NJT M&E schedule--change trains in Summit?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
clear to me when or which passengers need to change trains in Summit.
(see: http://www.njtransit.com/pdf/rail/r0040.pdf)
_Every_ train at Summit is shown in italics.
On weekends, I would guess one must change from the Gladstone branch,
but is that made clear in the schedule?
In traditional schedules, as well as those used by other carriers,
required changes are clearly shown with a footnote, ie. "C", or with
the original train terminating at the station. Sometimes a little
arrow is used to point from one train to another.
For instance, on the Metro North New Haven schedule, it is quite clear
when must change at Stamford for New Canaan and when a through train
is operated.
IMHO the NJT schedule, despite being recently modernized in high-tech
graphics, isn't clear.
Comments?
[public replies, please]
JaxGoogle
I also detest the newer "look" for exactly that reason. I guess some
NJT empty suit
felt that the older style timetables were incomprehensible to her/him!
Jack
Michael Finfer
> In viewing the NJT schedule for the Morris-Essex lines, it is not
> clear to me when or which passengers need to change trains in Summit.
> (see: http://www.njtransit.com/pdf/rail/r0040.pdf)
>
> _Every_ train at Summit is shown in italics.
>
> On weekends, I would guess one must change from the Gladstone branch,
> but is that made clear in the schedule?
>
All Gladstone Branch trains terminate/originate st Summit on weekends.
Looking at the timetable, it might not be clear to someone who isn't
already familiar with the service patterns. In that sense, it's quite a
poor design job.
> In traditional schedules, as well as those used by other carriers,
> required changes are clearly shown with a footnote, ie. "C", or with
> the original train terminating at the station. Sometimes a little
> arrow is used to point from one train to another.
>
> For instance, on the Metro North New Haven schedule, it is quite clear
> when must change at Stamford for New Canaan and when a through train
> is operated.
>
> IMHO the NJT schedule, despite being recently modernized in high-tech
> graphics, isn't clear.
>
> Comments?
I like being able to open the timetable and look at the entire thing at
a glance, and I think that was the purpose of the redesign. However,
what I really do not like about this design is that station names are
only at each end, and in the larger tables, especially the M&E and
Northeast Corridor weekday schedules, I have a really hard time
following the lines across to find times, especially where the shading
reverses where peak and off peak begin/end. It would really help to a
have more obvious way to guide your eyes across the schedule panel. The
way the station rows were arranged into smaller groups by horizontal
lines in the old format was much better.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> All Gladstone Branch trains terminate/originate st Summit on weekends.
> Looking at the timetable, it might not be clear to someone who isn't
> already familiar with the service patterns. In that sense, it's quite a
> poor design job.
That's what I thought.
Having ridden that line, I can see an unfamiliar passenger simply
waiting on the train at Summit, not realizing they have to get off,
and missing the connection.
IMHO, the NJT schedule format layouts stink. Metro North is
superior. SEPTA* and LIRR are tied.
I still believe that am times should be in light face and pm times in
bold face as used to be standard. I believe a few carriers still do
that, but not many. I was helping a passenger confused reading a
posted schedule who was looking at 1:30 a.m instead of 1:30 pm. The
am/pm/am was NOT obvious and the mistake was quite understandable.
* SEPTA actually names several of its peak hour express runs and these
appear in the timetable. However, they do not appear in stations nor
are announced as part of the trains. Some Penn Central commuter
trains were likewise so named.
> I like being able to open the timetable and look at the entire thing at
> a glance, and I think that was the purpose of the redesign. However,
> what I really do not like about this design is that station names are
> only at each end, and in the larger tables, especially the M&E and
> Northeast Corridor weekday schedules, I have a really hard time
> following the lines across to find times, especially where the shading
> reverses where peak and off peak begin/end. It would really help to a
> have more obvious way to guide your eyes across the schedule panel. The
> way the station rows were arranged into smaller groups by horizontal
> lines in the old format was much better.
Metro North repeats the station names where there are numerous runs.
Joe Brennan
> I still believe that am times should be in light face and pm times in
> bold face as used to be standard.
The 24-hour clock would be even better.
Joe Brennan
Phil Kane
That's OK for me. That's standard in most countries outside North
America.
--
"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"
Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District
spsffan
Rant on:
Feh!
I'm fine with and encourage conversion to the metric system, but the 24
hour clock just ain't human. It's military use (why they say "O Seven
Hundred Hours" when they mean 7 hours is STILL beyond me) and scientific
use are one thing, but it is of no benefit to the general public, and
confusing in places with analog 12 hour clocks on the walls all over the
place.
For real people in the real world, AM and PM work just fine. It's simple
as night and day!
Rant off
Cheers all,
David
Miles Bader
> I'm fine with and encourage conversion to the metric system, but the 24
> hour clock just ain't human. It's military use (why they say "O Seven
> Hundred Hours" when they mean 7 hours is STILL beyond me) and scientific
> use are one thing, but it is of no benefit to the general public, and
> confusing in places with analog 12 hour clocks on the walls all over the
> place.
>
> For real people in the real world, AM and PM work just fine. It's simple
> as night and day!
24-hour clocks work fine too though, and are perfectly "human."
Where I'm living now, _both_ 12- and 24-hour time are used widely.
Many people will use 12-hour time in casual conversation, but businesses
(and train schedules, etc) tend to use 24-hour time, as it leaves less
room for confusion. People are used to both, and there's no problem.
[and bars and other businesses which are open past midnight will
often use hours greater than 24 to indicate early morning times,
e.g., "open 18:00 - 26:00" means open 6pm to 2am! When I first saw
that I thought it was very clever... :]
-Miles
--
"She looks like the wax version of herself."
[Comment under a Paris Hilton fashion pic]
Larry Sheldon
Using a twenty-four clock solves a lot more problems that using a a
system based on one ten millionth of the longitude of Paris, France
(which varies depending on whose errors got corrected, and on whether
the flattening of the earth was correctly accounted-for, and on the
politics of the moment -- Dava Sobel's book is a fascinating read).
(Better than the length of a pendulum with a half-second period, because
that varies depending on where on the earth you are.)
Much more intuitive is the current scheme is the length of the path of
light in a vacuum i 1/299,792,458 of a second. I don't know if
relativity and quantum effects are accounted for or not.
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Stephen Sprunk
> Joe Brennan wrote:
>>> I still believe that am times should be in light face and pm times in
>>> bold face as used to be standard.
>>
>> The 24-hour clock would be even better.
>
> hour clock just ain't human.
Huh? There are 24 hours in the day, so it is perfectly "human" to have
a 24-hour clock. That's far more logical than breaking the day into two
artificial 12-hour clock periods, which thanks to time zones and
daylight savings time have little to do with solar noon and midnight
anymore.
> It's military use (why they say "O Seven Hundred Hours" when they mean
> 7 hours is STILL beyond me)
The military pronunciation is unusual, but there are good reasons for
it, as with many of their other verbal oddities. (e.g. you never ask
someone to "repeat" something, only "say again", because "repeat" is an
artillery command which might be overheard by someone tuned to the wrong
radio channel)
> and scientific use are one thing,
I can't think of any scientific application where the difference is
relevant but wouldn't also be similarly relevant to the general public.
Computers work much more naturally with 24-hour time; many systems use
24-hour time internally and require extra programming logic to detect US
users and modify their display to the inferior 12-hour format.
> but it is of no benefit to the general public,
All it takes is one instance of someone missing their train (or
whatever) because they read the 1pm schedule instead of the 1am schedule
and you have enough benefit to justify the change.
> and confusing in places with analog 12 hour clocks on the walls all
> over the place.
I have a mix of 12- and 24-hour clocks in my home and they've never
confused anyone. My phone and computer are on 24-hour time, but my
wrist watch is 12-hour, and that doesn't bother me at all.
If you think you or the people around you are too stupid for that, spend
a few bucks and replace the 12-hour clocks with 24-hour models. Better
yet, get rid of analog clocks completely since many people today can't
reliably read them, especially in the second half of each hour. Most
digital clocks can be switched between modes so they can be sold both in
the US and in more sensible countries, so it probably won't cost you
anything at all to convert those. You could even design digital clocks
that alternated formats every few seconds during a transition period to
help people learn the new system.
> For real people in the real world, AM and PM work just fine. It's simple
> as night and day!
No, night has both PM and AM, just like day has both AM and PM. You
_might_ have a case if the division between the two were twilight, but
it isn't. The 12-hour clock is _not_ simpler; it's just what you were
taught as a child so you don't realize how confusing it really is.
I frequently run into people who can't remember that between 11:xx AM
and 1:xx PM is 12:xx PM, not 12:xx AM (for xx≠00; xx=00 is a whole
'nother can of worms). With a 24-hour clock, that confusion goes away
as well.
And, important for train schedules, a 24-hour clock makes it easy to
distinguish between the start of a day (00:00) and end of a day (24:00),
whereas "12 midnight on Tuesday" could refer to either the one between
Monday and Tuesday or the one between Tuesday and Wednesday, whereas the
two cases would be unambiguous as "00:00 Tuesday" and "24:00 Tuesday".
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Larry Sheldon
> I frequently run into people who can't remember that between 11:xx AM
> and 1:xx PM is 12:xx PM, not 12:xx AM (for xx� 00; xx=00 is a whole
> 'nother can of worms). With a 24-hour clock, that confusion goes away
> as well.
Actually, noon is most properly written (n 12-hour format) as 12:00 M
(neither Ante nor Post) The one that is hard to work out is the other
12:00 because decent people are not supposed to be up then. I write
12:00 Mid if I must. (Actually if I must use the 12-hour format I try
to get away with 11:59 A. M. or 12:01 A. M. to try to avoid the hassle.
1200 for noon and 0000 for midnight is so much more sane.
Phil Kane
wrote:
>For real people in the real world, AM and PM work just fine. It's simple
>as night and day!
Tell that to the rest of the world where 24-hour time is "the
standard" and AM/PM just gets in the way.
--
spsffan
To all who commented on my rant:
The rest of the world uses both systems, actually. And anyone who can't
function in both systems shouldn't be let out on the streets unattended.
Computers have come a long way since the days of using 2 digits to
designate the year, and can easily deal with AM, PM, Noon and Midnight.
Anyone out there still using COBOL???
There are indeed places where 24 hour timekeeping is appropriate for
technical reasons. Actual train dispatching and employee timetables are
fine. But for the public, AM and PM work just fine. Anyone who misses a
train because they mistake 1:00 AM for 1:00 PM obviously has other
issues far beyond the scope of a railroad based newsgroup to discuss.
Try alt.psychiatry.abnormal.
Time is the only thing we really have as human beings. Savor it!
DAve
Miles Bader
> But for the public, AM and PM work just fine.
So does 24-time. Since it's equally usable, and seems to avoid some
errors of interpretation, why _not_ use it whenever it's important to
avoid such errors (such as when communicating a schedule to the public)?
-miles
--
Generous, adj. Originally this word meant noble by birth and was rightly
applied to a great multitude of persons. It now means noble by nature and is
taking a bit of a rest.
Larry Sheldon
> The rest of the world uses both systems, actually. And anyone who can't
> function in both systems shouldn't be let out on the streets unattended.
We really should return to the way things wre when I mwas a kid.
The train schedules were in 12-hour days (with bold PM as I recall),
Standard time year around.
West (toward San Francisco), read down, East (toward Los Angeles) read up.
If you are too stupid to cope with that .....
Modern technology (damn it Mabel, I AM NOT going into that house, they
have the damned thing IN THE HOUSE!) is such a setback to humanity.
Peter T. Daniels
> West (toward San Francisco), read down, East (toward Los Angeles) read up.
Most of the country thinks that both SF and LA are west.
When you get pretty close, SF is north and LA is south.
Joseph D. Korman
The oddity of Grand Central Terminal in NYC is that the New Haven trains
are going east and the Hudson and Harlem trains are going west, but both
are going almost north.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 12:48 am, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> West (toward San Francisco), read down, East (toward Los Angeles) read up.
>
> > Most of the country thinks that both SF and LA are west.
>
> > When you get pretty close, SF is north and LA is south.
>
> He's talking railroad east-west.
>
> The oddity of Grand Central Terminal in NYC is that the New Haven trains
> are going east and the Hudson and Harlem trains are going west, but both
> are going almost north.
That isn't entirely unreasonable.
If you take a train from Chicago to LA, are you going "railroad east"?
If you take a train from Seattle through Portland to SF and LA and San
Diego, are you going some direction other than south?
spsffan
Not on the Espee (Southern Pacific for you railroad illiterates).
Towards San Francisco = Timetable West. Away from San Francisco =
Timetable East. Compass points notwithstanding. See, New York doesn't
have a monopoly on arrogance.
DAve
Larry Sheldon
I think mile zero is the headquarters building (Market and Spear?) with
no SP tracks anywhere near in my life time. Anything pointing toward
mile zero is "West", anything pointing away is "East", I think.
I always wondered what happened to trains running "west" out of, say,
Los Angeles going to Portland--did they start traveling "east" in Oakland?
spsffan
> On Dec 1, 12:33 pm, "Joseph D. Korman" <joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Dec 1, 12:48 am, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> West (toward San Francisco), read down, East (toward Los Angeles) read up.
>>> Most of the country thinks that both SF and LA are west.
>>> When you get pretty close, SF is north and LA is south.
>> He's talking railroad east-west.
>>
>> The oddity of Grand Central Terminal in NYC is that the New Haven trains
>> are going east and the Hudson and Harlem trains are going west, but both
>> are going almost north.
>
> That isn't entirely unreasonable.
>
> If you take a train from Chicago to LA, are you going "railroad east"?
>
Erh, no.
> If you take a train from Seattle through Portland to SF and LA and San
> Diego, are you going some direction other than south?
I couldn't tell you about Seattle through Portland. Different roads,
different customs. Portland to San Francisco is railroad West. San
Francisco to LA is East.*
LA to San Diego is former Santa Fe, and IIRC, West (away from Chicago),
but could be carded as South.
*Note that before Amtrak, there were no through trains from LA to
Portland via Oakland (SF). There was a train, for a while at least that
went through via Stockton/Sacramento.
Also of note is that the geographically western most place on the
Southern Pacific was Eugene, Oregon. It is today, the farthest west rail
station for Amtrak.
Larry Sheldon
Kindasorta off-topic--when I started with Pac Tel in the sixties in
their telegraph department (recall that there were three "T"s in TPT&T
Company) we still used the city designators from the Morse days.
Most of the eastern part of the US was single characters ("Z" for New
York, "J" for Pittsburgh) and chosen for ease of sending and recognition
rather than any mnemonic connection.
But if you had traffic for the west coast it went to "WC" (San
Francisco). By the time I got there a lot more west coast points had
been added so I worked in "AN", Hollywood was "AH" and so on.
Seems like K was Salt Lake City, but I'm not coming up with any more,
and I'm not sure "J" wasn't St. Louis.
But the WC=West Coast=San Francisco was my point.
Jishnu Mukerji
> If you take a train from Seattle through Portland to SF and LA and San
> Diego, are you going some direction other than south?
SF to LA you are actually going southeast.
Larry Sheldon
Add to you collection of fun bar bets....
Without reference to a map, visualize a line due:
north from the Los Angeles City Hall--tell me where the line goes.
north from the San Jose City Hall--tell me where the line goes.
south from the Van Nuys City Hall--tell me where the line goes.
spsffan
> Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> If you take a train from Seattle through Portland to SF and LA and San
>>> Diego, are you going some direction other than south?
>>
>> SF to LA you are actually going southeast.
>
> Add to you collection of fun bar bets....
>
> Without reference to a map, visualize a line due:
>
> north from the Los Angeles City Hall--tell me where the line goes.
> north from the San Jose City Hall--tell me where the line goes.
> south from the Van Nuys City Hall--tell me where the line goes.
>
>
Just for fun, off the top of my head.....
Due North from downtown LA might be something like Baker City, Oregon
From San Jose I'd say maybe Klamath Falls
From Van Nuys --Lake Tahoe
Larry Sheldon
That far north the difference from what I give below for Van Nuys are
not that great--the bar bet gimmick is to set it up relative to San
Francisco--the line goes way east of Reno.
> From San Jose I'd say maybe Klamath Falls
As above--the gimmick again is to set the question up relative to SF.
In this case, the line goes through the Berkeley Hills, way east of and
acroos the Bay from SF.
Go much farther north with this can hurt--the coast curves back in again
and the guess of Portland isn't that far off. And Klamath is correct.
> From Van Nuys --Lake Tahoe
You missed a trick--I said "south" from Van Nuys--which takes you along
the coastline just east of Santa Monica and west of most of Catalina Island.
Nort I'll have to look up.... crosses into Nevada east of Mono Lake and
takes you east of Pendleton and west of Wallawalla, Washington
Steven M. O'Neill
>Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> If you take a train from Seattle through Portland to SF and LA and San
>>> Diego, are you going some direction other than south?
>>
>> SF to LA you are actually going southeast.
>
>Add to you collection of fun bar bets....
>
>Without reference to a map, visualize a line due:
>
>north from the Los Angeles City Hall--tell me where the line goes.
>north from the San Jose City Hall--tell me where the line goes.
>south from the Van Nuys City Hall--tell me where the line goes.
ObNYCTransit:
Which subway station is further east?
2nd Ave - Lower East Side (F/V)
96th St [at Broadway] (1/2/3)
--
Steven O'Neill ste...@panix.com
Brooklyn, NY http://www.panix.com/~steveo
Larry Sheldon
> ObNYCTransit:
>
> Which subway station is further east?
>
> 2nd Ave - Lower East Side (F/V)
> 96th St [at Broadway] (1/2/3)
I don't know New York at all well but I would have guessed (since I have
a daughter that lives south of Houston east of 1st Ave) that anything
north of Central park (more or less) would be east of her.
Larry Sheldon
> Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>
>> ObNYCTransit:
>>
>> Which subway station is further east?
>>
>> 2nd Ave - Lower East Side (F/V)
>> 96th St [at Broadway] (1/2/3)
>
> I don't know New York at all well but I would have guessed (since I have
> a daughter that lives south of Houston east of 1st Ave) that anything
> north of Central park (more or less) would be east of her.
My current favorite (more appropriate for MTR, I suppose) is:
How far north of Detroit, Michigan is Windsor, Ontario?
Peter T. Daniels
> Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
> > ObNYCTransit:
>
> > Which subway station is further east?
>
> > 2nd Ave - Lower East Side (F/V)
> > 96th St [at Broadway] (1/2/3)
>
> I don't know New York at all well but I would have guessed (since I have
> a daughter that lives south of Houston east of 1st Ave) that anything
> north of Central park (more or less) would be east of her.
(a) 96th St. isn't north of Central Park, it's west of it (real west,
not "railroad west").
(b) Manhattan isn't oriented north-south.
The new generation of street atlases, which are relentlessly gridded
to latitude and longitude because computers are too stupid to do it
any other way, need a lot of extra pages for Manhattan because all the
streets and avenues are diagonals.
Steven M. O'Neill
>On Dec 2, 2:00�pm, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>> > ObNYCTransit:
>>
>> > Which subway station is further east?
>>
>> > 2nd Ave - Lower East Side (F/V)
>> > 96th St [at Broadway] (1/2/3)
>>
>> I don't know New York at all well but I would have guessed (since I have
>> a daughter that lives south of Houston east of 1st Ave) that anything
>> north of Central park (more or less) would be east of her.
That looks to be true. If I draw a line south from 110th and
the Hudson River, it intersects the East River at around 34th
Street.
>(a) 96th St. isn't north of Central Park, it's west of it (real west,
>not "railroad west").
Parts of Central Park are west of 96th and Broadway (I'm
assuming that you're talking about that intersection and not the
whole street, since parts of 96th Street are completely east of
Central Park).
Joseph D. Korman
describe where their train is that everyone on the railroad can
understand. The employee instructions will tell which way the trains
travel. The reason that SF is west of LA, is probably that the LA-SF
leg of the line is considered a continuation of the New Orleans-LA line
of the Southern Pacific - I'll defer to a western railfan to correct
this if needed.
Closer to home, you'll find that the direction from Hoboken to Suffern
or Spring Valley on NJT are railroad west.
In the New York subway, on what was the BMT, from Brooklyn is always
northbound and to Brooklyn is southbound, even for the Jamaica J/Z
service, which is generally east-west.
Joseph D. Korman
>
>> Jishnu Mukerji wrote:
>>
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> If you take a train from Seattle through Portland to SF and LA and San
>>>> Diego, are you going some direction other than south?
>>>>
>>> SF to LA you are actually going southeast.
>>>
>> Add to you collection of fun bar bets....
>>
>> Without reference to a map, visualize a line due:
>>
>> north from the Los Angeles City Hall--tell me where the line goes.
>> north from the San Jose City Hall--tell me where the line goes.
>> south from the Van Nuys City Hall--tell me where the line goes.
>>
>
> ObNYCTransit:
>
> Which subway station is further east?
>
> 2nd Ave - Lower East Side (F/V)
> 96th St [at Broadway] (1/2/3)
>
>
>
including SIRT).
Larry Sheldon
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 2:00 pm, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>>>> ObNYCTransit:
>>>> Which subway station is further east?
>>>> 2nd Ave - Lower East Side (F/V)
>>>> 96th St [at Broadway] (1/2/3)
>>> I don't know New York at all well but I would have guessed (since I have
>>> a daughter that lives south of Houston east of 1st Ave) that anything
>>> north of Central park (more or less) would be east of her.
>
> That looks to be true. If I draw a line south from 110th and
> the Hudson River, it intersects the East River at around 34th
> Street.
>
>> (a) 96th St. isn't north of Central Park, it's west of it (real west,
>> not "railroad west").
Pardon me a moment--I'd not seen this....
In this (flyover country) time zone "more or less" has a meaning.
From the perspective of an apartment near 1st Ave and Houston, 96th St
at Broadway is north of Central Park. (In the geography classes I
attended, a place that is north and west of a northeast-southwest line
can be said, accurately, to be west of the line or north of the line.
Unless you are a troll who raises silly arguments just for the fun of
being a jerk. Which probably explains why I did not see your foolish
plaint.
And that would be "real north", in the instant case.
> Parts of Central Park are west of 96th and Broadway (I'm
> assuming that you're talking about that intersection and not the
> whole street, since parts of 96th Street are completely east of
> Central Park).
It isn't clear what the troll was talking about, I was talking about the
96th and Broadway intersection--which from the perspective of the
Lower East Side--is north of Central Park.
Sancho Panza
"Steven M. O'Neill" <ste...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hf6f5q$kqe$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On Dec 2, 2:00 pm, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>>> > ObNYCTransit:
>>>
>>> > Which subway station is further east?
>>>
>>> > 2nd Ave - Lower East Side (F/V)
>>> > 96th St [at Broadway] (1/2/3)
>>>
>>> I don't know New York at all well but I would have guessed (since I have
>>> a daughter that lives south of Houston east of 1st Ave) that anything
>>> north of Central park (more or less) would be east of her.
>
> That looks to be true. If I draw a line south from 110th and
> the Hudson River, it intersects the East River at around 34th
> Street.
>
>>(a) 96th St. isn't north of Central Park, it's west of it (real west,
>>not "railroad west").
>
> Parts of Central Park are west of 96th and Broadway (I'm
> assuming that you're talking about that intersection and not the
> whole street,
Not very likely, thanks to Bill Zeckendorf and Webb & Knapp.
Steven M. O'Neill
>Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>
>> Parts of Central Park are west of 96th and Broadway (I'm
>> assuming that you're talking about that intersection and not
>> the whole street, since parts of 96th Street are completely
>> east of Central Park).
>
>It isn't clear what the troll was talking about, I was talking
>about the 96th and Broadway intersection--which from the
>perspective of the Lower East Side--is north of Central Park.
The "you" in what I wrote above refers to Daniels. But since
you mention it, 96th and Broadway is north of parts of Central
Park. It's south of other parts, east of still more parts and
west of a fourth set of parts of Central Park. I think for a
point to be considered north of Central Park, it should be north
of all points in Central Park.
Larry Sheldon
> Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>>
>>> Parts of Central Park are west of 96th and Broadway (I'm
>>> assuming that you're talking about that intersection and not
>>> the whole street, since parts of 96th Street are completely
>>> east of Central Park).
>> It isn't clear what the troll was talking about, I was talking
>> about the 96th and Broadway intersection--which from the
>> perspective of the Lower East Side--is north of Central Park.
>
> The "you" in what I wrote above refers to Daniels. But since
> you mention it, 96th and Broadway is north of parts of Central
> Park. It's south of other parts, east of still more parts and
> west of a fourth set of parts of Central Park. I think for a
> point to be considered north of Central Park, it should be north
> of all points in Central Park.
I'm looking at
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.791914,-73.962278&spn=0.012704,0.027874&t=h&z=16
http://tinyurl.com/ycqauyc # if the one above broke
And it seems to me that most non-New Yorkers would say that 96th and
Broadway is northwest of Central Park.
But I see "north" and "west"--I'm not just being argumentative here--I
don't see "east" or "south". What am I missing. (I see "south" and
"east" for 96th Street, and stretching a bit I can see "south" and "east
for Broadway (dint realize it went so far south--I'd have said something
really wrong if I had not gone back to check--goes clear down to Ground
Zero (with some gaps) doesn't it?!?
But the intersection of 96th Street and Broadway is only north, west, or
northwest of Central Park, isn't it?
So. If that is one subway line under Broadway all the way up and down
Manhattan, it would follow that any station north of Houston on Broadway
would be to the east, wouldn't it?
And I do know how to pronounce "Houston". That would be another
interesting story, but I wouldn't want get off-topic here.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The new generation of street atlases, which are relentlessly gridded
> to latitude and longitude because computers are too stupid to do it
> any other way, need a lot of extra pages for Manhattan because all the
> streets and avenues are diagonals.
I have a new Hagstrom NYC atlas and I find I instead use my older
edition since it's much easier to use.
The old edition connects across two pages since it aligns with the
street pattern, not N/S. But the new edition does the opposite, so
it's a ragged connection across two pages.
Also, the old edition shows subway routes in different ways while the
new edition doesn't distinguish. The old one is easier to follow
routes in congested areas.
IMHO, the acquisition of Hagstrom by ADC was a bad idea. Hagstrom
format has been replaced by ADC, which IMHO is inferior. Also, the
prices have gone up significantly.
Steven M. O'Neill
>Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>> 96th and Broadway is north of parts of Central
>> Park. It's south of other parts, east of still more parts and
>> west of a fourth set of parts of Central Park. I think for a
>> point to be considered north of Central Park, it should be north
>> of all points in Central Park.
>
>I'm looking at
>http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=40.791914,-73.962278&spn=0.012704,0.027874&t=h&z=16
>
>http://tinyurl.com/ycqauyc # if the one above broke
>
>And it seems to me that most non-New Yorkers would say that 96th and
>Broadway is northwest of Central Park.
>
>But I see "north" and "west"--I'm not just being argumentative here--I
>don't see "east" or "south". What am I missing.
96th and Broadway is clearly further east (i.e. closer to the
Prime Meridian) than the southwest corner of central park. For
example, the point in the park closest to Columbus Circle.
There other parts of the park in the northwest corner that are
further from the equator than that intersection, making 96th and
B'way further south than those parts.
Larry Sheldon
Honest, I'm not being argumentative. I don't get it.
Using the map at http://tinyurl.com/ycqauyc draw me a line due west from
96th and Broadway (that does not cross a time-zone boundary and tell me
the name of the nearest object inside the boundaries of Central Park
West (8th Avenue?), Central Park South (W 59th Street?), 5th Avenue, and
West 110th Street.
Illustrating my request: If I draw line due east from that
intersection, I see "The Pool". Going south, I see "Belvedere Castle".
Show me a north-bound intersect in the same way please.
Phil Kane
<lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I always wondered what happened to trains running "west" out of, say,
>Los Angeles going to Portland--did they start traveling "east" in Oakland?
Yes. "Railroad eastbound" trains had even numbers and "railroad
westbound" trains had odd numbers. Train 13 ran from LA to Oakland,
then became Train 14 from Oakland to Portland. Amtrak changed the
numbers so that Amtrak Train 14 ran from LA to Portland (and then on
to Seattle). Conversely for Train 11 from Portland to Oakland and
Train 12 from Oakland to LA. It became Amtrak Train 11.
A few years after the YouPee bought the EsPee, they changed the
"railroad" direction on that line to correspond to the geographical
direction - north or south.
--
Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District
Phil Kane
<joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The reason that SF is west of LA, is probably that the LA-SF
>leg of the line is considered a continuation of the New Orleans-LA line
>of the Southern Pacific - I'll defer to a western railfan to correct
>this if needed.
No, it's because the EsPee was very self-centric and SF was "Zero".
Everything towards that was West, everything away from that was East.
Steven M. O'Neill
>Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>> 96th and Broadway is clearly further east (i.e. closer to the
>> Prime Meridian) than the southwest corner of central park. For
>> example, the point in the park closest to Columbus Circle.
>
If you don't understand my paragraph above, I don't know of a
better way to explain it.
Larry Sheldon
> Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Steven M. O'Neill wrote:
>>> 96th and Broadway is clearly further east (i.e. closer to the
>>> Prime Meridian) than the southwest corner of central park. For
>>> example, the point in the park closest to Columbus Circle.
>> Honest, I'm not being argumentative. I don't get it.
>
> If you don't understand my paragraph above, I don't know of a
> better way to explain it.
I don't think that was the paragraph in question.
I'm beginning to to think I've been punked, but I'll try once more
because I am actually interested in the issue.
[time passes]
The part you left out, and the part that I was referring to was:
>> There other parts of the park in the northwest corner that are
>> further from the equator than that intersection, making 96th and
>> B'way further south than those parts.
But I think the real question was:
> 96th and Broadway is north of parts of Central
> Park. It's south of other parts, east of still more parts and
> west of a fourth set of parts of Central Park. I think for a
> point to be considered north of Central Park, it should be north
> of all points in Central Park.
Where I don't understand how the intersection (which is north and
west--or northwest if you prefer of the Park) can be said to be south of
any part of it or east of it.
A line from that intersection due north will not touch the Park even if
you extend it all the way around the globe, and the only way to a line
to the west to touch the Park is to extend it all the way around, and
I'm not sure that would work.
If you can clear that up, it would be nice; in any case I am out.
Peter T. Daniels
What, you don't know where Broadway is?
Steven M. O'Neill
>Where I don't understand how the intersection (which is north and
>west--or northwest if you prefer of the Park) can be said to be south of
>any part of it or east of it.
That intersection is closer to the equator than some parts of
the park. Therefore it is south (further south) of those parts.
That intersection is closer to the Prime Meridian than other
parts of the park. Therefore it is east (further east) of those
parts. As I said, I don't have any other way to explain it.
Your going on about drawing lines doesn't affect what I've said above.
Analysis&Solutions
>A line from that intersection due north will not touch the Park even if
>you extend it all the way around the globe, and the only way to a line
>to the west to touch the Park is to extend it all the way around, and
>I'm not sure that would work.
You are talking about lines from the intersection of 96th and Broadway.
Steve is talking about drawing lines FROM small sections of the park.
Draw a line north from Columbus Circle. It will pass to the west of the
intersection.
Draw a line west from Fredrick Douglass Circle. It will pas to the north
of the intersection.
Let alone, your statements about running lines north and west "all the
way around" the globe from the intersection not touching the park are
absolutely wrong.
--Dan
--
T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y
data intensive web and database programming
http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/
4015 7th Ave #4, Brooklyn NY 11232 v: 718-854-0335 f: 718-854-0409
Larry Sheldon
> Let alone, your statements about running lines north and west "all the
> way around" the globe from the intersection not touching the park are
> absolutely wrong.
Well, I'll tell you what, you go ahead and tell people the intersect is
south and east of the park--that is consistent with the New Yawk
attitude of helpfulness.
I'll tell the it is north and west of it to get them on the correct side.
I'm out.
--
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Peter T. Daniels
> Analysis&Solutions wrote:
> > Let alone, your statements about running lines north and west "all the
> > way around" the globe from the intersection not touching the park are
> > absolutely wrong.
>
> Well, I'll tell you what, you go ahead and tell people the intersect is
> south and east of the park--that is consistent with the New Yawk
> attitude of helpfulness.
>
> I'll tell the it is north and west of it to get them on the correct side.
>
> I'm out.
You're half right.
Analysis&Solutions
>Well, I'll tell you what, you go ahead and tell people the intersect is
>south and east of the park--that is consistent with the New Yawk
>attitude of helpfulness.
>I'll tell the it is north and west of it to get them on the correct side.
Steve and I were making technical points about the oddities of Manhattan
geography combined with Central Park being very long. I, and I'd bet
Steve, agree with you about how to give people directions on getting
between the two places.
Steven M. O'Neill
>Larry Sheldon <lfsh...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>Well, I'll tell you what, you go ahead and tell people the intersect is
>>south and east of the park--that is consistent with the New Yawk
>>attitude of helpfulness.
>
>>I'll tell the it is north and west of it to get them on the correct side.
>
>Steve and I were making technical points about the oddities of Manhattan
>geography combined with Central Park being very long. I, and I'd bet
>Steve, agree with you about how to give people directions on getting
>between the two places.
If I were giving directions, I'd say it was west of the park,
since the convention is to pretend that the park runs exactly
north-south.