Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Micstromme

4 and 6 Should Overthrow the 5

Recommended Posts

I know that this sounds completely out of the blue, but I honestly cannot see the point of having the (5) around. The whole thing with the East 180St and Eastchester-Dyre Ave at night does not appear to be enough to keep the line up and running. Replace that portion of the (5) with (S) to Eastchester (can use two R62s to do that job well).

 

In the Bronx and Brooklyn, two of the three boroughs that the line travels express in, it accompanies the (2) and (4) lines as completely useless. With the (2) always traveling through Lexington Avenue and borrowing the (5) fleet, why can't the Transit Authority just switch the majority of the (5)'s fleet to that of the (2) and the rest of the fleet to the (4) and (6) lines.

As for the part time (5) service from both Flatbush Avenue and New Lots-Crown Heights, take those services and allow those to be (2) express in Brooklyn via the Lexington Avenue line. No need to have the (2) and (5) do special service from the same terminal at the same time. As only the (5) terminate at Utica Avenue during the rush hours, make that more (4) revenue service.

 

In Manhattan, there is a complete shutdown of service during the rush hours. The (5) can be served with more service on the (4). The (6)<6> does not need anything, really (with all of that overbunching on the <6>). That would be extremely helpful to the crowds of people that have to exit their trains at Bowling Green.

 

 

If the Transit wants to increase service, then they should do that. But they should also try to keep their lines around if they are irreplaceable. To think about it, the (5) does not make the list of useful routes.

 

Thank you for riding with MTA NYC TRansit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the (5) because if you're on the east side of Manhattan and want to go to BK College, or anywhere in that area, you would have to transfer from the (4) or (6) to the (2). Thats too much to be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (2) only travels via Lexington Avenue during G.O.s when the train can't get to the 7th Avenue line because of service disruption.

 

The (5) is alot more useful than you think. I should to think the same of the (5) but then I rode the line alot more and saw how useful it is. Also is a nice supplement for the (4) on the Lexington Avenue express.

 

Trust me, the (5) is alot more useful than you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the (5) because if you're on the east side of Manhattan and want to go to BK College, or anywhere in that area, you would have to transfer from the (4) or (6) to the (2). Thats too much to be doing.

 

Understandable, but service can't be based on conveinence. If one has to tranfer, so be it. The equpiment has to be used efficiently. So I do agree with the OP, somewhat. But then again the 5 has it's ridership, throughout the day. So I don't think it's feasible to do......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Understandable, but service can't be based on convenience. If one has to transfer, so be it. The equipment has to be used efficiently. So I do agree with the OP, somewhat. But then again the 5 has it's ridership, throughout the day. So I don't think it's feasible to do......

 

My theory is if the (5) were to merge into the (2)(3)(4)(6)<6>, then the riders of the wishful "fairy" train would not suffer.

 

Besides, whats the big damn deal if this train is replaced by more of a predominant fleet? My opinion is that the (2) and (4) can handle their own against a post (5) world. I remember way back when there was a time when I thought that the (9) as well as the (Z) were both the only useless routes as they did absolutely nothing for the (1) and (J) respectively. That was also the time when some wishful thinkers said that the (9) could not be replaced by more (1) service, however, I think that they are wrong. As do I now with the concept that the (5) is immortal.

 

If the shoe were on the other foot, and the (4) was to be moved completely, then I would not understand it as it is a pivotal part of the Jerome and Lexington Avenue Lines (Brooklyn not so much), mostly because there is very little that a Bronx rider can do when the (4) is forced to terminate at Brooklyn Bridge during the off seasons. The same thing with the (3) and the (6)...pointless to meddle with a winning system. However, the (5) does not by any means compare to the super work horses which is the rest of the IRT.

 

Note: Just to let some of you know, my very next thread is going to be to get rid of the (Z) and add its revenue to the (J)(M). Stay tuned!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get rid of the (5) line??? How about no!! I love it when the (5) comes down here to flatbush during rush hours. Its a nice relief to the stupid (2) which is aways late and croweded. And when it comes down to brooklyn it AWAYS has seats so you don't have to stand up.

 

Btw the (2) and (5) lines SWAP fleets during the rush hours. Sometimes during the midday you see the (5) with the 2 lines 142s. The (2) does not need the (5) lines 142s for whatever reason during rush hours at flatbush two lines swap fleets. So basiclly if you ended the (5) those 142s it uses will be sitting in the yard collecting dust. If you ever go to 239th or liovona yard during the midday many R142s from the (2) sitting in the yard. Those sets run only during rush hours.

 

And many other reasons why axing the (5) would be bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also remember that the (4) and the (2)(5) have different yards. If you were to eliminate the (5) and send its fleet to the (4), I doubt that there would be enough space to hold all of the trains, forcing the fleet to stay at the East 180th St yard. Then those trains would have to deadhead down the line, switch tracks to the Jerome Ave., and deadhead up to Woodlawn. Too much hassle, especially when you have to hold up trains on three lines to accomplish this.

 

And sending most of the fleet to the (2), and add a (2) express during rush hours? No. You have to think of track capacity there. A section of track can only hold so many trains at once. That's why the (MTA) cut back the (G) and replaced it with the (V) on the Queens Boulevard Line. The Seventh Avenue Line (heck, the entire IRT) is running at full capacity. Adding more trains might alleviate crowding, but result in more waiting as trains bunch up outside of stations waiting for passengers to get on and off the trains before them.

 

Besides... I think it would be more convenient for people in the Bronx or Brooklyn along the White Plains Road or Flatbush lines who want to go to the East Side to take one train instead of two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Note: Just to let some of you know, my very next thread is going to be to get rid of the (Z) and add its revenue to the (J)(M). Stay tuned!

 

(9) service was discontinued because the residents it was supposed to help found no benefit. Given the tight headways on the West Side, it would often result in trains staring at a line of red automatics anyway. Additionally, all kinds of community boards fought to have their stops changed to a (1)(9) stop instead of one or the other, and more stops kept getting added to both routes. Given that the most congested stops are from 103-137, and that 168 is a significant transfer point, it just didn't really make a lot of sense to do skip stop because the majority of the stations being skipped were on the north end where congestion isn't really much of a problem.

 

As for (J)(Z) skip stop service, it's literally SIX (Z)ebras in the AM inbound and six in the PM outbound, and the residents generally like the skip stop service (as well as both (J)uliet and (Z)ebra expressing it to Myrtle from Marcy) so that's why that service continues to exist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything I would switch the routes in Manhattan and the Bronx.

 

(2) Lexington Avenue Express / Bronx Express from White Plains Road

(5) 7 Avenue Express / Bronx Local from Dyre

 

And since they were at one time talking about the (3) running to Times Square late at night before the economy went bust on them.

 

(2)(5) - Bronx to 42nd Street late nights (Express in Manhattan)

 

(3)(4) - To Brooklyn late nights (Local in Manhattan)

 

(4) To New Lots 24/7

(3) To Utica / Flatbush (nights)

 

A service from the Bronx via Lexington Avenue is needed only to alleviate overcrowding on the other lines. Having the fleets move between other lines wouldn't really help out the issue either due to bunching / capacity.

 

The (5) as is a nice relief to passengers from the (6) entering at 125th Street or along any of the express stops in Manhattan.

 

One final thing:

 

On weekends when GO's occur, they should promote usage of the Metro North and express buses as an alternative for passengers north of 180th Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anything I would switch the routes in Manhattan and the Bronx.

 

(2) Lexington Avenue Express / Bronx Express from White Plains Road

(5) 7 Avenue Express / Bronx Local from Dyre

 

 

 

So then a green (2) and a red (5)? Cause I would just make the (2) go up Dyre and the (5) go up to 241, so it would look something like this:

 

(2) 7 Ave Exp / Bronx Local from Dyre

(5) Lex Ave Exp / Bronx Exp from 241

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please forgive me as I do not fully understand how to multi-quote. Having said that, I will now respond to the last five posts with my input, prior to my last quote.

 

Thread Response #6: That is redundant information. Having said that, there is no real reason to keep the (5) around. If all of it was based on convenience alone, there would be a single train for each street in New York. The (5) is no real treasure in the helm of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The fact that the (5) is practically empty on its way to the extension is more towards my point. Besides, why is it always making direct terms to Crown Heights-Utica Avenue if the Brooklyn College sections of Brooklyn are jam packed with customers?

 

Another thing, I hardly think that the (5)'s fleet would be allowed to be trash and dust as the (7) is in dire need for R142s. The (5) gone would definitely allow for the switch/addition of R142s with the R62A. That just leaves it down to the (4) line. Without the (5), The Transit Authority could choose to either add service to the (4) or extend the revenue for the (2). So there with that.

 

Thread Reply #7: In consideration to your idea it would not make much sense to do anything accept cut back service on the coexisting lines. Here is what I would suggest (assuming there is a limited number of R142s from the Lexington Avenue Line):

 

(1) add some R142s

(2) same thing

(3) add some R62As to replace that from the (7)

(4) add three additional R142s, both from the (5) and (6)<6>

(6)<6> cut back service from the R142As and give some to the (7)

(7) would get accommodated by adding a total of thirteen new cars; six R142s and seven R142As to the bunch packed R62As

(S) for Franklin Avenue and that from The Times Square Shuttle would allow for two train cars; each shuttle service would then have an R142 and a R62A on board.

 

Thread Response #8: I hardly believe that the (Z) would allow for the outpouring of transit passengers. They cannot make me understand how that line got, above other things, new R160As. Those should be allowed to see ridership onto the (J) and those (Z) fleets should go to the (J). Trust me, I don't feel the TA would suffer well afterthe (Z) is sent to hell. The Broadway line ((1)and(9) subway passengers) did not fall down into a pit, as the (1) was given more trains from that of the (9).

 

Thread Reply #9: Just like it currently is, the (3) would not need to go to Crown Heights or Brooklyn College (at nites) because those areas are served locally by the (4) and (2) respectively. The (3) is only good during the day and early evenings. Back when the (1) traveled to Brooklyn instead of the (3) , both the (1) and the (4) trains served the Livonia sections of Brooklyn and even that was too much. No, unless the (3) and (4) switch terms full time, I have to cast my vote under null and void.

 

Finally Thread Response #10: What difference would it make if the (2) and/or (5) switched in the Bronx? Neither train can seem to stick to their committed fleets so I fail to see the point of the series of changes in Wakefield and Eastchester respectively.

 

That was a hard thing to do. If anyone out there loves me, they will send me a private message telling me how to multi-quote.

 

PM me, do not answer that on this thread.

 

Thank you for riding with MTA.

Edited by Micstromme
Adding Bullshit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a long time (5) line employee, and rider, it's fairly obvious that the OP has no idea of the reasoning behind the (5) line. The original White Plains Thru-Express was to provide Lexington Ave service to the upper Bronx and lower Westchester, with limited 7th Ave service from 241st St. That station was also the northern terminal for the 3rd Ave El. 7th Ave kicked in at Bronx Park and then was moved to East 180th St and finally to Dyre ave when those tracks were connected to the main line around 1960. In other words, the (5) was the main line, not the (2). As midtown became as important as Wall St. to employers the (5) increased in importance. With the removal of the Second Ave El, which terminated at Freeman St, and then the Third Ave El in Manhattan the (5) became even more important.The opening of Co-op City was the cause of (2) and (5) switching northern terminals. The residents in the northern reaches of the Bronx want more Lexington Ave service, not Seventh Ave service. The (4) is also over capacity on it's line and so is the (6). It's only on the midnights when the (5) and (3) lines are not needed as much which is why the (5) shuttle, and some years the(3) shuttle run. As far as swapping fleets with the (7) or the West side lines it will never happen. The Lex lines,(4),(5),and(6), are the IRT showcase lines, like the (A) is in the IND and in the IRT those 142 and 142A's will remain on Lexington Ave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thread Response #8: I hardly believe that the (Z) would allow for the outpouring of transit passengers. They cannot make me understand how that line got, above other things, new R160As. Those should be allowed to see ridership onto the (J) and those (Z) fleets should go to the (J). Trust me, I don't feel the TA would suffer well afterthe (Z) is sent to hell. The Broadway line ((1)and(9) subway passengers) did not fall down into a pit, as the (1) was given more trains from that of the (9).

 

The (Z)ebra is back to R42's ever since the (M)ikey started running R160's. (Z)ebra got R160's when the (M) was still 100% R42...now that more cars are coming in you are seeing more NTT's in service in the ED. And the (J)uliet isn't suffering at all. As soon as the CCTV's go up along the line the (J)uliet will start running R160's also. As for the (Z) "fleet" it's not much of one, it's like I said 6 trains in the AM, 6 trains in the PM, so sending the (Z) "fleets" to the (J) wouldn't do much. And nixing the skip stop wouldn't do much except make it a longer ride for many passengers. As it is during the rush you get a (J) or (Z) every 5 minutes at express stations, if it's at a skip stop station, service is every ten (because J's and Z's alternate). Those intervals are all reasonable at those stations given ridership levels. Once the passengers board they are treated to a quicker ride, which they really DO appreciate. If someone lives at, say, Cypress Hills and has to commute into lower Manhattan, they'll appreciate the skip stop. Plus in regards to Equipment both (J) and (Z) will be 100% R160 in the near future, so the equipment argument is moot.

 

The problem with (1) and (9) skip stop service is that not enough stations were being skipped and the intervals were too short for it to work properly. Case in point, say a (1) was leaving 137th next stop 157th, it was quite possible a (9) would be at 145th making the station stop, so the (1) couldn't pass. Then while the (1) is waiting for 145th to clear, another (9) pulls in behind it staring at a bunch of red lights in the tunnel. Then the first (9) leaves for 168th, the (1) pulls into 157th, the second (9) into 145th, but another (1) is now staring at red lights because the second (9) got held up and couldn't clear 145th in time. Make sense? This would be especially problematic and could happen for lots of reasons: Idiot holding the doors, train didn't get indication and T/O had to use Doorcheck, door leaf needed to be cut out en route, a slow moving or rookie T/O, very crowded platforms, disruptive passengers, lot of things. Plus Like I said not that many stops were getting skipped anyway. By the end, the only stations with skip stop were 145, 157, and everything from Dyckman - 238. I ride the line fairly often and I can tell you that most of the heavy traffic is off the train by Dyckman, and most of what remains is waiting for 225 or 242. The folks up in Riverdale don't really mind the extra few minutes of stops anyway, and it was inconvenient for travel along the line, especially with major streets like 225 being skipped (by the (1)). Because the train can move pretty quickly north of Dyckman anyway (station dwell time is usually lower up there), skip stop didn't really save that much time. All of the above are reasons why it was discontinued and (J)/(Z) service continues to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a long time (5) line employee, and rider, it's fairly obvious that the OP has no idea of the reasoning behind the (5) line. The original White Plains Thru-Express was to provide Lexington Ave service to the upper Bronx and lower Westchester, with limited 7th Ave service from 241st St. That station was also the northern terminal for the 3rd Ave El. 7th Ave kicked in at Bronx Park and then was moved to East 180th St and finally to Dyre ave when those tracks were connected to the main line around 1960. In other words, the (5) was the main line, not the (2). As midtown became as important as Wall St. to employers the (5) increased in importance. With the removal of the Second Ave El, which terminated at Freeman St, and then the Third Ave El in Manhattan the (5) became even more important.The opening of Co-op City was the cause of (2) and (5) switching northern terminals. The residents in the northern reaches of the Bronx want more Lexington Ave service, not Seventh Ave service. The (4) is also over capacity on it's line and so is the (6). It's only on the midnights when the (5) and (3) lines are not needed as much which is why the (5) shuttle, and some years the(3) shuttle run. As far as swapping fleets with the (7) or the West side lines it will never happen. The Lex lines,(4),(5),and(6), are the IRT showcase lines, like the (A) is in the IND and in the IRT those 142 and 142A's will remain on Lexington Ave.

 

Are you an A div T/O?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a long time (5) line employee, and rider, it's fairly obvious that the OP has no idea of the reasoning behind the (5) line. The original White Plains Thru-Express was to provide Lexington Ave service to the upper Bronx and lower Westchester, with limited 7th Ave service from 241st St. That station was also the northern terminal for the 3rd Ave El. 7th Ave kicked in at Bronx Park and then was moved to East 180th St and finally to Dyre ave when those tracks were connected to the main line around 1960. In other words, the (5) was the main line, not the (2). As midtown became as important as Wall St. to employers the (5) increased in importance. With the removal of the Second Ave El, which terminated at Freeman St, and then the Third Ave El in Manhattan the (5) became even more important.The opening of Co-op City was the cause of (2) and (5) switching northern terminals. The residents in the northern reaches of the Bronx want more Lexington Ave service, not Seventh Ave service. The (4) is also over capacity on it's line and so is the (6). It's only on the midnights when the (5) and (3) lines are not needed as much which is why the (5) shuttle, and some years the(3) shuttle run. As far as swapping fleets with the (7) or the West side lines it will never happen. The Lex lines,(4),(5),and(6), are the IRT showcase lines, like the (A) is in the IND and in the IRT those 142 and 142A's will remain on Lexington Ave.

 

Wasn't there also a time when the Seventh Avenue Line (2) ran local to New Lots at all times and the Lexington Avenue Line (4) ran local to Brooklyn College in the Midwood section of Brooklyn?

 

At this time, what was the status of the (3) and (5)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The(3) ran to Flatbush Ave during most of the day. The(2) ran to New Lots Ave at all times. The (4) ran to Flatbush Ave rush hours and when the(3) shut down. The (5) ran to Utica Ave rush hours. The (4) and(5) terminated at Atlantic Ave during the mid-days. In 1983 the lines swappped terminals in Brooklyn with th (2) and(5) going to Flatbush and the (3) to New Lots and the (4) to Utica and on to New Lots when the(3) shuts down. This also gave the (3) access to Livonia Yard and shops because prior to that the (3) had no dedicated repair shop.(3) line cars were repaired at 240 St((1)) line shop or 239th St ((2) shop. As far as Lexington Ave service patterns in Brooklyn refer to my previous post in this thread. It's all about the demographics in those neighborhoods in this borough too. The TA is run by mostly beancounters now, as opposed to the subway men, who decide what amount of service, with what equipment, everyone gets. Yes, the same people who come up with these bogus budget projections and Capital plans. If you look at a route map or service map before 1969, or even prior to 1940, you will notice that there was more service provided to more neighborhoods in the outer boroughs than there is today. Oh and yes I'm a T/O who is qualified in all divisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow you all going to make me make a long post! First off Welcome Trainmaster5 I think I know you I use to be a C/R on the (4)(5)(6) and now a T/O In the B Div North / East section.

Now to the other post :

 

(Z) Line : I agree could be discontinued replaced by added (J) service

 

(9) Line : never was a fan of it and it was a complete waste.

 

(4) Line: Can't add anymore trains it already runs a mostly 4 to 8 Minute headway and the Yard can't handle what they got now.

 

(6) Line : same thing its can't handle any more cars and they do run 4 Minutes then 2 Minutes during the Rush.

 

(2) Line: I feel they could add service its always packed. However most of the ridership in the Bronx prefer to ride down Lexington Ave.

 

Now the (5) Line is very much needed I don't know how anyone who knows about the line and just looking at a map of it don't count would even think about discontining (5) service. Its an important line because links the people of the Northeast Bronx to the Eastside of Manhattan. We got lots of ridership the get use the Dyre Av to get to Manhattan and it relieves over crowding on the (2) Line the BX and (4) in manhattan. (5) Service in Brooklyn is also needed especially during Rush Hours it also reliefs cowding along the (2) Line and provides a direct link to the Eastside. The Brooklyn Resident that live by Flatbush are still trying to push the (MTA) to extended (5) service to Flatbush Ave during Middays and Weekends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Brooklyn Residents that live by Flatbush are still trying to push the (MTA) to extended (5) service to Flatbush Ave during Middays and Weekends.

 

I could possibly understand wanting to extend the 5 train to Flatbush during the week's peak hours, but why in the hell would that include weekends? Are you telling me that there are so many people down there using the subway that the 7th Avenue Express is not enough to handle the passengers in South Brooklyn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the logic behind cutting Lexington Avenue service in any way. At all. This is 1.3 million customers a day on the line we're talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm telling you most people Use the (2) to Franklin then crowd the (4) Train to manhattan on Wkends. However I don't believe there is any plans to Extend (5) service. Most use the (4) train from Brooklyn more then the use the (2)(3) Lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow you all going to make me make a long post! First off Welcome Trainmaster5 I think I know you I use to be a C/R on the (4)(5)(6) and now a T/O In the B Div North / East section.

Now to the other post :

 

(Z) Line : I agree could be discontinued replaced by added (J) service

 

(9) Line : never was a fan of it and it was a complete waste.

 

(4) Line: Can't add anymore trains it already runs a mostly 4 to 8 Minute headway and the Yard can't handle what they got now.

 

(6) Line : same thing its can't handle any more cars and they do run 4 Minutes then 2 Minutes during the Rush.

 

(2) Line: I feel they could add service its always packed. However most of the ridership in the Bronx prefer to ride down Lexington Ave.

 

Now the (5) Line is very much needed I don't know how anyone who knows about the line and just looking at a map of it don't count would even think about discontining (5) service. Its an important line because links the people of the Northeast Bronx to the Eastside of Manhattan. We got lots of ridership the get use the Dyre Av to get to Manhattan and it relieves over crowding on the (2) Line the BX and (4) in manhattan. (5) Service in Brooklyn is also needed especially during Rush Hours it also reliefs cowding along the (2) Line and provides a direct link to the Eastside. The Brooklyn Resident that live by Flatbush are still trying to push the (MTA) to extended (5) service to Flatbush Ave during Middays and Weekends.

 

 

I couldnt agree with you more Dave that (2) could use more service but i dont think it will get it.

 

When i worked on the (5) Line for one Pick i could see how many people use that train, weekends its a different story because most people want that (2) train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a long time (5) line employee, and rider, it's fairly obvious that the OP has no idea of the reasoning behind the (5) line. The original White Plains Thru-Express was to provide Lexington Ave service to the upper Bronx and lower Westchester, with limited 7th Ave service from 241st St. That station was also the northern terminal for the 3rd Ave El. 7th Ave kicked in at Bronx Park and then was moved to East 180th St and finally to Dyre ave when those tracks were connected to the main line around 1960. In other words, the (5) was the main line, not the (2). As midtown became as important as Wall St. to employers the (5) increased in importance. With the removal of the Second Ave El, which terminated at Freeman St, and then the Third Ave El in Manhattan the (5) became even more important.The opening of Co-op City was the cause of (2) and (5) switching northern terminals. The residents in the northern reaches of the Bronx want more Lexington Ave service, not Seventh Ave service. The (4) is also over capacity on it's line and so is the (6). It's only on the midnights when the (5) and (3) lines are not needed as much which is why the (5) shuttle, and some years the(3) shuttle run. As far as swapping fleets with the (7) or the West side lines it will never happen. The Lex lines,(4),(5),and(6), are the IRT showcase lines, like the (A) is in the IND and in the IRT those 142 and 142A's will remain on Lexington Ave.

 

Good stuff Train Master ...

 

Welcome to the forums perhpas we crossed paths when i was in the A Div..

 

I was there from 2001 until Last May when i ran away from ATS(got tired of begging for my proper line up on the radio) and musical signals to the B Div.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 5 line is a good line, i don't see any reason to cut it

 

if you don't think its doing good enough then maybe run it to flatbush all times ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay thanks for dropping science on the history of the White Plains Road line.

 

Question for you, don't you think the (5) should be the main line again? If you notice during rush hours, many White Plains Road passengers get off the (2) and then wait at 3rd Avenue or 149th Street for a (4) or (5) train. Most of the passengers go towards Lexington, whether they take a (5) direct or take the (2) and the (4). It will be interesting to see what happens with the west side passenger when/if the (D) extends to Gun Hill / White Plains Roads. I hope that happens.

 

Also, wouldn't it make more sense to just have the (2) run a shorter route (i.e. 241 Street to 14th Street or Flatbush Avenue to 96th Street) when G.O.s occur and have the (5) run to Flatbush or 241 Street during those hours?

 

Always wondered why the TA just doesn't do that instead of always switching the (2) and (5) every weekend, and having them terminate at Bowling Green essentially. I think it would make more sense just to run the (5) to Flatbush, and or tell passengers to use the (D)(N)(Q)(R) or the (S) to the (C) or change at Fulton for the (A)(C) for the westside of Manhattan than to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay thanks for dropping science on the history of the White Plains Road line.

 

Question for you, don't you think the (5) should be the main line again? If you notice during rush hours, many White Plains Road passengers get off the (2) and then wait at 3rd Avenue or 149th Street for a (4) or (5) train. Most of the passengers go towards Lexington, whether they take a (5) direct or take the (2) and the (4). It will be interesting to see what happens with the west side passenger when/if the (D) extends to Gun Hill / White Plains Roads. I hope that happens.

 

Also, wouldn't it make more sense to just have the (2) run a shorter route (i.e. 241 Street to 14th Street or Flatbush Avenue to 96th Street) when G.O.s occur and have the (5) run to Flatbush or 241 Street during those hours?

 

Always wondered why the TA just doesn't do that instead of always switching the (2) and (5) every weekend, and having them terminate at Bowling Green essentially. I think it would make more sense just to run the (5) to Flatbush, and or tell passengers to use the (D)(N)(Q)(R) or the (S) to the (C) or change at Fulton for the (A)(C) for the westside of Manhattan than to do that.

 

Since every line has at most one dominant line, switching the (5) would make for two predominant lines onthe same route. Under that suggestion the (2) and (5) would have to trade routes and colors, with the (2) via Lexington Avenue Local (not much difference) and the (5) via the Seventh Avenue Line

running local with the (1).

 

As far as the (2)(5) switching and terming at BG, that is so that the western passengers can get to the eastern side and vice versa. Most interesting is that the (4) and (1) hardly ever get touched. At most the (1) runs express and the (4) local to New Lots in Brooklyn, outside of late nites and early mornings.

Edited by Micstromme
Adding some shit there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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