7LineFan Posted July 5, 2009 Share #26 Posted July 5, 2009 You have a lot to learn dude. Hey, I'm just saying, if the had the money we'd at least be seeing the status quo. Heck, when the had a surplus in 2005 they actually tried to do something for us by giving us that holiday bonus, although that money could have been better spent elsewhere. I even said here, if the is really as cash-strapped as it claims it is, key word IF, and this joker assumes that I'm saying the definitely has no money. He thinks he knows everything? Let him show me exactly how much money the has and I'll believe him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 Lexington Ave Posted July 5, 2009 Share #27 Posted July 5, 2009 The only problem I think there is, is that as they're going to make new lines only in the b division they will run out of letters. That would never happen in the a division since it uses numbers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r40s 4501 Posted July 5, 2009 Share #28 Posted July 5, 2009 make 3 go to the bronx to 241 st Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJC Posted July 5, 2009 Share #29 Posted July 5, 2009 Why you want to build another IRT style line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted July 5, 2009 Share #30 Posted July 5, 2009 make 3 go to the bronx to 241 st Then what about 145 and 148? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted July 5, 2009 Share #31 Posted July 5, 2009 The only problem I think there is, is that as they're going to make new lines only in the b division they will run out of letters. That would never happen in the a division since it uses numbers! Um, there are unused letters, (P), (as of now), (U), (X) and (Y), that could be used if needed. (I) can't be used because it looks too much like the , and (O) can't be used because it looks too much like (0). The five letters I mentioned are on the R32 and R38 side signs. All letters are available on the R32 and R38 flipdot signs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted November 18, 2009 Share #32 Posted November 18, 2009 Make the 3 go to The Bronx to 241 st Problems: 1. No service at 145 and 148 2. Delays on WPR because of three trains on one track (yes, I know, its the same at Rogers, but still) 3. Virtually no point of the , except in Bklyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis1985 Posted November 18, 2009 Share #33 Posted November 18, 2009 the only IRT train in Queens is the but should they add another? this might have already been dicussed so sorry if that is so.... still learning! i guess....just like adding more BMT/IND lines in the Bronx...the only ones out there are the (. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted November 19, 2009 Share #34 Posted November 19, 2009 If anything the Flushing line should be converted to handle a B division train. The main reason why it uses IRT width cars is because of the Steinway tubes. If they replaced those tubes, then the Flushing line can be another B division line and would make car swaps much simpler. Plus you can have more flexibility with the connection to the Astoria line at QBP [of course if they added a second set of diamond crossovers at the lower level]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted November 19, 2009 Share #35 Posted November 19, 2009 If anything the Flushing line should be converted to handle a B division train. The main reason why it uses IRT width cars is because of the Steinway tubes. Converting the Steinway tubes would take years and would just cost too much money. There is no reason to build IRT lines unless it is an expansion of an existing IRT line such as the extension. By building to IRT dimensions, you are locked into a singe sized car (9' by 50'), but when building to B Division dimensions you have a wider car and 2 lengths that are available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted November 19, 2009 Share #36 Posted November 19, 2009 Agreed, if anything only B division width lines should be built and even if it is an extension of the IRT line, it should still be built to B division specs, but have the platforms wider for the narrower IRT trains. Personally I would've wished it was the Astoria line that was connected to 42nd st instead and the Flushing line belonging to the Broadway line. [Of course then they would need space for a train yard.] *It's just my bias. I really wished flushing was a b division line with b division trains. The problem is the steinway tubes are outdated and were not meant for subway traffic in the first place. Also since this is a fantasy thread, if the SAS should ever be sent up to the bronx, I do hope they look into annexing the pelham line to the SAS. And I think there was info about this somewhere on NYCsubway, so I'm not just making this up out of nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayBuffer Posted November 19, 2009 Share #37 Posted November 19, 2009 Agreed, if anything only B division width lines should be built and even if it is an extension of the IRT line, it should still be built to B division specs, but have the platforms wider for the narrower IRT trains.Personally I would've wished it was the Astoria line that was connected to 42nd st instead and the Flushing line belonging to the Broadway line. [Of course then they would need space for a train yard.] *It's just my bias. I really wished flushing was a b division line with b division trains. The problem is the steinway tubes are outdated and were not meant for subway traffic in the first place. Also since this is a fantasy thread, if the SAS should ever be sent up to the bronx, I do hope they look into annexing the pelham line to the SAS. And I think there was info about this somewhere on NYCsubway, so I'm not just making this up out of nowhere. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't everything built from Dual Contracts forward built to B Division specs? Although for all practical purposes the A Div sections could never run B Division equipment. You probably did read it somewhere, there have been many ideas and proposals over the years which never got off the ground. Some have better documentation than others. There was even an analysis recently of alternatives to connect the LIRR with Manhattan using existing NYCT East River Tunnels. But once again, more of a brainstorm than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted November 19, 2009 Share #38 Posted November 19, 2009 Yep. Basically the entire segment that was the original IRT from City hall to Times Sq probably cannot fit a B division train [and I don't know if 50th St and north on the IRT Broadway can accomodate a B-division train]. As far as the LIRR takeover of the cranberry tunnels, I don't know how much of a possibility that was, but I'm glad it went no further than just proposals. The Rutgers tunnel can't handle all A/C/F services without something giving out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgedPolaris Posted November 19, 2009 Share #39 Posted November 19, 2009 I would just like to remind everyone that this is what Queens looked like when the current train was being built: My viewpoint after reading up on the history of transportation in NYC and Queens itself in the 20th century, is that if the people at the time wanted more subways, they would have gotten more subways. To my knowledge the was supposed to continue on past 179th, the was to be extended, and there was to be that connection between Queens Blvd and the Rockaways. It wasn't a lack of funding and certainly not a lack of designation as was pointed out, but either to little demand or opposition to extensions at the time that halted the system to where it currently stands. If anyone can find the image, there are some great scans of what I believe were the rather ambitious 1968 "improvement" plans set up for Brooklyn & Queens. and also, as a bunch of you have pointed out - Queens is B division territory... but regardless, in my opinion it will be decades before we ever see even any serious mention of another train running out to Queens. The demand would have to be staggering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted November 19, 2009 Share #40 Posted November 19, 2009 Damn, as much as I'd like some more Subway love in Queens it doesn't look very possible now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Louis Car 09 Posted November 19, 2009 Share #41 Posted November 19, 2009 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!She made a good point.I can imagine jamaica`s economic status if the El was still around,but I guess the mecca of buses that flow through the area makes up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted November 19, 2009 Share #42 Posted November 19, 2009 Converting the Steinway tubes would take years and would just cost too much money. There is no reason to build IRT lines unless it is an expansion of an existing IRT line such as the extension. By building to IRT dimensions, you are locked into a singe sized car (9' by 50'), but when building to B Division dimensions you have a wider car and 2 lengths that are available. I wonder if they ever thought of putting the trains back on the bridge, and then connecting them to the SAS on the other side? There's probably a lot of space over there to do that, plus some underground space for an old trolley terminal? Perhaps then, Steinway could be used for a light rail line that would retain the designation, and even follow the route on the street, replacing the Q32. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted November 19, 2009 Share #43 Posted November 19, 2009 I wonder if they ever thought of putting the trains back on the bridge, and then connecting them to the SAS on the other side? There's probably a lot of space over there to do that, plus some underground space for an old trolley terminal? Perhaps then, Steinway could be used for a light rail line that would retain the designation, and even follow the route on the street, replacing the Q32. Do you mean using the 59th Street bridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princelex Posted November 19, 2009 Share #44 Posted November 19, 2009 I don't know if this has been said but its no secret that Queens needs another subway line. With the MTA being where it is financially, if building a subway line that's an IRT tunnel is cheaper than building an IND/BMT tunnel, then build another IRT line. That's my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted November 19, 2009 Share #45 Posted November 19, 2009 With the MTA being where it is financially, I wonder if they ever thought of putting the trains back on the bridge. Wow, that sentence actually makes sense:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LandoftheLost Posted November 20, 2009 Share #46 Posted November 20, 2009 did we talk about this topic before. create another IRT line for Flushing . topic was about creating line to help the rider for . and there is no point creating another IRT line for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1447 Posted November 20, 2009 Share #47 Posted November 20, 2009 did we talk about this topic before. create another IRT linefor Flushing . topic was about creating line to help the rider for . and there is no point creating another IRT line for now. Me dont get point r40s 4501 oops mean landofthelost dude You really need to speak correctly more. I still don't understand what your saying and worst you start a new line when its NOT needed always! ______________ Anyways there is no point for another IRT or A Division line, maybe extend the passed Main St up northeast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LandoftheLost Posted November 20, 2009 Share #48 Posted November 20, 2009 LOL ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LandoftheLost Posted November 20, 2009 Share #49 Posted November 20, 2009 for now should think about help or ( reducing congestion Lexington Avenue Line , , . think about finish building the 2nd Avenue Line. ( or 2 month ago your were talking about creating ( 8 ) Line for Lexington Avenue Line. i hope you understand. LOL! :cool: :tup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric B Posted November 20, 2009 Share #50 Posted November 20, 2009 Do you mean using the 59th Street bridge? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.