Wikipedia

Talk:New York City Subway/Archive 4

< Talk:New York City Subway
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Oknazevad in topic History section
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on New York City Subway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York City Subway. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Subway Map

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I was looking at the subway map diagram that we have in the article when I looked at the new 2nd Avenue Subway section. The map had the new line as servicing both N and Q trains. However, the 2nd Avenue Line only services Q trains. Why does the map have the N train as part of the new line? The map also shows the N train going into Queens, which it does do. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

There are a handful of rush hour N trains that run up the 2nd Ave line (they used to short-turn at 57th St, but that's no longer possible because of the changes with the opening of the 2nd Ave Subway, so they follow the Q up that way). That said, as per the discussion at WT:NYPT, that sort of exceedingly minor variation doesn't belong on the map, or in infobox headers. The map here should reflect the MTA's map, and that does not have an N train marker along Second Ave. oknazevad (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Is there an existing map that we could use to fix it, or should we request a new one? If we needed a new one, we would only have to erase a small part of the map. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You can contact the uploaded and ask him to remove it. oknazevad (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who updated CountZ's subway map. I'll edit it to remove all the limited rush hour services if we reach a consensus. PrecipiceofDuck (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I would support that. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
As would I. And based on the discussion at WT:NYPT#Some trips, there is broad consensus that odd ball rush hour trips are too insignificant to include. oknazevad (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on New York City Subway. 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:

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) 16:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Recentism and bloat

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This article is starting to get bloated and is starting to reek of WP:RECENTISM, with the addition of all the various initiatives, challenges, and technological processes of the past decade or so. Perhaps Technology of the New York City Subway needs to be split out. – Train2104 (t • c) 13:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, that's kind of the point of the Modernization section. But sure, we can split it later. epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree that it needs to be split. This is something that I have been wanting to do.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@Train2104 and Kew Gardens 613: There is now a new article, Technology of the New York City Subway. epicgenius (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on New York City Subway. 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:

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) 03:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New York City Subway. 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:

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) 22:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Create a series?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With the vast multitude of interrelated articles involving the NYCS, I think it would be advisable to create a article series as a hub for these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerhapsXarb (talk • contribs) 03:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Litter, rodents, and dirty stations

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

These are separate topics. -Inowen (nlfte) 02:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Outdated maps

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are maps that don't reflect the current stations, like the offical map, and some other maps. However, there are copyright restrictions on the maps that block maps to get on wikipedia, so if there are maps that are not under copyright, that would be useful for this article. ( The copyright restrictions might just be for some other uses, i'm not sure.) Jackotothemax (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Count

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there a count of stations by line, for example the A line has n stations.-Inowen (nlfte) 23:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of recently added paragraph

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed the recently added paragraph for the 2009-2010 budget cuts section for three reasons:

  1. This section is specifically about the service changes that occurred on June 25-28, 2010 due to the budget cuts.
  2. These issues are already mentioned in the next section, 2017 state of emergency
  3. and the new paragraphs are copied, if not closely paraphrased from the source. epicgenius (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations)/NYC Subway RfC

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is currently an RfC to discuss the naming of articles for NYC Subway stations. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Track Circuits.

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Track Circuits can be false fed using a pair of wires, allows signal to clear, trains crash into each other. Ian C Burnett (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Possibly. If you can find a source for that it may be the basis of a contribution to the article. Britmax (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

new article with good data

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have just added the article below to the section on "external links." this is full of highly useful information on the history of the New York City subways. i don't have time now to expand this article, but anyone is free to use this data if they wish. thanks!!

--Sm8900 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Rfc about station layouts

Latest comment: 4 years ago21 comments6 people in discussion

I am procedurally closing this expired RfC. I listed the RfC at WP:ANRFC, and an admin declined the close request with the comment "no formal close needed. Participants on the talk page can judge the outcome themselves." There is more context for the declined close request here.

If any editor would like to close the RfC, they can replace this procedural close with their close. If any editor would like this RfC to be formally closed by an uninvolved editor, they can undo this procedural close and make a close request at WP:ANRFC.

Cunard (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


About the articles for the various NYC subway stations, I am not sure whether there should be station layouts depicting the platforms for the stations, for Wikipedia is not a guidebook or travel guide. Should we remove the station layouts sections (but probably keep the track layouts diagrams) from the current NYC subway stations' articles?--ZKang123 (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Previous discussion for Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) has decided that graphical station layouts should not be included in articles, citing WP:NOTGUIDE. 1.02 editor (T/C) 10:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous discussion of the issue, and because WP:NOTGUIDE doesn't really apply here, but see below. The policy states that Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like, and it might be useful to remove simple layouts only served by one route. However, the NYC subway generally includes complex stations with three or four tracks, e.g. Hoyt–Schermerhorn Streets station, and these tables are useful in visually depicting text that is described and referenced more thoroughly in the prose. It does not violate WP:NOTGUIDE to do this, especially if the station's layout is complicated.
    Unlike the Singapore MRT, at least 80% of NYC subway station articles have referenced layouts, and more than 10% of NYC Subway station articles are good articles. Furthermore, unlike Singapore, the NYC Subway typically has an intricate service pattern, with two or three services to a platform (e.g. Bowling Green station). Removing this will not help the reader understand the prose part of the article, and is actually detrimental in my opinion; e.g. in the Hoyt-Schermerhorn example, it would be even more confusing to note which trains use which tracks. Note that for other systems, this is not the case, and it would be beneficial to remove the station layouts for these articles. Furthermore, it would be worth looking into whether we should remove accessibility information and other elements that may resemble guidebooks.
    Also, WP:Trains already had this discussion a few months ago, with most !voters agreeing that there should be "No general policy". The 2018 discussion about this resulted in the same thing. I don't think there is a consensus to remove station layouts, either among WP:TRAINS participants or WP:NYCS participants. epicgenius (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Epicgenius: Many editors in that discussion also pointed out that station layouts should only be in articles of big complex stations, and should be removed from normal 2 platform stations. 1.02 editor (T/C) 02:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
      1.02 editor, removing station layouts from simple 2 platform stations (served by only one route, which are not part of station complexes) would probably be fine. But it also depends on the context. If the 2 platform station has an unusual, reliably sourced feature (e.g. Broadway station (IND Crosstown Line)'s unused platform level) it would probably be better to leave it. Also, the NYC Subway, unlike almost all other systems, does not have a {{S-line}} type diagram in the infobox showing the next stops and the destinations of the trains. That purpose is kind of served by the station layout. epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Ambivalent. On one hand, i agree that illustrating the more complicated stations can be useful. On the other hand, many of the stations are simple enough not to need them; for example it really doesn't add anything to Hunters Point Avenue station except bloat. I also find the current format rather mediocre. I've always disliked the way the the levels are arranged with them stacked vertically, but each layer is itself a top-down view. I also think some of the details are excessive and clearly travel guide like, such as saying on which side the doors of the train will open (and the "Island platform, doors will open on the left, right" phrasing is really awkward). I think the idea of illustrating the layouts of complex stations (and especially station complexes) is useful, but not all stations need them, and the current templates are not ideal. oknazevad (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Track layout, Remove Station layout. I am in favor of keeping the track layouts but not the station layouts. I think when it comes to illustrating the layout of the station the simpler track layout, which only shows platforms, tracks and where they lead to. This is especially helpful for most NYCS stations due to the complex nature of services and lines. The big station layouts however contain too much unencyclopedic information to not fall under WP:NOTGUIDE, and lack the ability to show the station as part of a line. 1.02 editor (T/C) 02:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - evidently beating a dead horse, per Epicgenius's links. This is a longstanding and valuable tool for learning about and understanding the layout and workings of a train station, likely more useful and used for that than by passengers trying to get somewhere. ɱ (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Agreed with this, but it dosent cover for the fact that the template has unneeded details as pointed out by Oknazevad. Once removed, the remaining details can be represented in the track layout template, rendering the station layout template redundant.1.02 editor (T/C) 04:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
No, stations are not just tracks, the station layouts display much more information: which services use which tracks, which directions the tracks are used for, alignment with major roads, and presence of overpasses or underpasses. Ideally the platform layout template would evolve to something more streamlined, and I could see it perhaps with indicators of other station functions - the waiting room, concourse, ticket windows/machines, etc., to act as a station map without needing to create so many separate images. ɱ (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Stations are not just tracks, but i dont see how some of the information in the station layout makes it into an encyclopedia. A look at the station layout of Times Square–42nd Street/Port Authority Bus Terminal station reveals a large swath of elevator information, information on the steep gradient of a passageway, and as mentioned before, information on which side doors will open. Surely this is not considered encyclopedic information right? Furthermore, most layouts of regular local stations can be removed outright at the graphical layout can be easily represented in prose. Although i agree that layouts should be kept for more complex stations like Times Square, i cant see for myself how it helps to 'map' the station since everything is taken out of place and put on top of each other on a 2D page (surely the station is not like that in real life). 1.02 editor (T/C) 06:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Note: Passageway between IND platforms and rest of the complex is a steep grade'
1.02 editor, the accessibility information can be removed and replaced with a simple indicator of whether the station is accessible or not. I don't see how door-opening information violates NOTTRAVEL. The wikiproject already agreed it violated the guideline if the diagram said "Doors will open on the left for local trains and on the right for express trains". However, stating "Doors open on the left or right" (as opposed to Platform not in use) is a simple fact that falls under WP:BLUE, rather than travel guide information. epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, like I said the graphic at Times Square/42nd or anywhere is clearer and more simple than anything paragraphs of text would do; a picture is worth a thousand words. Visualizing the station layout is very beneficial to supplement prose about different lines and access points, and also beneficial to readers simply looking at the photos and graphics. Yes, it still needs to be smaller, clearer, and less Web 1.0, but those are problems for another time and another discussion. ɱ (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
If i want to visualize the station i would use a 3D diagram. The only thing a person with no background information can infer from the current one is which levels each line sit on and the platforms of each line. 1.02 editor (T/C) 00:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
1.02 editor, short of a 3D diagram (which can only be made as an image), the current tables are our next best option. Having the visualization of the levels is better than no visualization at all. epicgenius (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Stong Keep because Template:Adjacent stations is not being implemented on the NYCS anytime soon. Cards84664 03:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Cards84664: the Adjacent stations template has nothing to do with this? 1.02 editor (T/C) 04:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
      • The layouts and the template both list the adjacent stations themselves and line terminals as well. Cards84664 05:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes but this is more about the layout of the station. The following and terminal station should definitely be included, preferably through templates in the infobox.
          • Given the complexity of service patterns, having just one service with multiple patterns is extremely difficult to display in the infobox. With multiple services (e.g. this), it becomes nearly impossible to read. It is not editor-friendly or reader-friendly. This isn't the case with the station layout tables, where a few rows clearly display the adjacent stations in a readable format. The relative locations of mezzanines and the ground is also easier to visualize, although these are also included and referenced in the prose. epicgenius (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This is not to delete the track layout diagrams, but only the station layouts (that specify the exits, concourse and the platforms). However, if you wish, yall can consider keeping the platform level instead of including the other levels, and put it under 'platform layout' than 'station layout'. It will be preferable to use the adjacent stations template, which will be easier to read than using the station layout to see the adjacent stations.--ZKang123 (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
    ZKang123, keeping the platform layout might be a good idea. The section would still be named "station layout" since the prose still talks about the overall layout of the station. epicgenius (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bench controversy

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I had added the following text to the lead of this article, but it was reverted as not being in the right place. Please find the appropriate place to put this text. This is a pretty big deal and is already hit at least one mainstream media source and is blowing up social media.

In February 2020, the New York City Subway controversially removed benches from several stations in an effort to reduce instances of homeless persons sleeping on them, which in the era of the COVID 19 pandemic was considered to be unsanitary. However, this move drew considerable backlash from riders who allege that the removal of the benches amounts to disenfranchising people with disabilities and senior citizens.[1]

Thanks. 192.196.218.208 (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/nyc-mta-removed-benches-to-prevent-homeless-from-sleeping-2021-2

The real length of the NYC subway

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

I think that it is necessary to correct this wrong number about the miles of routes of the NYC subway. They are 245, not 248:

http://www.thevirtualrunchallenge.com/virtual-race-event/nyc-subway-virtual-running-challenge/ https://www.trip.com/blog/new-york-city-transit-guide/ https://www.nyadventureclub.com/event/underground-manhattan-the-history-of-the-nyc-subway-system-webinar-registration-104533987972/ Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Some possibilities: it was recently extended c. 1.65 miles plus a bit more to account for the turn plus the other turn from 7th and 59th to x feet east of 6th "and 63rd" which is geometrically impossible to be under 0.25 miles cause Pythagorean Theorem. Another possibility: What you measure. Things like are the routes with 2 dead ends measured from the ends of the train or from the ends of the passenger parts (which is only millitrainlengths shorter) or from the center of the train since you only move that distance when you ride in the same seat. That would make each route up to >0.11 miles shorter. Or if any ends that are literal loops aren't all banned to passengers yet (I've ridden one even after they banned that, no one knew, don't know if you can even get fined for that or if even cops wouldn't care like how they don't about the no breakdancing or homeless with body odor rules) then did/do those extra few mile tenths count cause they don't go anywhere and the journey itself is so boring, featureless and underground that hardly anyone would want to touristicate it. Hopefully another editor with better subway knowledge will come along and say what's the correct mileage and how that number is measured. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure all of those are wrong having taken the outdated figure from this article. None of those are actual MTA figures, which the current, up-to-date reference actually is. And that ref clearly states 262 when the 14 miles of the SIR is included (which they do because it's managed by the Department of Subways as though it were a subway line). When you subtract 14 from 262 (a routine calculation), the number of New York City Subway route miles is 248. 245 was the old figure from before the opening of the 7 train extension to Hudson yards (approx 1 mile) and the Second Avenue Subway (approx 2 miles). oknazevad (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it measured from the center of the train or is the half of the train closer to the end of the line also included? Is the part near the one-way station of Bleeker Street counted as the average of the uptown and downtown lengths or are these considered separate one-way routes? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
New York City Subway chaining. Seriously, the approximately 300 feet for half a trains lengthy is not going to add up to three entire miles. It's end-of-rail to end-of-rail. oknazevad (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes the 245 is clearly a very obsolete pre-7 expansion number, 300 feet times nearly every terminal (are there any used loop ends left?) is well over a mile though (whether a note showing the methodology is added to the article or not I don't care)
I was under the impression that non-revenue miles don't count unless noted, why should they count? Some ends-of-the-lines go so deep that 600 foot trains can switch from track to track and return on the opposite side of the terminal, or possibly loop like ex-South Ferry or the "green line" loop (come to think of it I think Bleeker was just platforms that didn't line up, not a split)
Also, when does a branch start adding route miles? When the tunnels become fully separate or els lose all physical connection? When the first rail edge deviates? Somewhere in between like when the average track stops overlapping the one it's turning from or when enough clearance for 2 trains starts?) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, but why until 2014 there were 246 subway route miles (NYC subway + Staten Island Railroad) and since 2015 (before 2017 expansions of the 7 and Q lines) they are 259? To see pag. 155 (http://web.mta.info/mta/investor/pdf/2020/2019_CAFR_Final.pdf) Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Because the 7 train extension opened in 2015, not 2017. So in 2015 the number increased one mile, from 245 to 246, then an additional two miles with the opening of the Second Ave Subway in 2017 to the current 248 mile figure. oknazevad (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, but 246 was subway + SIR and 259(not 248...) is the same subway + SIR...Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I remember watching trains go beyond the last station to reach the opposite track, are you telling me those chains count for route miles even though they likely don't count for revenue track? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes. But that's not the issue in this discussion. The issue is that the 245 mile route length figure is outdated, being it doesn't account for the extension of the 7 train or the Second Avenue Subway. oknazevad (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, @Forza NYCFC !n:, remember that this is route miles, not track miles. So any changes in service patterns can also affect it. Note the track miles figure in the same chart in the source goes with the additions in 2015 and 2017. Changes to service patterns because of budget issues in 2010 (cutting the W and merging the M with the V), temporary closures because of Hurricane Sandy (the H train) and preparations for the Second Ave Subway (the return of the W) all affect the route miles number. The plain fact, though, is that as of this date (Super Bowl Sunday, February 7, 2021) the New York City Subway has 248 route miles, and no other figure should appear in the article as it contains the current info. oknazevad (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Wait, so if they brought back the 9 train would the route miles suddenly increase by the entire length of the lines the 1 uses? (IRT Seventh Avenue Line, IRT Broadway Line etc, all those old-fashioned pre-unification sounding names). That's not how I imagined it worked. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No. From wikipedia: The system length of a metro network is the sum of the lengths of all routes in the rail network in kilometers or miles. Each route is counted only once, regardless of how many lines pass over it, and regardless of whether it is single-track or multi-track, single carriageway or dual carriageway. Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to know how many exact rail route mails has the NY subway? I know that they were 245 miles before expansions of the 7 line (1,5 miles) and the Q line (1,8 miles), therefore the total should be 248,3 miles (399,600 km). We know that the new 1,8 mile tunnel extends under Second Avenue from 63rd Street to 96th Street (https://www.wsp.com/en-SE/insights/new-york-opens-its-second-avenue-subway). But since 2017 it is in operation also a new small segment under the Central Park from 57St -7Th Av station to Lexington Av-63St station. What is the lenght of this tract without calculation the very small part that overlaps with the F line? If it is at least 0,3 miles, the new total should be 248,6 miles and therefore OVER 400 km (a very important and symbolic number). Is it right? Thanks for a possible reply. Forza NYCFC !! (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

At least 20 abandoned stations

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Interesting stuff; the wiki article does not even mention this 

   We previously toured the unused City Hall station https://untappedcities.com/2010/09/26/touring-the-old-city-hall-station/  

  but there are many more, hidden from the public eye. List of 20: https://untappedcities.com/2013/08/13/7-nyc-abandoned-subway-stations-city-hall-18th-street-worth-myrtle/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_campaign=0a10addf88-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_6_6_2019_11_58_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c04245c7de-0a10addf88-1205855728&mc_cid=0a10addf88&mc_eid=5b19593a5a

  ONE OF THE EXAMPLES: Just a few blocks from the 96th Street subway station along the 1/2/3 lines sits the abandoned 91st Street Subway station. It was in service since 1904 and was part of the first subway. But with a 200 foot platform, the station was retired in 1959 for similar reasons as the abandoned Worth Street and 18th Street stations. With the extension of neighboring subway stations–96th Street in this case–some stations simply became too close to each other. With one entrance to the 96th Street station just 100 feet from 93rd Street, there wasn’t much use for the 91st Street stop anymore but you can still see it when you’re riding the 1 train.

Peter K Burian (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: there is a whole main article about this, List of closed New York City Subway stations. The stations you mention are all listed there, and each have their own articles (e.g. City Hall station (IRT Lexington Avenue Line), 91st Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)). Furthermore, in the New York City Subway § Stations section, there is indeed an allusion to this: The current number of stations is smaller than the peak of the system. In addition to the demolition of former elevated lines, other closed stations and portions of existing stations remain in parts of the system. This can just be added there instead. Epicgenius (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I just added that line to the stations section of this article in response to this comment. Peter was right that there was no mention of the closed stations at all in this main article. oknazevad (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

History section

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

While acknowledging the existence of a separate article, I really am bothered by the fact that this article's history section falls into the old trap of spending an entire paragraph on Alfred Beach's short-lived amusement park ride and then entirely skips two decades of the building of the Manhattan and Brooklyn Els only to tell us that the blizzard of 1888 showed their inadequacies. It's poor writing because it doesn't introduce the Els or their importance, and it ignores that they, not Beach's experiment, are the actual predecessors of the subway system as we know it. Especially since some part of the modern system are the exact same structures (most notably the curve on the Jamaica Line at Crescent Street that is the oldest structure in the system, and predates the first Subway). In short: Beach overrated, Els underreported. oknazevad (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_York_City_Subway/Archive_4&oldid=1174367483"