![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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
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)
Wouldn't an image help? I'm quite undecided on which type to put. -- GatesPlusPlus 10:06, 8 Oct 2004 (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)
How official are the line names? Does the MTA use them? If not, did the predecessors? -- SPUI 14:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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):
So for example:
Any comments? -- SPUI 07:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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 [2]). -- SPUI 16:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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 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:
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)
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)
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
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)
-- FourthAve 7 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)
-- FourthAve 8 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)
My talk page is active.-- FourthAve 04:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I made a new infobox as a suggestion. It can be found Infobox#New_York_City_Subway|here.
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)
(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).
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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
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)
Wouldn't an image help? I'm quite undecided on which type to put. -- GatesPlusPlus 10:06, 8 Oct 2004 (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)
How official are the line names? Does the MTA use them? If not, did the predecessors? -- SPUI 14:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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):
So for example:
Any comments? -- SPUI 07:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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 [2]). -- SPUI 16:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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 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:
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)
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)
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
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)
-- FourthAve 7 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)
-- FourthAve 8 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)
My talk page is active.-- FourthAve 04:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I made a new infobox as a suggestion. It can be found Infobox#New_York_City_Subway|here.
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)
(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).
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)