Gong Gahou

The barriers in discussion are not supposed to prevent people crossing between cars from falling into the tracks; the six-chain barriers in-between cars serve that purpose. The role of the three-spring barriers/pantograph gates is to prevent straphangers on the platform from falling into the tracks. And if you are directing your response to the chain barriers: They are certainly not pointless. Even though the storm doors are locked, employees do cross between cars and passengers do cross during evacuations. As long as there will be people crossing between cars, some form of barrier will be necessary.

I explained this in the first paragraph of my previous post. It is the same procedure that was given to you by another member before, with a bit more info added to lead you into the right direction and not make the same mistake again. Below is the link of the webpage containing the image you want to embed: https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?108110 From there, follow what I wrote and you will get the direct link. If done correctly, the link on the address bar will appear exactly as shown in my previous post.

Since you are still copying the web page link instead of the image link, you need some clarification on this procedure. After you open the image in a new tab, you need to click on that newly-opened tab if the browser was not configured to immediately switch to it, and copy the link shown on that address bar. That will be the direct link to the image. A direct image link always ends with a file extension. It does not contain the same address information as the webpage with the embedded image; this is why adding the file extension to the end of a web page link does not work. Entering this link into your browser will display only the image and nothing else, except for a single-color background if necessary. The direct link for the image you are trying to embed is below: https://s3.amazonaws.com/nycsubway.org/images/i108000/img_108110.jpg

Results are in: the plan is moving forward. I stumbled upon this from picking up AM New York's newspaper this morning.

The service change is a bit inaccurate - it should have said "Uptown trains are running on the local track between Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall to 125th Street." I thought the planned service change for downtown trains was cancelled, but a brief visit to a local station revealed that it still remains in effect.

It is listed on the Planned Service Changes, though.

As per this update, the closed platforms on the line are set to reopen on July 1st (rehab notice previously displayed on that day has disappeared),

I wouldn't put any stock into that. That footnote reminder is useless information for that service change, since the will run on the in both directions. It is likely there due to human error; the person in charge might have copied the information off of somewhere and—unaware of where it will go—forgot to omit that part. Also, consider that: The main information (aka the title) for the July 5-8 service change is a rerouting, while the station rehabilitation service change explicitly states station closures. The former is also short in duration and intermittent, while the latter is around the clock and thus must be listed every single day. The disappearance of the latter for practically the entire month is a very strong indicator of a reopening date, compared to a 3-day listing of the former with a useless reminder that supposedly might prove otherwise. While the reasoning for the former service change is labeled "station rehabilitation," this does not mean that the stations will remain closed; it is not unusual for the MTA to reopen stations to the public even when construction work is not fully completed.

Not exactly a planned service change, but more like an end to one: barring any last-minute changes/delays, Coney Island-bound trains should resume normal local service from 8th Avenue to Bay Parkway about a week from now, since the rehabilitation notice has not been listed for July 2nd (Tuesday) and onward. I had noticed its disappearance since the weekend of June 7-10 (last time trains ran express on Sea Beach line), so I think it is pretty safe to say that the stations would reopen on that date.

The hyperlink in the quoted post is omitting the "l" in "html" for some reason. Just manually copy the entire link or add the missing letter, and it will lead you there.

The MTA has never considered the entire complex to be ADA-accessible. They clearly note this exception in the list of accessible stations on their website , signage on the passageway itself already states such, and they are working on making the shuttle accessible. If you are referring to the subway map, take note that the IND station is listed separately from the IRT and BMT stations; it is technically correct that both stations have the accessibility symbol next to it as it only applies to the stations with said names and the lines that serve it. While it is understandable that such labeling might lead straphangers to believe that the passageway is accessible, the fact is that the wheelchair symbol may not necessarily apply to transfer corridors between certain lines. This is a limitation that arises with the current labeling and also by the lack of real estate on the map to list such nuances; Midtown is cluttered as is, and you can't really cram "Passageway not accessible" into the map while making it big enough to be legible. It can still be accessible, and it does not require the space of a switchback ramp. Instead, a portion of the wide passageway can be set aside for ADA-compliance by constructing a series of ramps and landings along the entire corridor (see the Utica Avenue station for an actual example). While ADA does limit ramp slope and length, it does not limit the number of ramps one can use; this is despite It noting that multiple runs with landings can make the overall ramp difficult for the disabled.

No, it did not. South of 42nd Street, the first subway ran under various roads, with Park Avenue making up almost half of its route; not once did it touch Lexington Avenue, which was a block away.

@Engineer Sorry for the late reply. I knew I missed something in my last post - your assumption is correct, HPS lamps will not work under household current - they simply will not light up. I am no electrician so I can't tell you what to do, and it can be risky if you don't know what you're doing. I might revisit this when I learn about basic electricity concepts and do some more research, but until then I'd stick with household lighting - its definitely much less hassle to deal with.

It looks like all the existing tunnels are built to IND specifications, with the exception of the middle trackway. The width of the maintenance platforms, the addition of the narrow stairways leading up to the ceiling, and the slight shift in the columns as they approach the maintenance area - they all indicate that the transverse distance between columns is greater than the typical width of 13.5 feet, which also means the island platform will end up being wider than 16.7 feet. In addition, the island platform can gain an extra 2 feet of space if the bench walls along the northbound and southbound trackways are removed (any remaining space must be reserved for wayside signals and other equipment). If the MTA chooses to do so, they can - but not in the way you two described. The modifications, in general, can be boiled down to 1) removing all existing lightweight columns spaced 5 feet apart and 2) using heavier columns spaced 15 feet apart to hold up spans of heavy longitudinal beams that will support all the transverse roof beams and transfer all the roof's load to the new columns. There is no need to worry about the feasibility of this procedure as it has been done many times before; the numerous platform extensions that were carried out on the IRT and BMT stations to accommodate longer trains, and even Bleecker Street's new uptown platform (for a more recent example) all use the exact same column and beam design. Add Times Square to the list as well; official drawings show that its columns will be modified in the same manner as part of its upcoming reconstruction. It is very likely that there will be two rows of columns due to how the tunnel was originally designed. Its design also limits how close the column rows can be placed near each other; by comparison, constructing the station so that there is only one line of columns running down the center of the island platform will most likely require replacement of all transverse beams with heavier sections since the original beams may not be strong enough to hold up the ground above. It will be interesting to see how the engineers will handle the tunnel's roof design. It is hard to see in the tunnel's current state, but this blog has a photo taken during construction (courtesy of NYTM) showing that the roof beams over the maintenance track are situated above the beams over the northbound and southbound trackways. This could change the way they will modify the structure; most stations with platform extensions have transverse roof beams whose flanges are aligned from one end of the beam to the other. In addition to the plain steel columns, I hope 116th Street takes on a look that is like a nod to the design of older IND stations. I share sentiments with someone who asked the MTA during a public Q&A session for Phase 2 to make their new stations look more like the old, as the Second Avenue Subway stations have nothing in common with the rest of the system. Of course, the IND does not exist anymore, so I would understand if the MTA prefers to move on from the past and go with the new design they've been using thus far. Depends on where it is located. If it is not within or near the mezzanine locations, then it is possible the openings may be sealed up if the room is not repurposed in some way. Just saying stairways by itself will require column shifting is not entirely accurate; there are other factors to consider before deciding where columns should be located, such as the overall width of the platform and the clearance between the stairway and the platform edge. I can't make any sense out of the second part of your question, but on the topic of underpasses I'll mention that they might not be necessary since there is enough room for a mezzanine; the station is about 40 feet below street level, according to the FEIS (Chapter 2, pg. 16 of pdf). Another photo taken during construction (courtesy of NYTM) shows the constructed tunnel behind the light rays and the empty space between it and the scaffolding at street level. I wonder if they could cut costs even more by constructing the mezzanines over the existing tunnel instead of demolishing what was already built. Since they are only planning to excavate certain portions to create entrances, it gives them a perfect opportunity to build onto the existing structure. The passageway connecting the north and south mezzanines at 14th Street-Union Square on the Broadway Line is one example where such construction was done. It was definitely constructed after the station's opening; besides the columns not being riveted, its higher floor level and the ramps at both ends of the passageway are due to the fact that the original transverse roof beams remain and are deeper than the beams used to support the mezzanines.

@Engineer Thanks, that picture confirms what you said as well as my description of what I assumed you were talking about. In hindsight, I should have worded my response better - I feel a bit silly asking you to confirm something you can clearly see with the globe right in front of you, so I apologize if you might have taken any offense from that. Regarding the lighting, if you plan to use it in your room, your typical residential light bulb is probably sufficient. Just make sure it fits through the hole and that the bulb is omnidirectional. But if you're interested in the bulb that NYCT used, I can tell you that they are using either a high pressure sodium (HPS) or metal halide (MH) lamp; the drawing shows an outline that indicates they use that kind of lamp, and the LED bulb they use has specified that it is meant for replacement of those aforementioned lamps. MH lamps can go as low as 3000K (which is a warm white color that is a bit whiter than the capsule CFLs used to light up the subway tunnels), and HPS lamps are really warm to the point where they look orange-ish (street lamps used the same thing before NYCDOT changed to LED). The diameter of that divider is going to be the determining factor in what bulb you can use; a quick look online gave me a 2.125 inch diameter for HPS lamps and 2.5 for CFLs, so see what works for you.

Hello, and welcome to the forums! For one, Cleveland's Red Line doesn't have the same ridership and capacity compared to NYC's L line. The Red Line has a daily ridership of ~27k riders according to Wikipedia; the L line serves more than eleven times the amount (300k riders). Passenger capacity on both lines are also different in two ways: 1) trains on the former line doesn't run as frequently (varies from 7-15 mins) as trains on the latter line (generally 4-6 mins from day to evening), and 2) the former looks to be composed of two cars per train, while the latter has eight cars per train. There are also a lot of vehicles on the road during rush hours. I can't say what happens on a daily basis with the Williamsburg Bridge (closest bridge to the L line), but from my past and current experiences with my parents driving in South Brooklyn (Interstate 278), over the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges, and Eastern Manhattan (FDR Drive) I can say there is a lot of car traffic during those hours and travel times can be slow. As they are one of a handful of bridges with no tolls (Williamsburg Bridge is one of them), many drivers will opt to use them over the other East River crossings. With L service severely reduced to 20-minute headways on just one track, there is not enough capacity to carry most of the riders between the boroughs; passengers will need to look for alternative modes of transportation, whether it be cars/car service, other subway lines, or buses. Other subway lines may not be able to absorb the extra passengers since they already have to deal with straphangers in the areas they serve. Car service will increase the impact of congestion even more, as I alluded to in the previous paragraph. Local buses have a schedule but often don't follow it, with one primary reason being road traffic; service will be even more unreliable due to such congestion. Shuttle buses will help out somewhat by taking extra cars off the road, but with no dedicated bus lanes travel times will vary. A bus also carries less people than a train; more buses will be used to compensate, creating strain on the existing bus system as the reserve fleet will be used for the L shutdown instead of backup for the local bus routes. I might have some slightly inaccurate info, and I might be leaving out some information, but this is just a general idea of the magnitude of the problem without going into such specific detail.

@Engineer Can you verify that what you wrote is correct and that the metal divider "internally divides" both halves? Your description seems to indicate that the divider is a flat disc, with what I presume to be a small hole in the center where the lamp can fit through and light up the top half of the globe. Although this is an earlier design, I still find this strange - I always thought a metal ring separated the two halves and that internally there is only empty space; an official drawing for the current design also confirms this.

You don't hear about it because it wasn't too disruptive or news-worthy; the damage was minimal and did not affect the integrity of the structure. No money was spent on replacing the damaged parts, which means evidence of damage can be seen on the mezzanine and overpass beams/girders. Clearance for Astoria Blvd under the mezzanine is 12.5 feet for the most part while Pennsylvania Av is 12 feet 10 inches; the structural damage would be more severe had the same truck that damaged the latter station's mezzanine passed under the former station. Those replacement signs are really thin sheets of metal that are generally bolted onto existing signage—although they can replace the enamel sign should the agency choose to do so. For this sign, the text is carefully cut and pasted onto the sign, and then the entire text and background is laminated with some translucent white sticky layer; it is after the lamination process that the black background—which is actually glossy and smooth—takes on a matte-like finish. The MTA uploaded a video showing and briefly describing the construction of this type of sign at the Bergen Street Sign Shop. They are less durable, but that is the point. Such signs are used because they are more economical; it costs less to reuse old enamel signs as a foundation for the sheet metal signs, as opposed to replacing the old sign entirely with new enamel signs. They are used as temporary signage during construction work, or really on any sign whose text is prone to multiple changes over the course of the expected lifespan of one enamel sign (i.e. train information signs on platforms). They can also serve as an interim until the agency gets around to ordering new enamel signs (whenever that may be); this should be what you are seeing with the changes to the station name signs.

From the full car mock-up and renderings, no accordion-like object is shown; it can be assumed that the plan is to have open gangways for every 5-car set. It is unlikely the entire 10-car consist would be interconnected because there would be resistance to this idea; to do that would mean either 1) very cramped cabs for conductors, or 2) the conductor position in the middle of the car is eliminated. Keep in mind that open gangway and articulated have different meanings; one does not equal the other. The Toronto Rocket is not an articulated train, but it has open gangways.

If they plan to retile the columns, I really hope they actually use curved corner tiles just like what they did with Hunters Point Avenue. But I won't be surprised if that does not happen; aside from that station, every single retiling attempt has removed the rounded corners that have been a staple in the Dual System and IND stations.

I see you are very confused. Here's a simple breakdown of the math: 1 train = 8 cars (in this scenario) One-half of a train = 0.5 train = 4 cars 76 cars divided by 8 cars per train will give you 9.5 trains, or nine 8-car trains and one 4-car train

Open gangway does not equal articulated, and vice versa. Their meanings are separate from each other. The Toronto Rocket is an example of a non-articulated train with open gangways, and—while not an ideal example—some freight cars are articulated but have no open gangways.

Well, you had better believe it now. I am very certain there is no full length mezzanine because the station is too close to the surface. This is evident by looking at how close the platforms are to the station house, which is generally at street level. The "evidence" that you mentioned - and I believe I know what you are referring to, after close examination of the station - is not actually evidence of any mezzanine (or former station house, in case you might be wondering). Its really just a plain ventilation structure, its function exactly the same as the grates you see on the sidewalk. Further proof that this is a ventilation structure can be seen east of the station, where a similar structure exists above the tracks. In addition, if you examine the ventilation structure closely, both inside and outside of the station, you can also see just how close the western portion of the station is to street level. transitfan111 is correct. Think about the work needed to construct an elevated line as opposed to building a subway. For a subway line, long stretches of public land needs to be excavated for tunnel construction and covered up when complete, plus extra work needs to be done to relocate/modify any utilities blocking the way and allow pedestrians and vehicles to cross over the construction area. With elevated railways, work would be limited to the erection of columns on ground level to support the elevated structure as well as the rest of the elevated structure itself. I'm speaking generalities here; you can find more information here since it has been discussed before on this forum. As for a reliable source on the cost issue, I think this excerpt from an Engineering News article drives this home. It is dated 1915, after the Dual Contracts was signed, and it focuses on the topic of building elevated railways in New York. Cost of Subway and Elevated Structure Per Lin.Ft. of Structure Total Three-track subway........................$300 to $500 $63,000,000 to 105,000,000 Three-track elevated -Solid floor. $200 42,000,000 -Open floor. 125 26,000,000 Note: nearly all of the elevated lines in the NYC subway system is of the open-floor type. Examples of closed-floor would be the elevated portion between the Williamsburg Bridge ramp and Marcy Av, where the trackbed contains ballast; as well as the reconstructed portion of the Myrtle Avenue Viaduct, which has a concrete trackbed. South of Astor Place the line runs under Lafayette Avenue, and north of Astor Place it runs under Fourth Avenue. Take a look at the street grid at that location to understand why the line must make those turns.

It's been that long? Well, it's about time - I was wondering when the new signal heads would go live ever since I spotted the ones at 34th Street last year. I thought they would be placed into service as soon as the rest of the signalling equipment was set up for their particular block.

A couple of things are taken into account. Some of the factors: Crossover design: Generally speaking, the size of the crossover affects the speed trains can traverse through them; longer crossovers will mean higher speeds. Also, if no double crossover(s) is/are used, multiple single crossovers are used to compensate; this can affect terminal capacity. Crossover location: The further away it is from the terminal, the longer it takes for trains to traverse the distance between it and the terminal. Stub-end tracks: Because tracks end at the station instead of continuing several feet beyond the station, trains must enter the station very slowly for safety reasons. That's all I can think of right now. Those who know more about this subject, feel free to add on to or correct my response.