Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Eric B

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

942 Excellent

About Eric B

  • Rank
    Hardcore Poster

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That was the whole original "look" of the RTS (with the Grumman being the square alternative). The sloped back and smooth sides made it look so futuristic. The first ones I ever saw (and rode) were PVTA, in Springfield, then, shortly afterward, MTA tested one (yes, a slopeback), but then went with the Grumman, until the problems started surfacing, and then went with the squared back RTS, with the swing rear doors that were set back in the body. (I thought the slope back was from having a smaller compressor, rather than from it being located somewhere else). So the look was gradually eroded, with the square back, rear doors, and then adding the framed, openable windows. The only really distinguishing feature left were the front end (windshield and doors).
  2. The openable windows (every other window panel) began with the 3000's (1983 order, I believe, and if not then, then definitely the following year), which was still GMC.
  3. And also remove the openable windows, as it was originally single glass panels. (That was part of the whole original look. where later, they alternated between single panels and the dual siding sash windows). There ware well enough from all the other ones being scrapped now.
  4. It will probably have a time limit, just like the Metrocard.
  5. Funny, just yesterday I saw a 7500 pulling out of the plaza signed B91 Marcy Ave. II take it that's a test, or they just signed it wrong? (It's not running yet, right?)
  6. So I see the exit ladders; are they going to squeeze the exits into those spaces (which might be between those narrow columns in the ceilings, which would require more column shifting). Or is that illustration with the additions to the lower side indicating the exit will do down from the platform, and cross under the tracks? (like 34th Penn Sta. and Atlantic Ave)?
  7. Wow! So this center track already has it's own catwalks on both sides, on the curtain wall (basically; a "benchwall/curtainwall" hybrid!). 😲 Don't really see anything like that anywhere else! So it's much more space than just the trackway itself. (Wish I knew this; I would have definitely been pushing for using this space, all along). So a platform there wan't be so narrow after all! Still, there are the five foot apart columns I mentioned. Will they have to remove two out of three (which then will require structural modification, to shift the load onto the remaining columns)? As I said, it would be very awkward to have columns on a passenger platform that close.
  8. So the columns are what are already there, and the rebuild would have removed them, I take it. But then columns in tunnels are 5 feet apart, while on platforms they are generally 15 feet apart (every third column, basically). So did this section of tunnel built happen to have columns 15 feet apart?
  9. I'm still not sure what I'm seeing in that diagram. It looks like under the "revised" design, they're widening the tunnel structure, where in the "previous" one they aren't. (And what's "EPE"?)
  10. So I guess the compromise is a narrower platform, which is why I believe the idea of using the third track space was rejected before; or at least we hypothesized that it would be ruled out for that reason.
  11. The title of the story is misleading. What I think it's saying, is what I've always wished for, and that was fining a way to squeeze the added station in without having to redo the whole tunnel over. Perhaps they ditched the wide island platform configuration used at the other new stations, in favor of a side platform setup. Or, I think that section had originally called for a spur track in the middle,, and they figured out how to use that space.
  12. How come Church ave.-Jay and Hoyt isn't even on the radar? I thought that was the next to be done after the (7), along with the QBL, and especially since the Culver Viaduct had been rebuilt and completely re-signaled.
  13. He probably meant where the routes run; that's what's important, not where the garage is located. The north-south routes go through poorer sections of Brooklyn.
  14. So Eliot would be the best choice for a Q58 alternate! (And then, continue on the Horace Harding service road to the turnoff to Flushing. I'm sure the long, winding Grand and Corona route would render any SBS useless; and not even sure how LTD does, as I'll hard;y even use it).
  15. I don't quite get what this is we're looking at. This is looking in the ceiling?

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.