Talk:Independent Subway System

63 Street Tunnel

I was just wondering if there's a particular reason why the 63rd Street Tunnel isn't included under "East River Crossings." I understand the 63rd Street Line is included elsewhere, but I'd think the tunnel itself belongs with the crossings. I would have just changed it, but I wanted to see first if there was a reason I just wasn't thinking of.Mjj237 16:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The 63rd Street Tunnel article clearly shows that it is an East River crossing, and it is categorized as such. Marc Shepherd 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Route numbers

These numbers were used during construction. --NE2 19:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• 101, 6th Avenue and 53rd Street via Cranberry Street to Jay Street between Nassau and Concord Streets [1]
• 102, 6th Avenue and Greenwich Avenue via Eighth Avenue to 64th Street (north of there had already been approved to 193rd Street, as an extension of the BMT Broadway Line [2])
• 102, 8th Avenue and 53rd Street to Queens
• 103, Houston Street, presumably to Jay Street between Nassau and Concord Streets
• 104, ?
• 105, ?
• 106, Concourse [3]
• 107, Crosstown
• 108, Queens Boulevard
• 109, from Jay Street between Nassau and Concord Streets [4] to at least Prospect Park West [5]
• 110, Fulton Street
• 111, ?

Additional Routes

From the lede: "In addition, the BMT's M, N, Q and R now run partly on IND trackage." The M and R are obvious to me, but unless I am missing something, the N doesn't appear to run on any IND trackage, and I'm pretty sure the Q doesn't either. Regardless, this statement needs elaboration, I think. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Tduk (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I did a history search and came up with this edit: Revision as of 01:37, 6 June 2017 SkipperRipper (Rush hours some N service is on IND.), I'll ping them. Tduk (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging User:SkipperRipper Tduk (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Upon further thought - is this counting the 2nd avenue line as an IND line? Tduk (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, the Second Avenue Subway is IND. See also List of New York City Subway lines. The (T) may show up there some day? ——SkipperRipper (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Why are we classifying it as IND? I saw that it was originally planned as part of that, but was it ever constructed when IND still existed? I don't think it ever had trains on it before the unification, did it? I think that we should explain all of these answers in the article if we can. Tduk (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

After discussing/researching offline, any objection to changing the lede paragraphs to reflect the difference between the original IND trackage, and the new trackage built under the IND chaining? Tduk (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It is all originally IND. Proposed almost 100 years ago. Some sections were built in the 1970s, well after unification. The IND does still exist, but as about half of the NYC Subway’s “B Division”. See Independent Subway System for more details on the IND. —SkipperRipper (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I just linked you back you to the main article. Oops, sorry I wasn’t paying attention, I have had a rough go of things lately. I think changing the paragraph doesn’t bring anything extra to the article. But, maybe the specitivity that some BMT routes use IND trackage in Queens and Manhattan, and some IND routes use (and have recaptured) BMT trackage in Brooklyn can be worked in? —SkipperRipper (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's worth distinguishing between trackage that was build pre-unification vs. trackage building using IND chaining/signaling, as the wording currently in the article implies, at least to me, that the N/Q is running on pre-unification trackage. This is at least partly because the article says the ISS was a rapid transit rail system in New York City, implying that any trackage mentioned was built while the ISS was an actual entity. If I got confused, I'm not likely to be the only one. This is a very interesting distinction that I don't think I've seen explored anywhere in any article here. Tduk (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

IND trackage is IND trackage, no matter when built (minor exception on the now-IND Culver Line). I don’t see any implication that N is running on pre-uni trackage. The former companies’ abbreviations are used for legal and other reasons, see New York City Subway nomenclature#Subway lines. To rechain the entire B Division (New York City Subway) after unification would have been a daunting and confusing task. See also thejoekorner (RIP) at https://web.archive.org/web/20191120024215/http://www.thejoekorner.com/out-the-front/chainall.htm for chaining info.

I just did a little digging in the IND article and found just TWO sentences for the SAS under “Proposed expansion” and “Extensions after 1940”. I think this should be expounded upon (like a paragraph or two) somewhere new (“New Lines”?) in the article (and remove it from “Extensions”) as the SAS is not an extension (for exanple) like the (E) to Jamaica Center is. —SkipperRipper (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I've been confusing. Nowhere in the first paragraphs is it implied that IND trackage does not mean "trackage made by the IND", which _is_ said in the lede to no longer exist. Without a clear definition of what is meant by the term "IND trackage", it can be misleading. Does that make any sense? Tduk (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

How about this in the first paragraph: “…was a rapid transit rail system in New York City that is now part of the New York City Subway. It was first constructed as the Eighth Avenue Line in Manhattan in 1932.” I think rail system would imply IND trackage, but which the NYCTA now owns and uses. —SkipperRipper (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)