Roadcruiser1 Posted February 24, 2011 Share #26 Posted February 24, 2011 Doesn't matter Detroit is close enough lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lance25 Posted February 24, 2011 Share #27 Posted February 24, 2011 For who??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted February 24, 2011 Share #28 Posted February 24, 2011 To me of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted February 24, 2011 Share #29 Posted February 24, 2011 Jeebus Christ, stop smoking the reefer and get back to reality. Literally this exact thread seems to come up every 2 month on this place and it's always the same half-baked (pun intended) ideas over and over again. "Build a lower lower level to the museum" "Expand to some unrelated abandoned station somewhere else in the city so there's two museums that have nothing to do with each other that a visitor can't possibly see both the same day" "Build a new yard" "Build another museum" "[insert personal agenda here]" My vote is to CLOSE this repetitive and unnecessary thread since these are questions for people other than railfans to worry about how to solve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeGerald Posted February 24, 2011 Share #30 Posted February 24, 2011 Many museums simply rotate their exhibitions depending upon the season or planned events. The Transit Museum could simply have dedicated storage tracks at an accessible train yard, and could just simply move trains into and out of the exhibit as needed for various events. One track or a portion of one track could be "permanent", for example the back part of the station, while the portion nearest the entrance could be used for short trains that rotate into and out of the Museum. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted February 24, 2011 Share #31 Posted February 24, 2011 Yes, and garbage trains passing through the museum would not make a pretty sight. Okay. This topic's here. Might as well. My suggestion: the abandoned half of the Nassau line. I knew someone was gonna bring this idea up lol, I even said it in the 2nd post of this thread. But imma tell you why it can't happen... The original northbound local track is still an active track for diesels or rerouted trains in casde something happens. In the vincinity of Essex St, that same track is used by comming from off the Chrystie cut (and the occasional train at nights for some reason). The northbound express track doesn't exist anymore ever past Essex St since they reconfigured the whole Nassau St line to use just the original southbound tracks. They removed the tracks completely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vistausss Posted February 24, 2011 Share #32 Posted February 24, 2011 Correction: Ninth Avenue lower level has three tracks, just like the upper level does. The problem however is that the middle track is used so garbage trains can access the refuse platform at 37th Street, so it must be vacant at all times. Nope, 4 tracks. Check this diagram and you'll see it: But even if it had 3, then it would still leave 2 tracks for the TM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted February 24, 2011 Share #33 Posted February 24, 2011 Nope, 4 tracks. Check this diagram and you'll see it: But even if it had 3, then it would still leave 2 tracks for the TM. I see 3. Also: This is where we keep all our trains. Please excuse the odor, that's just the garbage train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted February 24, 2011 Share #34 Posted February 24, 2011 Nope, 4 tracks. Check this diagram and you'll see it: But even if it had 3, then it would still leave 2 tracks for the TM. I still count THREE tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GojiMet86 Posted February 24, 2011 Share #35 Posted February 24, 2011 How about the South Brooklyn R.R. yard? Would that be feasible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted February 24, 2011 Share #36 Posted February 24, 2011 How about the South Brooklyn R.R. yard? Would that be feasible? There's only one track at SBK, the rest have been ripped out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vistausss Posted February 24, 2011 Share #37 Posted February 24, 2011 I still count THREE tracks. Sorry, I must be too tired so see that it was three indeed. But still, that leaves 2 tracks and 2 platforms for the TM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted February 24, 2011 Share #38 Posted February 24, 2011 Sorry, I must be too tired so see that it was three indeed.But still, that leaves 2 tracks and 2 platforms for the TM. Still won't work, that middle track separates the two platforms apart. A bridge can't be built over it either, because the train won't be able to access the refuse platform north of the station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted February 25, 2011 Share #39 Posted February 25, 2011 I knew someone was gonna bring this idea up lol, I even said it in the 2nd post of this thread. But imma tell you why it can't happen... The original northbound local track is still an active track for diesels or rerouted trains in casde something happens. In the vincinity of Essex St, that same track is used by comming from off the Chrystie cut (and the occasional train at nights for some reason). The northbound express track doesn't exist anymore ever past Essex St since they reconfigured the whole Nassau St line to use just the original southbound tracks. They removed the tracks completely Not only that, but if the SAS is connected to the Nassau Street line in the future, I can see it where the old configuration goes back into use at Canal Street and Bowery for the J while the "express" tracks are used are the SAS at Canal Street (coming from Houston). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted February 25, 2011 Share #40 Posted February 25, 2011 Not only that, but if the SAS is connected to the Nassau Street line in the future, I can see it where the old configuration goes back into use at Canal Street and Bowery for the J while the "express" tracks are used are the SAS at Canal Street (coming from Houston). I think it's too early to think about when the SAS gets to Nassau. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted February 25, 2011 Share #41 Posted February 25, 2011 The plans for expanding the Transit Museum get regurgitated every few months. As always, it comes down to the following: low priority project & money. Glad to see that things are on-schedule though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traildriver Posted February 26, 2011 Share #42 Posted February 26, 2011 Many museums simply rotate their exhibitions depending upon the season or planned events. The Transit Museum could simply have dedicated storage tracks at an accessible train yard, and could just simply move trains into and out of the exhibit as needed for various events. One track or a portion of one track could be "permanent", for example the back part of the station, while the portion nearest the entrance could be used for short trains that rotate into and out of the Museum. Mike Best idea I have seen on this thread so far. Another benefit of rotating part of a museum's exhibits is to promote more visits by repeat customers. And it would be great if when rotating equipment from/to the storage facility, they could try to operate the move as a revenue raising fan trip... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted February 26, 2011 Share #43 Posted February 26, 2011 Best idea I have seen on this thread so far.Another benefit of rotating part of a museum's exhibits is to promote more visits by repeat customers. And it would be great if when rotating equipment from/to the storage facility, they could try to operate the move as a revenue raising fan trip... Changing exhibits anywhere costs money...and a lot more than you might think... Short non revenue moves don't particularly interest the majority of the TM's public which extends well beyond railfans, plus they aren't necessarily as exciting as you might think. There's also a host of operational considerations and safety considerations that would make doing that prohibitive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traildriver Posted February 26, 2011 Share #44 Posted February 26, 2011 Changing exhibits anywhere costs money...and a lot more than you might think... Short non revenue moves don't particularly interest the majority of the TM's public which extends well beyond railfans, plus they aren't necessarily as exciting as you might think. There's also a host of operational considerations and safety considerations that would make doing that prohibitive The fact that it costs to change exhibits is all the more reason to try to realize some income as a result to help defray the costs. And if it is just a short hop between the storage facility and the museum, why not operate a longer fantrip as part of the move? As for safety....instead of boarding passengers in the yard, they can use a nearby station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeGerald Posted February 26, 2011 Share #45 Posted February 26, 2011 Museums Change Their Exhibits All The Time Yes, it costs some money to change exhibits - nothing is free. Usually some of portion of a museum's collection is permanently presented, and there are spaces that display different exhibits throughout the year. It is not rocket science - look at the Museum of the City of New York, or the Met, or MOMA. To have a museum that never ever ever changes any of its exhibits, means that the public might become bored, and not return. The Transit Museum has changed and added to it's exhibits over the years, while keeping some portions the same. They have even changed (over long periods of time) some of the trains that get stored there. It's not like change has never occurred. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis1985 Posted February 26, 2011 Share #46 Posted February 26, 2011 The retirement date for the R46s are coming up really soon too. Damn I will not be looking forward to that. neither am i. smh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted February 26, 2011 Share #47 Posted February 26, 2011 The fact that it costs to change exhibits is all the more reason to try to realize some income as a result to help defray the costs.And if it is just a short hop between the storage facility and the museum, why not operate a longer fantrip as part of the move? As for safety....instead of boarding passengers in the yard, they can use a nearby station. And exhibits in the TM do change. But they can't change constantly because it is not cost effective to do so. Plus there is an incentive for keeping many exhibits the same also...visitors sharing with their friends. Person A sees exhibit A and thinks it's great, so person A tells person B. Person B is excited and goes, but exhibit A has been changed out and is no longer there. Person B will be disappointed, and Person A will also. You need elements of both...some static exhibits, some changing. Which is exactly what the TM has. You overestimate the willingness of railfans to spend money on "fantrips". A large portion of the customer base for fantrips is NOT railfans. And a good number of railfans claim that they don't like to ride (they'd rather photograph) yet is seen every year riding on every single one of the free trips...hmm... Trust me when I say this as someone that understands and knows about all of what goes on with the musical chairs of what museum cars go where that what you are advocating (railfans on yard moves) is not possible, and places undue stress on museum resources to coordinate such things which are already difficult enough to coordinate as it is. Plus I guarantee it is not nearly as exciting as you are making it out to be. Train yards are dangerous places and it's not playtime. A lot of people in this hobby don't grasp that. That means you need yard resources freed up to supervise anyone in a yard. Not the only consideration but one of many that makes this not realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted February 26, 2011 Share #48 Posted February 26, 2011 Plus the costs to replace/maintain a part that gets worn out must be expensive. So wouldn't it be best to not run the cars so often? As for the possible locations, I'm not going to bother commenting on this anymore. [Not worth it and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.] The only reason this would ever be brought up for real is if the SAS were to get to LM and the MTA deciding they want to activate the Court St station for revenue service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
traildriver Posted February 26, 2011 Share #49 Posted February 26, 2011 Train yards are dangerous places and it's not playtime. A lot of people in this hobby don't grasp that. That means you need yard resources freed up to supervise anyone in a yard. Not the only consideration but one of many that makes this not realistic. I thought that was what I said... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted February 26, 2011 Share #50 Posted February 26, 2011 I thought that was what I said... A fantrip that ends in a yard still ends in a yard. 3 trips is plenty every year. If it becomes to commonplace it loses its appeal. Things must be rare to attract people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.