If CTA switched to letters for rail lines

[garmon757]

Just now, Busjack said:

Maybe you ought to lock the topic. Only things useful here were the explanation of how the Dan Ryan and Howard hooked up, and the explanation of the NYCTA system.

That wouldn't make any sense for me to lock this topic because I don't see anything wrong about it. There's nothing wrong with members initiating creativity and fun sometimes. If I locked this topic then that's putting me in a biased position, in which I do my best to be as much impartial towards everybody as I can be.

[andrethebusman]

New York's color-coding is really rather simple. It is based on what street the route is under in midtown. Colors are as follows:

Red - IRT Broadway

Green - IRT Lexington

Purple - RT 42nd St (Flushing Line)

Yellow - BMT Broadway

Orange - IND 6th Avenue

Blue - IND 8th Avenue

Brown - BMT Nassau St (in downtown only)

Gray - BMT 14th Avenue (Canarsie Line)

Lime Green - IND Brooklyn Crosstown

The letters date back to the IND in the 1930's. The original scheme was that A, C, E were 8th Avenue, B, D, F 6th Avenue, G Brooklyn crosstown (does not enter Manhattan). North of 59th St, A and B designated trains going towards Washington Heights, C and D trains to the Bronx, and E and F trains to Queens. The Brooklyn destinations did not enter into this at all, only uptown. Within the last few years, this has slightly changed with A and C now the Washington Heights lines and B and D the Bronx services.

IRT numbers also have a logic. 1,2, 3 are Seventh Avenue, 4,5,6 are Lexington. 7 is Flushing, and years ago 8 was Astoria.

When the BMT was assigned letters, they were basically haphazard with no pattern to speak of, just adding after H, which was the last IND letter used, for the short-lived Court St Shuttle (where the Transit Museum now is). Eventually most letters all the way to Z were used, in no particular pattern.

Colors are a bit of a story, too. Starting in the 1960's until 1974 or so, maps were made showing all routes in individual colors, and the R40 and R42 car series had destination signs that matched the map colors for the routes they ran. This was soon recognized as way, way too complex, and the color scheme by Manhattan trunks came to be in the late 1970's. By 1982, almost all cars had gotten new destination curtains that showed the color in a ball with the letter inside, with short-turns and express signs having a diamond instead of a ball. This all fell apart when in the late 80's much of the fleet got digital signs, which at the time could not display colors except yellow.

(former NYCTA conductor, among other things...)

[Scionic]

What is going on in this thread?

I believe it was the great prophet Thumper who said "If you can't say somethin' nice........... don't say nothin' at all."

[Busjack]

43 minutes ago, Scionic said:

What is going on in this thread?

I believe it was the great prophet Thumper who said "If you can't say somethin' nice........... don't say nothin' at all."

But on any courtroom show, there also is "Objection!, Irrelevant Your Honor!" "Sustained. Your witness, Mr. Mason..."

So MeTV has to deal with that contradiction itself.

Disagreeing is not necessarily not being nice. Being the *#@!" who was booted last night is. In the meantime, @garmon757 is doing his job moderating in the proper manner.

[Pink Jazz]

Going back to the subject of assigning letters to rail lines, what about instead going from the busiest to least busy line, although with Pink and Purple switched due to much of Purple running during rush hour, plus with Yellow assigned the letter "S" for "Shuttle".  Any future expansion would continue the alphabet after G.

• Red Line - A
• Blue Line - B
• Brown Line - C
• Green Line - D
• Orange Line - E
• Pink Line - F
• Purple Line - G
• Yellow Line - S

[artthouwill]

1 hour ago, Pink Jazz said:

Going back to the subject of assigning letters to rail lines, what about instead going from the busiest to least busy line, although with Pink and Purple switched due to much of Purple running during rush hour, plus with Yellow assigned the letter "S" for "Shuttle".  Any future expansion would continue the alphabet after G.

• Red Line - A
• Blue Line - B
• Brown Line - C
• Green Line - D
• Orange Line - E
• Pink Line - F
• Purple Line - G
• Yellow Line - S

With the colors already differentiating the lines, letters  aren't  necessary here in Chicago.  Now if a South Chicago/Skyway line was added to Green Line routing, a separate  color could be added, or if was designed to  be a Green Line  train, letters could be assigned to denote the 3 branches

  My thought, though, would be if that came to fruition,  the Cottage Grove  branch (at the very least) would be torn down, thus lettering  still wouldn't be needed

See Andrew's lost above derailing the New York's system of letters and  numbers. 

[Bjorn]

If the CTA rail lines really needed to be given new nomenclature, they should be given numbers (ie 1-10, and renumber the existing bus routes that conflict, for example). Numbers best translate across different cultures as every culture needs a way of telling one of something apart from three of something.

Colors are represented by words differently in other cultures at the primary level. In Russia, they have separate words for light blue and dark blue, Japan uses the same word for green and blue, and some non-industrialized cultures only have words for three or four different colors (white, black, and either blue or red). I'd post a link but as this is my first post the spam filter would likely block it...

Letters as nomenclature translate equally enough to be usable across languages that use the Latin Alphabet. I'd guess that nowadays Latin letters are prominent enough in languages that use other alphabets (especially amongst people who would be in the US in the first place, even if their English isn't that great) that letters could be safely used.

[enthusiast]

I think the color-coded lines are fine. If anything, the Metra lines need renaming: the Union Pacific North doesn't leave from Union Station, and the Milwaukee North doesn't go near Milwaukee. I know the etymologies of the lines and of the term "union station," but it's not very intuitive.

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

24 minutes ago, enthusiast said:

I think the color-coded lines are fine. If anything, the Metra lines need renaming: the Union Pacific North doesn't leave from Union Station, and the Milwaukee North doesn't go near Milwaukee. I know the etymologies of the lines and of the term "union station," but it's not very intuitive.

I can understand your point on the Milwaukee lines holding on to their names for heritage reasons, but the Union Pacific North Line is still run by Union Pacific, and  therefore it makes sense to be named as the Union Pacific line that goes north.

But I agree the colors are fine the way they are, until the day comes when we build more lines to the point where we need numbers. Hopefully in my lifetime...

[Pink Jazz]

Note that if CTA adopts letters, colors can be a secondary identifier to distinguish the lines on maps and signage.  Any additional lines can use an arbitrary color that isn't referred to by the color name, but referred to by the next letter of the alphabet with its own colored background.  In my idea, the existing colors would be retained as a secondary identifier, but the lines wouldn't be referred to by their colors as their primary identifier.

[Busjack]

11 minutes ago, Pink Jazz said:

Note that if CTA adopts letters, colors can be a secondary identifier to distinguish the lines on maps and signage. 

In short, meaning there is no point to doing it. The thought police are going to tell us how to  refer to the Howard train.

[Pink Jazz]

Just now, Busjack said:

In short, meaning there is no point to doing it. The thought police are going to tell us how to  refer to the Howard train.

This is exactly what LACMTA plans on doing, moving to letters while keeping the existing colors as a secondary identifier.  New lines can use arbitrary colors as secondary identifiers, which are to be avoided when using colors as primary identifiers due to all the complex color names.

[Busjack]

5 hours ago, Pink Jazz said:

Any future expansion

 

21 minutes ago, Pink Jazz said:

New lines

But since the Red Line Extension (note it is still the same line) isn't going to come on line until the earliest 2026, any new lines won't be in our lifetimes. Hence this argument is moot.

Nothing complex to a Korean about taking la linea cafe to Kimball. Now, is LA instituting tertiary line designations in Chinese or Korean characters?

[enthusiast]

1 hour ago, MTRSP1900-CTA3200 said:

I can understand your point on the Milwaukee lines holding on to their names for heritage reasons, but the Union Pacific North Line is still run by Union Pacific, and  therefore it makes sense to be named as the Union Pacific line that goes north.

I don't know what the intellectual property situation is with the old one, but I wish they could call it the North Shore Line, seeing as it serves the communities of the North Shore. It sounds better than Union Pacific North to me.

[Busjack]

Just now, enthusiast said:

I don't know what the intellectual property situation is with the old one, but I wish they could call it the North Shore Line, seeing as it serves the communities of the North Shore. It sounds better than Union Pacific North to me.

As @MTRSP1900-CTA3200 pointed out, the Union Pacific owns the line and the intellectual rights to it. Same with BNSF. I wondered why Metra was so quick to change the names when the railroads were reorganized, but that's it.

On the other hand, Metra owns the Milwaukee, Rock Island and Electric Districts, so it can do what it wants with them, subject to not infringing someone else's trademark (i.e., it probably can't call it the IC). If they want to change the name of the Milwaukee N to the Fox Lake Division or The Deerfield Corridor, it could. "Heritage" doesn't mean much, except to Metra or Pace.

For that matter, if Metra really wanted to do something, it could change the names of the stations on the South Chicago branch to something that meant something 125 years (I guess) from when the areas were first named.

[enthusiast]

Now that you mention, it's too bad the RTA can't call the entire commuter system the Illinois Central Railroad. At least it sounds like a railroad. "Metra" has the same dated ugliness as Amtrak, Conrail, or Nortran. May as well call it RailCo or BurbServ.

 

 

[Busjack]

49 minutes ago, enthusiast said:

 At least it sounds like a railroad. "Metra" has the same dated ugliness as Amtrak, Conrail, or Nortran. May as well call it RailCo or BurbServ.

I noted that it was strange that the first thing on the Suburban Bus Division's and Commuter Rail Division's agendas in 1984 was branding.

But that's the inherent issue with a brand--it has to be distinctive, and the ones you mention could be trademarked. This goes back to Kodak, the theory being it didn't stand for anything, but K was a strong letter for about 100 years until it went bankrupt.On the other hand, Lite Beer was not distinctive 40 or so years ago, even though it was misspelled.

If you want another of my recent peeves, Northbrook just put up bike route signs (even though there aren't any bike lanes) "To Metra Train Station." It's not the Metra Hyperloop Station.

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

55 minutes ago, enthusiast said:

Now that you mention, it's too bad the RTA can't call the entire commuter system the Illinois Central Railroad. At least it sounds like a railroad. "Metra" has the same dated ugliness as Amtrak, Conrail, or Nortran. May as well call it RailCo or BurbServ.

 

 

Renaming Metra to that probably won’t fly with Canadian National, who acquired the original Illinois Central Railroad.

Metra is just a brand, and I’m OK with that. Sure beats saying “Oh sure, I’ll just hope on a Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Rail Corporation train downtown.” 

[enthusiast]

Haha, that much is certainly true. It's just unfortunate that "Metra" doesn't stack up to the elegance of, say, "the Long Island Rail Road," especially not with that ugly Crillee type. Even "Chicago Metropolitan Railroad" as a formal name with "Metra" as a nickname growing organically from that would have been better. 

Speaking of branding, it's arguable that the 'L' is quite underbranded relative to other rapid transit systems, like the T in Boston, for example. People can't even agree whether it's L or el because neither is particularly embraced by the CTA. I don't think the CTA even has an official 'L' logo (though chicago-l.org uses a red italic L which might have been an official logo at one time?).

[Busjack]

18 minutes ago, enthusiast said:

the Long Island Rail Road

I guess it's still that, but the New Haven is the Metro North Railroad. And, of course, the branding of MTA buses is all messed up.

18 minutes ago, enthusiast said:

. I don't think the CTA even has an official 'L' logo (though chicago-l.org uses a red italic L which might have been an official logo at one time?).

That was the logo on metal maps at the L stations. However, the official nomenclature is Rapid Transit. I'm not sure if that is because it was once the Chicago Rapid Transit Co. or because it is now not all on elevated tracks (at least since the subways and expressway median lines opened). Another oxymoron was that the Boston surface system was part of the Boston Elevated.At one time CTA differentiated between the Rapid Transit and Surface systems. but the latter eventually became just Bus.Most of this meant something when the Rapid Transit and Surface/Bus systems had different transfer rules, but since there aren't any printed transfers now, so what (I guess still relevant that the initial Rapid Transit fare is 25 cents more).

[MTRSP1900-CTA3200]

22 minutes ago, enthusiast said:

Speaking of branding, it's arguable that the 'L' is quite underbranded relative to other rapid transit systems, like the T in Boston, for example. People can't even agree whether it's L or el because neither is particularly embraced by the CTA. I don't think the CTA even has an official 'L' logo (though chicago-l.org uses a red italic L which might have been an official logo at one time?).

I honestly don’t see a difference between the two. Rapid transit wise both the T and the CTA have the same logo on their buses and trains, and someone I know who used to live in Boston simply called it the T (and to a lesser extent the MBTA), but people here differentiate between the L and bus, even though they are both CTA. If anything, both Seattle and Washington DC have better branding. WMATA says both Metrorail and Metrobus on their site, at least from what I remember. And Seattle’s Sound Transit Corporation calls their commuter rail Sounder, their bus system Sound Transit Express, and their light rail Link Light Rail.

[strictures]

On 1/29/2018 at 4:43 PM, enthusiast said:

I think the color-coded lines are fine. If anything, the Metra lines need renaming: the Union Pacific North doesn't leave from Union Station, and the Milwaukee North doesn't go near Milwaukee. I know the etymologies of the lines and of the term "union station," but it's not very intuitive.

I once took a Sea Dog trip on the River. The guide insisted that Union Station was built by the Union Pacific.  It was impossible to convince him otherwise.  He must of made at least a dozen other mistakes.  At least it was free, the tickets were from work.

[Busjack]

6 hours ago, strictures said:

I once took a Sea Dog trip on the River. The guide insisted that Union Station was built by the Union Pacific.  It was impossible to convince him otherwise.  He must of made at least a dozen other mistakes.  At least it was free, the tickets were from work.

Come to think about it, there's at least a dozen reasons it couldn't be.

[strictures]

4 hours ago, Busjack said:

Come to think about it, there's at least a dozen reasons it couldn't be.

I can only think of five reasons: That the Burlington, Pennsylvania, Chicago & Alton & The Milwaukee Road each owned 25% of it & the UP used Northwestern Station for all its long distance trains that came to Chicago.

[Busjack]

4 hours ago, Busjack said:

Come to think about it, there's at least a dozen reasons it couldn't be.

 

4 minutes ago, strictures said:

I can only think of five reasons: That the Burlington, Pennsylvania, Chicago & Alton & The Milwaukee Road each owned 25% of it & the UP used Northwestern Station for all its long distance trains that came to Chicago.

I might have made an exaggeration, but your last sentence is the direction I was going, that the UP used Northwestern Station, except that it only acquired the C&NW in recent history, and basically the UP was west of Kansas City until its merger binge. But one can determine that the gondolier's assertion was wrong without even knowing which railroads built it.