Jump to content

SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic


Recommended Posts

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 (6) at Pelham Bay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 30.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

The reason why I askee was to create a new elevated subway on Fordham that connects with the (6) 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 (N) to LGA, but other than that, I don't see anything other than SAS being done within the next 25 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jon2305 said:

Is the (7) 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 (7) train going to NJ in the first place, let alone the costs that could arguably go towards something more important. 

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

Not currently by the members of this forum, of whom a decent amount question the idea of the (7) 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Calvin 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...

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Calvin 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.

Edited by MysteriousBtrain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Calvin said:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 (MTA) 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 (MTA) 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 (MTA) 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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
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.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.