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

second ave question...(T)

Recommended Posts

if the (T) on second av ever does start up what will its yard be? ive seen bell mouths on the (F) after 63rd st-Lexington Ave. will the (T) connect with the jamaica yard or how will it get and store its trains? Will it get its own yard? sorry if this thread already exists or if it causes problems or inconvinces. just wanted to know :) thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the (T) on second av ever does start up what will its yard be? ive seen bell mouths on the (F) after 63rd st-Lexington Ave. will the (T) connect with the jamaica yard or how will it get and store its trains? Will it get its own yard? sorry if this thread already exists or if it causes problems or inconvinces. just wanted to know :) thanks!

 

By the time the (T) comes into existence...we won't be alive.

 

It'll probably be Jamaica.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See these proposed spur lines, and use better grammar

 

-map removed to save space-

 

 

The Willy B is not happening because the SAS needs 10-car trains.

The Av C line is not going to change any yard assignments.

The spur to 8 Av is fairly useless IMO, there's a bus along that route anyway.

The MTA is not going to waste extra money on building a new underriver tunnel.

The Manny B is already balanced out, there's no space on it for a (T) as well as the (:)(D)(N)(Q).

Therefore, the only reasonable option is to send it via the southern Nassau branch and through Montague Street, which means that the other possible yard is Coney Island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though just mentioning if the (MTA) runs the (T) onto the West End Elevated with the (D) it might be cool as the (T) has ran on the West End before as a Broadway Express. Even before the (:), (W), and (D).

 

tphoto.jpg

 

ttphoto.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember seeing in a couple of old LIRR ESA contract staging plans a reference to a possible future NYCT yard in the Sunnyside yard area. If you look at google maps at the Sunnyside area, you can see the existing sunnyside yards. The proposed yard would be east of the existing yard, just north of the LIRR tracks between Honeywell, 39th and 43rd streets, inside the north half of the sunnyside loop tracks. This area is currenly a construction staging area for the LIRR ESA project, but it is large enough to house a decently sized yard. The leads to this yard would've run under sunnyside yard and connect to the 63rd St line at 41st and Northern Blvd, where the LIRR is connecting to the new GCT tunnels.

 

I remember reading in the SAS FEIS that existing yard space would not suffice for the new line, and that expanding any of the available yards would be a very daunting task, since it would enroach on other properties. Coney Island could be a possible choice, but it is very far from the line to send trains for regular maintenance. If the (MTA) gets money to complete the line, then they should have part of that go into building a new yard, and I think that sunnyside is not a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though just mentioning if the (MTA) runs the (T) onto the West End Elevated with the (D) it might be cool as the (T) has ran on the West End before as a Broadway Express. Even before the (:), (W), and (D).

 

How about this: By the time there is something called the (T), the twenty-third millennium will seem like a long-gone memory.:eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the time the (T) comes into existence...we won't be alive.

 

It'll probably be Jamaica.

 

Your right about that we wont be alive by the time it doesn't come, they should stop delaying the project, they should have started construction after the Archer Avenue subway has been finished, then by now, the line would be open from Houston to 125 street, so the last phase would be finished by 2014 or 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember seeing in a couple of old LIRR ESA contract staging plans a reference to a possible future NYCT yard in the Sunnyside yard area. If you look at google maps at the Sunnyside area, you can see the existing sunnyside yards. The proposed yard would be east of the existing yard, just north of the LIRR tracks between Honeywell, 39th and 43rd streets, inside the north half of the sunnyside loop tracks. This area is currenly a construction staging area for the LIRR ESA project, but it is large enough to house a decently sized yard. The leads to this yard would've run under sunnyside yard and connect to the 63rd St line at 41st and Northern Blvd, where the LIRR is connecting to the new GCT tunnels.

 

I remember reading in the SAS FEIS that existing yard space would not suffice for the new line, and that expanding any of the available yards would be a very daunting task, since it would enroach on other properties. Coney Island could be a possible choice, but it is very far from the line to send trains for regular maintenance. If the (MTA) gets money to complete the line, then they should have part of that go into building a new yard, and I think that sunnyside is not a bad idea.

The 63 Street tunnel's connection to the Queens boulevard line has a pair of bellmouthes for a possible super express spur, which they might build—if only as a connection to a yard first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Queens Super Express would be cool though it should utilize the abandoned LIRR Rocakaway Beach Branch connecting to JFK then Laguardia with a potential stop at Forest Hills and once it passes Laguardia it should find a way to get to Manhattan and run down Third Avenue with several stops at Lower, Midtown, and Upper Manhattan. It could be labeled as a (JFK). Though the (MTA) is bankrupt and that might not happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A Queens Super Express would be cool though it should utilize the abandoned LIRR Rocakaway Beach Branch connecting to JFK then Laguardia with a potential stop at Forest Hills and once it passes Laguardia it should find a way to get to Manhattan and run down Third Avenue with several stops at Lower, Midtown, and Upper Manhattan. It could be labeled as a (JFK). Though the (MTA) is bankrupt and that might not happen.

 

The plan was this:

From 63 Street tunnel

to LIRR line

via LIRR to Forest Hills

via regular (E)(F)(M)(R) to wherever (Jamaica-179 Street is most likely).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does kind of remind me of the (JFK) either way if they create it they should just connect it to the airport and just call it (JFK).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gotta love the "alternatives proposed by transit planners" yet again proving they know nothing about how the system works.

 

HOW exactly does the 600 foot SAS train platform at Essex/Delancey before going over the Willy B? How exactly does it platform at any of the elevated stations along the Jamaica line?

 

Once trains loop north into the 8th avenue line, where do they turn, and how do they get back to Second Avenue? What prevents delays merging the trains onto 8th Avenue where the (A) and (C) already share tracks at Chambers and the (E) terminates at WTC?

 

Where do the trains fit on the Manny B seeing as those tracks are pretty darn close to capacity when all four bridge services are running? Where do they go once they get into Brooklyn? Essentially all you'd be doing is bringing back the brown (M) in Brooklyn, but with an added merge onto 4th avenue local which can cause delays...

 

How do you send trains to Nassau St. subway at Chambers when the platform cannot fit a 600 foot train???? And before you say extend the stations, Chambers cannot be extended because the north end of the southbound platform directly abuts the northbound 6 line platform - they are as close as they can get.

 

Someone is actually proposing another underriver tunnel from Manhattan to Brooklyn running to Court Street (the Transit Museum)??? Seriously??? And where will it go in Brooklyn? Euclid, the Rockaways, and Lefferts are already adequately served.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HOW exactly does the 600 foot SAS train platform at Essex/Delancey before going over the Willy B? How exactly does it platform at any of the elevated stations along the Jamaica line?

In that case, it would be 480 feet;)

 

How do you send trains to Nassau St. subway at Chambers when the platform cannot fit a 600 foot train???? And before you say extend the stations, Chambers cannot be extended because the north end of the southbound platform directly abuts the northbound 6 line platform - they are as close as they can get.

How about extend the platforms...south?

Someone is actually proposing another underriver tunnel from Manhattan to Brooklyn running to Court Street (the Transit Museum)??? Seriously??? And where will it go in Brooklyn? Euclid, the Rockaways, and Lefferts are already adequately served.

If the Rockaways are adequately served, how come they're always clamoring for more service?

Comments in red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally, there was speculation that the IND was supposed to connect Hudson Terminal and Court Street, though I've always believed that the IND plan was to terminate local trains in Manhattan and in Brooklyn, sending only express trains through Cranberry Street.

 

Now it seems there is speculation that the (T) could be extended to Brooklyn by connecting Hanover Square and Court Street and reactivating Court Street.

 

Not sure what the thinking is unless it's to have all (A)'s to Far Rockaway, (C) to Lefferts Boulevard and run the (T) express between Hoyt-Schmerhorn Streets and Euclid Avenue which would give Fulton Street a Second Avenue and an Eighth Avenue option and give the (A) one southern terminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally, there was speculation that the IND was supposed to connect Hudson Terminal and Court Street, though I've always believed that the IND plan was to terminate local trains in Manhattan and in Brooklyn, sending only express trains through Cranberry Street.

 

Now it seems there is speculation that the (T) could be extended to Brooklyn by connecting Hanover Square and Court Street and reactivating Court Street.

 

Not sure what the thinking is unless it's to have all (A)'s to Far Rockaway, (C) to Lefferts Boulevard and run the (T) express between Hoyt-Schmerhorn Streets and Euclid Avenue which would give Fulton Street a Second Avenue and an Eighth Avenue option and give the (A) one southern terminal.

 

IMO, it would be:

(A) Fulton Express to Far Rock

(C) Fulton Express to Lefferts

(T) Fulton Local to Euclid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always felt it was redundant having it go all the way into lower Manhattan. I know there's no service planned (other than the Lex) that goes up the east side from lower manhattan, but does a brand new tunnel need to be built (other than the fantasy buffs that want tunnels, structures and lines everwhere). I know relief wont be substancial until something on 2Av goes all the way down, which begs to wonder why the (Q) cant go all the way down and thru the tunnel, and the (T) replaces the (:) in Brooklyn (or something else worked out). No one said all the existing services has to run in the form that they run now, everything is malleable. One also has to wonder if they're even going to run both services at all times, or just one or the other once the (T) comes online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always felt it was redundant having it go all the way into lower Manhattan. I know there's no service planned (other than the Lex) that goes up the east side from lower manhattan, but does a brand new tunnel need to be built (other than the fantasy buffs that want tunnels, structures and lines everwhere). I know relief wont be substancial until something on 2Av goes all the way down, which begs to wonder why the (Q) cant go all the way down and thru the tunnel, and the (T) replaces the (:) in Brooklyn (or something else worked out). No one said all the existing services has to run in the form that they run now, everything is malleable. One also has to wonder if they're even going to run both services at all times, or just one or the other once the (T) comes online.

 

Theoretically, it could connect to the (L) line and go east to Canarsie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the Manhattan Bridge is truthfully already full. A problem by Leon Mosseif the bridge designer also causes problems. The bridge was designed for light rail not the 8 car R68/A's or the R160B's. So the bridge sways so no (T) there.

 

For the second question. I actually find no use for the Avenue C extension to the Eighth Avenue Line. What should really happen is they should create the (K) and a (U). (K)-Eighth Avenue Line local from 242 St Riverdale to Floyd Bennets Field

(U)-Second Avenue Line local from 125th St to Floyd Bennets Field

That basically means to extend the (K), and the (U) to the east to create the never built IND Worth Street and IND Utica Avenue Line. The (T) would become a Second Avenue Express when it becomes a four track line. It would run alongside the (D) at the West End Line via Montague Street Tunnel.

 

I also doubt the underiver tunnel seeing the price. They should just use Montague Street. Then they could built a split once they get there. Or they could just extend the (U) to the Rockaway Park (S).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Theoretically, it could connect to the (L) line and go east to Canarsie.

 

Of course. Thing is the point of the (T) was to get people south of the QBB to lower Manhattan so they're not on the Lex (upper east side Manhattan is solved with the (Q) and whatever lines go thru the Montague tunnel by then, although not as fast as the (T)). The question is just how far down given the issue with finances and funding. Bringing it over any bridge (Willie B, Manhattan) doesn't really serve the purpose of getting it south of Chambers where all those large office buildings are. There are also no planned transfers to lines that go to lower Manhattan either after 53rd and the (E), and we both know that line don't need anymore people than it has already. However, new tunneling below Grand will be pricey and even NIMBY, therefore many of us agree we won't be alive to see that occur.

 

Over the Manhattan seems sensible but that issue with getting people to lower Manhattan. Bringing it in the Nassau/Broad seems sensible, but there are already capacity issues there. Then there's that whole idea of a yard. Most every other line have some sort of yard (or yards) it either goes past (like the IRT) or is nearby (IND/BMT). The north section is easy with more (Q)'s. But where those trains for the (T), and how to connect it to a barn is a whole another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course. Thing is the point of the (T) was to get people south of the QBB to lower Manhattan so they're not on the Lex (upper east side Manhattan is solved with the (Q) and whatever lines go thru the Montague tunnel by then, although not as fast as the (T)). The question is just how far down given the issue with finances and funding. Bringing it over any bridge (Willie B, Manhattan) doesn't really serve the purpose of getting it south of Chambers where all those large office buildings are. There are also no planned transfers to lines that go to lower Manhattan either after 53rd and the (E), and we both know that line don't need anymore people than it has already. However, new tunneling below Grand will be pricey and even NIMBY, therefore many of us agree we won't be alive to see that occur.

Agreed. New tunneling will pretty much never happen.

Over the Manhattan seems sensible but that issue with getting people to lower Manhattan. Bringing it in the Nassau/Broad seems sensible, but there are already capacity issues there.

The (J)(Z) could be cut back to Chambers Street.

Then there's that whole idea of a yard. Most every other line have some sort of yard (or yards) it either goes past (like the IRT) or is nearby (IND/BMT). The north section is easy with more (Q)'s. But where those trains for the (T), and how to connect it to a barn is a whole another story.

As for the yard, it could either be Jamaica (a bellmouth is planned at 2 Av/63 Street from the (T) to the (F)) or Coney Island (a long deadhead via the (Q)).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The plan was this:

From 63 Street tunnel

to LIRR line

via LIRR to Forest Hills

via regular (E)(F)(M)(R) to wherever (Jamaica-179 Street is most likely).

That should still be the basic plan for the Super Express. You can always build branch lines off the main Super Express tracks later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course. Thing is the point of the (T) was to get people south of the QBB to lower Manhattan so they're not on the Lex (upper east side Manhattan is solved with the (Q) and whatever lines go thru the Montague tunnel by then, although not as fast as the (T)). The question is just how far down given the issue with finances and funding. Bringing it over any bridge (Willie B, Manhattan) doesn't really serve the purpose of getting it south of Chambers where all those large office buildings are. There are also no planned transfers to lines that go to lower Manhattan either after 53rd and the (E), and we both know that line don't need anymore people than it has already. However, new tunneling below Grand will be pricey and even NIMBY, therefore many of us agree we won't be alive to see that occur.

 

Over the Manhattan seems sensible but that issue with getting people to lower Manhattan. Bringing it in the Nassau/Broad seems sensible, but there are already capacity issues there. Then there's that whole idea of a yard. Most every other line have some sort of yard (or yards) it either goes past (like the IRT) or is nearby (IND/BMT). The north section is easy with more (Q)'s. But where those trains for the (T), and how to connect it to a barn is a whole another story.

If the (MTA) can get the (Q) (or preferably the (N)) up to 125th Street, that will be an accomplishment in and of itself. At least then, there will be a transfer from the (4), (5) and (6) trains and a connection from Metro-North. At the very least, the line needs to get up to 125th, especially since much of the line north of 96th was already tunneled in the early 70s.

 

I think we'd all love to see the whole thing built, (T) train and all. But for now, the (MTA) really needs to concentrate on getting the first two phases completed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also prefer the (N) to Lexington Ave-125th St for the sake of easier identification for tourists "(N) for north and (Q) for Queens". Similar to the 63rd St tunnel w/ the (F) on the upper and the LIRR on the lower level, the same kind of tunnel should be constructed if the LIRR does go to Lower Manhattan w/ the (T) to Euclid Av on the upper and the LIRR on the lower level.

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.