Around the Horn Posted November 21, 2016 Share #4551 Posted November 21, 2016 and are pretty far apart, as are the and . As are the lines. Ah, I forgot about those... But my point still stands. Back in 1985, when the double letters were eliminated, the and didn't exist. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3F Posted November 21, 2016 Share #4552 Posted November 21, 2016 Ah, I forgot about those... But my point still stands. Back in 1985, when the double letters were eliminated, the and didn't exist. In 1985, the was with the and the was with the line. Neither is close in terms of letter order. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted November 21, 2016 Share #4553 Posted November 21, 2016 Ah, I forgot about those... But my point still stands. Back in 1985, when the double letters were eliminated, the and didn't exist. Actually, the V was in consideration as a 6th Avenue extra as far back as 1981 when the new sign curtains were ordered and installed on the R16s and up. The W was a theoretical Broadway extra since '87 as the trains received their overhauls. Manhattan Bridge construction work put a damper on both ideas for a while. Regarding the Z, the only reason why it received that designation was because the line's introduction coincided with the elimination of the 8th Avenue K line. While it certainly makes sense nowadays for the skip-stop to be the J and K, changing the route of the K so drastically in '88 would've caused unnecessary confusion for riders who were getting used to not only the route changes on the lines heading into Jamaica, but the changes caused by the Manhattan Bridge shift as well. While I'm not against relabeling the Z as the K now, I understand why it wasn't done so then. Back to the W, I recall reading somewhere there was an idea thrown around that would've had the W designated as the T as a bit of a throwback to the pre-Chrystie services, but since the W bullet was already on most of the sign curtains, that's what Transit went with for the Broadway-West End service in 2001. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted November 21, 2016 Share #4554 Posted November 21, 2016 I'm not sure why they couldn't have used P or T back then. Why the skip all the way to Z? I don't think Transit was even thinking about what letter they were going to use for the 2nd Ave Subway, which in the late 1980s, was more than a decade after construction had been stopped due to the 1975 financial crisis and for when there were few, if any, signs of resuming construction on it at the time. But they chose and unless they're planning to significantly change the service, there's probably no reason to change it now because riders have gotten used to it after 28 years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porter Posted November 21, 2016 Share #4555 Posted November 21, 2016 (edited) Regarding the Z, the only reason why it received that designation was because the line's introduction coincided with the elimination of the 8th Avenue K line. While it certainly makes sense nowadays for the skip-stop to be the J and K, changing the route of the K so drastically in '88 would've caused unnecessary confusion for riders who were getting used to not only the route changes on the lines heading into Jamaica, but the changes caused by the Manhattan Bridge shift as well. While I'm not against relabeling the Z as the K now, I understand why it wasn't done so then. The first day of the was literally the day after the last day of the . Even so, didn't the become the abruptly the next day anyway? Regarding the use of the letter 'Z' specifically, I assumed that the made it a customary practice to place skip-stop services all the way at the end of the alphanumeric sequence (hence after ). Edited November 21, 2016 by Skipper 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted November 21, 2016 Share #4556 Posted November 21, 2016 The first day of the was literally the day after the last day of the . Even so, didn't the become the abruptly the next day anyway? Regarding the use of the letter 'Z' specifically, I assumed that the made it a customary practice to place skip-stop services all the way at the end of the alphanumeric sequence (hence after ). The still ended up being a Myrtle route though, the same it's always been. The would've jumped from 8th Avenue to the Jamaica Line overnight. was because through (8) were/had already been in use. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porter Posted November 21, 2016 Share #4557 Posted November 21, 2016 was because through (8) were/had already been in use. I don't believe the ever made it beyond the 1979 color reform and 1985 letter reform, so it could have been done. The amount of time between 1973 and 1989 is significant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted November 22, 2016 Share #4558 Posted November 22, 2016 I don't believe the ever made it beyond the 1979 color reform and 1985 letter reform, so it could have been done. The amount of time between 1973 and 1989 is significant. 8 was once proposed to replace the , its on roll signs as a green circle. (11) was also at that time proposed to replace , and (10) was proposed to replace . I think the R62/A roll signs go up to 13 IIRC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caelestor Posted November 22, 2016 Share #4559 Posted November 22, 2016 The first day of the was literally the day after the last day of the . Even so, didn't the become the abruptly the next day anyway? Regarding the use of the letter 'Z' specifically, I assumed that the made it a customary practice to place skip-stop services all the way at the end of the alphanumeric sequence (hence after ). The was supposed to be replaced by a extension, but board members and the general public wanted to keep the . The was an 8 Ave service when it ended; otherwise it probably would have supplemented the instead of . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porter Posted November 22, 2016 Share #4560 Posted November 22, 2016 8 was once proposed to replace the , its on roll signs as a green circle. (11) was also at that time proposed to replace , and (10) was proposed to replace . I think the R62/A roll signs go up to 13 IIRC. Oh, I didn't know that. Double digits were on the table, huh? And the is apparently no more; when did that happen? The was supposed to be replaced by a extension, but board members and the general public wanted to keep the . I appreciate the whole "familiarity" angle, but making those new bullets seems like a waste of time and money. The was an 8 Ave service when it ended; otherwise it probably would have supplemented the instead of . Well, it's never too late. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted November 22, 2016 Share #4561 Posted November 22, 2016 People are familiar with the Z. It would cost a lot to replace signs, maps, rollsigns on the R32s/R42s. There would be a lot of confusion. It would be entirely unnecessary. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted November 22, 2016 Share #4562 Posted November 22, 2016 I appreciate the whole "familiarity" angle, but making those new bullets seems like a waste of time and money. Not a lot has to be changed; you slap stickers on the Myrtle and Broadway Lines, the subway maps get updated every year or so anyways, and the runs almost entirely R160s so you don't even really have to change rollsigns. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted November 22, 2016 Share #4563 Posted November 22, 2016 (edited) Actually, the V was in consideration as a 6th Avenue extra as far back as 1981 when the new sign curtains were ordered and installed on the R16s and up. The W was a theoretical Broadway extra since '87 as the trains received their overhauls. Manhattan Bridge construction work put a damper on both ideas for a while. Regarding the Z, the only reason why it received that designation was because the line's introduction coincided with the elimination of the 8th Avenue K line. While it certainly makes sense nowadays for the skip-stop to be the J and K, changing the route of the K so drastically in '88 would've caused unnecessary confusion for riders who were getting used to not only the route changes on the lines heading into Jamaica, but the changes caused by the Manhattan Bridge shift as well. While I'm not against relabeling the Z as the K now, I understand why it wasn't done so then. The first day of the was literally the day after the last day of the . Even so, didn't the become the abruptly the next day anyway? Regarding the use of the letter 'Z' specifically, I assumed that the made it a customary practice to place skip-stop services all the way at the end of the alphanumeric sequence (hence after ). The still ended up being a Myrtle route though, the same it's always been. The would've jumped from 8th Avenue to the Jamaica Line overnight. The was supposed to be replaced by a extension, but board members and the general public wanted to keep the . The was an 8 Ave service when it ended; otherwise it probably would have supplemented the instead of . I always wondered why they jumped the up there instead of keeping it on Bway-Bklyn (and I thought the should have replaced the AA, and didn't realize the Rockaway shuttle had previously used that letter), but then later heard that the original plan for the was BOTH CPW and Bway-Bklyn; they were going to connect them through Chrystie. I think I heard it was an old plan for a "168 to 168" service in the 70's, and apparently was reconsidered for 6th Ave. during the bridge closure (which was right after the double letter elimination), and somehow involve the 6th Ave. shuttle (which used ENY R30's as it was); perhaps by running like the previous service, which went to 168th rush hours, and 57th other times. So in the end, it was split into the and . (If they swapped them, then you would have had the J/K skip stop, and express and blue Z local running together —"A to Z" on one line. I always figured they just should have used "I". They don't want to use it as its own line, but as the skip'stop, it would have been enough to distinguish it from the , and to me, skip stop is a waste of a letter, so a useless letter would have been good for that). Edited November 22, 2016 by Eric B 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted November 22, 2016 Share #4564 Posted November 22, 2016 I always wondered why they jumped the up there instead of keeping it on Bway-Bklyn (and I thought the should have replaced the AA, and didn't realize the Rockaway shuttle had previously used that letter), but then later heard that the original plan for the was BOTH CPW and Bway-Bklyn; they were going to connect them through Chrystie. I think I heard it was an old plan for a "168 to 168" service in the 70's, and apparently was reconsidered for 6th Ave. during the bridge closure (which was right after the double letter elimination), and somehow involve the 6th Ave. shuttle (which used ENY R30's as it was); perhaps by running like the previous service, which went to 168th rush hours, and 57th other times. That "168 to 168" would have made sense in the '70s and later on perhaps to at least Broadway Junction. I have in the past thought of having the on CPW (at least weekends to replace the there if it can't run on QB due to CBTC work), Now of course that would be difficult outside of emergencies and maybe some G.O.'s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D to Burke Avenue Posted November 22, 2016 Share #4565 Posted November 22, 2016 Hmmm.... I thought of cutting Lefferts and replacing them with a to Lefferts, of course running express in Brooklyn. Extend the to Euclid and make it go local, gonna have to look into it if it's possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted November 22, 2016 Share #4566 Posted November 22, 2016 8 was once proposed to replace the , its on roll signs as a green circle. (11) was also at that time proposed to replace , and (10) was proposed to replace . I think the R62/A roll signs go up to 13 IIRC.It does. -8 is green. The replacement. -9 is red. We all know about that lol. -10 is green. Something of a replacement/proposal. -11 is purple. Obvious replacement. -12 is green. I think that would've been a replacement/proposal. -13 is red. Same thing as the 12, but via 7 Av instead of Lex. There was rumors of some signs having a number 14, but it was never confirmed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted November 22, 2016 Share #4567 Posted November 22, 2016 It'd be cool to have an 11, if only because having a rapper named Jay-Z would probably lead to some dipshit calling themselves 7-11. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeLow Posted November 22, 2016 Share #4568 Posted November 22, 2016 It'd be cool to have an 11, if only because having a rapper named Jay-Z would probably lead to some dipshit calling themselves 7-11. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDNQ2345 Posted November 22, 2016 Share #4569 Posted November 22, 2016 (edited) It does. -8 is green. The replacement. -9 is red. We all know about that lol. -10 is green. Something of a replacement/proposal. -11 is purple. Obvious replacement. -12 is green. I think that would've been a replacement/proposal. -13 is red. Same thing as the 12, but via 7 Av instead of Lex. There was rumors of some signs having a number 14, but it was never confirmed. I see the fantasy map about this here http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/calcagno-fantasy-sub-rus4.gif Edited November 22, 2016 by BDNQ2345 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R42N Posted November 22, 2016 Share #4570 Posted November 22, 2016 I’ve watched the return to Broadway the last few weeks, and while it’s nice to see it back, I’m not a big fan of it’s service pattern, and it’s weird how the ’s service pattern has changes drastically, and considering the is just an extension of the internally, I think this should be the new service pattern once the Sea Beach re-construction is done. There would be two N services. The and the express. The would run at all times, from Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island, running local on the Astoria Line, Broadway Line, via Bridge, 4th Avenue Express, and Sea Beach Local. The Express would run at Rush Hours and Middays from Ditmars Blvd (and current short turns to 57/7 would be from the ) to Coney Island, running local on the Astoria Line, and express on the Broadway, 4th Ave, and Sea Beach in peak-direction (stopping at stops that currently have temporary platforms. ------ I prefer this service over the current service for a few reasons: 1) service is beyond capacity, this could provide more evening and midday Astoria service, with the choice of either a local or an express in Manhattan. 2) With the growing population in Bensonhurst and Borough Park, providing a Super Express could be popular 3) Broadway Local stops receive bridge service once again. 4) Gives Astoria two downtown Brooklyn Options again. Neither the nearby , or provide service to Downtown Brooklyn, this would alleviate transfers to the at 59th and 5th. 5) Provides the extra service to Atlantic/Barclays, 36th, 59th, and popular Sea Beach stops, but doesn’t make the extra stops that reduces headways. ------- What are your thoughts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted November 22, 2016 Share #4571 Posted November 22, 2016 The last thing the needs is the bottleneck at Prince Street again... No thanks. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metro CSW Posted November 23, 2016 Share #4572 Posted November 23, 2016 Agreed. It's seems kinda similar to the decision with the express debate, however.... Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armandito Posted November 23, 2016 Share #4573 Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) I’ve watched the return to Broadway the last few weeks, and while it’s nice to see it back, I’m not a big fan of it’s service pattern, and it’s weird how the ’s service pattern has changes drastically, and considering the is just an extension of the internally, I think this should be the new service pattern once the Sea Beach re-construction is done. There would be two N services. The and the express. The would run at all times, from Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island, running local on the Astoria Line, Broadway Line, via Bridge, 4th Avenue Express, and Sea Beach Local. The Express would run at Rush Hours and Middays from Ditmars Blvd (and current short turns to 57/7 would be from the ) to Coney Island, running local on the Astoria Line, and express on the Broadway, 4th Ave, and Sea Beach in peak-direction (stopping at stops that currently have temporary platforms. ------ I prefer this service over the current service for a few reasons: 1) service is beyond capacity, this could provide more evening and midday Astoria service, with the choice of either a local or an express in Manhattan. 2) With the growing population in Bensonhurst and Borough Park, providing a Super Express could be popular 3) Broadway Local stops receive bridge service once again. 4) Gives Astoria two downtown Brooklyn Options again. Neither the nearby , or provide service to Downtown Brooklyn, this would alleviate transfers to the at 59th and 5th. 5) Provides the extra service to Atlantic/Barclays, 36th, 59th, and popular Sea Beach stops, but doesn’t make the extra stops that reduces headways. ------- What are your thoughts? I'd be against an Sea Beach Express because the MTA failed on that experiment when its predecessor, the NX, suffered low ridership and consequently led to unnecessary overcrowding at the local stations along the Sea Beach Line. It was the same situation when the pre-2004 once ran express in the peak direction between Astoria Boulevard and Queensboro Plaza between 2001 and 2002, and when select Manhattan-bound trains ran express along Jerome Avenue around 2009. Too many riders overcrowding the local stations and not enough riders to justify an express. It's also been a major drawback that surely prevented a Culver Express train from materializing in the recent past. And on top of all of that, both the and lines are already at capacity (and you just mentioned the being beyond capacity, too), so adding in more trains is out of the question. Edited November 23, 2016 by Q44SBS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armandito Posted November 23, 2016 Share #4574 Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) The last thing the needs is the bottleneck at Prince Street again... No thanks. Why not just run the as a Manhattan express 7 days a week? Edited November 23, 2016 by Q44SBS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDNQ2345 Posted November 23, 2016 Share #4575 Posted November 23, 2016 I see the fantasy map about this here http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/img/maps/calcagno-fantasy-sub-rus4.gif i would switch back & around in brooklyn extend the back to brooykln <10> bring into Manhattan and terminated at Bowling Green 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.