The Orange M... One month later

[Ridgewoodian]

It's not a "Bushwick" train anymore, xD.

 

I'm being sentimental here but that means Queens and Midtown has claimed something of Bushwick/Ridgewood.

 

How so? It still runs through Ridgewood and Bushwick. Only now it brings Ridge-Wick realness to those poor blighters in Midtown, Jackson Heights, Forest Hills, etc.

[Cait Sith]

Wirelessly posted via (Mozilla/5.0 (Danger hiptop 4.6; U; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050920)

 

 

That's exactly how I feel...and I know who that person is

 

Yup, just stick the baby bottle or pacifier in his mouth......

 

To be honest, I'm indifferent with the Line. My ONLY issue with it is they changed it for sentimental reasons rather than rational reasons. From a rational POV, I would have kept it as . Less of a hassle as a bunch of NTTs had to be reprogrammed and a few select stations would require sign changing.

 

All in all, I'm willing to give the a chance. I do remain hopeful that the will return and go to Brooklyn...and maybe the and can co-exist along Sixth Avenue.

 

It would be the same amount of trouble just to reprogram the as they did with the , not less, not more, just the same.

 

Ha! That's not what I remember from a few months ago! But no matter.

 

I'm reminded of an ancient question that has no good answer: As Odysseus (or was it Aneas? or Jason?) sailed the seas he had, often, to repair his ship. In the course of years, one by one, he replaced each plank, each nail, each piece of equipment, so that, when he finally returned home, his ship contained not one bit of the ship he had first set sail in. The question is, was it still the same ship? Or was it some other ship? If it was the same ship how do you account for the fact that it was, in fact, a completely different ship? But if it was a completely different ship when did it become so? The moment the first nail or plank was replaced? Or some time after? At one point does one ship become another? How much can a thing change and still be the same?

 

Is the subway service that runs between Metropolitan Ave and Forest Hills "really" an extended or is it a rerouted (Mx)? What is (V)ness? What is (Mx)ness? It's a deep, deep question for philosophers and theologians.

 

Of course even sophists know the sucked, so maybe that's why they kept the .

 

Either that, or they didnt want to eliminate a letter that has been in the system for years and years, compared to the which was in theory, compared to the (M)/(Mx), a short amount of time.

[iGeMiNix]

It would be the same amount of trouble just to reprogram the as they did with the , not less, not more, just the same.

 

Yep, they still need to remove the (Mx) and in the program of the was kept anyways.

[LRG]

It would be the same amount of trouble just to reprogram the as they did with the , not less, not more, just the same.

 

What about platform signs? Between Broadway -xLafayette Street in the uptown direction, the signs would need not be changed. Entrance signs along Sixth Avenue and 53rd Street wouldn't need to be changed either (Queens Boulevard signs, both platform and entrance, are a different story since the was being pulled). The opposite direction, I understand because the would no longer go to Second Avenue, so inbound signs would need to be changed.

 

I still stick to my opinion: would be a more rational choice than the due to the fact that it was a permanent service since 2001 where the (Q6) and Orange were G.O. trains.

[Grand Concourse]

Is the M still BMT, or is it now considered IND?

 

BMT still. If it was the , I think it might be BMT since the trains are based from ENY.

The line is a bit murky, but just know that the divisions ends at that connector b/w B'way and Essex.

[Cait Sith]

What about platform signs? Between Broadway -xLafayette Street in the uptown direction, the signs would need not be changed. Entrance signs along Sixth Avenue and 53rd Street wouldn't need to be changed either (Queens Boulevard signs, both platform and entrance, are a different story since the was being pulled). The opposite direction, I understand because the would no longer go to Second Avenue, so inbound signs would need to be changed.

 

I still stick to my opinion: would be a more rational choice than the due to the fact that it was a permanent service since 2001 where the (Q6) and Orange were G.O. trains.

 

Signs on the downtown platforms & mezzanines (staircases and such) would still have to be changed, uptown signs would obviously still be unaffected, and then you'd still have to change the signs along the EL, its pretty much the same thing.

[jacsnyy]

It seems to be a nice route, but I really think 4th Avenue Local is missing the brown M. Extend the Z!

[Grand Concourse]

Not enough 8-car R160s to go around. Also if anything, what's wrong with special rush hour trains that runs from just 95th to Whitehall? That station can turn back trains to Brooklyn since it isn't being used to turn back trains from Queens.

[Grand Concourse]

Signs on the downtown platforms & mezzanines (staircases and such) would still have to be changed, uptown signs would obviously still be unaffected, and then you'd still have to change the signs along the EL, its pretty much the same thing.

 

The stations did outnumber the (Mx), so sure the stickers/signs may not be the biggest expense. But the R160s did have the to Metropolitan program, that's where the biggest hassle was to reprogram them to display a then non-existant route.

This was all because some people thought that if they kept the letter then things would be fine when the would've done the same thing. The (Mx) was still no longer going to Lower Manhattan.

[LRG]

Remember, the was a route that anything could have been done with...notice on the R32/38 rollsigns, it never said Queens Blvd/6 Av, it just said via Sixth Avenue. Case in point, it was retarded to drop a designation so it could appease to a crowd that was outnumbered by the dozens upon dozens of riders along Sixth Avenue and Queens Boulevard. Sentimentalism my foot, sorry to say.

[Cait Sith]

The stations did outnumber the (Mx), so sure the stickers/signs may not be the biggest expense. But the R160s did have the to Metropolitan program, that's where the biggest hassle was to reprogram them to display a then non-existant route.

This was all because some people thought that if they kept the letter then things would be fine when the would've done the same thing. The (Mx) was still no longer going to Lower Manhattan.

 

They did have that program, except it would still have to be reprogrammed nonetheless so it would not say "via the (Mx) line" which was in the announcements, it would still be a hassle nonetheless.

[Grand Concourse]

Ok, point noted.

=

Remember, the was a route that anything could have been done with...notice on the R32/38 rollsigns, it never said Queens Blvd/6 Av, it just said via Sixth Avenue. Case in point, it was retarded to drop a designation so it could appease to a crowd that was outnumbered by the dozens upon dozens of riders along Sixth Avenue and Queens Boulevard. Sentimentalism my foot, sorry to say.

 

Shows how easily hoodwinked some people are. Just because the letter is kept, doesn't mean they still had their one seat to LM service again. The would've done the same thing the does. That is what I don't understand about those riders.

 

Of course now it's all moot, but point is, an extended would've been 'less' of a hassle.

[Eric B]

BMT still. If it was the , I think it might be BMT since the trains are based from ENY.

The line is a bit murky, but just know that the divisions ends at that connector b/w B'way and Essex.

In the new reorganizations of the sections, it's BMT, as the original division between A-H (IND) and J-R (BMT) is being restored.

 

Remember, the was a route that anything could have been done with...notice on the R32/38 rollsigns, it never said Queens Blvd/6 Av, it just said via Sixth Avenue.

And on the R44/46 programs, it could go to any northern or southern terminal accessible to 6th Ave. (except Euclid and the Rockaways, but including the BMT south).

was the same for Broadway, and T for West End.

[TwoTimer]

Ok, point noted.

=

 

 

Shows how easily hoodwinked some people are. Just because the letter is kept, doesn't mean they still had their one seat to LM service again. The would've done the same thing the does. That is what I don't understand about those riders.

 

Instead, they have their one seater to midtown. Also, the didnt have anywhere it went by itself, whereas the (Mx) did.

[Grand Concourse]

I'm not against the combo line, I do hope it does help the .

The would still be based from ENY, but basically it is an extension to Metropolitan since it is nearly 2/3 of the full line. Why changing the to the seemed to make the cut of the (Mx) bareable to those riders is what I don't understand.

[Blatherskite]

By the power invested in Park Slope, it shall happen

 

You guys need to get girlfriends.

[Ridgewoodian]

I'm not against the combo line, I do hope it does help the .

The would still be based from ENY, but basically it is an extension to Metropolitan since it is nearly 2/3 of the full line. Why changing the to the seemed to make the cut of the (Mx) bareable to those riders is what I don't understand.

 

It's not a matter of it being "bareable" [sic]; for most riders this is a service IMPROVEMENT. (The trains already seem a bit more crowded at rush hour, although I have changed where in the train I ride.) I think most of us would have been perfectly content to have a . Why did they keep the ? I think it really came down to a six of one, half a dozen of the other situation. There were arguments on both sides - the majority of the stops on the new line would be stops. But the only stations served solely by the line would be (Mx) stations. There might be slightly fewer signs to change if the were kept. But the new trains were going to run like (Mx)s, with only eight cars. And on and on and on. They easily could have flipped a coin. But I bet the deciding factor was that the (Mx) had been around forever and was held in affection by a lot of people whereas everyone hates the . 'Nuff said.

[m7zanr160s]

It's not bad on the since I am a casual rider on that line, over at Lex-53rd, it's more organized compared to 5th & 53rd. THAT station is the real problem station in my view, Lex-53rd aint shit since there are workers in that station to aid the crowds.

 

Does the stop in the middle of 5th Ave./53rd St., causing people at both ends to run for it?

[Cait Sith]

Does the stop in the middle of 5th Ave./53rd St., causing people at both ends to run for it?

 

On the upper level, the stops infront of the steps on the front end of the platform, but in the rear, there's a ton of space left leaving passengers to sprint for the train.

[m7zanr160s]

On the upper level, the stops infront of the steps on the front end of the platform, but in the rear, there's a ton of space left leaving passengers to sprint for the train.

 

Ooh. I don't agree with that. They should have it stop in the middle. I see a lot traffic coming from the rear staircase on the weekdays.

[LRG]

But I bet the deciding factor was that the (Mx) had been around forever and was held in affection by a lot of people whereas everyone hates the .

 

Lol.

[NX Express]

BMT still. If it was the , I think it might be BMT since the trains are based from ENY.

The line is a bit murky, but just know that the divisions ends at that connector b/w B'way and Essex.

 

IMO, it's IND. The (, for example, runs via the BMT Brighton, is based out of BMT Coney Island Yard, but is still IND because it runs via the IND 6 Av Line. Same thing with the .

EDIT: I read Eric B's explanation. Never mind.

[LRG]

IMO, it's IND. The (, for example, runs via the BMT Brighton, is based out of BMT Coney Island Yard, but is still IND because it runs via the IND 6 Av Line. Same thing with the .

 

Yep, it's based on the trunk line. is IND because it's trunk line is IND.

[Grand Concourse]

Well ok, [about the being an IND route]. But agreed with what Eric said.

 

It's not a matter of it being "bareable" [sic]; for most riders this is a service IMPROVEMENT. (The trains already seem a bit more crowded at rush hour, although I have changed where in the train I ride.) I think most of us would have been perfectly content to have a . Why did they keep the ? I think it really came down to a six of one, half a dozen of the other situation. There were arguments on both sides - the majority of the stops on the new line would be stops. But the only stations served solely by the line would be (Mx) stations. There might be slightly fewer signs to change if the were kept. But the new trains were going to run like (Mx)s, with only eight cars. And on and on and on. They easily could have flipped a coin. But I bet the deciding factor was that the (Mx) had been around forever and was held in affection by a lot of people whereas everyone hates the . 'Nuff said.

 

Which shows that it was an uproar over a letter. The would've done the same thing [increased service and give riders a direct to Midtown service]. This is the point I still don't get. If riders were 'ok' with the , then what was the big deal when it would have been the ?

[LRG]

Which shows that it was an uproar over a letter. The would've done the same thing [increased service and give riders a direct to Midtown service]. This is the point I still don't get. If riders were 'ok' with the , then what was the big deal when it would have been the ?

 

THANK YOU. The fact there was so much upheaval over the letter is absurd. was already programmed in the 160s to Metropolitan Avenue. was recognized as a Sixth Avenue Line, so what was the deal if it went along Broadway Brooklyn and Myrtle? (Mx)/(V) people have been around for years, and all this time, I NEVER heard of creating a new designation to appease to riders of the minority.

 

JFTR, the 'M' was around since 1960, so what? Big effing deal that it the 'M' would have been killed off. And one more tidbit, the 'V' has been around LONGER than the M; the former has been around longer than the latter, since the R12s came around? Roman numerals anyone? () There was never a 1000 train, yet there was ALWAYS a train.

 

So much for history....