Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about New York City Subway. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I've been told that the nature of the current subway system as the conjoining of historically separate systems helps to explain the complexity of some of the stations: I certainly recall walking down long tunnels, and up stairs, and thinking that it was quite a mess in parts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.8.184.25 (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2003 (UTC)
The amendation by user IND Second System changed the meaning of the paragraph, which referred to the system as built, as opposed to projected "second system." I made changes to clarify that meaning, and move the Second System information to its own paragraph beneath. Cecropia 21:41, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Someone working on this page ought to look at the London Underground page. The quality and clarity of the article is vastly superior.
fvincent 21:57, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
Thye recent addition of "problems" is a good idea, but whether or not duplication of lines from the merger of three systems is a problem is open to debate. Duplication would be a problem if there unused capacity resulted, and the use stats (and what it's like to ride during rush hour) strongly suggest that there are not too many lines. Donald Friedman 4 April 2004
- The lines are not redundant. The BMT served Brooklyn and Queens and the IRT Manhattan and the Bronx. Most of the overlap were the respective mainlines of eacb company. On two Queens lines they shared trackage. Much of the IND was built to compete with some of the elevated lines, but this was intentional. Metamorphosis 13:42, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I think we're in agreement - the main lines aren't redundant since they are needed to get all the branch lines into midtown and downtown. Donald Friedman 4 April 2004
Also it seems that it could be broken up into sections better. Specifically, the paragraph beginning with Subway tunnels were constructed using a variety of methods seems out of place.--Jason McHuff 07:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The articles with all include (New York Subway) in the title need to be condensed into a category, with a menu bar to help move around them easier. This is a HUGE task, though (as there SEEMS to be articles on most of the stations -- a huge number). Any ideas on the best way to go about this? --Wolf530 03:30, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Sounds like you are more talking about the creation of a template than a category. -- Jmabel 04:52, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
- I don't understand exactly what you're asking, but you might be interested in looking at what we've done for Melbourne railway stations as an example for organising such things. Ambivalenthysteria 04:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Likewise, I suggest looking at Washington Metro and its associated pages. I'll look around the New York pages and see what I can do. --Golbez 19:57, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wouldn't an image help? I'm quite undecided on which type to put. --GatesPlusPlus 10:06, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Took the liberty of adding a station picture. I have lots more, of cars, underground and outdoor stations. --Dschwen 15:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Comparable entries have lots more pictures. I'll pile up a few on this page and wait for some reactions whether to include them or not. --Dschwen 19:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Lots of pictures would be great! If you have a good variety, I think it would be best to show the diversity of the system, since so much of the "subway" is not underground. Smith-9th is a great view, maybe a picture on the Sea Beach Line (open cut), Brighton Line (embankment), elevated shots (many, many locations), on the Williamsburg Bridge, crossing Jamaica Bayy. Lots of possibilties. Or, you've seen one dark tunnel, you've seen 'em all. ;-) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, I added a New York Subway section to the Commons:New York City page and put them there. I'm afraid, there are less pictures than you have good ideas ;-) --Dschwen 17:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm back in New York and will be here for one more day. I'll try to work your list. Today I hiked across W'burg Bridge. there might be some fresh pics coming up. If someone from NY wants to have a cup of coffee, let me know :-) --Dschwen 23:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
- New pics here commons:User:Dschwen/Pending_pictures/New_York_Subway --Dschwen 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Being that New York City Subway is the full and proper name of the system, _not_ New York Subway, I think this page should be renamed and the redirects reversed, so that "New York Subway" redirects to "New York City Subway." Anybody agree? --oknazevad 17:34, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what would be the "full and proper" name for the system. New York City Subway System may come closer, the operating agency is properly New York City Transit Authority, some use the "popular name" New York City Transit, some just say the Subway, etc. It's the only subway system in the entire state of New York, so what do people outside New York typically call it? That should probably be the name of the article. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:07, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- What I mean by "full and proper" is that if you look at the name on the top of the official subway map, it is called the MTA New York City Subway. Almost all MTA writings also call it that. Also, it's not the only subway in all of New York State as Bufallo does have a single-line system. And, in my estimation, most people outside of New York can't make heads or tails of the system in the first place. Well, maybe not. It's actually not that bad. New Yorkers and Jerseyans usually just call it "the subway", but the fact that it refers to the NYC Subway is implied. I'm not sure what people from elsewher call it, though.--oknazevad 22:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I don't see any reason to object to changing it to "New York City Subway," except that there are maybe 150 pages linking to "New York Subway," so there are a lot of double-reds to eliminate to keep things Kosher. As to Buffalo, I don't think anyone would really think that anyone would go to a "New York Subway" link excepting to end up a stone's throw from Niagara Falls. ;-) -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
How official are the line names? Does the MTA use them? If not, did the predecessors? --SPUI 14:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, the line names are official. They are the way that the NYCTA identifies the lines other than for public information purposes. These names are used in capital construction work and other places where a location is required. For example, rehabilitation of the Avenue H station is "Avenue H Brighton Line," not Avenue H "Q" Line. SInce the route letters are ephemeral, you can see how difficult it would be if they identified the physical lines any other way. Moreover, they TA still uses BMT/IND/IRT. A recent archiects drawing of the under-rehabilitated West 8th Street Station (Coney Island) specifies "BMT West 8th Street Station." These are also used for legal reasons.
- Do you have a copy of "The Map"? () Look at the Brooklyn lines going to Coney Island. They all use the line names, Brighton, Culver, West End, Sea Beach.
The names are derived from the names used by the former operators in the case of pre-Dual Contract lines, and the construction names for most of the post-Dual Contracts and later. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A few questions about the line names: --SPUI 17:46, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Does the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line include both the line to South Ferry and the spur to the Clark Street Tunnel?
- Does the Queens Boulevard Line include both eastern terminals?
- Does the Broadway Line include both the line through the Montague Street Tunnel and the line over the Manhattan Bridge?
- As built, the portion of the Seventh Avenue Line that goes to Clark Street tunnel was the "Seventh Avenue Line Brooklyn Branch." I'm not sure if it has any separate name now.
- No, the new branch is the "Archer Avenue Subway."
- Even though the Canal Street Line was an entirely different mapped route (originally), I would say both are the BMT Broadway Subway. Just IMO. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be a mishmash of various naming conventions for the lines. I suggest the following (which seems to agree with the default in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations), and further provides a simple name without ambiguity):
- {station} ({division} station)
- In the rare case of more than one station of that name in that division, {station} ({division} {line} station)
So for example:
- 81st Street-Museum of Natural History (IND station)
- 14th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line station)
Any comments? --SPUI 07:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, we'd have a lot of station articles to change, but this is much better than, e.g.: "Church Avenue (New York Subway)"
- I would go for always using the second form {station} ({division} {line} station). This is because ambiguous station names are by no means rare. For example, there are three Franklin Avenue stations. There are four Seventh Avenue stations, in four locations, in two different boroughs, three on the IND, one on the BMT, and one train (B) serves two of them! We can easily assemble a huge list. Moreover, there are some stations where there is only one station with that name, but it is still ambiguous where the station is. If you don't know, where is "69th Street (New York Subway)." There are 69th Streets all over the boroughs. "69th Street (IRT station)" is not much better. The first place I'd look is on the Lex of the Bway-7th, but both are wrong. It is "69th Street (IRT Flushing Line station)." Ahhhh! MUCH better!
- The general style on Wikipedia is to use a single standard for naming, and I cast a BIG vote for {station} ({division} {line} station). Good idea, SPUI! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I guess the main problem I'd have with that is that some of the line names are somewhat obscure; we haven't even fully determined a few of them in the downtown Brooklyn/Manhattan area. Though hopefully that can be sorted out soon, and until then we can just guess on those few or drop the line name for now. As for the obscurity, using the line names wherever possible should fix that.
By the way, I just discovered that a bunch of the station articles are straight copyvios from nycsubway.org (Wikipedia:Copyright problems#January 26), so we should wait until that's sorted out before doing a mass renaming.--SPUI 09:56, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)- Never mind about the copyvios - the guy claims to have permission. --SPUI 21:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Not many of the line names are obscure. And I only see a handful of stations (e.g., York St on the F, High St on the A/C where I don't know a definitive line name. BTW, you might be interested to know the TA has been steadily moving back to line names. On the R32s, for example, the Q rolls say Broadway Brighton. And there was just a picture in the Daily News of an A train: "A | Washington Hts - 8th Ave - Fulton Express." It listed all three lines that the train uses. On the BMT/IND trains with electronic signs, the sign changes in midtown. Example: an F train will say "Queens Boulevard Express" until it gets to Manhattan. Then its a "6th Ave. - Culver Local". -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I guess the main problem I'd have with that is that some of the line names are somewhat obscure; we haven't even fully determined a few of them in the downtown Brooklyn/Manhattan area. Though hopefully that can be sorted out soon, and until then we can just guess on those few or drop the line name for now. As for the obscurity, using the line names wherever possible should fix that.
This system kind of sidesteps another issue - what to call this article (and by extension, articles and categories related to it). I'd like to do some standardization of those, but I can't until we decide on what to standardize to. Personally I think New York City Subway would be best. Officially it seems to be the subway division of MTA New York City Transit. An alternate would be NYC Transit subway system (used in ). --SPUI 16:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- You can run a straw poll if you like. I think New York City Subway or New York City Subway System is probably best, but someone should really be prepared to handle fixing the double redirects. BTW, "officially" there is no such thing as "MTA New York City Transit" or "NYC Transit." These are "friendly names". -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Eh, I only count six redirects - I've cleaned up after moves with many more than that. I guess the first phase is to figure out possible names; here are the current possibilities:
- New York Subway (keep it here)
- New York Subway System
- New York City Subway
- New York City Subway System
- NYC Transit Subway
- NYC Transit Subway System
- MTA New York City Subway (from the previous discussion)
- MTA New York City Subway System
Feel free to add to that list. I guess then we'll vote, and then do the moves (this page, the route pages, and list the categories in CFD). --SPUI 20:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Eh, if there's no more input, how about this: In five days, if no one objects, I'm going to move it to New York City Subway. I'll do the same with all the route pages. All double redirects will be fixed. Where necessary, the categories will be listed for renaming to conform both to this naming and to other naming conventions. --SPUI 18:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- OK by me. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- New York City Subway seems fine to me. --CComMack 10:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The TA has announced suspension of direct "A" service to Rockaway Park due to the emergency; i.e., all "A" trains will go to either Lefferts or Far Rockaway. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks; I'll add that to the section on Eighth Avenue Line about the fire. --SPUI 20:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do people think the table of routes should be updated to show temporary service due to the fire on the Eighth Avenue Line? Also, what do people think about the move to a template for the table? Personally I think it should stay; the guy that moved it did it mainly for page length concerns. --SPUI 00:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Similarly, someone's suggesting to me that Eighth Avenue Line should treat the table like nothing happened in the fire, and list the C as an operating service. I disagree with this, since this is more than just a weekend outage. This is a major disruption and should be treated that way. What do others think? --SPUI 02:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I think the table should be updated for the fire, since this is something that is ongoing for months. I wouldn't kill the C page, just note it's not running and why. If this were a GO for a week or two, that would be different, but... (Definition of an optimist: someone who lists Third Avenue el service as "suspended.") -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm definitely not suggesting to kill the C page; I think pages should eventually be created on dead services (like the 8). Of course I'd put most of the relevant info in an article on the line, but the service page would list what lines it ran along and a few other things of note. --SPUI 04:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree we should have pages on eliminated services. I also think we should have histories, or at least timelines, of the letters where they describe services which have changed. Some are relatively minor, like the B and C switching uptown destinations, but there are some big changes, like the D switching southern lines at least three times (via Culver, via Brighton, now via West End) or the 8 (which you mentioned) was originally for the IRT Astoria service. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'd help with that if I had complete info on the changes. I didn't realize that the 8 was originally the Astoria Line; I had only known about the 8 shown on . --SPUI 04:28, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree we should have pages on eliminated services. I also think we should have histories, or at least timelines, of the letters where they describe services which have changed. Some are relatively minor, like the B and C switching uptown destinations, but there are some big changes, like the D switching southern lines at least three times (via Culver, via Brighton, now via West End) or the 8 (which you mentioned) was originally for the IRT Astoria service. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm definitely not suggesting to kill the C page; I think pages should eventually be created on dead services (like the 8). Of course I'd put most of the relevant info in an article on the line, but the service page would list what lines it ran along and a few other things of note. --SPUI 04:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Also note that Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City/Subway has some recent discussion; I didn't realize that existed until today. --SPUI 03:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've created this WikiProject; discussion not specifically related to this page should probably go there. --SPUI 22:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just wanted to comment that I consider the given map horrible. While it might conform to the tracks that are listed, keep in mind that people who would find a map useful do not care about the places where the tracks go; they care about the lines. Why aren't the 4/5/6 lines even drawn in green? Can't we get a map that conforms at least a little bit to the way people use this subway network? --Edisk 05:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I overspoke; I just looked at the map again and I understand the way it is, so I take back a lot of the intensity of my two-minute-ago comment. It seems to me that this map is more about the technical workings of the subway system. Maybe we could supplement it with one that is a little bit less technical? Do you think that nycsubway.org would let us use a map, or something of the sort? (And I'm sorry about the tone I took in my last talk post.) --Edisk 05:27, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just made another map, this one color-coded like the official map, and only showing major stations (including all transfer stations). Thanks for the idea. --SPUI (talk) 00:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Do any subway trains make it out to Staten Island? Funnyhat 05:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yes and no. Literal "trains" of modified R44 subway cars run on Staten Island; however, there is no direct connection between the subway and Staten Island Railway, so no trains originate on either system and run to the other. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Addendum - several plans have been made for a line to Staten Island. Some of the IND Second System plans included a line from the IND Culver Line out to Staten Island, and earlier, in 1920, there was a plan to build a tunnel connecting the BMT Fourth Avenue Line to Staten Island. The latter and probably the former would have connected directly to both branches of Staten Island Rapid Transit.
- By the way, free access to Staten Island can be had via the Staten Island Ferry from South Ferry and adjacent stations on the subway. --SPUI (talk) 05:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I added a bit to the intro about Staten Island. --SPUI (talk) 05:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that using 1863 as the beginning date is very misleading if you are going to use the term: New York City Subway.
Since we are contributing to an encyclopedia we should be quite specific with the facts and not stretch the point just to make it fit.
The date of 1904 is not arbitrary - it is a fact. The first subway line in NYC opened that year. Anything prior to that is not considered a subway (except for Alfred Beach's pneumatic line ).
Also New York City did not exist as a city of 5 boroughs until 1898.
If you want to say that "rapid transit in what would become GReater New York began in 1863" then that would be more acccurate.
Anyway, I am glad to be here and contribute whatever I can.
Allan
- If we're going to use "New York City Subway", by your argument, 1904 makes no more sense. 1904 was the IRT subway; the term "New York City Subway" for the full system didn't come until much later. The use of the railroad infoboxes (on articles in general) is rather arbitrary anyway - some of the dates are for the predecessors, while some are for just the one company, and the former doesn't always make sense when the predecessors and the current company share a lot in common and are thus both on the same article. In this case, if we're going to go by the predecessors, there's no reason to stop at 1904, when we can go all the way back to the first right-of-way constantly in use. --SPUI (talk) 00:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think the point might be clearer if this article had been titled New York City Subway System. But I really don't think we need another retitling. I understand the conceptual problem with using 1863, but 1904 would have different problems: e.g., the Jamaica (J) Line is unequivocally considered a New York City "Subway" Line today, but the entire elevated section over Broadway in Brooklyn was open by 1888. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- How about using 1904 because it is the opening of the first real subway line? (the modern subway?) Moreover, they did just celebrate 100 years. And see October 27 and 1904. Overall, I do see the problem--that the system has ended up including older, pre-1905 elevated sections--Jason McHuff 06:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering if there you would want to somehow include an urban myth regarding the width of IRT equipment.
The reason that they kept the cars the same size as elevated equipment is the correct one but for years this explanation has been coming up again and again earning it a place in subway mythology:
August Belmont was afraid that the railroad companies (NY Central, Pennsylvania etc) would try to find a way to operate their trains on the new subway that he was building so he purposefully kept the width of the tunnels at elevated car width so that the wider railroad cars would not be able to run on them.
What do you think? It might prove of some interest.
Such a reason could be believable except for the fact that Belmont would run his private car Mineola out to the Belmont Racetrack using a connection at Atlantic Avenue to the Long Island Railroad. While the connecting track itself is long gone the right of way can still be seen from the northern end of the uptown local platform.
--Allan 17:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- There are mentions of urban legends in articles - just make it clear that it is one and there should be no problem. --SPUI (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- To Allan: yes, I firmly believe it is a myth that August Belmont specified a smaller tunnel size to prevent the NYC and PRR from operating in "his" subway. However, the supposition fails for reasons other than those you cite.
- There is no indication that the Mineola actually ever operated through the planned connection at Atlantic Avenue, or that the connection (which was planned and mapped) was ever connected and opened.
- The fact that the Mineola (or any other 9' wide equipment) could run on the LIRR proves nothing. Running a 9' car on a 10' road is no trick; running a 10' car in a 9' tunnel is.
- It was not Belmont's subway. It was built and owned by the City of New York. If the City wanted to build it to 10' width (which it did for all the Dual Contract subways, including the IRT ones) and allow msinlinr rsilroads to use it, they could have put it into Belmont's contract.
- Historically, the way you prevented standard railroads from using street railway/rapid transit trackage was by building the line to a different track gauge, not a different loading profile. Examples: broad gauge Philadelphia Rapid Transit and Pittsburgh Railways.
- The reason the first subway was built to Manhattan Elevated standards was two-fold: (1) The IRT anticipated joint subway-elevated operation, which occurred on:
- 9th Avenue el on the Jerome Avenue Line
- 2nd Avenue el on part of the lower White Plains Road Line
- 3rd Avenue el on the upper White Plains Road Line
- 2nd Avenue el on the Astoria and Flushing Lines.
- (2) the most mundane reason of all. Every existing U.S. rapid transit structure in 1900 (Chicago, Boston, Brooklyn, Steinway Tunnel, unfinished H&M come to mind) was 9' width). The IRT just followed what was. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
I liked it when you said: "It was not Belmont's subway". Try telling that to Belmont at the time.
While I agree that there was no evidence that the Atlantic Avenue track connection actually existed there is nothing to prove that it didn't exist. The fact that the ROW is still there does indicate that something was going on.
--Allan 19:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC) 15:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- I just looked through some New York Times articles from around the opening, and nothing is mentioned about the connection, only about the transfer for passengers between the subway and LIRR. There's the mention of the 1922 track plan on . Are there any other sources other than the fact that provisions exist and speculation to indicate that there may have been a track connection? Does anyone know if there are any other notes on track/construction plans? Wild speculation - were they maybe hoping to convert the LIRR Atlantic Avenue branch for subway operations? It seems rather silly for the city to plan a system with a connection to the LIRR that couldn't be used for passenger service, unless politics was very different in those days. Anyone got a time machine? I'm assuming someone has gone through all the photos in the TA archives that might show the connection, though I may be wrong, since it seems reasonably likely that a photo taken from a sufficient place would exist, and thus we'd know for sure. --SPUI (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I am not aware of any sources on the connection but I do recall many years ago seeing crush rock track ballast in the ROW cut just north of the 7th Av platform.
I don't think the City might have had that in the plans. I believe that the contract awarded to Belmont might have given him some leeway in the design (or he might have just put it in and no one said anything).
I also don't believe the City had any plans to buy that section of the LIRR since they already had the money committed to build new subway lines.
Joint service would not have been out of the ordinary. The BRT (and its predecessors) had been doing it for years from the late 1870's into the early 1900's. https://www.lirrhistory.com/joint.html
--Allan 19:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey, if you guys have too much free time, there are even better urban myths to track down:
- The IND station at 76th Street and Pitkin Avenue (even mentioned within the last year or so in the New York Times)
- The locomotive that Bob Diamond and others think is buried near one of the entrances of the Atlantic Avenue Tunnel
- The phantom tunnel (some say station) from the IRT near Nevins Street that was built too high and so is above the current structure by accident and the chief engineer who was supposed to have committed suicide when he realized his mistake
- The story that the old Beach tunnel was discovered by BRT engineers when building the City Hall station
- The lost IND train: a full train of R1/9s that was taken up an old stub track by a motorman and forgotten because it was his last chore before retirement and no one realized this
- That immediately after the Malbone Street Wreck, about a quarter of all those killed were not crushed but electrocuted when a BRT power plant supervisor turned the power back on, thinking it had been turned off by union saboteutrs (Stan Fischler has this, as well as years of newspaper Sunday supplements
And these are just the ones I can think of "off the top of my head" -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- A couple more I've seen:
- The lower level of 42nd Street on the IND Eighth Avenue Line was built to prevent an extension of the IRT Flushing Line.
- The P label was reserved for the BMT Culver Line, converted to a shuttle in 1959.
- Unused tunnels exist for the Second Avenue Line on either side of the Chrystie Street Connection at Grand Street.
- See also for more. --SPUI (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Anybody have an idea of how to integrate the MTA counterterrorism measures, such as their ban on photography, into the article? --Alphachimp 04:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- The threat of the ban (it was never formally adopted) has been dropped for now. The MTA announced that the police already have the power to question those taking pictures under "suspicious" circumstances (such as two dudes who were photographing a tunnel entrance in Queens and turned out to be Iranian agents) so it is not necessary to have a blanket ban. So you may still be questioned if you are taking pictures at say, a junction, but you can't be stopped from photographing in general or have your pictures confiscated without specific cause. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- Cool. Shows what happens when you leave the city for a couple of months to go to college. We should still write something about MTA counterterrorism after 9/11, such as gas masks for all TA conductors and motormen, and armed National Guard patrols on the trains. --Alphachimp 05:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Does anybody know the font/typeface that is used for the text in all those NYC subway signs? It looks like Geneva or Helvetica to me.
iIrc, it has been Akzidenz Grotesk in the recent past, but new signs are in the closely related and hard-to-distinguish Helvetica. --CComMack 19:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at what was added by Descent to the "Popular Culture":
"Recently there has been some outcry over talks of a petition to ban all photography and filming of subway cars, lines, and stations for security reasons without permission from the MTA or city government. Along with new fines for sitting on the stairs, placing feet on open subway car chairs, and changing cars during travel, many native New Yorkers see this as a threat to their daily lives and just another step into making New York a complete police state."
Aside from the fact that it could be better worded I object to the use of "police state" only to the extent that Descent seems to be making a political statement rather than an informational entry into an encyclopedia.
It is obviously his/her opinion and I don't believe it has a place in the article.
What do you think? --Allan 20:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
--Not only is it POV, but its also outdated. The MTA just lifted the so-called "ban" on photography about two weeks ago, and it is unlikely to resurface. Also, the other points mentioned in that paragraph have little to do with popular culture anyway. --Jleon 20:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, something could definitely be said about the photo ban, either here or on the history page, but not in this way. I'm reverting it. --SPUI (talk) 22:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I wrote the 42nd Street-Port Authority Bus Terminal link & was wondering if anyone could put up the sidebar that lists all the lines & everything. I haven't the time nor the Wiki-knowhow.-Ianthegecko
- Question - do you have permission from the owner of nycsubway.org to post the information? A lot of the articles here were done a while ago with his permission, but I don't know the details of that, and it might not have applied to this page. Given his earlier approval, he's likely to approve this - can you please email him and verify? --SPUI (talk) 29 June 2005 18:29 (UTC)
- I e-mailed the webmaster. He said to go ahead with it. Ianthegecko 29 June 2005 20:07 (UTC)
I just added an initial article on the 4th Av Brooklyn line. This was with done with info off the top of my head, tho' I did use the Culver Line article as a template. It clearly needs additional work. --FourthAve 7 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)
- I have also changed the link on THIS page to from Fourth Avenue Line to BMT Fourth Avenue Line. After further reading, I have probably introduced an inconsistency in nomenclature, but at least the link works. I don't know how to change a page name. I see there is a orphan link _Fourth Avenue Line_. I shoulda probably used this one instead of the orphaned _BMT Fourth Avenue Line_.
--FourthAve 7 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)
- Although it's good to check the nomenclature first, it seems as though you've actually done the right thing. I'll see if I can clean up some of these other links, but you've done nothing wrong, and a big thing right (that is, contributing an article. Thank you!) --8 July 2005 01:50 (UTC)
- The more I wallow through these pages, the more the inconsistencies I mentioned pop out. The whole NYC subway project needs a master page of links, to include all the orphans, if only to copy edit them all in the name of consistency (but then, it is too too easy to create new orphan links, and one needs a reversion-meister to control the ill-informed).
- Harder, tho', is wallowing thru wiki-ese to discover the inconsistent links. In a cursory search, I discover original links to the _BMT Fourth Avenue Line_, even on THIS page. Apparently, a redirect is possible. Aggh. Wikipedia is messy.
--FourthAve 8 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)
- I have created a page for the Nostrand Av Line, with fully marked-up station listings.
- I have added fully marked up station listings to the E P'kway Line as well.
- I note a problem on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_City_Subway_stations in that there already exist pages for the 2 IRT boro hall stations -- and their addresses don't agree with what I see here.
- My 4Av Line page is complete. I will still do niggling things,and may make the page somewhat less rigidly structured.
My talk page is active.--FourthAve 04:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Almost forgot. There is also now a Lawrence Street station article. It mentions the MONEY TRAIN. Anyone game to write an article?
- Also, someone needs to archive thru at least May.
IND_Fulton_Street_Line All the stations are there, and one hopes, in the correct order. It needs additional work. I do not really know the history. --FourthAve 05:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
--I just noticed that the article on the Philadelphia subway uses the official SEPTA map under the "fair use" of the copyright. Is there any reason we can't do the same here with the official MTA map? --Jleon 17:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Because we have a free replacement. Fair use should only be used if there is yet no free replacement. Also, with SEPTA, we are less likely to be sued because SEPTA specifically authorizes non-commercial use (though that's not acceptable on its own, it may strengthen the fair use claim). --SPUI (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- The MTA is currently cracking down on iPodSubwayMaps.com for copyright infringement in making subway maps available for iPod download. Search google news for MTA AND map and you'll get a bunch of stories about it. SPUI, maybe you should write this guy an e-mail about your maps.--Pharos 15:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The subway in that TV show is set in Los Angeles, not New York. I'd sugggest that this reference be removed.
Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union is threatening to go on strike. Should we include this in our article here? — Rickyrab | Talk 03:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I think it deserves its own article. The whole city is going to be paralyzed tomorrow.--Pharos 03:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be mentioned here, though in context of broader labor issues (also mentioning the 1980 strike). Depending on what happens, how long the strike, etc., the strike might merit a separate article though mentioned in brief in this main article. --Aude 03:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Should the page be "Current event?" Should there also be a page on the upcoming strike and contingency plans? --Blue387 08:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- In my opinion, yes. See also 1980 transit strike.--Pharos 08:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- There is not a single word about the strike on the page. The current event template is not justified at all as it indicates that information in the article may change rapidly. This would be appropriate for the New York City Transit strike of 2005 article. I'll remove it again. --Dschwen 09:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- OK, the article has been started at 2005 New York City transit strike.--Pharos 10:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I made a new infobox as a suggestion. It can be found Infobox#New_York_City_Subway|here.
- Please send me your suggestions.
I like it. It looks cleaner than the current version but others may feel that having the information in boxes is easier to follow.
--Allan 18:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I put it in as an experiment on the 4 north of 125 Street.
Geoking66 20:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think the new infobox looks good. --Aude 23:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
(NOTE: I wasn't sure how to message someone) This is what I think the general rules that apply for the infoboxes (in my opinion).
- Yes, transfers to all forms of transportation should be included. As a general rule, regular MTA buses should have a seperate section in the article (such as Flushing-Main Street.) However, airport buses should be put in the infobox.
- The color of the Station Information and Other boxes should change depending on the line. For now, if the station is an express station with two different colored lines (eg. Brighton Beach), the express service's color will be used.
- Other means miscellanious information/trivia, while Station Information means line and service information.
- The Borough can be included, but should be under Other.
- The only time the next local and express station should be listed in the infobox is in an article about an express station (Willets Point, Union Square, Times Square, etc.).
- I agree on only the current service for the next station, I would not show all lines that share the next station (unless express line, such as Q on a local station in Manhattan on the BMT Broadway line).
- Services for the Next North and Next South should have the services for the next station under the name.
- I believe that 'rd and 'th should NOT be included. On official subway maps and on the MTA site, those suffixes are not included, and an editor should not be worried which suffix to use. Besides, it is more aesthetically pleasing.
- The line space specifically says LINE, not division and line. The old infobox did this the same way as I do, only the line the station is on.
Thanks for your coöperation with the infobox, from what I heard/saw, most users liked it. Geoking66 06:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I removed this ", and it distinguishes them from subway car models built for other purposes." from the article because there are no subway car models built for other purposes. Even the pumper cars purchased a few years back (which look like R62 cars but with only one set of doors on each side) are known as R127 cars.
I aslo modified what the R is supposed to mean. There is a lot of arguement amongst railfans. While I feel that it stands for "Revenue" (based on what the IND used for) others feel it stands for "Rolling Stock". Considering that they use the "R" on any contract that involves work cars, subway cars, and anything to support them it is possible that the term has evolved into "Rolling Stock".
--Allan 18:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
the Pump cars are converted from R62s are R65s the R127s are R62 like cars built as money trains, but never used as such-- only as garbace motors.
--I've restored my pic of the entrance to the Roosevelt Ave station, as I thought that one of LIC was kind of lifeless and depressing. Anyone have objections to this? --Jleon 16:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- I thought the new pic (which I inserted) showed the Entrance and elevated station much clearer, was not obstructed by lost of cars and not overexposed and tilted. But since I took the new pic I might be biased ;-). --Dschwen 15:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I like some aspects of both photos... the colors of the 45 Road-Court House Square photo and the way the buildings are framed in the photo. Though, all the people in the Jackson Heights photo make it look nice too. While there are already a lot of photos in the article, might we include both of these photos?
- As for other photos, Image:RRboro.jpeg, Image:subseries2001.jpeg (this one is clearly copyright-vio), and Image:Yankee 77.jpg added recently by Oanabay04 — they look pretty cool but have no dates or source information and therefore should be removed. That would help alleviate the perhaps, too many photos in the article. --Aude 16:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- A salomonic solution :-) --Dschwen 22:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Back in April of 2005 when I changed the start date from 1863 to 1904, it was changed back to 1863 almost within the next day. The reason given was that while the subway opened in 1904 one of the ROW of a precessor RR in Brooklyn opened in 1863. I accepted that reasoning although I felt it can cause confusion. Someone later added a note link.
On 12/16/05 someone with the ISP 144.42.9.104 changed it to 1904 and no one challenged it. I saw it this morning and changed it back to 1863.
I did, however added one sentence in the box: "The subway opened in 1904 but certain predecessor RR lines opened in 1863". Maybe this will help end the confusion.
I'll leave the final decision to you.
--Allan 14:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed this from the History section of the main article as it is not correct. City Hall opened the same day as the others on the original line. The station wall are not made mostly of tile. As with most other stations they are concrete with a tile face. I have been to the City Hall station a few times and have never seen tiles showing a small represetation of City Hall. Krashlandon (the user who posted the paragraph) is getting confused with the BMT Broadway City Hall station.
Also the last line has no place in the article. This is an encyclopedia not a travel guide.
There is enough information on the City Hall page that it doesn't need to be on the main article page.
Text removed:
"The first public station to be opened was the City Hall Station on Lexington Avenue, which has since been closed to service and made historic. The station walls were mostly made of tile showing a small representation of City Hall. City Hall Station is a great place to visit if you are lucky enough to be allowed in, as it is a great piece of history. "
--Allan 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I was very impressed with Geoking66's new infobox design; in order to streamline the infobox-adding process a bit, I've created a template based on it: Infobox NYCS. A warning: It is a little complicated at first glance; however, it is really not exceptionally difficult to understand. If anyone has any questions or comments about the infobox, feel free to ask me. —Larry V 07:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (Talk)
Currently, articles are titled like 6 (New York City Subway service). Isn't service a little redundant? For me at least, it seems that there's less of a need to be so specific. Take Persephone from The Matrix, for instance; rather than have Persephone (Matrix character) it is now titled Persephone (The Matrix). Also, the Washington Metro subpages are named with just a (Washington Metro) on it; there's no (Washington Metro station at the end of it. - Hbdragon88 06:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I can see where you are coming from on this one. This makes a lot of sense for stations: "42nd Street-Times Square (New York City Subway station)" would instead be "42nd Street-Times Square (New York City Subway)", for instance. For the services, however, it may be a tad unclear, because they are only denoted by letters and numbers. A typical Washington Metro article is "Red Line (Washington Metro)". This title makes it abundantly clear that the article is about a line. Something like "6 (New York City Subway)" doesn't make it quite clear what "6" is, exactly, so I'm not so sure about that particular class of articles. However, I do think that all station articles' titles would be better without the appendage "station." —Larry V 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I tried to make the same point at Talk:Port_Authority_Trans-Hudson#Infobox, but the other editors wanted to be consistent with how the NY Subway articles are names (e.g.42nd Street-Times Square (New York City Subway station) rather than Gallery Pl-Chinatown (Washington Metro)). Other subway system articles are also inconsistent, with Lubyanka (Metro) in Moscow, Paddington station in London, MacArthur (BART) and Balboa Park Station in San Francisco... It's not a big deal either way, but would be nice if the various subway system articles followed the same naming conventions. I would favor going with how Washington Metro, and Moscow Metro name the station articles (shorter names = better). -Aude (talk | contribs) 15:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Why no reference to the movie Money Train? It has more NYC subway action than most of the movies mentioned. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113845/
Looking at the others I can only think of one reason - there is no Wiki page set up for the movie (I couldn't find one).
--Allan 17:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I would just like to see what the general feeling is regarding the names of stations as given in the article infoboxes. Do you think that the ordinal suffixes should be included (e.g., "42nd Street–Times Square") or left off (e.g., "42 Street–Times Square")? I personally think that they should be included. The name is "Forty-Second Street," not "Forty-Two Street." The MTA refers to stations like this in official documents; anywhere where they are left off are usually to preserve space (e.g, The Map and tables in documents). I also believe that they are left off of station signage so as not to confuse non-English speakers—and I have to assume that people who are reading the English Wikipedia speak English. —Larry V (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that many contributers just have to have EVERYTHING in the main article. It just clutters things up.
I just removed text on Fare collection and the future of the MetroCard. The person who contributed that text also put it on the MetroCard page. It is fine there because it pertains specifically to that subject.
--Allan 21:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks. I just started the article John Tauranac. The bio in the back of the book I was using says he was the chief designer on the committee that designed the new NYC subway map in 1979, but this website says it was someone else. Does anyone have any more information as to who was actually responsible for the design? (Also, how this could be worked into either this or some other article - map design is interesting). Thanks! Cantara 01:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I just created a post with a link to your question on SubChat.com. We'll see if any of those guys knows. —Larry V (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
"The new system will replace decades-old electronics that frequently fail due to flooding."? That seems weird. Is there a cite for that? For details of the existing relay-based control system, see NXSYS subway simulator. --Nagle 07:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The article states "the New York City Subway is the only transit system in the world, with the exception of the PATH (which connects New Jersey with Manhattan), and parts of the Chicago 'L', that operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week." This is not true, as Philadelphia (www.septa.com) and London run busses along the train routes during the late night hours.
Either "transit" should be replaced with a word like "train", or Philadelphia and London should be added to the list.
Kuvopolis 15:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- The subway system itself is being referred to; "rapid transit" should fit the bill. —Larry V (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually the PATCO rapid transit system, which connects Southern New Jersey with Philadelphia, does run 24/7 http://www.drpa.org/patco/schedule.asp. Should we add it? Kuvopolis 04:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, was busy. Kuvopolis 03:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that the infobox gives the number of lines as 27. Should the number of lines given represent the number of physical lines or the number of services? —Larry V (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- Though it is not technically correct, we use the number of identifiably distinct services (but not all variations) to determine the number of "lines." I don't know how meaningful this is: maybe we should say "services." In order to desribe the number of physical lines, we would have to have a pretty well-honed desfinition of what constitutes a "line." Even the NYCTA isn't consistent. Sometimes they treat the line to Brooklyn under Houston Street as the "Houston Street Line," other times they treat it as part of the "Sixth Avenue Line." Historically, the BMT regarded the "Broadway-4th Avenue Subway" as being a single line from 57th Street (or Queensboro Plaza) to 95th Street-Ft. Hamilton, and the branch to Prospect Park as a branch of the Broadway-4th. Now the Broadway Line is one line, the 4th Avenue is another, and the branch to Prospect Park is part of the Brighton Line. And those are just a few examples. -- Cecropia 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
