Talk:IND Sixth Avenue Line

A note about old service patterns

[1] appears to show a scissors crossover between the southbound tracks south of Broadway-Lafayette Street, corresponding to the still-existing northbound one to the north. That would be how the rush hour CC terminated at Broadway-Lafayette between 1949 and 1954 (see also [2]). If the crossover between the express tracks north of Second Avenue existed then, they used that, but why didn't they stop at Second Avenue? It's likely that when Sixth Avenue trains ended at Broadway-Lafayette or Second Avenue, they used the crossovers north of West Fourth Street-Washington Square. --NE2 16:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Service history

Note that until 1988, some Manhattan Bridge trains ran local.

Local through to Jay, 1936-present

• E 1936-1940, 4th to Jay
• F 1940-mid-1940s, Queens to Jay local
• D mid-1940s-ca. 1950, 59th to Jay local
• F ca. 1950-1954, Queens to Jay local
• D 1954-1967, 59th to Jay local
• F 1967-2001, Queens to Jay local (sometimes from 57th late nights)
• F 2001-present, 57th to Jay local

59th to express, 1940-present (peak)

• BB 1940-1967, 59th to 34th (rush hours)
• B 1967-1986, 59th to Manhattan Bridge express (rush hours)
• B 1986-1988, 59th to 34th (rush hours)
• B 1988-2001, 59th to Manhattan Bridge express (weekdays)
• B 2001-2004, 59th to 34th (weekdays)
• B 2004-present, 59th to Manhattan Bridge express (weekdays)

59th to express, 1967-present

• D 1967-1968, 59th to Manhattan Bridge express (rush hours)
• B 1967-1968, 4th to Manhattan Bridge (weekday non-rush hours)
• D 1968-1986, 59th to Manhattan Bridge express
• D 1986-1988, 59th to 34th
• D 1988-2001, 59th to Manhattan Bridge express
• D 2001-2004, 59th to 34th
• D 2004-present, 59th to Manhattan Bridge express

Short local, 1940-1988, 2001-present (in between was an extra express instead, due to normal Broadway services being rerouted onto 6th)

• D 1940-mid-1940s, 59th to 4th local
• F mid-1940s-ca. 1950, Queens to 4th local
• D ca. 1950-1954, 59th to 4th local
• F 1954-1956, Queens to Broadway local (rush hours)
• F 1954-1956, Queens to 34th (non-rush hours)
• F 1956-1957, Queens to 2nd local
• F 1957-1967, Queens to Broadway local (weekdays) (2nd until 1958)
• F 1957-1967, Queens to 34th (non-weekdays)
• D 1967-1968, 59th to Manhattan Bridge local (non-rush hours)
• KK/K 1968-1976, 57th to Williamsburg Bridge local (rush hours)
• B 1968-1976, 57th to Manhattan Bridge local (non-rush hours)
• B 1976-1986, 57th to Manhattan Bridge local
• S 1986-1988, 57th to Grand local
• S 2001-2001, 57th to Broadway local and Broadway to Grand
• S 2001-2004, 4th to Grand
• V 2001-present, Queens to 2nd local (weekdays)

Short local south of 4th, 1940-1954

• E 1940-1949, 4th to Broadway
• E 1949-1954, 4th to Broadway (non-rush hours)
• CC 1949-1954, 4th to Broadway (rush hours)
• See previous entry for post-1954

Extra express, 1988-2001

• Q 1988-2001, 57th to Manhattan Bridge express (weekdays)
• B 1988-2001, 57th to Manhattan Bridge express (non-weekdays) (sometimes F or S from 57th late nights and weekends)

Template neglects to show 'M' transfer at Delancey-Essex

The current 'NYCS Nassau south' template set for the transfer at Delancey Street – Essex Street neglects to note the fact that the M also stops there (on the Nassau Street Line platform). Should a new template be made for this situation?
~kiddRell_ (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Nassau north is the wrong template, it's {{NYCS Williamsburg}}. Thanks for pointing that out. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

defunct services

I see no reason for the removal of defunct services, labeled as such. Toddst1 (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IND Sixth Avenue Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160801200338/http://gothamist.com/2016/01/08/subway_facelift_shutdown.php to http://gothamist.com/2016/01/08/subway_facelift_shutdown.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:IRT Lexington Avenue Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:IND Sixth Avenue Line/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 01:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Giving this one a look. —Ed!^(talk) 01:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Pass External links and dab links look good. Copyvio detector returns green.

   • Might want to check the dup links; I see a few here and there it's picking up.

   • @Ed!: I removed many of them. However, some of the duplicate links are being picked up in places that aren't part of the prose, so I ignored these. epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Source Spotcheck: Refs 17, 30, 50 and 52 all properly cited in the article to info backed up in the source material.

   • Ref 67 "Planned Service Changes for: Wednesday, December 19, 2018". -- redirecting to an error page. Can it be fixed?

    Done--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Extent and service

   • This might be tough to find, but any details on where the tracks cross over or under other tunnels? Seems relevant given the mention of difficulty in construction as a result of this.

   • It's not a complete cross-section, but I found this (AIA Guide to NYC, 1st edition). If I recall correctly, it passes over the East River Tunnels and IRT Flushing Line but under nearly everything else. epicgenius (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

   History

   • Seeing some details here mentioning other building proposals along 6th Ave. lines. Is anything there worth including?

   • There are plenty of details, but they are already included in the Proposed expansion of the New York City Subway article. I summarized them here. epicgenius (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

   • Do any market studies survive for what projected ridership was to be when the line was in the planning stages? Would think they might have studied how neighborhoods to be served by the line were to grow or predict usage.

   • Not really. One thing to know about the IND was that they built lines that ran parallel to existing surface, elevated, and even underground lines, without regard to the cost-benefit analysis. The Sixth Avenue Line, for example, was built to compete with the Sixth Avenue elevated and surface lines. Same reasoning goes for the Second Avenue Subway (competing with elevated and surface lines), IND Fulton Street Line (competing with an elevated line), IND Crosstown Line (competing with a surface line), IND Concourse Line (competing with an elevated line)... you get the idea. epicgenius (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

   • "The IND Sixth Avenue Line was designed to replace the elevated IRT Sixth Avenue Line." -- Might be worth noting in a footnote why this line needed replacing.

   • Done.

   • "at which time the city began evicting residents within the line's route." -- Any estimated number here?

   • Done.

   • "March 23, 1936, Mayor LaGuardia" -- Link needed on first reference to all names.

   • Done.

   • And sense for the ridership of the Sixth Avenue Line once it was initially opened or how its opening impacted loads on the Eighth Avenue Line? Asking to quantify the relief effect mentioned in the prose.

   • It was relief for train traffic, not necessarily for ridership. As I mentioned above, the construction of the Sixth Avenue Line was more so the IND could compete with existing transit lines. I couldn't find any ridership stats from those early years, but it is worth noting that the subway system as a whole reached all-time-high ridership in the 1940s. epicgenius (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

   • Cost? "The express tracks were part of a major subway improvement program that began with the reconstruction of the DeKalb Avenue station in Brooklyn."

   • Added.

   • Any numbers on projected ridership or trains increase? "The two projects would increase the total number of trains that could go to Manhattan."

   • Added - 45 trains per hour, 90,000 more passengers.

   • Any cost for the renovations of the 23rd and 57th St. station updates?

   • It was $124.9 million for three stations (the 28th Street station on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line was also renovated), since the renovations were all done as part of one contract. epicgenius (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

   • Daily ridership stats can be included in the prose too. Any chance for detail on how that number has changed over time?

   • I'll try to look, but line-by-line ridership isn't easy to find. Many of these are in print sources. epicgenius (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass There's a decent mix of media, public and independent sources, no over-reliance on one of them as I can tell.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass Images tagged PD where appropriate and there's a whole lot of graphics and iconography as well as maps. Plenty.

7. Other:

   On Hold Nothing massive, just a few comments on this one. —Ed!^(talk) 04:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, so the comments above have led to some significant additions to the article (1.5KB expansion) which has increased some of the specificity of an already very comprehensive piece. Based on this work, I'm going to Pass the GAN now. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 17:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)