Jump to content

My new subway fantasy map (using existing trackage)


harpomarx42

Recommended Posts

 

Yes the (V) designation was supposed to be kept. I find the recoloring on the (Mx) stupid as the number of stations that had (V) outnumbered the number of station that had (Mx). While what's done is done it would have made more sense just to leave the (V) designations instead of reprogramming a whole bunch of NTTs just for a letter. For goodness sakes it's only a letter.
It just goes to show you that a lot of money was severely wasted for that reason, and the (MTA) pleased the (M) residents with a ridiculous change.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


It just goes to show you that a lot of money was severely wasted for that reason, and the (MTA) pleased the (M) residents with a ridiculous change.

 

That money that was used to appease (M) riders could have been used to save a station agent's job for goodness sakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine if they removed the (A) train. There would be a riot! Billy Strayhorn's masterpiece "Take the A Train" would have no meaning anymore.
That's just what they were planning to do int he last round of the bi-decade cycle of deficit, where they wanted to replace the (A) with an extended (Q6Av), and the (A) would have become the local to 168th, replacing the (C).

so it would have still run, but it wouldn't be the express like in the song.

The next step was to redesignate that new route into an orange A to Brighton Beach (basically like they did with the M/V combo), which appeared on both the R110B rollsigns, as well as the R44/46 programs.

But by that time, they dropped the cuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine if they removed the (A) train. There would be a riot! Billy Strayhorn's masterpiece "Take the A Train" would have no meaning anymore.

 

Then again, I don't see any reason for the letter (A) to go away. They'll find a way to keep the (A) in one form or another. I guess this is the perk of being early on the alphabet. The lower letters: T,U,V,W are just after thoughts and more expendable.

To this day I still haven't rode the (M) [much less seen it in person] and still have no plans on doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again, I don't see any reason for the letter (A) to go away. They'll find a way to keep the (A) in one form or another. I guess this is the perk of being early on the alphabet. The lower letters: T,U,V,W are just after thoughts and more expendable.

To this day I still haven't rode the (M) [much less seen it in person] and still have no plans on doing so.

 

You wanna hear something crazy??? In the early 90s the MTA was in yet another fiscal crisis and wanted to cut service (no surprise). Here's the breakdown, with something rather interesting:

 

(3): No Brooklyn service on weekends; (4) would go to New Lots during nights and weekends (I don't know if the (4) were to go local between Franklin and New Lots or completely local in Brooklyn on weekends, however).

(A): COMPLETELY local

(:o: Operates between Queensbridge and Coney Island at all times

(C): Eliminated

(F): Less express service between Jay Street and Church Avenue

(G): Cut back to Bergen Street

(H): Service would operate express between 34th Street to Lefferts/Far Rock

(Q6Av)*: Operates express to Washington Heights - 168th Street (this move would have probably bottlenecked the (A) crossing over at 168th to go local, but typical MTA, they never make sense B))

 

Source: http://groups.google.com/group/nyc.transit/msg/2d64270d8cfa37d2?pli=1

 

*In the 80s when that asbestos flood occurred marring 8th Avenue service (Q6Av) trains went to 207th Street as a temporary move. However, riders didn't like the fact that their so-called beloved (A) train was being replaced by the (Q6Av), even as a temporary measure. That's why the R110B is the only car type to have the Orange A. Even if that were to become permanent, riders still wouldn't have been satisfied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice find, LRG. :tup:

 

(3): No Brooklyn service on weekends; (4) would go to New Lots during nights and weekends (I don't know if the (4) were to go local between Franklin and New Lots or completely local in Brooklyn on weekends, however).
The New Lots line has (and I'm sure it never had) no express tracks, so the (4) would serve local there. Same for between Franklin Av and Crown Heights since there are two local stops. (What difference does it make?) West of Franklin Avenue, the (4) would operate express while the (2) would serve the local stations.

 

(A): COMPLETELY local

(C): Eliminated

(H): Service would operate express between 34th Street to Lefferts/Far Rock

(Q6Av)*: Operates express to Washington Heights - 168th Street (this move would have probably bottlenecked the (A) crossing over at 168th to go local, but typical MTA, they never make sense B))

Then the (A)'s northern terminal should've been 168th Street, while the (Q6Av) should've continued to Inwood to avoid congestion, but likewise, 8th Avenue residents would've protested because of a letter. But if the (H) was to go to Far Rockaway and Lefferts, then the (A) would've gone only to Rockaway Park?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then the (A)'s northern terminal should've been 168th Street, while the (Q6Av) should've continued to Inwood to avoid congestion, but likewise, 8th Avenue residents would've protested because of a letter. But if the (H) was to go to Far Rockaway and Lefferts, then the (A) would've gone only to Rockaway Park?

 

Not sure, the reason I brought that info up though was because of an Orange (A) bullet that was pasted on the R110Bs signs in the event that a Sixth Avenue service was to be instated due to the service cuts that were proposed but not implemented (the only subway service cuts I even know of that took place prior to the 2010 cuts were the cutback of the (Mx) to Manhattan during midday hours as well as overnight 42nd Street (S)huttle service and that's it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wanna hear something crazy??? In the early 90s the MTA was in yet another fiscal crisis and wanted to cut service (no surprise). Here's the breakdown, with something rather interesting:

 

(3): No Brooklyn service on weekends; (4) would go to New Lots during nights and weekends (I don't know if the (4) were to go local between Franklin and New Lots or completely local in Brooklyn on weekends, however).

(A): COMPLETELY local

(:): Operates between Queensbridge and Coney Island at all times

(C): Eliminated

(F): Less express service between Jay Street and Church Avenue

(G): Cut back to Bergen Street

(H): Service would operate express between 34th Street to Lefferts/Far Rock

(Q6Av)*: Operates express to Washington Heights - 168th Street (this move would have probably bottlenecked the (A) crossing over at 168th to go local, but typical MTA, they never make sense :P)

 

Source: http://groups.google.com/group/nyc.transit/msg/2d64270d8cfa37d2?pli=1

 

*In the 80s when that asbestos flood occurred marring 8th Avenue service (Q6Av) trains went to 207th Street as a temporary move. However, riders didn't like the fact that their so-called beloved (A) train was being replaced by the (Q6Av), even as a temporary measure. That's why the R110B is the only car type to have the Orange A. Even if that were to become permanent, riders still wouldn't have been satisfied.

Interesting stuff. That would've been a terrible and very long (A) ride. If they were to can the (C), they would've had to cut the (A) at Lefferts or the Rockaway segment would've been too long. imo. The (H) idea seems interesting, but obviously not a solution.

(3) wouldn't be surprised about that. Still won't be if this happens now.

 

(Q6Av) makes no sense at all. I guess they wanted the (B) - the 'full time line' go to 21st-QB while the part time (Q6Av) to upper manhattan? Still strange though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always wondered why they had that orange (A). I'm presuming the (V) designation has been around for a while but was only implemented between 2001-2010.

 

The (G) to Bergen Street? Would they have just reactivated the lower level and added a crossover?

 

I think I know what to do for my next map then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest lance25
The (G) to Bergen Street? Would they have just reactivated the lower level and added a crossover?

 

I don't think so. I think the (MTA) would've advised passengers wanting the (F) to transfer at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts for the (A) to Jay St-Borough Hall. Of course, that is purely speculative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff. That would've been a terrible and very long (A) ride. If they were to can the (C), they would've had to cut the (A) at Lefferts or the Rockaway segment would've been too long. imo. The (H) idea seems interesting, but obviously not a solution.

(3) wouldn't be surprised about that. Still won't be if this happens now.

 

(Q6Av) makes no sense at all. I guess they wanted the (B) - the 'full time line' go to 21st-QB while the part time (Q6Av) to upper manhattan? Still strange though.

 

The (A)'s route would have been like the ©'s route at one time when it went from Bedford Park Boulevard all the way out to Rockaway Park in Queens. That's a hell of a trip for the crew. But the (A) being the only Central Park Local had bad idea written all over it. Heck to this day I still think the (:P should run on weekends to help the (C) out but yeah I know right now it can't.

 

I always wondered why they had that orange (A). I'm presuming the (V) designation has been around for a while but was only implemented between 2001-2010.

 

The (V) has been on the signs since 1988 when the R30-R42s came back from overhaul, and later on the R44 and R46. The (V)'s original routing was supposed to have been between Queensbridge and Canarsie, but could have also went to any other northern terminal used by the CPW lines (168th, Bedford Park, even 205th Street).

 

The (G) to Bergen Street? Would they have just reactivated the lower level and added a crossover?

 

They couldn't use the lower level because when the upper level was renovated, it damaged the lower level making it unusable. There's no tile on the lower level walls either:

img_99003.jpg

 

(Not my photo) note the lack of tile on the wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.