Urbanfortitude Posted December 23, 2011 Share #51 Posted December 23, 2011 Like the V and the M? They weren't "broken" per se. You're right. They weren't. Just sort of redundant. In that case the MTA just saw more use out of the two lines by combining them. The in contrast was pretty much pointless. It was easier to abolish the altogether and just increase the frequency of (1)s that ran up and down there. The idea you have for the (J)/(Z) there would create more delays than it would solve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWM Posted December 23, 2011 Author Share #52 Posted December 23, 2011 I just thought of something: Would the ever be needed again if the got re-routed to new lots (idk how) The could skip-stop in Bklyn and manhattan. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWM Posted December 23, 2011 Author Share #53 Posted December 23, 2011 When and who in god's name thought of a blue . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lance25 Posted December 23, 2011 Share #54 Posted December 23, 2011 I just thought of something: Would the ever be needed again if the got re-routed to new lots (idk how)The could skip-stop in Bklyn and manhattan. Just a thought. If Transit wanted to be creative perhaps. Otherwise, it would make more sense to simply beef up service on the line. Remember, NYCT is in the business of moving passengers efficiently and making the subway as understandable as possible, not appeasing the railfans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted December 23, 2011 Share #55 Posted December 23, 2011 When and who in god's name thought of a blue . Someone suggested a route that ran via 8 Avenue, 6 Avenue, and then over the Williamsburg Bridge. I don't know if it was an , , , , or , so a blue would've been an unambiguous designation given that the is only for trains originating from Metropolitan Avenue and the blue color is only for trains that run on the 8 Avenue trunk line. I'm more surprised that the pink K is more familiar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted December 23, 2011 Share #56 Posted December 23, 2011 Someone suggested a route that ran via 8 Avenue, 6 Avenue, and then over the Williamsburg Bridge. I don't know if it was an , , , , or , so a blue would've been an unambiguous designation given that the is only for trains originating from Metropolitan Avenue and the blue color is only for trains that run on the 8 Avenue trunk line. I'm more surprised that the pink K is more familiar. Pink - FtrainFan. I remember his tiny little arguments about things. I wonder how he is doing now. I hope he isn't as bad as he used to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kacie Jane Posted December 23, 2011 Share #57 Posted December 23, 2011 Like the V and the M? They weren't "broken" per se. Keep in mind that was a service cut, they weren't trying to "fix" anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N6 Limited Posted December 25, 2011 Share #58 Posted December 25, 2011 Keep in mind that was a service cut, they weren't trying to "fix" anything. They were trying to fix their budget issues and fix service. If they weren't trying to fix service then they would have just stopped sending the M to the 4th Ave line during rush hours and left the V as is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted December 25, 2011 Share #59 Posted December 25, 2011 They were trying to fix their budget issues and fix service. If they weren't trying to fix service then they would have just stopped sending the M to the 4th Ave line during rush hours and left the V as is. But your idea isn't going to fix anything. It is just going to cause problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N6 Limited Posted December 26, 2011 Share #60 Posted December 26, 2011 But your idea isn't going to fix anything. It is just going to cause problems. Great, a somewhat constructive comment, not "if it isn't broke don't fix it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted December 26, 2011 Share #61 Posted December 26, 2011 Great, a somewhat constructive comment, not "if it isn't broke don't fix it". I am in a good mood so don't push it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lance25 Posted December 26, 2011 Share #62 Posted December 26, 2011 They were trying to fix their budget issues and fix service. If they weren't trying to fix service then they would have just stopped sending the M to the 4th Ave line during rush hours and left the V as is. Remember, the idea behind the (Mx) combo was to merge two lines that would have otherwise dead ended. Both of those lines separate would not get many riders, unlike the current . But your idea isn't going to fix anything. It is just going to cause problems. I am in a good mood so don't push it. If you're going to be a douche, please don't post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted December 27, 2011 Share #63 Posted December 27, 2011 Remember, the idea behind the (Mx) combo was to merge two lines that would have otherwise dead ended. Both of those lines separate would not get many riders, unlike the current . It would also not have saved much money to separate lines. You'd have to have conductors and train operators for both lines, and the and would have had to run local if the were terminating at Myrtle Avenue and Broadway. The would have gotten more crowded as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoTimer Posted December 27, 2011 Share #64 Posted December 27, 2011 Just remember the cardinal sin of switch moving in the IND... 1. Thou shalt not move any switches south of West 4 for regular service. 2. Thou shalt not move any switches along 6Av trunk for regular service. 3. Thou shalt not move any switches north of Jay St for regular service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted December 29, 2011 Share #65 Posted December 29, 2011 I think they should have done what they did before. Put the on the skip-stop and the on the local. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1447 Posted December 29, 2011 Share #66 Posted December 29, 2011 I think they should have done what they did before. Put the on the skip-stop and the on the local. What are you talking about? Skip stop and local, north of 96th? Don't think so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kacie Jane Posted December 29, 2011 Share #67 Posted December 29, 2011 I think they should have done what they did before. Put the on the skip-stop and the on the local. Methinks this person does not know what skip-stop means... During rush hours (and I believe there was a time the ran middays as well), the and both ran skip-stop. Which means the skipped half the stops, and the skipped the other half -- with some major stops being served by both trains. During off-hours, the made all stops, or was "on the local" as you put it, and the didn't run. The never made all stops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juelz4309 Posted December 29, 2011 Share #68 Posted December 29, 2011 Well as a daily rider of the 1 line livin off of the 157 street stop... I really don't see why it's so hard to run some 1 trains express in the peak direction 96 to 145 at least...they could bring back the 9 as a rush hour only train and use the 1 as the full local...I feel like the Track is already there so why no utilize it? ..Ive seen the rails at the middle track at least at 103 st....and it's a brownish rusted color....Pretty sure they weren't built or that purpose..So my final plan would be ...Reinstate the 9 as a rush hour only line (600am-1000am) and ( 330p to 8pm) operating bet 137 and South ferry ...and the 1 runs express in peak direction bet 137 or 145 and 96 st ...They already Turn around trains at 137 in the am direction already so it wont be that much of a hassle...Just my two cents on the subject.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted December 29, 2011 Share #69 Posted December 29, 2011 Well as a daily rider of the 1 line livin off of the 157 street stop...I really don't see why it's so hard to run some 1 trains express in the peak direction 96 to 145 at least...they could bring back the 9 as a rush hour only train and use the 1 as the full local...I feel like the Track is already there so why no utilize it? ..Ive seen the rails at the middle track at least at 103 st....and it's a brownish rusted color....Pretty sure they weren't built or that purpose..So my final plan would be ...Reinstate the 9 as a rush hour only line (600am-1000am) and ( 330p to 8pm) operating bet 137 and South ferry ...and the 1 runs express in peak direction bet 137 or 145 and 96 st ...They already Turn around trains at 137 in the am direction already so it wont be that much of a hassle...Just my two cents on the subject.... Again you people are demonstrating your lack of knowledge. Skip stop service would actually take trains away from the . It would mean that crews would have to be split as well to bring back the . It isn't just as simple as 1, 2, and 3. Plus the distance between 207th Street and 242nd Street isn't much on the line (since the is express, and is only a few blocks away from the station people can transfer). It just isn't useful to bring it back. Not unless if some people just want to see the again for some old pictures so they would look cool. So no, because people had their chance and they just don't want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted December 29, 2011 Share #70 Posted December 29, 2011 Well as a daily rider of the 1 line livin off of the 157 street stop...I really don't see why it's so hard to run some 1 trains express in the peak direction 96 to 145 at least...they could bring back the 9 as a rush hour only train and use the 1 as the full local...I feel like the Track is already there so why no utilize it? ..Ive seen the rails at the middle track at least at 103 st....and it's a brownish rusted color....Pretty sure they weren't built or that purpose..So my final plan would be ...Reinstate the 9 as a rush hour only line (600am-1000am) and ( 330p to 8pm) operating bet 137 and South ferry ...and the 1 runs express in peak direction bet 137 or 145 and 96 st ...They already Turn around trains at 137 in the am direction already so it wont be that much of a hassle...Just my two cents on the subject.... What is the purpose? How much time would you actually save for the additional operational complexity of switching some more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1447 Posted December 29, 2011 Share #71 Posted December 29, 2011 I actually dont have a problem with the running express from 96th to 137th Street. But the only thing is, it ill only bypass the train already in front of it south of 145th Street, which isn't really nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kacie Jane Posted December 29, 2011 Share #72 Posted December 29, 2011 Well as a daily rider of the 1 line livin off of the 157 street stop...I really don't see why it's so hard to run some 1 trains express in the peak direction 96 to 145 at least...they could bring back the 9 as a rush hour only train and use the 1 as the full local...I feel like the Track is already there so why no utilize it? ..Ive seen the rails at the middle track at least at 103 st....and it's a brownish rusted color....Pretty sure they weren't built or that purpose..So my final plan would be ...Reinstate the 9 as a rush hour only line (600am-1000am) and ( 330p to 8pm) operating bet 137 and South ferry ...and the 1 runs express in peak direction bet 137 or 145 and 96 st ...They already Turn around trains at 137 in the am direction already so it wont be that much of a hassle...Just my two cents on the subject.... You owe me a new brain, as I think you've broken mine... Under your plan, you've actually cut service in half at every station (including yours) north of 96th Street except for 137th. The runs pretty much at capacity during rush hours -- no room for more 7th Avenue local trains -- so in order to implement this plan, you'd have to turn (1)s into (9)s, and since you're turning those at 137th, you've cut service on the northern part of the line. And since trains would be bypassing stations between 96th and 137th, you've cut service there! By the way, you suggest starting the peak direction express at either 137th or 145th. Of course you mean 137th. Because if you were silly enough to end local trains at 137th and then have express trains skip that station, how would people get between, say, Columbia at 116th and Washington Heights? They couldn't without backtracking to 96th. Even if you were to just run trains all the way to 242nd instead, it's still just silly. All you accomplish is causing confusion and switching delays just so that trains can skip 4 stations, at least two of which (116th and 125th) are heavily used and don't need their service cut. If you need trains to skip some stations, you'd be better off just reinstating the and as they were, where the skipped stations further north were lesser used ones. Or maybe, the best way is to just keep the how it is, where, yes, it might take you a tiny bit longer to get downtown, but all the stations get the service they need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rell Posted December 29, 2011 Share #73 Posted December 29, 2011 I personally don't see a problem with just extending it a few stops. If its a problem, then just extend the as replacement or have a shuttle service run. I know I'm a little late and I'm not sure if anybody touched on this yet, but the main reason that wouldn't work is the already has terrible headways as it is, I believe one of the lowest in the system, excluding the . Extending it, even just from 168 Street to Inwood wouldn't do much justice to the people affected by an Bronx-bound . However, the general idea of extending the upwards isn't that bad IMO. It's just impractical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbanfortitude Posted December 29, 2011 Share #74 Posted December 29, 2011 You owe me a new brain, as I think you've broken mine... LOL! That was good Or maybe, the best way is to just keep the how it is, where, yes, it might take you a tiny bit longer to get downtown, but all the stations get the service they need. What's funny is the ride between those stations between 96 and 242 in either direction is pretty swift without the express service. Red Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted December 29, 2011 Share #75 Posted December 29, 2011 I know I'm a little late and I'm not sure if anybody touched on this yet, but the main reason that wouldn't work is the already has terrible headways as it is, I believe one of the lowest in the system, excluding the . Extending it, even just from 168 Street to Inwood wouldn't do much justice to the people affected by an Bronx-bound . However, the general idea of extending the upwards isn't that bad IMO. It's just impractical. In real-world usage, the isn't that much slower than the , but the is express where the stops don't really matter and serves most of the frequently-used stops from midtown to lower Manhattan, while the and distributes its express stops but skip a lot of the popular stops. I believe the line from the Broadway Bridge upwards should be B division-compatible. If the were extended, the would be cut back to 207 Street and disconnected from the bridge, while the would be connected over the bridge and run to 242 Street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.