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

    3,256
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

938 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. 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"?)
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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).
  7. I don't quite get what this is we're looking at. This is looking in the ceiling?
  8. Never been able to find anything else about it. (Now, forgot where I heard it from. No one else seems to know anything about it).
  9. If you're talking about connecting 63rd with 59th/Lex; I've always heard there was actually an electrical room connecting them somewhere! So it might be a matter of relocating that.
  10. I think two pockets is better, as for when trains are delayed and coming in one behind the other. This is not a complementary line like the (W), and I think when that half used Court St. it hat the two pockets, so I figured it would need the same wherever it went. What you're suggesting there is basically the same as the original idea I mentioned, with running the through on J1, except that I used existing through track J4 as the pocket (so you wouldn't have to break J3 through), while the in the other direction (downtown) stays on 2 track. What is 2 track (the one against the wall) used for in your idea? (or did you mean J2?)
  11. Don't understand that. (For one thing, the is already on J1, which is the only track it can come out on at Essex). Keep in mind, that the track numberings appear reversed on this line, because it's really a northbound extension of the original line whose northern terminal was Bway ferry or Essex St. but then curved back southward when extended past Essex and Bowery, so that it's chained so that on Centre St. J1 is actually the northbound local (not southbound), and J4 is the southbound "express" (not northbound). J4 is what the currently uses Queens boud from Canal to Essex, and J1 is the "bypass" through the closed half of Canal. J2 is what the Manhattan bound uses. So why would the use 1 and 4? You would keep the on the same platform (2 and 4) where it is now, and then use 1 and 3 for the new service. I had originally thought running the all the way on J1, and then putting the old switch back, so it can still access the middle (J4) at Essex to not have to share J1 with the (M), but think this other idea is better.
  12. So they're really pitching for this splitting of the R (the Daily News is now covering it)! Taking away Essex middle (J4) for that will just eliminate flexibility as the J and M will have to merge before the station, rather than allowing transfers in the station. What you could do is reopen the other side of Canal St. station as the terminal for a new 4th Ave. replacement line. Currently, leaving Chambers St. J1 and 3 head to the former "loop" to the Manhattan Bridge and end, and are replaced by a "new" J1 branching off of J4, the new through track, and a now empty "new" J3 trackbed starting at Canal. So you remove the wall blocking J3, along with the branchoff to the new J1, and just run J1 and J3 straight through, with the former "loop" tracks branching off of J1 as J1A and J3A. A new crossover between them will be before the station, and you would have a two pocket terminal for that service. J1 would still continue to Essex. (So you would still have the snowbird layup area around Bowery, and the emergency run around if J4 is tied up for some reason, like they do now using the branchoff). It would have the problem of having to cross over the through J, which goes from J1 to J4 leaving Chambers. Still leaves the problem of where the Queens R would go. Might have to use City Hall lower (which I think would need lengthening). This is then cutting Queens riders off from the last three stations, but to swap with the W, the busier R would get stuck with the single track pocket at Whitehall.
  13. Actually, the was already planned to be extended to Church Ave. whenever the Culver Viaduct work was finished. That would have helped that area of SBK, as they would have a full fledged service serving the local stations, with the from further south, going express, instead of having to use every other which is now the idea they've had to fall back on, but is apparently in limbo because of some opposition from the locals.
  14. Oh, OK. Because with cars, "plug-in" is used to specify hybrids (being that all-electrics all have plugs as you pointed out). So I guess for you, "plug-in type" meant plug-in ONLY.
  15. You say “plug-in”; that means tmis is still a hybrid? (I thought you were describing all-electrics). NFI is Flyer, right? They own MCI now?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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