Am I the only one that likes the Orange (M)?

[duelingdragons]

The service changes make a lot of sense to me, especially for the service in Brooklyn/Queens. It seems like most people here are opposed to the ... is it just because of nostalgia?

[NX Express]

No, you're not alone. I like the new too. IDK about why the is hated so much, except for:

 

1. The Cut didn't work well forty years ago.

2. The QM24 is available (although some can't afford it)

3. On QBL, two cars less is trouble (although (V)s were almost never packed).

[MTAFan]

So do I

[INDman]

is it just because of nostalgia?

 

Some people were saying that because the (M2) served South Brooklyn for over 40 years, that it should not move. Service patterns should not be historical, they should be functional. The will better serve the customers, the was a waste from day 1 and could have been avoided by adding extra trains to several lines, and the should have been discontinued after Stillwell was finished. If you want subway service patterns to be as they were way back when, go look at an old map.

[Y2Julio]

I'm happy. No more (M2) to delay my train.

[Cait Sith]

Some people were saying that because the (M2) served South Brooklyn for over 40 years, that it should not move. Service patterns should not be historical, they should be functional. The will better serve the customers, the was a waste from day 1 and could have been avoided by adding extra trains to several lines, and the should have been discontinued after Stillwell was finished. If you want subway service patterns to be as they were way back when, go look at an old map.

 

I agree, except for the part.

 

The service changes make a lot of sense to me, especially for the service in Brooklyn/Queens. It seems like most people here are opposed to the ... is it just because of nostalgia?

 

Nope, I also support the

[EE Broadway Local]

I'm one of those who think the new orange will work:

 

* Trains will be eight cars (Trains on the (KK)/70(K) started as six cars)

* Service is offered middays and evenings as well as rush hours (Service on the (KK)/70(K) was rush hours only)

* With service to Forest Hills-71st Avenue, there are connections also to the and (The last connection on the (KK)/70(K) was to the 70(7) at 42d Street)

*Unlike 57th Street (when the (KK)/70(K) ran 1968-1976), 71st Avenue is not a "dead end" terminal

*Ridgewood, Bushwick and Williamsburgh have changed since the late 1960's/early 1970's.

 

Slightly Off Topic: I also think the ( is perfect as the Brighton express.

[blkfire765]

I'm thrilled about this new change. finally their is change on the Qns Blvd line:). Although i am wondering why they chose to do terminate the in QNS both terminals. they should make the go to bronx to serve uptown too, and reroute the ( to forest hills... just a suggestion... i would love to see a R68 on the Queens Blvd line lol.... ima fan of the to Forest hills too...

[INDman]

I agree, except for the part.

 

 

If more trains had been put on the , I don't think there would have been much of a need for the . There would have been even less of a need of the went to Astoria instead of ending at 57/7.

[Cait Sith]

If more trains had been put on the , I don't think there would have been much of a need for the . There would have been even less of a need of the went to Astoria instead of ending at 57/7.

 

That is true. Though from the way I see it, with trains switching in and out of tracks to get to the local stops in Manhattan, it could cause delays, hence the . The switch junctions between Canal & 8th Street has been notorious for switch malfunctions over the weekends.

[MTR Admiralty]

I don't see any major flaws. Quite honestly, how much does 2nd Avenue contribute to the ? As for the South Brooklyn service, they are planning to address the issue by adding more and service. I would say, bring back the as a rush hours line (in fact, it was originally intended that the would be kept as a rush hours only line) and run it to Bay Parkway.

 

Of course, there are people that want the to be extended to Church or Kings Hwy on the Culver Line. But this can be done only after the project. If there is strong support for it and it gets into the ears of city councilmen, it can be realised. Until then, what will be reality will be reality.

 

But again, we have to really wait for a duration of time to accurately judge the .

[NX Express]

I'm thrilled about this new change. finally their is change on the Qns Blvd line:). Although i am wondering why they chose to do terminate the in QNS both terminals. they should make the go to bronx to serve uptown too, and reroute the ( to forest hills... just a suggestion... i would love to see a R68 on the Queens Blvd line lol.... ima fan of the to Forest hills too...

 

That would cause delays due to switching.

[Nova RTS 9147]

Some people were saying that because the (M2) served South Brooklyn for over 40 years, that it should not move. Service patterns should not be historical, they should be functional. The will better serve the customers, the was a waste from day 1 and could have been avoided by adding extra trains to several lines, and the should have been discontinued after Stillwell was finished. If you want subway service patterns to be as they were way back when, go look at an old map.

 

How could the be a waste from day one (which btw is just plain wrong since it has eased overcrowding on the and ) while the (which is essentially half ) is better?

 

And I support the new .

[INDman]

How could the be a waste from day one (which btw is just plain wrong since it has eased overcrowding on the and ) while the (which is essentially half ) is better?

 

And I support the new .

 

If the train sets that were sent to the used on the or , it would have done the same thing.

[Nova RTS 9147]

If the train sets that were sent to the used on the or , it would have done the same thing.

 

Then what about 63rd street? And would it have been any better if it was the instead of the ?

[2Line1291]

The was basically a replacement of the via 53rd St while the was running on 63rd St plus serving Queens local stations so actually it wasn't a waste but could have been used better if it went to Middle Village or went down Culver (if it was renovated eariler in time).

[RokuSix]

I don't like change. Never did, never will. But I support the . I have many friends who live along the line, that will now find their commutes to Midtown considerably easier.

[2Line1291]

That's the upside about the ..... It provides Jamaica/Myrtle a one seat ride or a transfer to Midtown and its gonna most likely take pressure off the and lines.

[R32 3838]

I don't mind it but Running it on 53rd and Queens Blvd is going to be a disater, That's the Only Flaw, If it ran down 63rd then That would be better, 8 car trains are not good for 53rd st line, Trust me on that, I rode the , and down there, Trust me the does pick up the slack when (E)/(F)'s are messed up, The wouldn't help any bit, And when the railroad screws up, That's also going to be a problem, Im Half and Half on this one,

 

I just HATE It when People complain about how they are getting screwed by this, I don't see it screwing nobody, The only people that are screwed are the south Borooklyn Residents but They don't complain, Having Less service is Better than Having None, Some people don't understand that.

 

And PS For The Ones That Clams that this would F(&*k them over, And Trust Me on this one, Do yourself a favor Live in Northeastern Queens or On Little Neck Parkway and say that your getting screwed over and trust Me if Your from Manhattan, Expect to get you ass kicked because They are one of the neighborhoods that are being FU&*ked over BIG TIME, Loosing the Q79 and the Q76 on weekends by these cuts as well as South Brooklyn and Some Parts Of Long Island That Can't afford to ride the LIRR everyday.

[YankeesPwnMets]

I love the , mostly because there is no to delay my at 2 Av

[Eric B]

I've been waiting for about 18 years for something like this!

Already l;ookign forward to the holidays; havign a one seat ride from Rock Ctr, Macy's, 42nd St. etc.

And working it as well, I think it will be easier with two trips to CTL, instead of three to Chambers and one to Bay Pkwy. (Just alone not having to explain to people trying to get to "Bklyn" (south) middays, or those going the other way misled by the signs).

 

I just still wish they could be able to somehow squeeze the to Church in when that's ready. And if they ever decide to run a service from Chambers to the south (this time it would be a rush hour "banker special" again), that would have made more sense as (M2). Now, they would have to use an all new letter.

[MTR Admiralty]

I don't mind it but Running it on 53rd and Queens Blvd is going to be a disater, That's the Only Flaw, If it ran down 63rd then That would be better, 8 car trains are not good for 53rd st line, Trust me on that, I rode the , and down there, Trust me the does pick up the slack when (E)/(F)'s are messed up, The wouldn't help any bit, And when the railroad screws up, That's also going to be a problem, Im Half and Half on this one,

 

I just HATE It when People complain about how they are getting screwed by this, I don't see it screwing nobody, The only people that are screwed are the south Borooklyn Residents but They don't complain, Having Less service is Better than Having None, Some people don't understand that.

 

And PS For The Ones That Clams that this would F(&*k them over, And Trust Me on this one, Do yourself a favor Live in Northeastern Queens or On Little Neck Parkway and say that your getting screwed over and trust Me if Your from Manhattan, Expect to get you ass kicked because They are one of the neighborhoods that are being FU&*ked over BIG TIME, Loosing the Q79 and the Q76 on weekends by these cuts as well as South Brooklyn and Some Parts Of Long Island That Can't afford to ride the LIRR everyday.

IAWTP. The "some is better than none" maxim is indeed right. Communities should be happy that they even have subway service in general.

[Sam]

No, you're not alone. I like the new too. IDK about why the is hated so much, except for:

 

1. The Cut didn't work well forty years ago.

2. The QM24 is available (although some can't afford it)

3. On QBL, two cars less is trouble (although (V)s were almost never packed).

 

Actually, the Chrystie Cut was fine; the K was discontinued because of the budget cuts. It wasn't crush loaded but it was SRO peak direction for the most part. The F was preferred because of the car assignments. The F had brand-new R44s and R46s with air-conditioning. The K had R9s which were worn out and about to be scrapped. On hot days, we would skip the K for new cars on the F. The R44s and R46s original undercarriages were unbelievably quiet and smooth. You couldn't even feel the train move at low speeds. The R9s were derailing with uncanny regularity.

 

The V never needed 10 car lengths. In fact, I never quite understood why the B, N, Q, and R were extended from 8 to 10; they were never crush loaded with 8 cars back in the day.

 

Honestly, I am thrilled at the new even though South Brooklyn becomes an inconvenience from Nassau Street.

[Queens Surface]

I do not have a issue with the but the only issue would be with Lex-53rd,5th/53rd and 23rd Ely stations from what i have seen with 10-car trains people run for the train. Just imagine with 8-cars, now running the via 63rd would not work because people would still be running for the train and the amount of ridership is very high and is growing. Other than that, the is only 75% packed, if you look at every car, so 8-car trains would do fine with ridership. The second issue is, what if service messes up? , trains would be super-packed on the QBL and lead to crowding issues...so i am 50/50 on the .

[Grand Concourse]

Actually, the Chrystie Cut was fine; the K was discontinued because of the budget cuts. It wasn't crush loaded but it was SRO peak direction for the most part. The F was preferred because of the car assignments. The F had brand-new R44s and R46s with air-conditioning. The K had R9s which were worn out and about to be scrapped. On hot days, we would skip the K for new cars on the F. The R44s and R46s original undercarriages were unbelievably quiet and smooth. You couldn't even feel the train move at low speeds. The R9s were derailing with uncanny regularity.

 

The V never needed 10 car lengths. In fact, I never quite understood why the B, N, Q, and R were extended from 8 to 10; they were never crush loaded with 8 cars back in the day.

 

Honestly, I am thrilled at the new even though South Brooklyn becomes an inconvenience from Nassau Street.

 

Wait, what do you mean those 4 don't need to be 10-car or 600' trains? These days those lines can be pretty packed and all cars are needed. Also everything is 600' [except the C and the eastern divison] for flexibility.

 

I do not have a issue with the but the only issue would be with Lex-53rd,5th/53rd and 23rd Ely stations from what i have seen with 10-car trains people run for the train. Just imagine with 8-cars, now running the via 63rd would not work because people would still be running for the train and the amount of ridership is very high and is growing. Other than that, the is only 75% packed, if you look at every car, so 8-car trains would do fine with ridership. The second issue is, what if service messes up? , trains would be super-packed on the QBL and lead to crowding issues...so i am 50/50 on the .

 

For years the ran with the using 6-car R46 trains or 8-car R32s. So short trains is not going to be an issue on QB. That plus even if the has problems, has the ever been packed? If it wasn't an issue then, it won't be now.