Lawrence St Posted September 14, 2018 Share #19576 Posted September 14, 2018 2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said: In general, this is true, except for the following features: Unless you want to create a shuttle, pretty much all elevated rail lines will need to go underground to connect to the existing subway. Land acquisition to demolish for tracks is very unpopular and expensive. (Parks are not a solution because under state law, to use parkland the City must create parkland equivalent to what is lost.) It's also worth noting that the solid/open floor is dated from 1915, when the most common structures would be made of cast iron and steel. Today, reinforced concrete is much more common; if you were to build a rail line today, that's what you would go with. No one is building open-floor railways anywhere in the world today. The reason why I askee was to create a new elevated subway on Fordham that connects with the at Pelham Bay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted September 14, 2018 Share #19577 Posted September 14, 2018 8 hours ago, Lawrence St said: The reason why I askee was to create a new elevated subway on Fordham that connects with the at Pelham Bay. You could probably do it elevated east of WPR. West of Webster, the hilly terrain is not conducive for an el. And west of WPR there is no logical place to go underground. I don't think PBP is a great place to terminate any crosstown link though; I would much rather put a combined (6) / Fordham Road terminus at Bartow/Baychester. If you want to get super foamy with it, it would be nice if they could reroute I-95 through Pelham Bay Park next to the NEC, build the elevated rail line in its stead, and use the leftover land to build dense housing and restore the road grid in the area. But that's just me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted September 14, 2018 Share #19578 Posted September 14, 2018 Does anyone know why there is space for a middle track at Classon Avenue? Never understood why it is there 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kosciusko Posted September 14, 2018 Share #19579 Posted September 14, 2018 54 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said: Does anyone know why there is space for a middle track at Classon Avenue? Never understood why it is there Provisions for a layup. IIRC Bedford-Nostrand was supposed to be a "terminal" for an eastward extension of the crosstown line. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted September 14, 2018 Share #19580 Posted September 14, 2018 7 minutes ago, kosciusko said: Provisions for a layup. IIRC Bedford-Nostrand was supposed to be a "terminal" for an eastward extension of the crosstown line. Yup. The Second System would've essentially replaced the Broadway and Myrtle lines, practically speaking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted September 14, 2018 Share #19581 Posted September 14, 2018 1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said: Does anyone know why there is space for a middle track at Classon Avenue? Never understood why it is there See here for a track map: http://www.thejoekorner.com/indsecondsystem/IND_South4th_Street_color_Fin.pdf 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted September 15, 2018 Share #19582 Posted September 15, 2018 2 hours ago, RR503 said: See here for a track map: http://www.thejoekorner.com/indsecondsystem/IND_South4th_Street_color_Fin.pdf That track map needs clarifications in some areas. The junction by the East River linking 6 Avenue and 2 Avenue to Williamsburg is very messy-looking. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted September 15, 2018 Share #19583 Posted September 15, 2018 1 train on the : 1940-52-04-27-31 coupled with 2346-2350. Only 1 car out of the whole train has the green LED. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted September 15, 2018 Share #19584 Posted September 15, 2018 20 hours ago, CenSin said: That track map needs clarifications in some areas. The junction by the East River linking 6 Avenue and 2 Avenue to Williamsburg is very messy-looking. From the north, the 2nd Avenue local tracks would branch off eastward to a separate level below the 6th Avenue tracks. While there would track connections to the "Houston - Grand" East River crossing, the 2nd Avenue - East River crossing would be separate and go on to form the South 4th Street express tracks. Andrew Lynch has a more illustrative map of the planned Second System East River layout here. For those interested, it comes from this post on the oft-proposed, but never-built Utica Ave line. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted September 15, 2018 Share #19585 Posted September 15, 2018 1 hour ago, Lance said: From the north, the 2nd Avenue local tracks would branch off eastward to a separate level below the 6th Avenue tracks. While there would track connections to the "Houston - Grand" East River crossing, the 2nd Avenue - East River crossing would be separate and go on to form the South 4th Street express tracks. Andrew Lynch has a more illustrative map of the planned Second System East River layout here. For those interested, it comes from this post on the oft-proposed, but never-built Utica Ave line. I honestly wonder if we will ever do any extensions other then SAS in our lifetime. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68OnBroadway Posted September 15, 2018 Share #19586 Posted September 15, 2018 1 minute ago, Lawrence St said: I honestly wonder if we will ever do any extensions other then SAS in our lifetime. I could maybe see a Utica extension (provided one part is an El) and maybe an to LGA, but other than that, I don't see anything other than SAS being done within the next 25 years. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon2305 Posted September 16, 2018 Share #19587 Posted September 16, 2018 Is the extension to Secaucus still up for discussion? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoHacksJustKhaks Posted September 16, 2018 Share #19588 Posted September 16, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, jon2305 said: Is the extension to Secaucus still up for discussion? Not currently by the members of this forum, of whom a decent amount question the idea of the train going to NJ in the first place, let alone the costs that could arguably go towards something more important. Edited September 16, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68OnBroadway Posted September 16, 2018 Share #19589 Posted September 16, 2018 1 hour ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said: Not currently by the members of this forum, of whom a decent amount question the idea of the train going to NJ in the first place, let alone the costs that could arguably go towards something more important. Not to mention the political problems and crowding- NJS needs to fix its own transit before we give them ours. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calvin Posted September 16, 2018 Share #19590 Posted September 16, 2018 https://nypost.com/2018/09/15/waterproof-subway-station-is-constantly-leaking/amp/ Few days after 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoHacksJustKhaks Posted September 16, 2018 Share #19591 Posted September 16, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Calvin said: https://nypost.com/2018/09/15/waterproof-subway-station-is-constantly-leaking/amp/ Few days after Goes to show that doing these stations on the cheap doesn't solve much, I feel it actually almost creates a mirage instead that the MTA continually brags about. This leaking certainly is minor in a way, though generally, im sure many of these new ESI stations won't last as long as their older brothers they're replacing under this current state. Smh... Edited September 16, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysteriousBtrain Posted September 16, 2018 Share #19592 Posted September 16, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calvin said: https://nypost.com/2018/09/15/waterproof-subway-station-is-constantly-leaking/amp/ Few days after Wasn't this station rehabilitation supposed to last 8-9 months and not just for the summer.? 163 St was closed longer I believe. Edited September 16, 2018 by MysteriousBtrain 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel The Cool Posted September 17, 2018 Share #19593 Posted September 17, 2018 2 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said: Wasn't this station rehabilitation supposed to last 8-9 months and not just for the summer.? 163 St was closed longer I believe. 110th Street was originally supposed to reopen by the end the month. It was never supposed to closed for 8-9 months and basically reopened 3 weeks early. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted September 17, 2018 Share #19594 Posted September 17, 2018 Are there any pictures of the old 180th St-Bronx Park terminal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted September 17, 2018 Share #19595 Posted September 17, 2018 16 hours ago, Calvin said: https://nypost.com/2018/09/15/waterproof-subway-station-is-constantly-leaking/amp/ Few days after Now that's just sad. Not even a month and the place is falling apart. 16 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said: Goes to show that doing these stations on the cheap doesn't solve much, I feel it actually almost creates a mirage instead that the MTA continually brags about. This leaking certainly is minor in a way, though generally, im sure many of these new ESI stations won't last as long as their older brothers they're replacing under this current state. Smh... Thing is, these rehabs are not that cheap. Beyond all of the LCD monitors and fancy entrances, there was supposed to be some structural work done to secure the stations as well. The only major change from the standard station rehabs is the shorter time span from conception to completion (looking at you Jamaica elevated stations). I'm just wondering if this can be considered a breach of contract against the contractors. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Via Garibaldi 8 Posted September 17, 2018 Share #19596 Posted September 17, 2018 57 minutes ago, Lance said: Now that's just sad. Not even a month and the place is falling apart. Thing is, these rehabs are not that cheap. Beyond all of the LCD monitors and fancy entrances, there was supposed to be some structural work done to secure the stations as well. The only major change from the standard station rehabs is the shorter time span from conception to completion (looking at you Jamaica elevated stations). I'm just wondering if this can be considered a breach of contract against the contractors. The issue is what sort of "structural work" did the order? If this leak wasn't part of specs then it may be a problem. It seems as if they knew about the issue though from the way that they casually talked about it on the news and how it would be "fixed" soon. I know that the isn't the brightest group in the construction area, but I used to work for a general contractor so I'm quite familiar with how procedures are supposed to go. Usually the rule of thumb is you go over a punch list of all items including any change orders that were added during the project to ensure that everything was done accordingly. It seems as if the rushed to get this station open and either didn't do a thorough review of that list or didn't care enough. It seems impossible to me that this leak just suddenly came about days after the station was reopened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3F Posted September 17, 2018 Share #19597 Posted September 17, 2018 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Italianstallion Posted September 17, 2018 Share #19598 Posted September 17, 2018 On 9/14/2018 at 5:31 AM, bobtehpanda said: In general, this is true, except for the following features: Unless you want to create a shuttle, pretty much all elevated rail lines will need to go underground to connect to the existing subway. Land acquisition to demolish for tracks is very unpopular and expensive. (Parks are not a solution because under state law, to use parkland the City must create parkland equivalent to what is lost.) It's also worth noting that the solid/open floor is dated from 1915, when the most common structures would be made of cast iron and steel. Today, reinforced concrete is much more common; if you were to build a rail line today, that's what you would go with. No one is building open-floor railways anywhere in the world today. As a new example of closed-floor el, see JFK Airtrain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68OnBroadway Posted September 17, 2018 Share #19599 Posted September 17, 2018 Is it possible to rebuild the 149th St reverse curve by having it merge with the around 140th vs 138th or even before 138th? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KK 6 Ave Local Posted September 18, 2018 Share #19600 Posted September 18, 2018 On 9/16/2018 at 5:49 PM, Calvin said: https://nypost.com/2018/09/15/waterproof-subway-station-is-constantly-leaking/amp/ Few days after HAHA 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.