1987 Service Pattern/Duplicate Letter Use

[Jsunflyguy]

I recently took a look at the 1987 subway map and I wanted to talk about it in the hopes someone could offer insight.

Things of note were 5 Broadway services as was compelled by the North Side Manhattan Bridge closure. Track capacity is often talked about on these boards, how did service get along with the *B* *D* *N* *Q* *R*?

Along the same line was The Bridge at capacity with 4 services?

Why did BOTH and terminate at 34th/6av, why not send a service to terminate on the W4th 6ave express tracks or utilize 2nd ave? Send a few down to Grand st or Bustitute the station.

Why did the TA tolerate SO many duplicated letters? Considering at the time the MTA had P,T,U,V,W,X,Y letters available surely at least two of those were on enough rollsigns that it could've stood in for the B/D on Broadway, no?

Did the Bowery line warrant three services or was the TA running out of places to put trains?

Lastly was there something preventing the TA from installing an interlocking on the north landing of the Manhattan bridge so services could still reach both lines could still be reached?

 

[bobtehpanda]

I recently took a look at the 1987 subway map and I wanted to talk about it in the hopes someone could offer insight.

 

Things of note were 5 Broadway services as was compelled by the North Side Manhattan Bridge closure. Track capacity is often talked about on these boards, how did service get along with the *B* *D* *N* *Q* *R*?

 

Along the same line was The Bridge at capacity with 4 services?

 

Why did BOTH and terminate at 34th/6av, why not send a service to terminate on the W4th 6ave express tracks or utilize 2nd ave? Send a few down to Grand st or Bustitute the station.

 

Why did the TA tolerate SO many duplicated letters? Considering at the time the MTA had P,T,U,V,W,X,Y letters available surely at least two of those were on enough rollsigns that it could've stood in for the B/D on Broadway, no?

 

Did the Bowery line warrant three services or was the TA running out of places to put trains?

 

Lastly was there something preventing the TA from installing an interlocking on the north landing of the Manhattan bridge so services could still reach both lines could still be reached?

 

 

 

At least for the dual B,D, I assume that it was because Manhattan bridge work was never meant to be permanent, so renaming the routes for a few years and then changing them back would've not been worth the effort.

[Eric B]

I hated that, especially later when I realized that Chrystie was a fairly recent thing, and that this pattern resembled the way it was before Chrystie, basically the 1920 "BMT Southern division". 

As was said, it was supposed to be much shorter duration, and they had been switching back and forth between sides of the bridge. I still thought new letters should have been used whenever the service changed.

 

I guess it was because I liked the idea of subway bullets and making words with them, and wanted as many letters as possible used. The Bway-West End was the old "T", and here was the perfect opportunity to use it again. In the earlier shutdowns (especially the months long one in Fall '85), it would have made sense just to eliminate the and beef the ‹QB› up to the full time service, running like the did (exp. weekdays, local weekends, with the M remaining the same). Don't know why they didn't do at least that much.

 

Of course, in the '86-88 change, they also did a concurrent structural modification that required the M to be taken off, and replaced with a skip-stop service. The NYDERA Bulletin right before the changes began reported a "modified Q Skip-Stop". I never believed in wasting letters for numbers for a skip-stop (including the later and . So I figured "U" would have been good to use for the other service besides the , since it sounds like Q, and nearly always accompanies Q in language. 

(Also, it wasn't until school car that I discovered that the W was actually on the original R68 signs; just as they were being replaced with the current signs. So that actually could have been used too).

[Kamen Rider]

I recently took a look at the 1987 subway map and I wanted to talk about it in the hopes someone could offer insight.

 

Things of note were 5 Broadway services as was compelled by the North Side Manhattan Bridge closure. Track capacity is often talked about on these boards, how did service get along with the *B* *D* *N* *Q* *R*?

 

Along the same line was The Bridge at capacity with 4 services?

 

Why did BOTH and terminate at 34th/6av, why not send a service to terminate on the W4th 6ave express tracks or utilize 2nd ave? Send a few down to Grand st or Bustitute the station.

 

Why did the TA tolerate SO many duplicated letters? Considering at the time the MTA had P,T,U,V,W,X,Y letters available surely at least two of those were on enough rollsigns that it could've stood in for the B/D on Broadway, no?

 

Did the Bowery line warrant three services or was the TA running out of places to put trains?

 

Lastly was there something preventing the TA from installing an interlocking on the north landing of the Manhattan bridge so services could still reach both lines could still be reached?

 

 

point 1.

they didn't actually run at full line capcity on the outer ends. their abilty to run was dictated by the space on Broadway. Same as with the N,Q,,R and W 14 years later.

 

point 2.

Didn't have the modern bridge speed restrictions set after the WillyB wreck.

 

Point 3.

Track layout, with way too much switching and way too much waiting. again, for much the same reasons as 14 years later. If the grand st shuttle is operated as part of a longer route, the issue comes in returning north. Due to the track layout, the line has to run as absoutle block from between West 4th and Broadway-Lafayette to Grand street and back. This inculdes the station stop coming and going at Broadway, this would cause a long delay. At that point the switches and tracks at west 4th were already occupided by the 6th ave shuttle line, the F and the JFK Express.

 

Point 4.

The subway had spent decades with dupilcate service labels, this was nothing out of the ordinary for the time.

Aside from the express/local single/double letter routine, you had things like two R trains (R Broadway and R Nassua) and the possible confusion of the B and QB.

 

Point 5.

 

assuiming you mean broadway and not bowery, the services were transfered to keep people moving and provide them with as close a subsititue as possible to what they needed.

 

Point 6.

Well, A, money (the MTA didn't have any and they weren't the ones rebuilding the bridge it was the city DOT). b, it would be a flat junction (not a good idea, if you can avoid it, do so). c, time, it would take months if not years to bore a connection nessisary, which would end up closing both sides of the bridge making the problem worse, not to mention the planing, the permissions, the enviromental crap. the tunnels don't go near each other, and the only connection between them on the manhattan side was backwards from what they needed (from north side to Broadway. in 1987 they needed from south side to 6th) Remember, this was considered an emergency shutdown.  this was not planed ahead of time, it was mostly off the cuff.

[Jsunflyguy]

 

 

Point 4.

The subway had spent decades with dupilcate service labels, this was nothing out of the ordinary for the time.

Aside from the express/local single/double letter routine, you had things like two R trains (R Broadway and R Nassua) and the possible confusion of the B and QB.

 

Point 6.

Well, A, money (the MTA didn't have any and they weren't the ones rebuilding the bridge it was the city DOT). b, it would be a flat junction (not a good idea, if you can avoid it, do so). c, time, it would take months if not years to bore a connection nessisary, which would end up closing both sides of the bridge making the problem worse, not to mention the planing, the permissions, the enviromental crap. the tunnels don't go near each other, and the only connection between them on the manhattan side was backwards from what they needed (from north side to Broadway. in 1987 they needed from south side to 6th) Remember, this was considered an emergency shutdown.  this was not planed ahead of time, it was mostly off the cuff.

4) Well the R-train is one of the duplicate letters I had in mind, one might tolerate a duplicate rush hour letter. But to make a full time duplication of the D and daily B seems ridiculous, especially considering orange and yellow are somewhat close. A faded sign could look yellow when it's Orange. QB and B don't seem close but noted.

 

6) I see, I was under the impression it was a long-term G.O, I haven't riden the bridge when there were RFWs so I never got a good look at the tunnel geometry.

 

Thanks for your input.

[Kamen Rider]

The Orange and yellow versions only shared one station, 34th street, in function the confusion was minimal. Also part of the reason the IND side B and D ended there. They were continuing the B and D upstairs. If the BMT had the capcity, they probibly would have ended there as well, but there is no abilty to turn there going back to Brooklyn, so the D and Q continued up to 57/7th and the B ran with the N and R to Queens

[Jsunflyguy]

If the Express crossover at Bway Lafayette existed the couldve single tracked, freeing up track for 2nd ave and the SB express to be used as a relay or terminal. But having read the article about the MTA in the 80s, seems like everything was falling apart.

[Kamen Rider]

The question you need to consider is not "why didn't they", but "why should they". Doesn't seem like much to be gained.