Railroad Forums 

Discussion relating to the past and present operations of the NYC Subway, PATH, and Staten Island Railway (SIRT).

Moderator: GirlOnTheTrain

 #522630  by jonnhrr
 
Why does the 14th St. line just end in lower Manhattan and not extend north? Seems like it would be more useful if it ran uptown, such as a connection to the 8th Ave line - I realize that would not be easy as they are on different levels. Has there ever been a proposal to extend this line?

Jon

 #522731  by Gerry6309
 
The line was lucky to reach 8th Av. The extension from 6th to 8th was the last part of the Dual Contracts completed, and it happened after the city had started building the IND. After that time there was no interest in extending the Eastern Division of the BMT until the 1960s tie-in to the 6th Av. line at Delancy Street. The service along that routing was short lived due to lack of patronage. The L offers good connections to the ACE at 8th, the BDFV & PATH at 6th and the 456NRQW at Union Sq. It also connects to the G and M in its trek across Brooklyn and the ACJZ at Broadway Jct.

 #522752  by Wallyhorse
 
Gerry:

That may have been true then, but one thing that has been discussed on another board is the idea of having the L extended north to at least the Javits Center to meet the 7 train there (and also perhaps building it where the 7 can go south to 14th Street-10th Avenue as well).

The way I would do that is to have the L go up 11th avenue, first stopping at 14th Street-10th Avenue and then going north, with probably a stop at 23rd Street-11th Avenue before the Javits Center, then perhaps possibly continuing north on 11th avenue with stops at 41st Street-11th Avenue and then going to 10th avenue with a stop a 57th street-10th Avenue before possibly terminating at 72nd street-Amsterdam Avenue under the present 1/2/3 station.
 #522762  by Kamen Rider
 
jonnhrr wrote:Why does the 14th St. line just end in lower Manhattan and not extend north? Seems like it would be more useful if it ran uptown, such as a connection to the 8th Ave line - I realize that would not be easy as they are on different levels. Has there ever been a proposal to extend this line?

Jon
the line was built as planed out. it was never ment to go north, you had the broadway subway for that.

 #522784  by Gerry6309
 
Kaman Rider wrote:the line was built as planed out. it was never ment to go north, you had the broadway subway for that.
...and even that was a major concession by the IRT, which ended up with 6 north-south lines out of the same deal compared to the BRT/BMT's two short ones.
 #531858  by rushr2112
 
The service on the L line was horrendous this weekend. The L was running shuttle trains from Bedford Avenue to 14th street on 1 track every 20 minutes. They were extremely crowded as was the cross town bus you had to take if you needed to get to 8th avenue. If that wasn’t bad enough service was suspended in both directions from Lorimer Street to 8th Avenue this morning. Does anyone know what happened this morning?

 #532074  by Kamen Rider
 
today was a plain old stalled train. over the weekend, they were replacing the road bed in the tube, which is why the line has been running at slower speeds in the tunnel.

 #532301  by Jeff Smith
 
If this was a BMT line why is it lettered and not numbered? Or did BMT lines get letters and IRT numbers? My impression was numbered lines were shorter cars amnd lettered longer and more modern (which is why 2nd Av will get lettered lines)

 #532316  by RearOfSignal
 
BMT & IND Lines are lettered, IRT lines are numbered. The cars sizes are just an effect of the line designations and not the reason for it. IRT lines were originally built for smaller cars, so IND/BMT equipment cannot run on IRT lines. The 2nd Ave line will connect to already existing BMT lines thus the letter designation.

 #533542  by alchemist
 
Sarge and RearOf Signal - There are no rules without exceptions, I guess. If you look back at the late 1950s the BMT routes had numbers. F'rinstance, 15 corresponded to todays J, 14 was similar but only ran to Canal Street and 16 was the L.

 #533943  by RearOfSignal
 
alchemist wrote:Sarge and RearOf Signal - There are no rules without exceptions, I guess. If you look back at the late 1950s the BMT routes had numbers. F'rinstance, 15 corresponded to todays J, 14 was similar but only ran to Canal Street and 16 was the L.
That wasn't what he asked. He asked about current line designations in relation to car models and I never said about any kind of rules; line designations are decided for continuity and ease of recognition.

 #533960  by JayMan
 
Extending the L northward along 10th Ave would be a useful extension, to at least the Javits Center and possibly to 72 St to meet the West side IRT. However it will never happen due to cost. Just look at the 7 extension.