LIRR And MNRR Random Thoughts Thread

[40MntVrn]

15 hours ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

This is what I was saying the LIRR should replace the M7s with...

 

 

3 doors and 3 stairwells? These things probably have equal or less seats than the present single-floor M7's.

[bobtehpanda]

On 3/19/2020 at 7:41 PM, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

This is what I was saying the LIRR should replace the M7s with..

Unfortunately, ESA's tunnel profile only allows M7-sized things. The RER is famously overbuilt, which is why it even has room for this.

It's also worth noting that double-deck actually makes dwell times longer since it increases the seat-to-door distance.

[bobtehpanda]

On 3/20/2020 at 11:12 AM, 40MntVrn said:

3 doors and 3 stairwells? These things probably have equal or less seats than the present single-floor M7's.

They do, which is kind of the point; the RER A is the busiest single railroad line in the western world, with over a million passengers per day. To put this in perspective, that's not much less than the four-track Lex pre-SAS, but the RER A is only two tracks.

The doors are also 2 meters (approx 6 feet) on some trains on the RER fleet, allowing for massive amounts of people to get on and off.

Honestly, I don't think this an appropriate rolling stock (I don't really agree with double-deck rolling stock for rail transit), but the LIRR should look to increase capacity by removing the third seat and moving to 2 by 2, and giving more room adjacent to the doors (and with wider doors, and with 3 doors per side per car.) The LIRR being a railroad that can max its existing capacity with 3x2 seating and no one in an aisle has long passed.

Thameslink is a London commuter railroad with 3 doors per car and 2x2 seating and look how much more spacious it is: 

This is what through running looks like; three doors per 66 ft carriage and 2x2 seating.

If LIRR had a similar fleet, scaled up to LIRR 12-car length this would be 2247 passengers per train. A LIRR M7 12 car train only carries 1266. That's a nearly 77% increase in capacity just by getting rid of the middle seat, which is usually a last resort anyways.

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

35 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

 

Honestly, I don't think this an appropriate rolling stock (I don't really agree with double-deck rolling stock for rail transit), but the LIRR should look to increase capacity by removing the third seat and moving to 2 by 2, and giving more room adjacent to the doors (and with wider doors, and with 3 doors per side per car.) The LIRR being a railroad that can max its existing capacity with 3x2 seating and no one in an aisle has long passed.

Thameslink is a London commuter railroad with 3 doors per car and 2x2 seating and look how much more spacious it is: 

If LIRR had a similar fleet, scaled up to LIRR 12-car length this would be 2247 passengers per train. A LIRR M7 12 car train only carries 1266. That's a nearly 77% increase in capacity just by getting rid of the middle seat, which is usually a last resort anyways.

 I actually would prefer that....but I wasn't sure if they would get rid of the 3x2 seating. The Thameslink commuter train definitely looks and is much more spacious, AND provides railings and poles for people to hold onto. 

The ideal new LIRR rolling stock would consist of the same 85ft rail cars.

Each car would have 3 doors per car. A wheelchair space next to each end door, a bike rack at the middle door, with standing bars, looped stanchions across the entire car. They also need to go back to double boarding doors like on the M3s, with full glass to the ground type doors (this can encourage people to stand away from the doors). Also, they need OPEN GANGWAYS. LIRR needs to get rid of the married pairs. They need to at least order 3 car sets, and they need to modify the cab doors so that they can fold into open gangway (similar to BARTS older C cars). Reason why I pick 3 car sets is so they can run 6, 9 and 12 car trains. 6 and 9 for Atlantic Ave and Off Peak, and 9 and 12 for rush hour, depending on branch and time, each cab car would have a bathroom on the B side of the car in between the end door and the end of the car (similar to the bathroom set up on the BiLevels. 

Here's a video of what I mean by having the cab cars convert to open gangway (even though it would be much more modern style):

Thoughts?

[bobtehpanda]

7 minutes ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

 I actually would prefer that....but I wasn't sure if they would get rid of the 3x2 seating. The Thameslink commuter train definitely looks and is much more spacious, AND provides railings and poles for people to hold onto. 

The ideal new LIRR rolling stock would consist of the same 85ft rail cars.

Each car would have 3 doors per car. A wheelchair space next to each end door, a bike rack at the middle door, with standing bars, looped stanchions across the entire car. They also need to go back to double boarding doors like on the M3s, with full glass to the ground type doors (this can encourage people to stand away from the doors). Also, they need OPEN GANGWAYS. LIRR needs to get rid of the married pairs. They need to at least order 3 car sets, and they need to modify the cab doors so that they can fold into open gangway (similar to BARTS older C cars). Reason why I pick 3 car sets is so they can run 6, 9 and 12 car trains. 6 and 9 for Atlantic Ave and Off Peak, and 9 and 12 for rush hour, depending on branch and time, each cab car would have a bathroom on the B side of the car in between the end door and the end of the car (similar to the bathroom set up on the BiLevels. 

Here's a video of what I mean by having the cab cars convert to open gangway (even though it would be much more modern style):

Thoughts?

The general concept I agree with. But 3x2 definitely needs to go. 

Patrick O'Hara from the LIRR Today proposes standardizing on 4, 8, and 12, which I think makes more sense, since it gives you three more open gangways per twelve car train, and I don't really see a scenario in which the general utility from multiples of 3 is needed over multiples of 4. Some platforms are already only getting extended to 8; 9 would require more work.

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

1 minute ago, bobtehpanda said:

The general concept I agree with. But 3x2 definitely needs to go. 

Patrick O'Hara from the LIRR Today proposes standardizing on 4, 8, and 12, which I think makes more sense, since it gives you three more open gangways per twelve car train, and I don't really see a scenario in which the general utility from multiples of 3 is needed over multiples of 4. Some platforms are already only getting extended to 8; 9 would require more work.

I wasn't sure if 4 was too much, so if they're proposing it, even better. 

You would have more open gangways, and then you can have a BART type scenario when crossing between cab cars so there's no chance of falling or slipping in between.

[bobtehpanda]

12 minutes ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

I wasn't sure if 4 was too much, so if they're proposing it, even better. 

You would have more open gangways, and then you can have a BART type scenario when crossing between cab cars so there's no chance of falling or slipping in between.

Yeah.

IIRC pretty much all the short platforms on the LIRR are already 4 cars long, like Murray Hill, or Forest Hills and Kew Gardens (currently). So you might as well stick with it.

[Jova42R]

On 3/19/2020 at 10:41 PM, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

This is what I was saying the LIRR should replace the M7s with...

 

 

 

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

They do, which is kind of the point; the RER A is the busiest single railroad line in the western world, with over a million passengers per day. To put this in perspective, that's not much less than the four-track Lex pre-SAS, but the RER A is only two tracks.

The doors are also 2 meters (approx 6 feet) on some trains on the RER fleet, allowing for massive amounts of people to get on and off.

Honestly, I don't think this an appropriate rolling stock (I don't really agree with double-deck rolling stock for rail transit), but the LIRR should look to increase capacity by removing the third seat and moving to 2 by 2, and giving more room adjacent to the doors (and with wider doors, and with 3 doors per side per car.) The LIRR being a railroad that can max its existing capacity with 3x2 seating and no one in an aisle has long passed.

Thameslink is a London commuter railroad with 3 doors per car and 2x2 seating and look how much more spacious it is: 

This is what through running looks like; three doors per 66 ft carriage and 2x2 seating.

If LIRR had a similar fleet, scaled up to LIRR 12-car length this would be 2247 passengers per train. A LIRR M7 12 car train only carries 1266. That's a nearly 77% increase in capacity just by getting rid of the middle seat, which is usually a last resort anyways.

In my Cross City Line Proposal (map below), I said that it should run Nippon Sharyo DMUs and Stadler FLIRTs (specifically the British Rail Class 755 type) As the CCL would be part of the LIRR, could you run the aforementioned trains on it? Thanks for the advice.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=179231QrKel3iz9fE1Cl8iRE_JpU5hlso&usp=sharing

[danielhg121]

4-car sets on the LIRR would be cool but it does kinda miss the opportunity do 2 10-car train rather than one 8-car and 12-car trainset but I think it's worthy of the sacrifice. It gives a lot of flexibility to the LIRR to add and subtract cars like that. I wonder if it would cut down on costs significantly too because you wouldn't have to install a cab in every car.

Edited March 23, 2020 by danielhg121

[bobtehpanda]

19 hours ago, danielhg121 said:

I wonder if it would cut down on costs significantly too because you wouldn't have to install a cab in every car.

I believe this is part of why the subway moved to not having cabs in every car.

[NY1635]

On 3/23/2020 at 3:20 PM, bobtehpanda said:

I believe this is part of why the subway moved to not having cabs in every car.

The LIRR doesn't care about it's falling ridership or it's riders. They are using the shutdown to pretty much get the Third Track Project as soon as possible before the next Islander's Game, Broadway Show, or the Bars start opening up. Those LIRR have it better than the subways workers and bus drivers in that they have reasonable hours with no complaints about working double shifts. They don't need cars because they don't need to get rid of the coffee and junk that clutters the cars. The Long Islanders are stuck at home driving around their shopping centers to make trips to the market.  I am waiting to see how the Governor is going to explain this one to Long Island because news are focusing on the rats of lower Manhattan and Midtown being empty, or homeless in Penn yet no drunk Islanders fans at Brooklyn or Manhattan getting into a brawl on the LIRR.

The one good thing the shut down did is get rid of Long Islanders and keeping them on the island with their cars only parkways.

[67thAve]

With the MTA's currently dire financial situation requiring the reallocation of limited financial resources in a particularly acute manner, what are some potential "doomsday" cuts we could see to the LIRR and MNR in the coming year or two?

Here are some ideas which I floated in my head for the Long Island Railroad:

LIRR:

Systemwide: Eliminate CityTicket program, eliminate Atlantic Ticket program, implement higher fares, increase parking fees, remove off-peak discounts, and close all ticket offices besides Penn Station, Jamaica, and Atlantic Terminal.

Babylon Branch: Eliminate all mid-day and reverse-peak express service.

Montauk Branch: Reduce service east of Speonk to one train a day, Monday through Friday outside of summer months. Summer weekend service remains, but "premium fares" with a different pricing structure than regular LIRR fares will be put in place.

Oyster Bay Branch: Eliminate all non-peak service.

Port Washington Branch: Reduce train service between Great Neck and Port Washington from every half-hour to every hour during non-peak hours.

Ronkonkoma Branch: Eliminate all service east of Ronkonkoma, with the exception of summertime weekend service between Ronkonkoma and Greenport, which will be operated with a "premium fare" structure.

West Hempstead Branch: Reduce service to two round-trip trains a day, weekdays only (1 AM Peak, one PM Peak), from West Hempstead to Jamaica.

Belmont Park Branch: Eliminate all service except during the Belmont Stakes.

 

Of course, the easiest way to solve any budget crunch would be to simply do the following: rein in the unions, and install turnstiles at all LIRR stations so conductors are no longer needed, thus saving on labor costs.

[N6 Limited]

12 hours ago, 67thAve said:

Systemwide: Eliminate CityTicket program, eliminate Atlantic Ticket program, implement higher fares, increase parking fees, remove off-peak discounts, and close all ticket offices besides Penn Station, Jamaica, and Atlantic Terminal.

I don't think that would be wise, they actually got an increase in ridership and revenue with those programs.

[Jova42R]

Ok, here's a comprehensive plan to replace all LIRR/MNRR diesel service with DMUs or EDMUs:

• LIRR
  • Montauk Branch
    • Stadler FLIRT (specifically the Class 755 type) 8 CAR TRAIN
  • Greenport Branch
    • Stadler GTW 2 CAR TRAIN
      • or
    • ČD Class_844 2 CAR TRAIN
  • Port Jefferson Branch
    • Stadler FLIRT (specifically the Class 755 type) 6 CAR TRAIN
  • Oyster Bay Branch
    • Stadler FLIRT (specifically the Class 755 type) 6 CAR TRAIN
• MNRR
  • Harlem/Hudson Line Northern Section
    • Stadler FLIRT (specifically the Class 755 type) Harlem: 4 CAR TRAIN, Hudson: 8 CAR TRAIN
  • Waterbury
    • Nippon_Sharyo_DMU
  • Danbury
    • Stadler FLIRT (specifically the Class 755 type) 6 CAR TRAIN

Thoughts/CRITIQUES?

@XcelsiorBoii4888 @N6 Limited @67thAve @danielhg121

EDIT: Could these trains even fit on the LIRR/MNRR (in the tunnels?)

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

11 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Ok, here's a comprehensive plan to replace all LIRR/MNRR diesel service with DMUs or EDMUs:

• LIRR
  • Montauk Branch
    • Stadler FLIRT (specifically the Class 755 type) 8 CAR TRAIN
  • Greenport Branch
    • Stadler GTW 2 CAR TRAIN
      • or
    • ČD Class_844 2 CAR TRAIN
  • Port Jefferson Branch
    • Stadler FLIRT (specifically the Class 755 type) 6 CAR TRAIN
  • Oyster Bay Branch
    • Stadler FLIRT (specifically the Class 755 type) 6 CAR TRAIN
• MNRR
  • Harlem/Hudson Line Northern Section
    • Stadler FLIRT (specifically the Class 755 type) Harlem: 4 CAR TRAIN, Hudson: 8 CAR TRAIN
  • Waterbury
    • Nippon_Sharyo_DMU
  • Danbury
    • Stadler FLIRT (specifically the Class 755 type) 6 CAR TRAIN

Thoughts/CRITIQUES?

@XcelsiorBoii4888 @N6 Limited @67thAve @danielhg121

EDIT: Could these trains even fit on the LIRR/MNRR (in the tunnels?)

I can only speak for LIRR, but one thing I can note is whatever they plan on ordering will be restricted to one type of diesel/dual mode fleet. Too many different type of trains for limited branches is a waste of money and maintenance nightmare. 

I do personally believe that direct service into Penn and Grand Central on the Oyster Bay branch will be limited to peak only in the future. Therefore, you'll only need 5-6 cars for each train, and off peak can have 3-4. 

And for the Montauk branch it will only be for Cannonball runs. Obviously these trains will need full length trains (12+ cars). I do believe that frequency is a priority with the Cannonball runs, and double decker trains are the worst thing you can have on that branch. We can all safety assume that double decker trains are coming to an end with the LIRR after this C3 fleet. Especially with signal modifications allowing for more trains and single floor trains allowing for quicker boarding times. 

The Port Jefferson branch will probably be the only hybrid branch in the future, with plans to double track it before electrifying it. Most trains will run as shuttles from Port Jeff to Huntington with more frequency, and select trains will run the full branch from Penn Station, so I see full length dual mode trains being needed for that. 

The Greenport branch can only use maybe 1 train (married set) of whatever rolling stock they order, as I'm sure direct service will be eliminated (if it isn't already). 

Personally, I feel that none of those trains fit the LIRR, as they don't seem to have gangway or cross car capabilities on the cab ends, and that single door would only be useful for branches like the Greenport. 

 

But anyways, they would need one hybrid fleet type for the diesel territories and direct service extensions. Oyster Bay will need trains that are similar to 6 bilevels for rush hours, and 3-4 bilevels during weekday off peak and 6 on weekend off peak. Greenport will need trains that are similar to 2 bilevels. Port Jeff will need trains similar to 4 bilevels off peak and 6 bilevels peak (more frequency would require less single train capacity). Montauk can have trains that are similar to 4 bilevels all day besides the Cannonball trips. 

 

 

[Lex]

31 minutes ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

I can only speak for LIRR, but one thing I can note is whatever they plan on ordering will be restricted to one type of diesel/dual mode fleet. Too many different type of trains for limited branches is a waste of money and maintenance nightmare. 

I do personally believe that direct service into Penn and Grand Central on the Oyster Bay branch will be limited to peak only in the future. Therefore, you'll only need 5-6 cars for each train, and off peak can have 3-4. 

And for the Montauk branch it will only be for Cannonball runs. Obviously these trains will need full length trains (12+ cars). I do believe that frequency is a priority with the Cannonball runs, and double decker trains are the worst thing you can have on that branch. We can all safety assume that double decker trains are coming to an end with the LIRR after this C3 fleet. Especially with signal modifications allowing for more trains and single floor trains allowing for quicker boarding times. 

The Port Jefferson branch will probably be the only hybrid branch in the future, with plans to double track it before electrifying it. Most trains will run as shuttles from Port Jeff to Huntington with more frequency, and select trains will run the full branch from Penn Station, so I see full length dual mode trains being needed for that. 

The Greenport branch can only use maybe 1 train (married set) of whatever rolling stock they order, as I'm sure direct service will be eliminated (if it isn't already). 

Personally, I feel that none of those trains fit the LIRR, as they don't seem to have gangway or cross car capabilities on the cab ends, and that single door would only be useful for branches like the Greenport. 

 

But anyways, they would need one hybrid fleet type for the diesel territories and direct service extensions. Oyster Bay will need trains that are similar to 6 bilevels for rush hours, and 3-4 bilevels during weekday off peak and 6 on weekend off peak. Greenport will need trains that are similar to 2 bilevels. Port Jeff will need trains similar to 4 bilevels off peak and 6 bilevels peak (more frequency would require less single train capacity). Montauk can have trains that are similar to 4 bilevels all day besides the Cannonball trips. 

 

 

Honestly, we really need to move away from fossil fuels. We already have examples of BEMUs in the world, and with the proper planning, they can be used across both systems without needing to spend much more on electrification.

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

10 minutes ago, Lex said:

Honestly, we really need to move away from fossil fuels. We already have examples of BEMUs in the world, and with the proper planning, they can be used across both systems without needing to spend much more on electrification.

Trust me, I'm 100% for electric running or battery electric. But these agencies are so stubborn with certain things, so I try to go with the current thinking. The MTA did say they want all buses to be electric by 2045, so they can actually do the same with the railroads as well. 

Basically, they need a lot of locations to charge these trains, but it can definitely work on the LIRR.

[Jova42R]

10 hours ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

Trust me, I'm 100% for electric running or battery electric. But these agencies are so stubborn with certain things, so I try to go with the current thinking. The MTA did say they want all buses to be electric by 2045, so they can actually do the same with the railroads as well. 

Basically, they need a lot of locations to charge these trains, but it can definitely work on the LIRR.

 

11 hours ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

I can only speak for LIRR, but one thing I can note is whatever they plan on ordering will be restricted to one type of diesel/dual mode fleet. Too many different type of trains for limited branches is a waste of money and maintenance nightmare. 

I do personally believe that direct service into Penn and Grand Central on the Oyster Bay branch will be limited to peak only in the future. Therefore, you'll only need 5-6 cars for each train, and off peak can have 3-4. 

And for the Montauk branch it will only be for Cannonball runs. Obviously these trains will need full length trains (12+ cars). I do believe that frequency is a priority with the Cannonball runs, and double decker trains are the worst thing you can have on that branch. We can all safety assume that double decker trains are coming to an end with the LIRR after this C3 fleet. Especially with signal modifications allowing for more trains and single floor trains allowing for quicker boarding times. 

The Port Jefferson branch will probably be the only hybrid branch in the future, with plans to double track it before electrifying it. Most trains will run as shuttles from Port Jeff to Huntington with more frequency, and select trains will run the full branch from Penn Station, so I see full length dual mode trains being needed for that. 

The Greenport branch can only use maybe 1 train (married set) of whatever rolling stock they order, as I'm sure direct service will be eliminated (if it isn't already). 

Personally, I feel that none of those trains fit the LIRR, as they don't seem to have gangway or cross car capabilities on the cab ends, and that single door would only be useful for branches like the Greenport. 

 

But anyways, they would need one hybrid fleet type for the diesel territories and direct service extensions. Oyster Bay will need trains that are similar to 6 bilevels for rush hours, and 3-4 bilevels during weekday off peak and 6 on weekend off peak. Greenport will need trains that are similar to 2 bilevels. Port Jeff will need trains similar to 4 bilevels off peak and 6 bilevels peak (more frequency would require less single train capacity). Montauk can have trains that are similar to 4 bilevels all day besides the Cannonball trips. 

So maybe run all Stadler FLIRTs. Then just couple trains together. Running both types of Class 756s would result in any number of car lengths:

• 3 car
  • 1 756/3
  • Greenport Branch
• 4 car
  • 1 756/4
  • Oyster Bay Shuttles
  • Port Jefferson Shuttles
  • Montauk Shuttles
• 6 car
  • 2 756/3s
  • Oyster Bay Penn
  • Port Jefferson Penn
• 8 car
  • 2 756/4s
  • Port Jefferson Penn
• 9 car
  • 3 756/3s
  • None
• 12 car
  • 4 756/3s or 3 756/4s
  • Cannonball

Is this better?

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by Jova42R

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

 

@Jova42R We need something like this design that can work on both 3rd rail and battery electric. 

[Jova42R]

4 minutes ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

 

@Jova42R We need something like this design that can work on both 3rd rail and battery electric. 

Why not the Class 756s?

And what type of trains is that one?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_769 is a TMU, and could work.

 

Edited April 23, 2020 by Jova42R

[NY1635]

On 4/20/2020 at 9:04 AM, 67thAve said:

With the MTA's currently dire financial situation requiring the reallocation of limited financial resources in a particularly acute manner, what are some potential "doomsday" cuts we could see to the LIRR and MNR in the coming year or two?

Here are some ideas which I floated in my head for the Long Island Railroad:

LIRR:

Systemwide: Eliminate CityTicket program, eliminate Atlantic Ticket program, implement higher fares, increase parking fees, remove off-peak discounts, and close all ticket offices besides Penn Station, Jamaica, and Atlantic Terminal.

Babylon Branch: Eliminate all mid-day and reverse-peak express service.

Montauk Branch: Reduce service east of Speonk to one train a day, Monday through Friday outside of summer months. Summer weekend service remains, but "premium fares" with a different pricing structure than regular LIRR fares will be put in place.

Oyster Bay Branch: Eliminate all non-peak service.

Port Washington Branch: Reduce train service between Great Neck and Port Washington from every half-hour to every hour during non-peak hours.

Ronkonkoma Branch: Eliminate all service east of Ronkonkoma, with the exception of summertime weekend service between Ronkonkoma and Greenport, which will be operated with a "premium fare" structure.

West Hempstead Branch: Reduce service to two round-trip trains a day, weekdays only (1 AM Peak, one PM Peak), from West Hempstead to Jamaica.

Belmont Park Branch: Eliminate all service except during the Belmont Stakes.

 

Of course, the easiest way to solve any budget crunch would be to simply do the following: rein in the unions, and install turnstiles at all LIRR stations so conductors are no longer needed, thus saving on labor costs.

Ronkonkoma: Get's service increases after the Third Track is completed.

Babylon Branch: The elimination of Express Service to Penn Station and All Local in Queens. Service East of Amityville gets reduced.

Oyster Bay Branch: Reduced to a Mineola-Oyster Bay Shuttle during Peak Hours, no express service to Jamaica

West Hempstead: Extended to Jamaica with transfers to the Long Beach and Far Rockaway Branch at Valley Stream eliminated. 

Montauk Branch: Between Amityville-Montauk with Jamaica Trips during Peak Hours and Special Services Only.

Belmont Park Branch: Outright Eliminated in favor of giving the Mainline and Hempstead Branch special stops at the New Station being slated to Open in 2021.

The LIRR would rather solve the crisis by building a terminal similar to the one at Mineola. They wanted to make Bus Terminal over at Great Neck but the Mayor rejected it out of fears of the traffic it may bring around Great Neck Road at Station Plaza.

[XcelsiorBoii4888]

@NY1635 Wait the Belmont branch is getting eliminated? 

 

Before I even go into detail on why I think that is the dumbest decision ever, is Belmont and all of the service being provided going to be seasonal or all year round? 

[Lex]

50 minutes ago, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

@NY1635 Wait the Belmont branch is getting eliminated? 

 

Before I even go into detail on why I think that is the dumbest decision ever, is Belmont and all of the service being provided going to be seasonal or all year round? 

No, that's just some idea.

[NY1635]

On 4/27/2020 at 6:31 PM, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

@NY1635 Wait the Belmont branch is getting eliminated? 

 

Before I even go into detail on why I think that is the dumbest decision ever, is Belmont and all of the service being provided going to be seasonal or all year round? 

The Belmont Branch exists for the horse races at Belmont Park. What's going on is that a new stadium is being built for the Islanders and it's set to open around 2021. No Service Plan exists yet but I was suggesting the LIRR eliminate it since the new stadium is gonna be built with a new station for Elmont that renders the Belmont Branch useless. The problem with that branch has been getting people in and out of Belmont Park in an orderly manner without leaving people stranded.

[Trainmaster5]

9 hours ago, NY1635 said:

The Belmont Branch exists for the horse races at Belmont Park. What's going on is that a new stadium is being built for the Islanders and it's set to open around 2021. No Service Plan exists yet but I was suggesting the LIRR eliminate it since the new stadium is gonna be built with a new station for Elmont that renders the Belmont Branch useless. The problem with that branch has been getting people in and out of Belmont Park in an orderly manner without leaving people stranded.

Where do you think the trackage for the new arena and station is coming from?  Take as many guesses as you want. What do you think this new branch will be named ? Then get back to us. Carry on.