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.
Sign in to follow this  
blkfire765

Should they add another IRT line in Queens?

Recommended Posts

the only IRT train in Queens is the (7)<7> but should they add another? this might have already been dicussed so sorry if that is so.... still learning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the only thing is, IND/BMT trains are bigger, which means they can carry more people. I doubt that any new IRT lines will be built EVER, excepting extensions of current lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, like all other lines, there must be a market for a rapid transit line in Queens.

Once the corridor is identified, during the process, the mode will be selected based on the communities, how economical it can be and how well it fulfills the demand. Currently, rapid transit may include: BRT, light rail, rubber tyre metro or traditional subway.

Regarding the IRT standard, it is highly unlikely that any new line or branch will be built in the future to IRT specifications. This is based on the demand. IRT lines cannot hold that many people as a standard B division line. August Belmont made a selfish mistake in constructing the subway to narrow confines. He did not want interurban traffic or other competitors to run trains through his tunnels, that's why the tunnel clearances of the IRT make the IRT special.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, which are exactly the differences between IRT lines and BMT/IND lines? Are BMT and IND lines the same? Which lines were build first?

The difference between them is that the IRT is much narrower compared to the BMT/IND.

BMT and the IND are not the same thing per se. They are loosely grouped into the B Division based on their tendency to share trackage and cars and because the tunnel geometry is similar. The IRT runs cars that are 8 feet 9 inches wide, 51 feet long. The B division cars are usually 3 metres wide (9.77 to 10 feet wide) and 60 or 75 feet long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

adding an IRT subway line would have a positive economic effect if put in an area that could use an economic boost! adding an IRT line branching off from the flushing line going through flushing, fresh medows to hollis or queens village.... would it work or not? it could be the (11)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
adding an IRT subway line would have a positive economic effect if put in an area that could use an economic boost! adding an IRT line branching off from the flushing line going through flushing, fresh medows to hollis or queens village.... would it work or not? it could be the (11)?

Shooting a subway line that has capacity constraints is not necessarily an economic stimulus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question to the OP: why would you want to add a line that has smaller clearances than normal, less people could ride it?

First of all, like all other lines, there must be a market for a rapid transit line in Queens.

Once the corridor is identified, during the process, the mode will be selected based on the communities, how economical it can be and how well it fulfills the demand. Currently, rapid transit may include: BRT, light rail, rubber tyre metro or traditional subway.

Regarding the IRT standard, it is highly unlikely that any new line or branch will be built in the future to IRT specifications. This is based on the demand. IRT lines cannot hold that many people as a standard B division line. August Belmont made a selfish mistake in constructing the subway to narrow confines. He did not want interurban traffic or other competitors to run trains through his tunnels, that's why the tunnel clearances of the IRT make the IRT special.

 

So, which are exactly the differences between IRT lines and BMT/IND lines? Are BMT and IND lines the same? Which lines were build first?

 

The difference between them is that the IRT is much narrower compared to the BMT/IND.

BMT and the IND are not the same thing per se. They are loosely grouped into the B Division based on their tendency to share trackage and cars and because the tunnel geometry is similar. The IRT runs cars that are 8 feet 9 inches wide, 51 feet long. The B division cars are usually 3 metres wide (9.77 to 10 feet wide) and 60 or 75 feet long.

 

Luckily, only Contracts I & II of the IRT are confined to those small cars. Contract I & II are: the east side line from South Ferry to 33rd street, the Grand central Shuttle, the West side/Broadway line to 242nd street (including the Lenox Branch) the White Plains Road line up to East Tremont Avenue, and the Brooklyn line up to Atlantic Avenue. In addition, the Steinway tubes (where the (7) crosses the East River) are built with IRT confines. The Rest of the IRT was built with the dual contracts. All lines built in the dual contracts (both BMT and IRT) were to have broader curves, larger tunnel clearances etc. So, all of the IRT besides Contract I and II can run BMT/IND equipment, they just have to shave back the platforms. In fact, of the (7) didn't go though the Steinway tubes, it would be a BMT clearance line. I always thought it would be a good idea that the (N) and (W) should go on the Flushing line (after they shave the platforms) and the (7) should go on the Astoria line (after the platforms are extended to fix the gap). Up until 1948, the Flushing and Astoria line was actually run by the IRT and BMT together. The IRT would send their cars from the Steinway tunnels and 2nd Ave. el to either of those lines, and the BMT would run their el cars on both of those lines and terminate at Queensboro plaza where passengers could transfer to the BMT subway lines that go though the 60th street tunnel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yah, but to what MTR Admiralty said, adding or removing a line can effect the community it operates in... just look at the old jamaica line which was torn down! buisnesses wanted the el torn down and regreted it after! so add a line and the economic effect will be seen there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yah, but to what MTR Admiralty said, adding or removing a line can effect the community it operates in... just look at the old jamaica line which was torn down! buisnesses wanted the el torn down and regreted it after! so add a line and the economic effect will be seen there!

 

Have to have the money first. If the (MTA) is really as cash-strapped as it claims it is, we won't be seeing anything. Everything that is going on now has already been funded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yah, but to what MTR Admiralty said, adding or removing a line can effect the community it operates in... just look at the old jamaica line which was torn down! buisnesses wanted the el torn down and regreted it after! so add a line and the economic effect will be seen there!

The point of that is that the IRT line shouldn't be extended to IRT specs. That's what everyone here thinks you're saying (though I don't think you mean it that way). I think what you're trying to say is you want to see the (7) extended. BTW, the IRT doesn't exist anymore. It's called the A Division now, which is the (1)-(7) and 42nd St. (S) trains. The B Division is the rest of the lines.

 

As for the extension, the argument against that is that the (7) line will be too crowded if it is extended further. This is why I think the (7) should be converted to a BMT line (which would require modifying the Steinway tunnels, which would cost money which unfortunately the (MTA) doesn't have).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the (7) should be converted to a BMT line (which would require modifying the Steinway tunnels, which would cost money which unfortunately the (MTA) doesn't have).

 

They don't even have to do that. They could send Flushing trains though the 60th street tunnel at Queensboro plaza instead.

 

My idea: The (N) and (W) will go though the 60th street tunnel enter QBP, and use the flushing line. All they would have to do is shave the platforms. The (N) could be express and (W) be local (or vice versa). The (7) enters Queensboro plaza from its normal route, and instead of going via the Flushing, it will go via Astoria. The Astoria line's platforms will be widened.

 

My rationale: The Flushing line gets very crowded, therefore, BMT-sized trains would be optimal. The Astoria line is a shorter, less crowded route. So bigger trains aren't as important as it is on the Flushing line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They don't even have to do that. They could send Flushing trains though the 60th street tunnel at Queensboro plaza instead.

 

My idea: The (N) and (W) will go though the 60th street tunnel enter QBP, and use the flushing line. All they would have to do is shave the platforms. The (N) could be express and (W) be local (or vice versa). The (7) enters Queensboro plaza from its normal route, and instead of going via the Flushing, it will go via Astoria. The Astoria line's platforms will be widened.

 

My rationale: The Flushing line gets very crowded, therefore, BMT-sized trains would be optimal. The Astoria line is a shorter, less crowded route. So bigger trains aren't as important as it is on the Flushing line.

 

The only problem with this is, you have different lines crossing each other on a switch to get where they need to go. And with QBP trains frequently enter the station within seconds of the other line. If one train is over the switch (of which there isn't even one on the lower level, and there's virtually no room to create one) it delays a train on the other line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only problem with this is, you have different lines crossing each other on a switch to get where they need to go. And with QBP trains frequently enter the station within seconds of the other line. If one train is over the switch (of which there isn't even one on the lower level, and there's virtually no room to create one) it delays a train on the other line.

 

Your right about that. It would not work realistically.

 

Does anyone know how deep under the river bottom the Stienway tunnels are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone know what the difference between the IND and BMT lines is today?

 

There is really no difference but I believe they still use those terms in the train operating world, but I think the radio frequency is a little different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
isn't the station length of the two system different? i think i heard this somewhere before but dont know where?

 

That depends on the individual station, not whether it's IND or BMT or whatever. Some stations were built longer than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There will never be anymore IRT trains. The Interborough Rapid Transit company no longer exists, therefore, no lines will ever be made to those dimensions again. That would be reverting progress. As much as I love the IRT, the IRT lines were constructed before the BMT and IND, so they lack the improvements that were made in later years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is funny I saw (A) similar thread not to long ago and my answer is the same We need (A) 8 train sure it's (A)great idea for another IRT line

don't stop there how about two lines (9)EXP and A new purple 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone know what the difference between the IND and BMT lines is today?

There is no difference, but the (J)(L)(M)(Z) lines were once prt of the BMT and the stations can only handle 8 60-foot car trains.

isn't the station length of the two system different? i think i heard this somewhere before but dont know where?

The IND constructed platforms with more space than necessary, in case the trains were ever going to increase in length. This is why many stations on the Queens Blvd. line can accomodate 11-car trains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like clarify that the only portions of the IRT that were built before most of the BMT are Contracts I and II. The rest of the IRT was built with the Dual contracts, and all Dual contract lines, whether it be BMT or IND, can handle 60' trains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have to have the money first. If the (MTA) is really as cash-strapped as it claims it is, we won't be seeing anything. Everything that is going on now has already been funded.
you need stop being on the (MTA)Board of directors cuz your not ,have you done the numbers hmmmm I don't think so ,so stop saying (MTA)is as broke as you think we all would be out of A job and construction would come to A screeeeching hault . (K)<R>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you need stop being on the (MTA)Board of directors cuz your not ,have you done the numbers hmmmm I don't think so ,so stop saying (MTA)is as broke as you think we all would be out of A job and construction would come to A screeeeching hault . (K)<R>

 

And you're on the Board? Why don't you stop assuming that they have cash to throw around everywhere? If they did, we'd be seeing more and more service improvements and the like, wouldn't we?

 

If you've done the numbers show me your exact calculations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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