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  
Jim

Hoyt-Schermerhorn info

Recommended Posts

I'm looking for detailed plans of the track elevations entering and leaving Hoyt-Schermerhorn Street station. Specifically, I am looking into what it would take to install a switch from the G to the A/C entering from the North/East and another switch from the A/C to the G entering from the West/North.

 

From taking a ride on the G in and out of the station, there doesn't seem to be that much room on either end. The only idea I have come up with is to shorten the platform length to BMT standard (615') from the present 660' IND standard and demolish the end of the platform and install the switch there. Not sure if 45' is enough or how much space after the platform the tracks are at the same grade.

 

Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I have that track map, but it doesn't show changes in grade or what is after the end of the platforms.

 

I am working on a project to propose improved service along the G line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you just increase the amount of trains per hour on the (G), and lengthen the (G) trains? That is a cheap and simple solution. The other idea would be to bring it back to 71st Avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't you just increase the amount of trains per hour on the (G), and lengthen the (G) trains? That is a cheap and simple solution. The other idea would be to bring it back to 71st Avenue.

 

People don't take the G because it doesn't go into Manhattan, so I am looking into how this could be possible and the switch at Hoyt Schermerhorn is central to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (G) isn't supposed to go to Manhattan. It's a crosstown line. We need more subway lines that shouldn't go anywhere near Manhattan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People don't take the G because it doesn't go into Manhattan, so I am looking into how this could be possible and the switch at Hoyt Schermerhorn is central to this.

 

But that would create a lot of traffic on the (A) line.No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am working on a project to propose improved service along the G line.

 

How would creating a track connection between the Crosstown and Fulton Street lines improve service on the Crosstown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would creating a track connection between the Crosstown and Fulton Street lines improve service on the Crosstown?

 

The connection would be between trains from Manhattan on the A/C line to trains to Court Sq. Perhaps the E train could make this trip instead of terminating at WTC. This would provide overlapping service on the northern section of the G the way the F overlaps on the southern section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The (G) isn't supposed to go to Manhattan. It's a crosstown line. We need more subway lines that shouldn't go anywhere near Manhattan.

 

I am not saying get rid of the G. Any maybe you're right, but the G is only 4 cars for a reason. Yet the L is 10 cars and completely full and people are running from the G to the L at Lorimer. So being able to take advantage of the 10 car platform infrastructure to move people into Manhattan would take pressure off of other lines and also help economically develop the stops the G services to the north of H-S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But that would create a lot of traffic on the (A) line.No?

 

It would increase traffic on that line between WTC and Hoyt-Schermerhorn. Another option would be to route these proposed trains via the F into Manhattan. But the E seems like a good fit since it terminates at WTC and already exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would increase traffic on that line between WTC and Hoyt-Schermerhorn. Another option would be to route these proposed trains via the F into Manhattan. But the E seems like a good fit since it terminates at WTC and already exists.

 

How about this.Create a switch at 2nd avenue (F) that Manhattan bound (G) trains can terminate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about this.Create a switch at 2nd avenue (F) that Manhattan bound (G) trains can terminate.

 

Well the idea is to have the trains take people to enough destinations in Manhattan that they can have a single seat ride, thus increasing the use of the G line infrastructure. If we terminate at 2nd avenue, then people have the same problem and won't take the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not saying get rid of the G. Any maybe you're right, but the G is only 4 cars for a reason. Yet the L is 10 cars and completely full and people are running from the G to the L at Lorimer. So being able to take advantage of the 10 car platform infrastructure to move people into Manhattan would take pressure off of other lines and also help economically develop the stops the G services to the north of H-S.

 

The (L) is 8 cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, Abba, Roadcruiser:

 

Do any of you have any info on the slope of tracks entering/existing H-S station? Or a guess on the minimum length of track for a switch between tracks at platform width?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, the (G) is SRO leaving Hoyt heading N/B. Also, the (E) is available at Court Sq, it will never end up at Court Sq Crosstown even if a switch was there. North of Hoyt street, the tracks slope down but not greatly so in the beginning, but yes a switch can fit (if 75 footers can fit in the BMT curves between Cortlant and City Hall, they sure can fit in a tight space there).

 

I guess what he wanted is some sort of new service from Bedford-Nostrand to 145 (moving the (:P to Bedford Park full time) via Crosstown/Cranberry/8Av/CPW. Going any further up the crosstown is pointless, as the (L) and (J)(M) would provide faster rides into various parts of midtown and lower Manhattan from neighborhoods north of B-N.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, the (G) is SRO leaving Hoyt heading N/B. Also, the (E) is available at Court Sq, it will never end up at Court Sq Crosstown even if a switch was there. North of Hoyt street, the tracks slope down but not greatly so in the beginning, but yes a switch can fit (if 75 footers can fit in the BMT curves between Cortlant and City Hall, they sure can fit in a tight space there).

 

I guess what he wanted is some sort of new service from Bedford-Nostrand to 145 (moving the (:P to Bedford Park full time) via Crosstown/Cranberry/8Av/CPW. Going any further up the crosstown is pointless, as the (L) and (J)(M) would provide faster rides into various parts of midtown and lower Manhattan from neighborhoods north of B-N.

 

This is great, thank you. The 45' difference between IND and BMT is a huge help.

 

Kamen, how did the train from Canarsie fit? Also, with automatic train signaling there will be greater capacity on this line. Do you have a rush hour train schedule for the A/C at H-S? Thanks.

 

PS. You were right about the difficult conditions at H-S.

Edited by Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ATS (automatic train supervision) in the IRT has not produced greater capacity at all, it has only cut over a hundred jobs in tower operators and assistant dispatchers. The ATS in theory was supposed to provide faster and more accurate lineups than what humans can provide by knowing before train operators punch before an interlocking where the train has to go and providing the correct lineup as they reach the location. Its not the exact same function as CBTC which overrides the original 2 signal block system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ATS (automatic train supervision) in the IRT has not produced greater capacity at all, it has only cut over a hundred jobs in tower operators and assistant dispatchers. The ATS in theory was supposed to provide faster and more accurate lineups than what humans can provide by knowing before train operators punch before an interlocking where the train has to go and providing the correct lineup as they reach the location. Its not the exact same function as CBTC which overrides the original 2 signal block system.

 

I was in Prague in 1991 and the subways there were fantastic. They came one after the other with 90 seconds in between. I wonder how they made that work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was in Prague in 1991 and the subways there were fantastic. They came one after the other with 90 seconds in between. I wonder how they made that work.

 

It just never panned out here, just like the much-hyped CBTC while installed, didnt improve service as designed, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It just never panned out here, just like the much-hyped CBTC while installed, didnt improve service as designed, either.

 

Exactly..

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.