The K, V and 10 trains
Cap'n Bludd
Dave <rdz...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>I've seen covered up signs for the K line, which apparently ran on the
>8th Avenue line at some point in the past. Can anyone please tell me
>what this route was, and why it was discontinued?
The last incarnation of the K ran from 168 to World Trade. Back then
the C only ran during rush hours, when the C went full time the K was
no longer needed.
>Even more confusing, I once saw a 6 train with a car that had the 10
>signage where normally there is a lighted 4, 5 or 6 logo. It was
>towards the middle of the train, so it wasn't illuminated.
What's so confusing? You said it was a 6 train,so all the rest of the
signs led you to that conclusion. Someone rolled the sign too far or
it got stuck. There are extra numbers and letters on the rolls so the
signs dont have to be replaced when routes are added or changed.
.
> As part of my general argument that the MTA should use EITHER numbers or
>letters, but not both, not anymore, for its subway nomenclature.
Your reasoning being? Why confuse people by telling them the A is now
the 11 the J is the 22 and so on? Are you saying people are so stupid
nowadays that they can't handle letters and numbers? Are you one of
the contractors who will be making a ton of money putting up all these
new signs and sign rolls?
>
>Also, why are people so sentimental over the "GG" train? I don't see
>anyone championing the G, which so far as I can tell runs the same
>route.
Who are these sentimental people?
>
>Thanks,
>Dave
Cap'n Bludd C/r C/f
cpnb...@pipeline.com
capn...@aol.com
http://www.pipeline.com/~cpnbludd
The probability of someone watching you is directly
proportional to the stupidity of your actions....
Dave
Cap'n Bludd wrote:
>
> Dave <rdz...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Even more confusing, I once saw a 6 train with a car that had the 10
> >signage where normally there is a lighted 4, 5 or 6 logo. It was
> >towards the middle of the train, so it wasn't illuminated.
> What's so confusing? You said it was a 6 train,so all the rest of the
> signs led you to that conclusion. Someone rolled the sign too far or
> it got stuck. There are extra numbers and letters on the rolls so the
> signs dont have to be replaced when routes are added or changed.
> .
the more modern cars, not one of the redbirds. I guess I should
apologize for posting such an obvious question, I'm such an idiot. I
wasn't confused as to whether there was a new 10 train running, only
that maybe one had run in the past.
> > As part of my general argument that the MTA should use EITHER numbers or
> >letters, but not both, not anymore, for its subway nomenclature.
> Your reasoning being? Why confuse people by telling them the A is now
> the 11 the J is the 22 and so on? Are you saying people are so stupid
> nowadays that they can't handle letters and numbers? Are you one of
> the contractors who will be making a ton of money putting up all these
> new signs and sign rolls?
> >
Quite the opposite. I'm not sure why you're jumping to conclusions I
have something to gain from renaming the lines. No, I'm only
mentioning it based on that as far as I know, all other cities are
consistent with the line nomenclature - colors, terminal/terminal,
letter, number, direction. Plus, I'm not sure why it wasn't done when
they went through and renamed and re-colored some of the lines several
years ago. That had to be a big change. Maybe its me being over anal
retentive, but I wonder why they didn't just choose one or the other.
P.S.: The A should be the 8 train - easy to remember. That was the
question.
> >Also, why are people so sentimental over the "GG" train? I don't see
> >anyone championing the G, which so far as I can tell runs the same
> >route.
> Who are these sentimental people?
"Under the Streets of New York", by Brian J. Cudahy, preface to the 1988
edition, p. xxi:
"In the way of train identification, a revised system is now in effect
on two of the systems three divisions, the BMT and the IND lines. The
changes are probably a good idea - things had gotten quite confusing in
the nomenclature department over the past few decades - but it has made
a casualty of a colorful designation that had been a part of the lives
of many New Yorkers for generations. Sad to say the GG line is no
more! Oh, there's a new G train that runs from Forest Hills through
Queens to South Brooklyn exactly the way the old GG used to, but the GG
itself is no more. Too bad, I say."
That, and its also mentioned in the History Channel's report on "Empire
Beneath the Streets". The only guess I have is that it was pronounced
"Gigi".
Dave
ECARS24
The K train was a local that ran along the 8th Ave. line. If memory serves
me correct, I believe it had a short run through Manhattan terminating at
145 or in the 180's and the World Trade Center. I remember the K running
along the same route as the C.
<--Jerky!-->
Ed (NY) wrote:
> >CHAPTER 1: The K originally ran as the KK, commencing
> July 1, 1968, operating between 57th Street/6th Avenue
> (new station opened on this date) via 6th Avenue local
> and the now-abandoned spur connecting Broadway-
> Lafayette to Essex Street, then local to Eastern Parkway,
> then skip-stop (along with the QJ) to 168th Street-
> Jamaica Avenue (the end of the now-
> abandoned piece of the Jamaica elevated line).
> Note: This train provided skip-stop service in both AM and PM rush
> hours; it ran rush hours only. Actually, the KK did not commence on
> July 1; I believe that was a weekend day (I rode the first train into
> 57th Street/6th Avenue; it was a B).
>
> July 14, 1969: PM rush hour skip-stop service discontinued.
>
> Dec. 31, 1972: KK becomes K; cut back to Eastern Parkway.
>
> August 29, 1976: K discontinued.
Didn't the KK also go to Canarsie (using the J-L connection at Broadway
Junction) sometime during this time period?
Jerky!
Gerry1216
I seem to remember the KK running from Rockaway Parkway in Canarsie
to Broadway Junction, then along the Jamaica Line to Delancey/Essex Sts.
in Manhattan, then up the Sixth Ave. Line to the new (at that time)
station at 57 St. and Sixth Ave. This was close to twenty years ago.
gerr...@aol.com
wa...@rhoda.fordham.edu
> local to 57th Street. The KK ran during the rush hours, and used R-10
> type subway cars - the oldest of subway cars.
R1-R9s.
Michael Wares wa...@rhoda.fordham.edu
Colin R. Leech
Cap'n Bludd (cpnb...@pipeline.com) wrote:
> Dave <rdz...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As part of my general argument that the MTA should use EITHER numbers or
>>letters, but not both, not anymore, for its subway nomenclature.
>
> Your reasoning being? Why confuse people by telling them the A is now
> the 11 the J is the 22 and so on?
There have been significant renumberings/reletterings over the years, for
example the elimination of double-letter names for trains. That would have
been a good time to consolidate the whole system on either numbers or
letters. I agree that changing all of one to the other would be confusing
at this stage, but it could have been easily accomplished earlier as part
of a bigger project.
As a point of reference, the numbering of bus routes here in Ottawa is
that three digit numbers are local routes, while two digit numbers travel
downtown. A similar arrangement could have been used for the NYC subway,
like the single letter/double letter system formerly in use. One advantage
of numbers over letters is that you never run out of them. :-)
--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
PSchleifer
In article <01bc6725$c0461300$c0102399@default>, "Ed (NY)"
<eb...@earthlink.net> writes:
>End of K.
There was a proposal a few years ago to revive the K
as a skip-stop rush-hour route on the 14th St-Canarsie
line (paired with the L). This was part of a package of
proposed service cuts in 1991 which were not
implemented. The cuts included:
- No 3 service to Brooklyn on weekends. The 3 was
to terminate at South Ferry. The 4 would go to New Lots.
- Cut the G back to Bergen St
- Some F's to run express Church Ave - Jay St (this was
considered a cut because fewer trains would be run)
- Some complex stuff with the 6th and 8th Av lines. The
A was to be local at all times. The B would go to
Queensbridge at all times. The Q would be a CPW express
to 168th. An H would run express from 34th to Lefferts or
Far Rock. The C was to discontinued.
Two other of these cuts were actually implemented, but
not until 1995 - 42nd St shuttle overnight suspension and
M midday cutback.
---------------------
Peter Schleifer
work: ny...@ny.ubs.com (UBS Securities-standard disclaimer applies)
home: pschl...@aol.com
M.J.S.
In article <EAn56...@nonexistent.com>,
That was the JJ (1959-1968, replaced BMT 14).
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Michael Berson
On 23 May 1997 04:31:36 GMT, micha...@aol.com (Michael549) wrote:
>Actually there were three variations of the "K" train.
>
>From about 1968 to early 1970's: the KK. The KK started at 168th Street
>- Jamaica as a skip-stop local to Broadway Junction, from there to Marcy
>Avenue making all stops, after Essex Street traveling up Sixth Avenue as a
>local to 57th Street. The KK ran during the rush hours, and used R-10
>type subway cars - the oldest of subway cars.
Didn't the KK use R1-9's?? I thought most of the R-10's were
concentrated on the A.
>
Michael Berson
On Fri, 23 May 1997 15:17:30 GMT, "<--Jerky!-->" <je...@nyct.net>
wrote:
>Ed (NY) wrote:
>
>> >CHAPTER 1: The K originally ran as the KK, commencing
>> July 1, 1968, operating between 57th Street/6th Avenue
>> (new station opened on this date) via 6th Avenue local
>> and the now-abandoned spur connecting Broadway-
>> Lafayette to Essex Street, then local to Eastern Parkway,
>> then skip-stop (along with the QJ) to 168th Street-
>> Jamaica Avenue (the end of the now-
>> abandoned piece of the Jamaica elevated line).
>> Note: This train provided skip-stop service in both AM and PM rush
>> hours; it ran rush hours only. Actually, the KK did not commence on
>> July 1; I believe that was a weekend day (I rode the first train into
>> 57th Street/6th Avenue; it was a B).
>>
>> July 14, 1969: PM rush hour skip-stop service discontinued.
>>
>> Dec. 31, 1972: KK becomes K; cut back to Eastern Parkway.
>>
>> August 29, 1976: K discontinued.
>
>Didn't the KK also go to Canarsie (using the J-L connection at Broadway
>Junction) sometime during this time period?
>
>Jerky!
I believe a handful of KK (K) trains terminated at Canarsie as they
would lay-up in the Rockaway Parkway Yard. None of the maps ever
reflected this, but I remember reading a posting awhile back that
mentioned that some K trains went to Canarsie.
Colin R. Leech
Subject line belatedly changed.
Jason DeCesare (mile...@erols.com) wrote:
>
>> > > As part of my general argument that the MTA should use EITHER numbers or
>> > >letters, but not both, not anymore, for its subway nomenclature.
>>
>> Plus, I'm not sure why it wasn't done when
>> they went through and renamed and re-colored some of the lines several
>> years ago. That had to be a big change. Maybe its me being over anal
>> retentive, but I wonder why they didn't just choose one or the other.
It would have been a good opportunity. Indeed, I seem to recall reading
here that one of the systems didn't even have numbers or letters in prior
incarnations - only the name of the line (eg. "Lexington Local to ...").
Rather than creating a new naming system, they could have simply extended
the naming system that was already in place at the time.
> It is to keep things less confusing!
>
> "Numbered routes were formerly called the IRT; lettered routes were
> formerly called the BMT or IND. Colors are based on the trunk lines in
> Manhattan's central business district." -From the 1979 NYC Subway map
So? That first sentence doesn't add anything to this particular question.
Who cares what the lines were 60 years ago, other than us transit and
history buffs? Joe Average Commuter only cares aboput what lines takes him
to what station, *today*. Of course the second sentence is useful, but
again irrelevant to the question posed in this thread.
> Anyway, you would ruin the song "Take the A Train" if you changed the
> "A" to "8", sure eight sounds similar to "A", but it isn't the same!
ROTFL! I'm a Glenn Miller fan, but I'm not going to lobby Amtrak to start
a new train just so that "Chattanooga Choo Choo" (apologies in advance
for any misspellings) can still be sung.
>> > >Also, why are people so sentimental over the "GG" train? I don't see
>> > >anyone championing the G, which so far as I can tell runs the same
>> > >route.
>>
>> "Under the Streets of New York", by Brian J. Cudahy, preface to the 1988
>> edition, p. xxi: "... Sad to say the GG line is no
>> more! Oh, there's a new G train that runs from Forest Hills through
>> Queens to South Brooklyn exactly the way the old GG used to, but the GG
>> itself is no more. Too bad, I say."
Like he said above, since it's the same train, you're just getting
sentimental over a name. This one doesnt' even have a song written about
it.
> As I said above, double letters = local train on the B division.
> Makes things a bit easier to remember than 25 numbers!
Yes, but dropping the double letters was a system-wide renaming, not just
the GG train.
>> That, and its also mentioned in the History Channel's report on "Empire
>> Beneath the Streets". The only guess I have is that it was pronounced
>> "Gigi".
Ah, there's the missing song! :-)
Ed (NY)
>
>
> Didn't the KK also go to Canarsie (using the J-L connection at Broadway
> Junction) sometime during this time period?
>
> Jerky!
There were limited put-ins at Atlantic Avenue, RPky & 111th Street AM;
PM some service terminated at Eastern Pky.
Remember that a full complement of service was required to 168th St-
Jamaica because of the skip-stop service, so regular trains could
not be diverted onto the Canarsie line.
>
Jason DeCesare
Colin R. Leech wrote:
>
> Subject line belatedly changed.
>
> Jason DeCesare (mile...@erols.com) wrote:
> >
> >> > > As part of my general argument that the MTA should use EITHER numbers or
> >> > >letters, but not both, not anymore, for its subway nomenclature.
> >>
> >> Plus, I'm not sure why it wasn't done when
> >> they went through and renamed and re-colored some of the lines several
> >> years ago. That had to be a big change. Maybe its me being over anal
> >> retentive, but I wonder why they didn't just choose one or the other.
>
> It would have been a good opportunity. Indeed, I seem to recall reading
> here that one of the systems didn't even have numbers or letters in prior
> incarnations - only the name of the line (eg. "Lexington Local to ...").
> Rather than creating a new naming system, they could have simply extended
> the naming system that was already in place at the time.
The IND had letter designations, the BMT had number designations, while
the
IRT used destinations.
> > It is to keep things less confusing!
> >
> > "Numbered routes were formerly called the IRT; lettered routes were
> > formerly called the BMT or IND. Colors are based on the trunk lines in
> > Manhattan's central business district." -From the 1979 NYC Subway map
>
> So? That first sentence doesn't add anything to this particular question.
Ah, it does! One of the things you seem to be forgetting up there in
Ottawa is
that there are in theory two seperate subway systems- A division (IRT)
and
B division (IND/BMT). There are differencs in loading gauge, tunnel size
that
prevents the use of B division equipment on A division. A division
equipment
could be used on B division, but there would be a bit of a gap between
car and
platorm owing to the IRT's smaller loading gauge. In fact Flushing Line
(7)
equipment travels to Coney Island via B division trackage for repairs,
although
the trains are not in revenue service.
One theory on why the IRT lines are numered and the IND/BMT are lettered
is to
keep things simple for the folks at the TA so they won't run B division
equipment
on A division and vice versa. It also makes for a natural division of a
rather large
system. It is somewhat akin to NJ Transit Rail Operations division
structure where
the former Pennsylvania/Penn Central and CNJ lines are in Newark
Division while the
former Erie-Lackawana lines are in Hoboken Division.
The main reason for having differing operating divisions, in my opinion,
is to have
two organs for dealing with lines with somewhat different operating
characteristics.
> Who cares what the lines were 60 years ago, other than us transit and
> history buffs? Joe Average Commuter only cares aboput what lines takes him
> to what station, *today*. Of course the second sentence is useful, but
> again irrelevant to the question posed in this thread.
Ah, but 20 years ago they put the notice in the map?
Why? People still used the old designations and it was a way of
reinforcing the new
terminology. It still hasn't been fully accepted, since all of the major
city wide
newspapers seem to mention the IRT, IND and BMT on occasion.
> > Anyway, you would ruin the song "Take the A Train" if you changed the
> > "A" to "8", sure eight sounds similar to "A", but it isn't the same!
>
> ROTFL! I'm a Glenn Miller fan, but I'm not going to lobby Amtrak to start
> a new train just so that "Chattanooga Choo Choo" (apologies in advance
> for any misspellings) can still be sung.
Yah, but the 8th Ave. Express has *always* been called the A train!
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
> >> > >Also, why are people so sentimental over the "GG" train? I don't see
> >> > >anyone championing the G, which so far as I can tell runs the same
> >> > >route.
> >>
> >> "Under the Streets of New York", by Brian J. Cudahy, preface to the 1988
> >> edition, p. xxi: "... Sad to say the GG line is no
> >> more! Oh, there's a new G train that runs from Forest Hills through
> >> Queens to South Brooklyn exactly the way the old GG used to, but the GG
> >> itself is no more. Too bad, I say."
>
> Like he said above, since it's the same train, you're just getting
> sentimental over a name. This one doesnt' even have a song written about
> it.
>
> > As I said above, double letters = local train on the B division.
> > Makes things a bit easier to remember than 25 numbers!
>
> Yes, but dropping the double letters was a system-wide renaming, not just
> the GG train.
I know, I know!
I am for bringing back all the double letters, though. Makes things
easier.
> >> That, and its also mentioned in the History Channel's report on "Empire
> >> Beneath the Streets". The only guess I have is that it was pronounced
> >> "Gigi".
>
> Ah, there's the missing song! :-)
Colin, I am amazed that you have nothing to say about my joke about
renaming
all the subway lines after MGM musicals. Here are some suggestions:
The G would be "Gigi", the J "Jumbo", the B "Brigadoon", the A "American
in Paris", the E "Easter Parade", the R "Royal Wedding", the Z "Ziegfeld
Follies",
and so on.
We could rename the 7 "Main Street to Broadway" and the Franklin Ave.
Shuttle
"It Happened in Brooklyn".
-Jason
--
Subway Trek: The Next Generation
"The IRT, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the 7 train.
Its continuing mission, to go to Manhattan, return to Flushing,
to boldly get delayed where other trains have gone before."
Hank Eisenstein
Markyip1 wrote:
>
> The reason both numbers and letters are used is to set apart the IRT lines
> from the rest of the subway. The IRT cars are smaller then the cars on the
> BMT and IND. That is the only reason, so if it's a numbered line, it's a 3
> door per side car if it's lettered 4 doors.
>
> The Subway Line Markers have many more markers then there are routes.
> This is incase a new line is made, you won't need new line markers.
>
> The K was some short line which was probably created to re-route track
> work. They often create new lines if they are doing major work on one
> lines, these are usally temporary shuttles, but sometimes they have real
> numbers/letters.
>
> The V is for the 2nd avenue line if it will be built.
>
> Mark.
Actually, the V is for a service from Queens Blvd to WTC via 6thave and
63st Tunnel. V signs on R32/38 say V (in orange) via Sixth Ave
The K was used twice, once as an express from B'way-ENY to 57/6 until
1976 or so, and was also used when the TA changed from double letters to
single letters for all trains, the AA became the K. H is the former
Rockaway shuttle, for some reason they switched to S. So now there is
a Black S, a Blue S, and an orange S.
Hank
--
http://www.earthcom.net/~nixon
Markyip1
John M Mullervy
Markyip1 (mark...@aol.com) wrote:
: The V is for the 2nd avenue line if it will be built.
Well the 63rd St Connection Logo has a "V" train on it.
John
M Greene
Jason DeCesare <mile...@erols.com>(...geez, now I have another
e-address to remember) wrote:
(First, some arguments found on previous posts...)
>Just because it works elsewhere doesn't mean it is going to work in NYC!
>The Number/Letter system isn't even universally accepted.
>We have some recalcitrant folks who sould call the 6 train the
>Lexingtion Ave.
>IRT local. (I seem to do this myself every now and then.)
>Anyway, what you propose seems more confusing than saying take the 6
>train
>uptown to 23rd St.
>If it ain'r broke don't fix it, seems to apply here.
Obviously, you haven't worked for UPS!
>>Plus, I'm not sure why it wasn't done when
>> they went through and renamed and re-colored some of the lines several
>> years ago. That had to be a big change. Maybe its me being over anal
>> retentive, but I wonder why they didn't just choose one or the other.
>It is to keep things less confusing!
>"Numbered routes were formerly called the IRT; lettered routes were
>formerly called the BMT or IND. Colors are based on the trunk lines in
>Manhattan's central business district." -From the 1979 NYC Subway map
>This system seems to make sense!
>> P.S.: The A should be the 8 train - easy to remember. That was the
>> question.
>Why? 8 is reserved for future IRT service, although some have argued
>that
>8 is the designation of the 42nd St. Shuttle. Historically 8 was the
>designation
>for the Third Ave. El.
Actually, the original IRT use for the #8 was as the Steinway
Tunnel-Astoria line, which was installed on the rollsigns of R-12's.
Although the changeover to BMT subway operation was in the works at
the time for the Astoria line, in the meantime, there was still a
system to be run, and the BOT had to run with what they had at that
point.
>Easy to remember, ha! The current system is easier to remember, although
>the
>double letters for locals should be brought back for B division
>(IND/BMT).
>Note: this system was not universally applied.
There were provisions for other double letter combos (e.g., FF, MM)
that did not see much use. Also, there was never a "NN" route
indicator (i.e., a Sea Beach Local?). In addition, the original "Q"
had different letter setups(QT and QB) to show how Brighton locals
would go from Manhattan to Brooklyn.
>Anyway, you would ruin the song "Take the A Train" if you changed the
>"A"
>to "8", sure eight sounds similar to "A", but it isn't the same!
Besides, what would Billy Strayhorn and Yoon Jae Lee do then???
.
>Hey, that gives me an idea! Why don't we name all the subway lines after
>MGM musicals.
>The G would be "Gigi", the J "Jumbo", the B "Brigadoon", the A "American
>in Paris",
>the E "Easter Parade", the R "Royal Wedding", the Z "Ziegfeld Follies",
>and so on.
>We could rename the 7 "Main Street to Broadway" and the Franklin Ave.
>Shuttle "It Happened in Brooklyn".
>This plan makes just as much sense as numbering all of the lines!
...And what would the Broad Street Subway be called...?
>--
>"There's a holdup in the Bronx, Brooklyn's broken out in fights,
>there's a traffic jam in Harlem that's backed up to Jackson Heights,
>there's a scout troop short a child, Khrushchev's due at Idlewild.
>Car 54 where are you!" - Theme from "Car 54 Where Are You"
A little dated...(At least it was the last TV show to actually show
the Bronx in reasonably decent shape-it actually filmed in the Bronx
and other areas of NYC.)
Later
Michael T. Greene
Because of the influx of junk mail, send all e-mail responses
to the following address: mgr...@voicenet.com@removethisbeforemailing
Colin R. Leech
Jason DeCesare (mile...@erols.com) wrote:
> Colin R. Leech wrote:
>>
>> It would have been a good opportunity. Indeed, I seem to recall reading
>> here that one of the systems didn't even have numbers or letters in prior
>> incarnations - only the name of the line (eg. "Lexington Local to ...").
>> Rather than creating a new naming system, they could have simply extended
>> the naming system that was already in place at the time.
>
> The IND had letter designations, the BMT had number designations, while
> the IRT used destinations.
Thank you for refreshing my memory. So at some point, the BMT lost its
numbers and gained letters, while the IRT gained numbers. The IRT could
have gained letters at the same time, so that every line would be lettered
rather than having a mixture of numbers and letters.
> Ah, it does! One of the things you seem to be forgetting is
> that there are in theory two seperate subway systems- A division (IRT) and
> B division (IND/BMT). There are differencs in loading gauge, tunnel size ...
I'm not forgetting any of this. It is totally irrelevant to the average
commuter, except insofar as the narrower cars create more crowding. In
fact, the main occasion when the car widths matter to the average commuter
are at places like South Ferry where gap fillers are required, which of
course have nothing to do with the car width at all.
Joe Average Commuter cares whether there is a fast and simple way to get
from point A to point B. If there were two completely separate competing
subway systems, then he would care which was which and how much they
charged. This is the case on 6th Ave. between 14th and 34th Streets where
he can ride the NYC subway for $1.50 or PATH for $1.00, but nowhere else.
Since the NYC subway is completely integrated with free transfers between
lines (wherever they physically intersect), it does not matter to the
average commuter that the 6 used to be part of one system and the B used
to be part of another. The major concern is the number of locations that
have "near misses" of lines: two lines cross each other or come close to
each other, but there is no physical way for passengers to transfer from
one to the other (eg. Queen's Plaza/Queensboro Plaza).
> One theory on why the IRT lines are numered and the IND/BMT are lettered is to
> keep things simple for the folks at the TA so they won't run B division equipment
> on A division and vice versa.
That's not giving a whole lot of credit for intelligence to the TA workers,
is it? Especially since there are few enough places where the tracks of
the two former systems interconnect.
> It also makes for a natural division of a rather large
> system. It is somewhat akin to NJ Transit Rail Operations division
> structure where
> the former Pennsylvania/Penn Central and CNJ lines are in Newark
> Division while the
> former Erie-Lackawana lines are in Hoboken Division.
Since the opening of Midtown Direct (Kearny Connection) and the Waterfront
Connection, this distinction also becomes unimportant since trains from
several lines can access either Penn Station or Hoboken. One of the _nice_
things about having an organization like NJT is that an integrated network
is much easier for the potential passenger to deal with as compared to
having to deal with multiple independent companies. I can pick up an NYCTA
Queens bus map and it will show me all of the available service, including
those lines operated by private companies.
> The main reason for having differing operating divisions, in my opinion,
> is to have
> two organs for dealing with lines with somewhat different operating
> characteristics.
This can still happen internally within the organization while still
presenting a unified image to the public.
> I am for bringing back all the double letters, though. Makes things
> easier.
The double letters make a lot of sense to me as well, as a very simple way
of differentiating the local and express routes from each other. The same
could be done with numbers: eg. the 106 train could be the express version
of the local 6 train or vice versa.
The more problematic
issue (largely unrelated to whether numbers or single letters or double
letters are used) is the definitions of "local" and "express". If a train
runs express in Manhattan and local in Brooklyn, or vice versa, how do you
describe it? Even today the map shows all stations along the 5 line in the
Bronx as being express stations because the 5 is defined as an express
train since it runs express in Manhattan.
> Colin, I am amazed that you have nothing to say about my joke about renaming
> all the subway lines after MGM musicals. Here are some suggestions:
> The G would be "Gigi", the J "Jumbo", the B "Brigadoon", the A "American
> in Paris", the E "Easter Parade", the R "Royal Wedding", the Z "Ziegfeld
> Follies", and so on.
> We could rename the 7 "Main Street to Broadway" and the Franklin Ave.
> Shuttle "It Happened in Brooklyn".
I thought it was funny, if impractical.
> --
> Subway Trek: The Next Generation
> "The IRT, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the 7 train.
> Its continuing mission, to go to Manhattan, return to Flushing,
> to boldly get delayed where other trains have gone before."
Now _that's_ funny!
Jeff Zeitlin
jm_REMO...@ix.netcom.com (Joel Rubin) wrote:
>On Thu, 22 May 1997 14:48:35 -0400, Dave <rdz...@sprintmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I've seen covered up signs for the K line, which apparently ran on the
>>8th Avenue line at some point in the past. Can anyone please tell me
>>what this route was, and why it was discontinued?
If you indeed saw a white K on a blue circle, this refers to what
was previously known as the AA, a local from (IIRC) 168/BWay to
Chambers/WTC. At the time, the C (neé CC) was the Broad
Channel-Rockaway Park shuttle, except during rush hours, when it
went to Bedford Park Blvd in the Bronx. Since that time, the
Rockaway Shuttle has been known as the H (as the Rockaway
round-robin to/from Euclid) and most recently the S (Broad
Channel to Rockaway Park), and the C has taken over the Manhattan
route described above, save that it now terminates at 145/Eighth
during non-rush.
>I thought that the "KK" (later the "K") went from 6th the then-new
>57th St. spur on the 6th Avenue line then took a turn off the Grand
>St. connector onto the Williamsburg Bridge and then via the BMT
>Jamaica elevated.
This dates _way_ back; the most recent map I've seen with this
routing under this letter was dated 1974; the route was
57th/Sixth, down Sixth Ave to West 4th, Broadway/Lafayette, Grand
St. connector, Essex/Delancy, Williamsburg Bridge,
Broadway-Brooklyn, to Broadway Junction/East New York/Eastern
Parkway.
I have a 1972 map that shows the KK following the same route, but
going all the way out to 168th; the Broadway-Brooklyn companion
was the QJ which went all the way to Coney Island via Nassau
Loop, tunnel, and Brighton.
==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin jeff.z...@execnet.com
Jason DeCesare
Colin R. Leech wrote:
>
> Jason DeCesare (mile...@erols.com) wrote:
> > Colin R. Leech wrote:
> >>
> >> It would have been a good opportunity. Indeed, I seem to recall reading
> >> here that one of the systems didn't even have numbers or letters in prior
> >> incarnations - only the name of the line (eg. "Lexington Local to ...").
> >> Rather than creating a new naming system, they could have simply extended
> >> the naming system that was already in place at the time.
> >
> > The IND had letter designations, the BMT had number designations, while
> > the IRT used destinations.
>
> Thank you for refreshing my memory. So at some point, the BMT lost its
> numbers and gained letters, while the IRT gained numbers. The IRT could
> have gained letters at the same time, so that every line would be lettered
> rather than having a mixture of numbers and letters.
Ah, but there is another possible reason for this. There would be little
room for
expansion of a lettering system with ~25 lines and only 26 (52 if we use
doubles
like AA or BB or ZZ), but with numbering and lettering you get the best
of both
worlds. You have more options, plus it keeps things a bit easier to
remember.
Resistance is not futile!
> > Ah, it does! One of the things you seem to be forgetting is
> > that there are in theory two seperate subway systems- A division (IRT) and
> > B division (IND/BMT). There are differencs in loading gauge, tunnel size ...
>
> I'm not forgetting any of this. It is totally irrelevant to the average
> commuter, except insofar as the narrower cars create more crowding. In
> fact, the main occasion when the car widths matter to the average commuter
> are at places like South Ferry where gap fillers are required, which of
> course have nothing to do with the car width at all.
Are you sure?
If there are two options of getting someplace, one IRT and one IND/BMT
someone may
opt for the IND/BMT because it is roomier than the IRT.
> Joe Average Commuter cares whether there is a fast and simple way to get
> from point A to point B. If there were two completely separate competing
> subway systems, then he would care which was which and how much they
> charged. This is the case on 6th Ave. between 14th and 34th Streets where
> he can ride the NYC subway for $1.50 or PATH for $1.00, but nowhere else.
> Since the NYC subway is completely integrated with free transfers between
> lines (wherever they physically intersect), it does not matter to the
> average commuter that the 6 used to be part of one system and the B used
> to be part of another. The major concern is the number of locations that
> have "near misses" of lines: two lines cross each other or come close to
> each other, but there is no physical way for passengers to transfer from
> one to the other (eg. Queen's Plaza/Queensboro Plaza).
The near miss problem may be solved by MetroCard Gold, as for the
commuter
caring or not caring who knows? You want to knock on a few million
people's
doors and ask?
> > One theory on why the IRT lines are numered and the IND/BMT are lettered is to
> > keep things simple for the folks at the TA so they won't run B division equipment
> > on A division and vice versa.
>
> That's not giving a whole lot of credit for intelligence to the TA workers,
> is it? Especially since there are few enough places where the tracks of
> the two former systems interconnect.
True, but you would want to make things as idiot proof as possible.
> > It also makes for a natural division of a rather large
> > system. It is somewhat akin to NJ Transit Rail Operations division
> > structure where
> > the former Pennsylvania/Penn Central and CNJ lines are in Newark
> > Division while the
> > former Erie-Lackawana lines are in Hoboken Division.
>
> Since the opening of Midtown Direct (Kearny Connection) and the Waterfront
> Connection, this distinction also becomes unimportant since trains from
> several lines can access either Penn Station or Hoboken.
Ah, but there are two different employee pools here, each qualified for
a particular division.
> One of the _nice_ things about having an organization like NJT is that an
> integrated network is much easier for the potential passenger to deal with
> as compared to having to deal with multiple independent companies. I can
> pick up an NYCTA Queens bus map and it will show me all of the available
> service, including those lines operated by private companies.
Look at a subway map and tell me that it doesn't look like an integrated
network!
> > The main reason for having differing operating divisions, in my opinion,
> > is to have
> > two organs for dealing with lines with somewhat different operating
> > characteristics.
>
> This can still happen internally within the organization while still
> presenting a unified image to the public.
As done in New York with the subway.
> > I am for bringing back all the double letters, though. Makes things
> > easier.
>
> The double letters make a lot of sense to me as well, as a very simple way
> of differentiating the local and express routes from each other. The same
> could be done with numbers: eg. the 106 train could be the express version
> of the local 6 train or vice versa.
That doesn't make sense to me.
The current system associates one character and a color with a line
which
can be processed quicky.
The numbering system runs into snags because of the nature of the system
where a train can be both a local and an express, depending on where it
is
running. The D is the Concourse local in the Bronx, while it is the 6th
Avenue express in Manahttan, and local out to Coney Island in Brooklyn.
Then, of course, things vary by time of day, track work, etc.
The current system is fine, why make major changes to it?
> The more problematic
> issue (largely unrelated to whether numbers or single letters or double
> letters are used) is the definitions of "local" and "express". If a train
> runs express in Manhattan and local in Brooklyn, or vice versa, how do you
> describe it? Even today the map shows all stations along the 5 line in the
> Bronx as being express stations because the 5 is defined as an express
> train since it runs express in Manhattan.
It is kind of loose what is really a local and what is an express.
The most common deinition seems to be, "If it is going an express the
majority
of the way I am going it is an express."
> > Colin, I am amazed that you have nothing to say about my joke about renaming
> > all the subway lines after MGM musicals. Here are some suggestions:
> > The G would be "Gigi", the J "Jumbo", the B "Brigadoon", the A "American
> > in Paris", the E "Easter Parade", the R "Royal Wedding", the Z "Ziegfeld
> > Follies", and so on.
> > We could rename the 7 "Main Street to Broadway" and the Franklin Ave.
> > Shuttle "It Happened in Brooklyn".
>
> I thought it was funny, if impractical.
But, it was done to show how impractical the numbering system could be.
> > --
> > Subway Trek: The Next Generation
> > "The IRT, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the 7 train.
> > Its continuing mission, to go to Manhattan, return to Flushing,
> > to boldly get delayed where other trains have gone before."
>
> Now _that's_ funny!
Thanks.
Yoon Jae Lee
Hank Eisenstein wrote:
> >
> Actually, the V is for a service from Queens Blvd to WTC via 6thave and
> 63st Tunnel. V signs on R32/38 say V (in orange) via Sixth Ave
> The K was used twice, once as an express from B'way-ENY to 57/6 until
> 1976 or so, and was also used when the TA changed from double letters to
> single letters for all trains, the AA became the K. H is the former
> Rockaway shuttle, for some reason they switched to S. So now there is
> a Black S, a Blue S, and an orange S.
--
**********************************************************************
Yoon Jae Lee Conductor and Pianist of the 21st Century
"Take the A train, a great song and great advice!"
**********************************************************************
Yoon Jae Lee
Michael549 wrote:
> Some time after 1975 (or there abouts) the MTA decided to remove all
> double letter subway routes, the RR became the R, etc.
That was 1985 not 1975.
Yoon Jae Lee
really confusing and quite illogical. I'm glad they weren't done!!
Yoon Jae Lee
Jason DeCesare wrote:
> Ah, but 20 years ago they put the notice in the map?
> Why? People still used the old designations and it was a way of
> reinforcing the new
> terminology. It still hasn't been fully accepted, since all of the major
> city wide
> newspapers seem to mention the IRT, IND and BMT on occasion.
Yoon Jae Lee
M Greene wrote:
>> >Anyway, you would ruin the song "Take the A Train" if you changed the
> >"A"
> >to "8", sure eight sounds similar to "A", but it isn't the same!
>
> Besides, what would Billy Strayhorn and Yoon Jae Lee do then???
PSchleifer
In article <338BCB...@earthlink.net>, Yoon Jae Lee
<kla...@earthlink.net> writes:
>HUH?? Are you serious about all these proposed cutbacks?? They sound
>really confusing and quite illogical. I'm glad they weren't done!!
That was most people's reaction. And yes, the TA was
serious (for a while). The worst part would have been the
absence of service on the 8th Ave express tracks between
34th and 59th.
M.J.S.
In article <338BCA...@earthlink.net>,
Yoon Jae Lee <kla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Jason DeCesare wrote:
> > Ah, but 20 years ago they put the notice in the map?
> > Why? People still used the old designations and it was a way of
> > reinforcing the new
> > terminology. It still hasn't been fully accepted, since all of the major
> > city wide
> > newspapers seem to mention the IRT, IND and BMT on occasion.
> **********************************************************************
> Yoon Jae Lee Conductor and Pianist of the 21st Century
> "Take the A train, a great song and great advice!"
Advertising does it too: Republic National Bank: You need a token for the
IND & BMT but Republic's ATM is free.
Subway Restaurants: Classic Italian B.M.T.
But in both cases it sounds poetic, so it doesn't mean they are outdated.
SGelband
K was used some time between 1967 and the '70s to denote a rush hour
service across the Williamsburg Bridge to 6th Av using the Christie St
connector. This was a fairly short-lived service.
The letter was revived in the mid'80s to replace the "AA" signs in an
attempt to rationalize outdated signage. (i.e., GG=G, CC=C, RR=R)
Obviously, A was already used, but K was available. At that time, the C
train was a rush hour service only, while the AA did not run rush hours.
In the late '80s, the C was made the full time local service on 8th Av,
replacing the K (erstwhile AA) service.
JOEVCNJ
>> There would be little room for
>> expansion of a lettering system with ~25 lines and only 26 (52 if we
use
>> doubles like AA or BB or ZZ),
combinations.
Do you really want to go back to the days of QJ, RJ, JJ, MJ, NX, QB, QT,
EE, and expect the lay person to understand it ? Better to leave the IRT
with numbers.
But I think the shuttles should be individually designated (11, H, P) for
42nd, Rockaway, and Franklyn.
Joe Versaggi (JOE...@aol.com)
M Greene
Yoon Jae Lee <kla...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>M Greene wrote:
>>> >Anyway, you would ruin the song "Take the A Train" if you changed the
>> >"A"
>> >to "8", sure eight sounds similar to "A", but it isn't the same!
>>
>> Besides, what would Billy Strayhorn and Yoon Jae Lee do then???
>I'd have to come up with a new quote then!! he,he.
You mean you can't come up with witty(if esoteric)quotes like J.De C.?
Or a little note of how to e-mail me?( with questions such as "Who is
Muggsy Campese?)
>--
>**********************************************************************
> Yoon Jae Lee Conductor and Pianist of the 21st Century
> "Take the A train, a great song and great advice!"
>*********************************************************************
Still prefer "Stairway to Heaven"...granted, it may give away my
age...