 Share #23 Posted May 19, 2010 Okay, what about the going to Kings Highway, does that sound like help? If restoring express service south of Church Avenue becomes a factor, then yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted May 19, 2010 Share #24 Posted May 19, 2010 My point is not that a third service would not be necessary for express service. My point is that there is absolutely no real demand for express service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted May 19, 2010 Share #25 Posted May 19, 2010 My point is not that a third service would not be necessary for express service. My point is that there is absolutely no real demand for express service. Um, I wouldn't be so sure about that: http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/30/25/30_25expressf.html The hopes for express service at the moment are so-so but I'll very well say that there is hope, even if it means that it goes to as far as Church Avenue instead of Kings Highway, so let's see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.