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  
BrooklynIRT

About Numbers Assigned to Deviant Rush Hour IRT Services

Recommended Posts

So during rush hours and, to some degree, after rush hours, there are these deviant IRT services: (2) trains that go to/from New Lots rather than FB and (5) trains that go to/from Utica or New Lots rather than FB.

 

After thinking it through for a while, I just thought of something: It seems like it would be much simpler to just designate all 7th Ave trains terminating at New Lots as (3) trains and designate all Lex trains terminating at Utica or New Lots as (4) trains, all regardless of the train's northern station of origin, instead of having WPR trains that terminate at New Lots designated as (2) trains and WPR/Dyre trains that terminate at Utica or New Lots designated as (5) trains.

 

So southbound trains running from anywhere along the WPR line to New Lots via 7th Ave would be designated as (3) trains instead of (2) trains and those running from anywhere along the Dyre/WPR line to Utica or New Lots via Lex would be designated as (4) trains instead of (5) trains. It seems like it would make so much more sense since it would be much easier for the people trying to get from Manhattan and points west of Franklin Ave, inclusive, to either branch line of the Brooklyn IRT. No more having to wait for the subway car sign to flash the terminal of the train, just see the number 5 and automatically know that it will go to FB instead of waiting to see if it says Utica Ave instead, for example.

 

If they have trains designated as (2) and (5) running from New Lots or Utica to the Bronx and, unless I am missing something, people know perfectly well that boarding a 2 at New Lots yields exactly the same result as boarding a (3) there and that boarding a 5 at New Lots or Utica yields exactly the same result as boarding a (4) at those locations unless they wish to go beyond 135/LNX or 149/GC, then I do not understand why MTA could not officially change the designations for the deviant southbound trains as I described above. Crews would no longer have to go out of their way to signalize the terminals of their deviant trains, reducing both aggravation and station dwell times as well as any resultant delays in service.

 

Please note that all northbound trains would carry the same designations that they currently do. Anything that operates via 7th Ave and terminates in the Bronx is a (2), anything that operates via 7th and terminates anywhere along the IRT Lenox line north of 135/LNX is a (3), anything that operates via Lex and ends on the IRT Jerome line is a (4), and anything that operates via Lex and ends on the IRT WPR line is a (5). Again this is regardless of southern terminal of origin.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I do agree with what you wrote, the problem isn't as big as it seems now that the countdown clocks are virtually everywhere since they show the number and destination of the train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first problem with your idea is that that 2 to NLTS is being operated by a 2 train crew, and if for whatever reason there's a gap in 2 service to/from Flatbush, RCC will have no qualms about sending that 2 to its usual terminal. You also seem to be going by the "passengers are idiots" reasoning for this idea - which also means that if we have 3 trains coming down WPR, nobody's going to want to board them, or they'll waste even more of the crew's time holding doors and asking where this train is going and if it's gonna stop at Times Square. Chances are that MOST of the riders boarding a 2 241-NLTS are not gonna be riding it all the way into Brooklyn anyway, so as long as they see the 2 on the front, they don't care where it's ending up since they'll be getting off at 96 St. By the time those 2 to NLTS gets down to Franklin Ave, the AM rush is wrapping up and there is plenty of seat room on that train. The 2 already served its purpose of getting riders from the Bronx to their work destinations, and now it happens to stay in service on its way to Livonia. We could just as easily make Franklin Ave the last stop and run it lite the rest of the way.

 

Nevermind the problem that our TOD's don't even have a 3 program from 241 to NLTS....but we have a 2 program which works fine as it is.

 

Lemme guess, you want to change the A going to Lefferts to the K train too?

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first problem with your idea is that that 2 to NLTS is being operated by a 2 train crew, and if for whatever reason there's a gap in 2 service to/from Flatbush, RCC will have no qualms about sending that 2 to its usual terminal. You also seem to be going by the "passengers are idiots" reasoning for this idea - which also means that if we have 3 trains coming down WPR, nobody's going to want to board them, or they'll waste even more of the crew's time holding doors and asking where this train is going and if it's gonna stop at Times Square. Chances are that MOST of the riders boarding a 2 241-NLTS are not gonna be riding it all the way into Brooklyn anyway, so as long as they see the 2 on the front, they don't care where it's ending up since they'll be getting off at 96 St. By the time those 2 to NLTS gets down to Franklin Ave, the AM rush is wrapping up and there is plenty of seat room on that train. The 2 already served its purpose of getting riders from the Bronx to their work destinations, and now it happens to stay in service on its way to Livonia. We could just as easily make Franklin Ave the last stop and run it lite the rest of the way.

 

Nevermind the problem that our TOD's don't even have a 3 program from 241 to NLTS....but we have a 2 program which works fine as it is.

 

Lemme guess, you want to change the A going to Lefferts to the K train too?

 

I got a sense this is what the (W) discussion turned into. The numbering of the IRT service is fine the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got a sense this is what the (W) discussion turned into. The numbering of the IRT service is fine the way it is.

 

No, I think this is different from the (W) discussion. This is about the few (2) and (5) trains that go to irregular places. And there's a big difference between calling a few (2) trains (3) trains, and creating a whole new route (the (K)).
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If worse comes to worse, the conductors could always take the time at Franklin Avenue to say "this next stop on this train will be Kingston Avenue (or Utica Avenue if it's a (5)), and NOT President Street". I assume they already do this, so basically the current system is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So did anyone hear of any problems 10 years ago when the (3) ran on WPR during early AM rush, rush hours (both AM and PM), and late evening/early late night?

 

There was one person that asked why did the (3) terminate at 238 instead of 241 though.

Edited by GreatOne2k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Numbers 10 and up were apparently designed for these "deviant" routes, but were never used, and now would not even fit on the digital signs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If worse comes to worse, the conductors could always take the time at Franklin Avenue to say "this next stop on this train will be Kingston Avenue (or Utica Avenue if it's a (5)), and NOT President Street". I assume they already do this, so basically the current system is fine.

 

 

 

Nonononono. You make the announcement like that, all the customers are gonna hear is President St, and then when you come into Nostrand, half the train is gonna insist you said the train was going to President. The way I do it is APPROACHING Franklin Ave, I say "L&G, after Franklin Ave, this train will be running along the 3 line, making all local stops to New Lots. Transfer at Franklin to the next 2 or 5 if you are going towards Flatbush Ave. I repeat, this train is going to NEW LOTS." and then when I open at Franklin (leaving my window closed so I don't have to deal with the interrupters) I let the recorded announcement completely play, and then hit the PA and say "This train is going to NEW LOTS. Next stop will be NOSTRAND AVE." and then close down.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonononono. You make the announcement like that, all the customers are gonna hear is President St, and then when you come into Nostrand, half the train is gonna insist you said the train was going to President. The way I do it is APPROACHING Franklin Ave, I say "L&G, after Franklin Ave, this train will be running along the 3 line, making all local stops to New Lots. Transfer at Franklin to the next 2 or 5 if you are going towards Flatbush Ave. I repeat, this train is going to NEW LOTS." and then when I open at Franklin (leaving my window closed so I don't have to deal with the interrupters) I let the recorded announcement completely play, and then hit the PA and say "This train is going to NEW LOTS. Next stop will be NOSTRAND AVE." and then close down.

 

When I was over there I went one better. I tried to get them off by Nevins, especially if a (2) was coming in across the platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I just love about the railfan comunity is our propensity to think up complicated and problem generating soultions for issues that don't actually exist...

 

If you don't listen to the PA, it's your own dam fault. it's written down in the timetables. the last four listed Brooklyn bound 5s; Dyre 1912, Dyre 1922, Dyre 1932 and Dyre 1943, don't go to Flatbush. It's not something exactly out of the blue, it's written down.

 

Consider all those years where they didn't have numbers or letters on the front, a time where you had much more complicated routes then you do now. The days when you had West side express and locals on both branches north of 96th street...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I just love about the railfan comunity is our propensity to think up complicated and problem generating soultions for issues that don't actually exist...

 

If you don't listen to the PA, it's your own dam fault. it's written down in the timetables. the last four listed Brooklyn bound 5s; Dyre 1912, Dyre 1922, Dyre 1932 and Dyre 1943, don't go to Flatbush. It's not something exactly out of the blue, it's written down.

 

Consider all those years where they didn't have numbers or letters on the front, a time where you had much more complicated routes then you do now. The days when you had West side express and locals on both branches north of 96th street...

 

Yes. It is a lot better now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I just love about the railfan comunity is our propensity to think up complicated and problem generating soultions for issues that don't actually exist...

 

If you don't listen to the PA, it's your own dam fault. it's written down in the timetables. the last four listed Brooklyn bound 5s; Dyre 1912, Dyre 1922, Dyre 1932 and Dyre 1943, don't go to Flatbush. It's not something exactly out of the blue, it's written down.

 

Consider all those years where they didn't have numbers or letters on the front, a time where you had much more complicated routes then you do now. The days when you had West side express and locals on both branches north of 96th street...

 

I agree that it's perfectly fine the way it is now, but to be fair to Brooklyn IRT, there's nothing wrong with making the system more intuitive. It's better to say, "How can we confuse as few riders as possible," not "If people get confused it's their fault."
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while we're at it, lets rename the <E> runs to/from 179th to F since the E is supposed to be under Archer so we don't get the little peoples confused, even though the run to World Trade Center via 8th and not brooklyn via 6th, but just becuase they use that section of line...

 

The signs all say "New Lots". the computer says it two, that's pretty dam intuitve if you ask me.

A train shouldn't have to run it's entire route under a diffrent name just for the sake of the last few stops.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the late night F trains that turned into Q trains at Broadway-Laffayette? The operator changed the rollsign there, and the train went to 21st Queensbridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

while we're at it, lets rename the <E> runs to/from 179th to F since the E is supposed to be under Archer so we don't get the little peoples confused, even though the run to World Trade Center via 8th and not brooklyn via 6th, but just becuase they use that section of line...

 

The signs all say "New Lots". the computer says it two, that's pretty dam intuitve if you ask me.

A train shouldn't have to run it's entire route under a diffrent name just for the sake of the last few stops.

 

 

 

BUT, the two routes are the same except for those stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT, the two routes are the same except for those stops.

 

 

... I was being facetious and sarcastic....

 

I was using a simliar situation to what the OP was trying to discuss to prove the logical falicy of renaming a run for the sake of a handfull of stops.

 

and you're not helping.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we aren't saying to sign them up as an (8) or a (9). Just a (2) or (3). Also, as I said before, it may only be a few stops, but those are the ONLY different stops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's the weakest logic I've ever heard. It's about on par with the since I have long, thin toes, I might as well call them fingers.

 

The 2, runing it's normal daytime route, makes 50 stops. 20 of those stops are in the Bronx, no 3 trains in sight. 7 of the stops are under nostrand.

 

the rerouted 2s to new lots make 53 stops, 10 of which are past franklin to New Lots.

 

the diffrence is pointless.

 

what your basicly doing is suggesting trying to end confusion (which, frankly, i don't bealive is as big a problem as it's being made out to be in this thread) by replaing it with new confsion at the other, longer, end of the line.

 

pandering to the least common denominator is what's dragging us down. If a person sees the destination sign and hears the annocuments and still can't put two and two togther, then the idiot has no one to blame but themself.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For almost 30 years I've heard about

that's the weakest logic I've ever heard. It's about on par with the since I have long, thin toes, I might as well call them fingers.

 

The 2, runing it's normal daytime route, makes 50 stops. 20 of those stops are in the Bronx, no 3 trains in sight. 7 of the stops are under nostrand.

 

the rerouted 2s to new lots make 53 stops, 10 of which are past franklin to New Lots.

 

the diffrence is pointless.

 

what your basicly doing is suggesting trying to end confusion (which, frankly, i don't bealive is as big a problem as it's being made out to be in this thread) by replaing it with new confsion at the other, longer, end of the line.

 

pandering to the least common denominator is what's dragging us down. If a person sees the destination sign and hears the annocuments and still can't put two and two togther, then the idiot has no one to blame but themself.

 

Thank you Kamen Rider.For almost 30 years I've heard long time transit supervisors complaining about RTO pandering to the lowest common denominator when it comes to some of our fellow New Yorkers. It appears that, in this case, they were right. The 2,4, and 5 lines run NTT. The trains audibly and visually tell you their destination. What more could a rider ask for? When the NTT came to the 5 my C/R and I were silent as far as announcing stops went. I once took a redbird 5 to Utica Avenue which was my final destination for most of my career. All 10 cars were properly signed for Utica Avenue. The end sign said Utica Avenue. My conductor made proper announcements from Borough Hall to Franklin Ave. We made a connection at Nevins St with a Flatbush bound 2. When I arrived at Utica Avenue guess what happened? Three riders in the front section complained that because I was a 5 I was supposed to go to Flatbush and I F'ed up. One rider said that I changed the signs between Franklin and Utica to cover up my mistake. I just smiled at them as I spelled out U-T-I-C-A. I also had a TSS and a Supt on board from East 180th St who were heading out to NLY with me. My main man, the #1 TSS in the system. Some of my fellow posters know him by name. The man is easy going yet even he was amazed at what happened. My C/R and the platform people dealt with the lost souls in the rear of the train. BTW the person who posted before was entirely correct. Under no circumstance should a manual announcement be made about President St. All the riders hear is " President St" and they will swear on a stack of Bibles the announcement said "next stop President St". The moral is to let the train do the announcing on NTT under normal circumstances. CYA. Carry on

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some folk should just pay their fare and have a seat listen for their stop and get off..

 

You hold some folks hands and they still whine that you are holding it too hard..

Edited by RTOMan
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's the weakest logic I've ever heard. It's about on par with the since I have long, thin toes, I might as well call them fingers.

 

The 2, runing it's normal daytime route, makes 50 stops. 20 of those stops are in the Bronx, no 3 trains in sight. 7 of the stops are under nostrand.

 

the rerouted 2s to new lots make 53 stops, 10 of which are past franklin to New Lots.

 

the diffrence is pointless.

 

what your basicly doing is suggesting trying to end confusion (which, frankly, i don't bealive is as big a problem as it's being made out to be in this thread) by replaing it with new confsion at the other, longer, end of the line.

 

pandering to the least common denominator is what's dragging us down. If a person sees the destination sign and hears the annocuments and still can't put two and two togther, then the idiot has no one to blame but themself.

 

 

Or ya know you could just change the program in the tunnel after 149th...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and then freak out every rider on that train when what they thought was a 2 train is now calling itself a 3 train. Doing so is also against policy - you are not allowed to change the route name of the train mid trip, no matter where it gets re-routed to. If it left Flatbush as a 2, it will remain a 2 until its destination, even if it ends up at Woodlawn or Pelham (yes, we have 2 programs for those destinations)

 

When the 2/5 got a new Superintendent last year, he decided that the route is going to be based on where the line runs in Manhattan. This is why whenever Clark St is OOS, we have "5"s running from 241 to Flatbush via the East Side, with 2 train crews and with 2 train call letters. Same with the "2" going from Dyre to South Ferry when everything is actually a 5 (despite that program not even existing, meaning that either the crew is doing manual announcements, or they have it signed as a train to Chambers St, OR if they're really clever, they loaded the 2 to Bowling Green program and deleted Bowling Green stop which changes the last stop to South Ferry). Sure it keeps things running like normal on the East Side, but then you got everybody in Brooklyn and the Bronx confused since you have 5's going to 241 and 2's going to Dyre, and 5's going to Flatbush when it shouldn't be in Brooklyn at all. Terrible plan, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the (2)'s to South Ferry, that are signed up as (1)'s? I'm sure they don't start at 241st as (1)'s.

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.