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.


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Alargule

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Wow. Can't wait for the reply in green.
  2. Nice map, you must have put in quite some hours, too! I like the idea of 'light subway' (although they would be largely elevated) lines to cover the gaps in the current network. Maybe it would become a viable option to build lines like these using Alstom's Axonis solution.
  3. Right here, actually. Finding a decent frame that would fit over here in Europe proved to be very cumbersome - eventually, I decided to have it custom-made. Set me back another couple of bucks, but it was well worth the effort.
  4. 'Messy' is the first word that springs to mind when I look at his proposal. Yes, I do like the idea of more lines into Queens, a four-track trunk line underneath Second Avenue and I also like the reasoning behind the various crosstown proposals. But there's so much interweaving/interference going on between all those lines...it would allow for flexible routing options and many one-seat rides. However, all service frequencies of lines running along the same stretch of track would have to be synchronized, which could lead to too many trains along one stretch and too few along another stretch, without any possibility to adjust the frequency of single routes appropiately.
  5. The (lengthy) text just explains in words what the map already conveys graphically. There's no explanation why lines run the way they do and what their use is. Why the 72nd street line, or the diversion of the 4 to Broadway Junction, for example? Nice map design, though! You sure put a lot of work in that.
  6. As one picture usually conveys more than a thousand words can do: This Unchanged enough for ya?
  7. A+ for the effort - once again. The idea of using the current track structure as a blank canvas to see what alternative routes are possible is always a great exercise in thinking what might be possible. Practically though, you really seem to have an interlocking fetish And in daily practice, those interlocking operations would put serious constraints on the operation and overall robustness of the network. You could easily get rid of those by making minor route changes to your Queens Blvd proposal.
  8. Although I do like the idea behind your proposal and truly admire the amount of work you've put in there, I also believe that your network suggestions would cause more problems than they would resolve. Especially the intermixing of local and express services on the IND network would make those lines less robust instead of increasing reliability and robustness. The network would also become less 'readable' than the current configuration is. I believe that many of the issues you point to could easily be resolved within the current network setup, save for a few extra tweaks and realignments.
  9. Hmm...are these average intervals? E.g. the B and D trains: I can't imagine how such frequencies (8.6 vs 10) could possibly be synchronised on the segments where those lines share tracks...
  10. I really like your idea, however, the in-station example you showed here shows a clear disadvantage of such detailed information display: it requires a lot of space. This might work out for stations with only 1 or 2 lines, but it could become messy with more than 2 lines (e.g. most Manhattan trunk lines, the Queens Boulevard line or the CPW line). There might also be a problem with implementing such maps in subway cars, for reasons others already mentioned. But I think it'd be perfect as a foldout along with the map folders.
  11. For those of you interested in some plans from the early 1930's: I found this scanned article, courtesy of Modern Mechanix. It dates back to October, 1931. The six-track layout can clearly be seen here: two local tracks on either side of a road tunnel on the upper level, and four express tracks for express and 'suburban' service directly below the road tunnel. I really doubt, though, whether the plan for a six track line underneath 2nd Avenue has ever moved beyond the point of 'hey, this might be a good idea for combining different traffic flows'. And this drawing, of course.
  12. AFAIK, plans were to have a two-level structure with four tracks on the upper level in the regular layout (express tracks in the middle, local on the outside) and two tracks for a super express service on the lower level.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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