RailRunRob Posted January 6, 2017 Share #3526 Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) The ceiling is pretty high... It seems almost the height as an IND mezzanine and trackagI'd still drop the roadbed 15'-20' feet that should give enough room for the mezzanine as well as any ventilation and electrical to hang from above. Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app Edited January 6, 2017 by RailRunRob 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryB Posted January 7, 2017 Share #3527 Posted January 7, 2017 It looks like there are even more spaces above (source: http://ltvsquad.com/2008/10/29/harlem-segment-uno/) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 7, 2017 Share #3528 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) It looks like there are even more spaces above (source: http://ltvsquad.com/2008/10/29/harlem-segment-uno/) Indeed! The stairs are leading to something could be an upper-level area. This seems to be the inspection track area I heard about. In this case, I can't see them not having ancillary areas. I wonder exactly where this is? Streetwise? 112th? 117th? 120th? The view I based my idea off of was mainly the image below that means over the 10 block stretch there's a big difference in height variants. Interesting. Edited January 7, 2017 by RailRunRob 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted January 7, 2017 Author Share #3529 Posted January 7, 2017 This looks like a place for switches to be installed. Maybe the middle track ends here? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 7, 2017 Share #3530 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) This looks like a place for switches to be installed. Maybe the middle track ends here? Probably a good guess. Looks like what you would see in other places with switches in the system. From this vantage point, I figured the full segment was consistent with this built and height. I might guess this is at the southern end 110th-ish. Edited January 7, 2017 by RailRunRob 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 7, 2017 Share #3531 Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) Here's a Track map from the 70's note the inspection track between 125th and 106th and no station at 116th. I'm going to say that pit is at 116th almost to the inch. I'm sure they would have equipment come in and out in some way right? You would probably want the widest areas for access. Second Ave and 116th seems logical. Edited January 7, 2017 by RailRunRob 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted January 7, 2017 Author Share #3532 Posted January 7, 2017 Here's a Track map from the 70's note the inspection track between 125th and 106th and no station at 116th. I'm going to say that pit is at 116th almost to the inch. I'm sure they would have equipment come in and out in some way right? You would probably want the widest areas for access. Second Ave and 116th seems logical. I’m interested in any older plans that they may have had before this. For a double-tracked line, this plan seems sensible enough. There are plenty of locations to short0turn trains or to store a train that’s malfunctioning. The southern terminal is also able to turn trains back at a rapid clip (probably even better than Jamaica–179 Street). But 72 Street seems to have gone through 2 reductions, and I’m willing to bet than the full line will have less pocket tracks than even a Washington Metro line. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 7, 2017 Share #3533 Posted January 7, 2017 I’m interested in any older plans that they may have had before this. For a double-tracked line, this plan seems sensible enough. There are plenty of locations to short0turn trains or to store a train that’s malfunctioning. The southern terminal is also able to turn trains back at a rapid clip (probably even better than Jamaica–179 Street). But 72 Street seems to have gone through 2 reductions, and I’m willing to bet than the full line will have less pocket tracks than even a Washington Metro line. Indeed, You make a valid point. I heard there were plans for a 6 and 4 track line at various points. It's crazy to think the full line was projected at $2.5 Billion in 1975 to finish hell that's was a few years before I was born. That's just over $11 Billion today after inflation. That's $1.2 Billion a mile. And now we have $10.5 billion for just phase 1 and 2 with less of everything. Here's a great video highlighting the abandonment of the project. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/51st-state-infrastructure/video-archive-saga-of-the-2nd-avenue-subway-1975/?p=266 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted January 7, 2017 Share #3534 Posted January 7, 2017 I’m interested in any older plans that they may have had before this. For a double-tracked line, this plan seems sensible enough. There are plenty of locations to short0turn trains or to store a train that’s malfunctioning. The southern terminal is also able to turn trains back at a rapid clip (probably even better than Jamaica–179 Street). That setup seems excessive even by IND standards. Why have separate Pine-Wall stations? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caelestor Posted January 7, 2017 Share #3535 Posted January 7, 2017 That setup seems excessive even by IND standards. Why have separate Pine-Wall stations? I'm guessing Water St is narrow enough such that building an incline for a second level wouldn't work in Downtown Manhattan. Indeed, You make a valid point. I heard there were plans for a 6 and 4 track line at various points. It's crazy to think the full line was projected at $2.5 Billion in 1975 to finish hell that's was a few years before I was born. That's just over $11 Billion today after inflation. That's $1.2 Billion a mile. And now we have $10.5 billion for just phase 1 and 2 with less of everything. Here's a great video highlighting the abandonment of the project. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/51st-state-infrastructure/video-archive-saga-of-the-2nd-avenue-subway-1975/?p=266 The IND Second System plan called for four tracks between Chambers St and 125 St, with an additional pair of tracks between 61 St and 125 St connecting to the 6 Ave Line, and two tracks from Chambers St to Wall St. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porter Posted January 7, 2017 Share #3536 Posted January 7, 2017 Seriously though I still hold that the SAS should be built as a North-South line from the Bronx down to Lower Manhattan with a connection eastward to Queens. Yeah, well, you can lead a horse to water... It's all about political pull, and the Bronx ain't got it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 7, 2017 Share #3537 Posted January 7, 2017 I'm guessing Water St is narrow enough such that building an incline for a second level wouldn't work in Downtown Manhattan. The IND Second System plan called for four tracks between Chambers St and 125 St, with an additional pair of tracks between 61 St and 125 St connecting to the 6 Ave Line, and two tracks from Chambers St to Wall St. Id love to see layout plan for that! Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app That setup seems excessive even by IND standards. Why have separate Pine-Wall stations?I would guess the lower level was for expansion to Brooklyn. Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Italianstallion Posted January 7, 2017 Share #3538 Posted January 7, 2017 I'm guessing Water St is narrow enough such that building an incline for a second level wouldn't work in Downtown Manhattan. The IND Second System plan called for four tracks between Chambers St and 125 St, with an additional pair of tracks between 61 St and 125 St connecting to the 6 Ave Line, and two tracks from Chambers St to Wall St. Water Street is a wide two-way avenue with 2 traffic lanes and a parking lane in each direction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted January 7, 2017 Share #3539 Posted January 7, 2017 Yeah, well, you can lead a horse to water... It's all about political pull, and the Bronx ain't got it. Actually the Bronx has clout when it comes to matters. Look at the makeup of the board today and look at the proposals the whole has endorsed.The upper Bronx is tied, transit-wise with Westchester County. Goes back to the White Plains Road and Third Avenue Express trains from 241St, especially the Thru express runs down both lines to/from Manhattan.The power resides to the North and Northeast ( Westchester on northward) and the East and Southeast, meaning Queens, Nassau and Suffolk. Do you think that ESA is going to bring the residents from the East and just dump them at Grand Central Terminal ? To board crowded , , and trains? Do you think the LIRR Third track project and the Farmingdale-Ronkonkoma double tracking are done to benefit city riders ? MNRR stops in the Northeast Bronx and Western Manhattan are the bones the has thrown to some parts of the city . At the same time the Atlantic Branch of the LIRR is slated to become a glorified shuttle between Jamaica and Brooklyn. I admire your enthusiastic view of transit in NYC but I've been around a long time and see the big picture differently then you do. Since the creation of what is now the power has devolved from the city including projects that are solely NYCT focused. That fellow who presently controls the board comes from Queens and I'd wager any amount of money that whoever follows him will come from Nassau, Westchester, or Suffolk Manhattan residents had to beg and were thrown a bone to get the 116th St station included in the SAS plans to start with. Meanwhile the residents of Westchester have enough clout to keep the WPR trains to 238th St running to this day.. Take a moment to step back and look where the has invested money in the latest capital plans and where they have focused their future proposals to see where the clout lies. Does an extension into the Bronx to relieve congestion on the Lex or does a crosstown 125th St benefit which set of board members more ? That's what it boils down to. Think of it in another way. Shelly Silver, gone. Dean Skelos, gone. Ed Mangano, on his way. Yet the constituents the board represent don't have to worry about a thing. Why ? Because they can outvote any NYC initiative if they feel like it. As I've pointed out in the past that swing of the SAS toward a MNRR connection at 125th St was put there because of the clout of the northern counties. While NYC residents rightfully celebrate the opening of this segment of the SAS, Hudson Yards, and the Downtown transit projects watch the focus shift away from Manhattan when it comes to transit projects. Just my opinion though and you're welcome to take issue with anything I've laid out. Carry on. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryB Posted January 7, 2017 Share #3540 Posted January 7, 2017 wow, so 106st and 116st are easier to build than we thought before. Maybe Phase 2 should be divided into Phase 2A and 2B, so 2A (106st to 116st) would be open earlier, maybe 2022-2024? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted January 7, 2017 Share #3541 Posted January 7, 2017 I agree with the general sentiment, but it also stands to say that having an ass in a seat on the board means nothing if they're not going to push very hard on anything. While there are a lot of De Blasio's things that I disagree with, the one change that I do like is putting actual people with voices and relevant political power on the board, like a DOT commissioner, the City Council chairman of the transportation committee, advocates, etc. as opposed to donors or political hacks. wow, so 106st and 116st are easier to build than we thought before. Maybe Phase 2 should be divided into Phase 2A and 2B, so 2A (106st to 116st) would be open earlier, maybe 2022-2024? Iffy. Keep in mind that working around an existing structure can be expensive. The more I think about it the more I think that Phase 2 should stop at 116 St. There's no need for a 125/2nd stop anyways, and if the 125/Park stop is so expensive better to drop it instead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryB Posted January 7, 2017 Share #3542 Posted January 7, 2017 Iffy. Keep in mind that working around an existing structure can be expensive. Well...Phase 2A should not just stop at 116st. It should push a bit further to 120st (maybe start turning west a bit as well) so Phase 2B could avoid the construction being so close to 116st station 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted January 8, 2017 Share #3543 Posted January 8, 2017 I agree with the general sentiment, but it also stands to say that having an ass in a seat on the board means nothing if they're not going to push very hard on anything. While there are a lot of De Blasio's things that I disagree with, the one change that I do like is putting actual people with voices and relevant political power on the board, like a DOT commissioner, the City Council chairman of the transportation committee, advocates, etc. as opposed to donors or political hacks. Iffy. Keep in mind that working around an existing structure can be expensive. The more I think about it the more I think that Phase 2 should stop at 116 St. There's no need for a 125/2nd stop anyways, and if the 125/Park stop is so expensive better to drop it instead. I think there is going to be a LOT of political pressure to get 125/Lex done one way or another, even if it means having to make the last part of Phase 2 elevated (though as minimal as possible) to cut costs. This may be one of the rare cases where it could be bigger political suicide to do nothing as opposed to doing the last phase as elevated if costs become a major concern. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted January 8, 2017 Share #3544 Posted January 8, 2017 You guys have wondered what the plan will be for 116th, and now I have it. Plan for 116th Street by spicker613, on Flickr Plan for 116th Street by spicker613, on Flickr http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_pdf/Community%20Board%2011%20Presentation%204.5.16%20Final.pdf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted January 8, 2017 Author Share #3545 Posted January 8, 2017 You guys have wondered what the plan will be for 116th, and now I have it. Plan for 116th Street by spicker613, on Flickr Plan for 116th Street by spicker613, on Flickr http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_pdf/Community%20Board%2011%20Presentation%204.5.16%20Final.pdf LOL! They are going to DESTROY the work from the 70’s to redo the whole thing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainfan22 Posted January 8, 2017 Share #3546 Posted January 8, 2017 The SAS tracks are so smooth, I notice that the train doesn't bounce all over the place like they do on older track. Riding the SAS feels more like the DC Metro than the NYC Subway to me. SMH at how messed up the announcements are N/B though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryB Posted January 8, 2017 Share #3547 Posted January 8, 2017 LOL! They are going to DESTROY the work from the 70’s to redo the whole thing? "Located within existing tunnel structures..." so no digging is needed. Still a (very) good news for the project 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 8, 2017 Share #3548 Posted January 8, 2017 (edited) "Located within existing tunnel structures..." so no digging is needed. Still a (very) good news for the project Seems they would 41' the current tunnel has height but I wouldn't put it at 40 feet. Just like I was saying before you'd probably dig an extra 10-20ft. Seems like this one is going to be constrained to some of the older construction function wise no high vaults here.This is still going to be work none the less. This looks a lot like what I was thinking and laid out. Make a bigger box from within a box. Edited January 8, 2017 by RailRunRob 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryB Posted January 8, 2017 Share #3549 Posted January 8, 2017 (edited) By the way, from the same pdf:http://i.imgur.com/6qYX8jO.png No surprise why the 125st could be that expensive Could they just build the 125st under the Park Ave instead of right underneath Lex? So they don't need to build 3 tracks and two platforms under 2 levels of existing platforms, but meanwhile it could still provide transfer between SAS and Lex. Everyone's still happy. Edited January 8, 2017 by HenryB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 8, 2017 Share #3550 Posted January 8, 2017 By the way, from the same pdf: http://i.imgur.com/6qYX8jO.png No surprise why the 125st could be that expensive Could they just build the 125st under the Park Ave instead of right underneath Lex? So they don't need to build 3 tracks and two platforms under 2 levels of existing platforms, but meanwhile it could still provide transfer between SAS and Lex. Everyone's still happy. This tunnel section under Lexington and Park is cutting through solid rock on 125th. I don't see the issue with pinning the existing lines you mean to tell me this station is that much harder than 63rd and Lex? You can literally hear the and rumble by from the Platform on 63rd they clear both levels's of the Lex there what am I missing? 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.