CenSin Posted September 29, 2010 Share #51 Posted September 29, 2010 If that is an issue, then the alternate would be to eliminate the WTC station (giving the 8th Avenue trains more room to descend), and have them stop at Cortlandt Street instead. If this were to happen, the would—ironically—be skipping one station to reach the Fulton Street hub (which would be connected to Cortlandt Street as well) while the express would have to stop at one additional station (Chambers Street) before stopping at Fulton Street. Similarly, the stops at Broadway–Lafayette and Essex Street/Delancey Street while it skips 2 Avenue—which the stops at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted September 30, 2010 Share #52 Posted September 30, 2010 If that is an issue, then the alternate would be to eliminate the WTC station (giving the 8th Avenue trains more room to descend), and have them stop at Cortlandt Street instead. Or you could just have the 8th Av line replace the Broadway line to go to Brooklyn or have the 8th Av line cross the Broadway tracks like the set up at 135th for the lines. Then terminate the Broadway line at Whitehall, while the 8th Av line goes to Brooklyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kacie Jane Posted September 30, 2010 Author Share #53 Posted September 30, 2010 Or you could just have the 8th Av line replace the Broadway line to go to Brooklyn or have the 8th Av line cross the Broadway tracks like the set up at 135th for the lines. Then terminate the Broadway line at Whitehall, while the 8th Av line goes to Brooklyn. *scratches head* But that would defeat the purpose of increased capacity/flexibility, wouldn't it? If the Broadway line ended in Manhattan, I'd have to send the to Bay Ridge to replace the - and find something to replace the Culver local - which would mean the and couldn't both run express on Fulton St. CenSin, I view that as more of an amusing little quirk B) (and like you said, not unprecedented) more than an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted September 30, 2010 Share #54 Posted September 30, 2010 CenSin, I view that as more of an amusing little quirk B) (and like you said, not unprecedented) more than an issue. Just as the planned-but-never-built super-express would be, considering the fact that it's a local in Manhattan. Though the line could also connect to the 6 Avenue express, it takes away 6 Avenue service from either the Central Park West local or express (not an issue for your map anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted September 30, 2010 Share #55 Posted September 30, 2010 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted October 1, 2010 Share #56 Posted October 1, 2010 *scratches head* But that would defeat the purpose of increased capacity/flexibility, wouldn't it? If the Broadway line ended in Manhattan, I'd have to send the to Bay Ridge to replace the - and find something to replace the Culver local - which would mean the and couldn't both run express on Fulton St. Not going to concider the via Culver - just not practical. Too much construction and it really doesn't solve much other than to add more merging. If anything the trains the uses to go to Brooklyn would be given to the . The would end in Manhattan and be more reliable by being a shorter line. Also this would give southern Brooklyn an easier connection to an 8th Av line. Right now riders would need to transfer at Atlantic-Pacific to get the to get to the trains. If the ran in brooklyn, then riders can just take that into Manhattan and stay off the IRT entirely. I'd leave the alone since the runs fewer trains and is better for the Fulton local. The to Bay Ridge is much shorter than if it were to go to Euclid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kacie Jane Posted October 1, 2010 Author Share #57 Posted October 1, 2010 Not going to concider the via Culver - just not practical. Too much construction and it really doesn't solve much other than to add more merging. If anything the trains the uses to go to Brooklyn would be given to the . The would end in Manhattan and be more reliable by being a shorter line. Also this would give southern Brooklyn an easier connection to an 8th Av line. Right now riders would need to transfer at Atlantic-Pacific to get the to get to the trains. If the ran in brooklyn, then riders can just take that into Manhattan and stay off the IRT entirely. I'd leave the alone since the runs fewer trains and is better for the Fulton local. The to Bay Ridge is much shorter than if it were to go to Euclid. I hate myself for saying this because I hate when other people say it as a catch-all defense for their fantasy maps/ideas, but it is just a fantasy. I freely admit that it's impractical and too much construction, but it's not meant to be practical - at least from a money/construction standpoint - and the whole point is to have new construction. But your other 2 points about my are off-base. First, there wouldn't be any new merging (or at least new pre-June 27), as the would only ever share tracks with the and whatever runs with it to Astoria. Between Whitehall and Church it would be on its own tracks. Also, to me, it does solve a somewhat important problem. It provides a second Culver train that #1 is not the (i.e. runs to Manhattan), and #2 doesn't displace the . Looking at your switch from the standpoint of the real-life map rather than my fantasy map, I did like it at first, but the more I thought about it, the more it started to fray at the edges. First, any reliability issues that would be solved on the would just be shifted onto the . Second, I don't think the switching would work, and I think City Hall is too far north to terminate trains. I think the would be far too frequent to allow an at-grade junction to function efficiently - although admittedly not as bad as Rogers Junction. Third, I don't think 8th Avenue service to South Brooklyn would be a priority. The offers much easier transfers than the IRT both from South Brooklyn (especially if they happen to be starting from the West End line) and to the Eighth Avenue line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted October 3, 2010 Share #58 Posted October 3, 2010 Eh, fair enough. Personally: I would've done away with all the westward shifts in Lower manhattan and make things as 'strait' as possible. Basically: to 'whitehall' [continue to Brooklyn], to Bowling Green [terminates there], to Broad St [continues as normal via current IRT tunnel to Borough hall], to Wall St [running down Williams St and still connect to the Montegue tunnel even though there's no service running to southern Brooklyn]. would either cross under perhaps Wall St and get to Clark St or continue down with the and join the into Brooklyn. But don't mind me, I have my own eccentricities. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kacie Jane Posted October 4, 2010 Author Share #59 Posted October 4, 2010 Eh, fair enough. [...] But don't mind me, I have my own eccentricities. See, now why can't disagreement be this easy all the time! :-D Eccentricities, and getting to pick people's brains, is part of what makes fantasy map threads so enjoyable to me. You get to see other people's logic (provided logic exists), see where they're coming from, etc. Speaking of which, now that I see where you're coming from, that idea of straightening out the lines in Lower Manhattan makes a lot of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted October 5, 2010 Share #60 Posted October 5, 2010 I'm generally civil B) And I'm glad you see what I mean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.