Jim Posted May 31, 2011 Share #1 Posted May 31, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted May 31, 2011 Share #2 Posted May 31, 2011 Here you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted May 31, 2011 Share #3 Posted May 31, 2011 WHY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted May 31, 2011 Share #4 Posted May 31, 2011 Don't blame me though. I only showed him a track map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share #5 Posted May 31, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted May 31, 2011 Share #6 Posted May 31, 2011 Why don't you just increase the amount of trains per hour on the , and lengthen the trains? That is a cheap and simple solution. The other idea would be to bring it back to 71st Avenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share #7 Posted May 31, 2011 Why don't you just increase the amount of trains per hour on the , and lengthen the 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted May 31, 2011 Share #8 Posted May 31, 2011 The isn't supposed to go to Manhattan. It's a crosstown line. We need more subway lines that shouldn't go anywhere near Manhattan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abba Posted May 31, 2011 Share #9 Posted May 31, 2011 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 line.No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted May 31, 2011 Share #10 Posted May 31, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share #11 Posted May 31, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share #12 Posted May 31, 2011 The 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share #13 Posted May 31, 2011 But that would create a lot of traffic on the 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abba Posted May 31, 2011 Share #14 Posted May 31, 2011 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 that Manhattan bound trains can terminate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share #15 Posted May 31, 2011 How about this.Create a switch at 2nd avenue that Manhattan bound 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvin Posted May 31, 2011 Share #16 Posted May 31, 2011 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 is 8 cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share #17 Posted May 31, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share #18 Posted May 31, 2011 The is 8 cars. Thanks for the correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted May 31, 2011 Share #19 Posted May 31, 2011 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoTimer Posted May 31, 2011 Share #20 Posted May 31, 2011 BTW, the is SRO leaving Hoyt heading N/B. Also, the 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 ( to Bedford Park full time) via Crosstown/Cranberry/8Av/CPW. Going any further up the crosstown is pointless, as the and would provide faster rides into various parts of midtown and lower Manhattan from neighborhoods north of B-N. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share #21 Posted May 31, 2011 BTW, the is SRO leaving Hoyt heading N/B. Also, the 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 ( to Bedford Park full time) via Crosstown/Cranberry/8Av/CPW. Going any further up the crosstown is pointless, as the and 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoTimer Posted May 31, 2011 Share #22 Posted May 31, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted May 31, 2011 Author Share #23 Posted May 31, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoTimer Posted May 31, 2011 Share #24 Posted May 31, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTOMan Posted May 31, 2011 Share #25 Posted May 31, 2011 It just never panned out here, just like the much-hyped CBTC while installed, didnt improve service as designed, either. Exactly.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.