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  
kingal11234

unused platform/trackway under Nevins St

Recommended Posts

Nevins st is well known as the stop for the the 2,3,4,5 trains.But there is an unused platform under the irt line.This line connects to several different lines including the Crosstown Line. I was wondering if the G train could be re routed to serving Nevins St so that it could connect to the 2,3,4,5 lines. What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevins st is well known as the stop for the the 2,3,4,5 trains.But there is an unused platform under the irt line.This line connects to several different lines including the Crosstown Line. I was wondering if the G train could be re routed to serving Nevins St so that it could connect to the 2,3,4,5 lines. What do you guys think?

 

 

It was an IRT provision but never built. The line was supposedly to branch off at about Lafayette Av and run up that street (I think before the current (G) was built).

 

All that was built is the lower level platform

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevins st is well known as the stop for the the 2,3,4,5 trains.But there is an unused platform under the irt line.This line connects to several different lines including the Crosstown Line. I was wondering if the G train could be re routed to serving Nevins St so that it could connect to the 2,3,4,5 lines. What do you guys think?

 

 

No... And if that happened it would flood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No point in opening up something that's been disused for over 100 years. Also, IND and IRT trains can't mix, they're different sizes.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevins lower is a single side platform under and parralel to the brooklyn bound side on the upper level, it's only trackway is about directly under the active southbound local.

 

sending the G to Nevins, by simple georgraphy, would require the abandonment of the G's connection to Hoyt-Schermerhorn station and the loss of the A/C transfer.

 

I really don't see adding one transfer as sufficent reason for removing another.

 

I'd be more in favor of a transfer connction between Fulton on the G, Laffeyette on the C and Atlantic ave- Barclays Center, then I would be of anything involving nevins, and I'm on the record as not being a big fan of the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No... And if that happened it would flood.

 

Why would it flood?

No point in opening up something that's been disused for over 100 years. Also, IND and IRT trains can't mix, they're different sizes.

 

So what it has been closed for a while. The fact is there is still space there that could be used to build a station. I mean there is not point of leaving this station unused forever.

Nevins lower is a single side platform under and parralel to the brooklyn bound side on the upper level, it's only trackway is about directly under the active southbound local.

 

sending the G to Nevins, by simple georgraphy, would require the abandonment of the G's connection to Hoyt-Schermerhorn station and the loss of the A/C transfer.

 

I really don't see adding one transfer as sufficent reason for removing another.

 

I'd be more in favor of a transfer connction between Fulton on the G, Laffeyette on the C and Atlantic ave- Barclays Center, then I would be of anything involving nevins, and I'm on the record as not being a big fan of the former.

 

why would it require abandonment of Hoyt Schermerhorn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what it has been closed for a while. The fact is there is still space there that could be used to build a station. I mean there is not point of leaving this station unused forever.

 

 

It's pointless to spend millions of $$$ on a station that's rapidly deteriorating for little to no benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would it flood?

 

So what it has been closed for a while. The fact is there is still space there that could be used to build a station. I mean there is not point of leaving this station unused forever.

 

Why would it require abandonment of Hoyt Schermerhorn?

 

 

1) The water table there is extremely high so unless if you have some technology that doesn't exist yet I don't think it is possible.

 

2) There are plenty of abandoned stations in the NYC Subway system and in other subway systems around the world. There is no logic to turning them back on when there isn't a need to.

 

3) Running the (G) to Nevins Street would require the (G) to turn north of Hoyt Schermerhorn. This would require the (G) to abandon it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would it flood?

 

It's already flooded

 

So what it has been closed for a while. The fact is there is still space there that could be used to build a station. I mean there is not point of leaving this station unused forever.

 

Nevins lower has never been used, ever. It was ment for connecting the IRT to lines that have never been built. It was incudled under the pretense that the IRT would get the 4th ave line, a route over the Manny B, and a subway under laffeyette. It would only have delt with Southbound IRT trains. Adding the G would require digging a whole new tunnel and platform to serve southbound Gs (the alingment would make Nevins lower a northbound platform). we are talking about spenind tons of money for the simple sake of using a platform.

 

why would it require abandonment of Hoyt Schermerhorn?

 

If the G made the turn to Nevins, it would not be able to make the turn back to Hoyt-Schermerhorn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) The water table there is extremely high so unless if you have some technology that doesn't exist yet I don't think it is possible.

 

2) There are plenty of abandoned stations in the NYC Subway system and in other subway systems around the world. There is no logic to turning them back on when there isn't a need to.

 

3) Running the (G) to Nevins Street would require the (G) to turn north of Hoyt Schermerhorn. This would require the (G) to abandon it.

 

 

1) Doesn't exist yet? We had the same flooding tunnel problem here in The Netherlands in The Hague. We solved it and street cars are now running through the tunnel just fine. So yes, that technology does exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. So yes, that technology does exist.

 

 

when you consider the size and scope of the work, the cost of what ever they did the the hauge would basicly be beyond the MTA's means.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when you consider the size and scope of the work, the cost of what ever they did the the hauge would basicly be beyond the MTA's means.

 

 

And really, the (A) and (C) to Manhattan are enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when you consider the size and scope of the work, the cost of what ever they did the the hauge would basicly be beyond the MTA's means.

 

 

... and your point is? I wasn't talking about money, I was just talking about the fact that it exists. I'm not in any way encouraging this idea, I was just correcting roadcruiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nevins st is well known as the stop for the the 2,3,4,5 trains.But there is an unused platform under the irt line.This line connects to several different lines including the Crosstown Line. I was wondering if the G train could be re routed to serving Nevins St so that it could connect to the 2,3,4,5 lines. What do you guys think?

 

 

Interesting idea. I would love to see the (G) connect to the IRT.

 

Another (possible) option would be to connect the (G) at Hoyt and Schermerhorn to the the (2) and (3) at Hoyt st. I would actually really like to see that transfer.

 

I would like (G) riders to have more transfer options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and your point is? I wasn't talking about money, I was just talking about the fact that it exists. I'm not in any way encouraging this idea, I was just correcting roadcruiser.

 

 

the technology you needed exists. It did the amount of work needed at a cost that fit the budget.

 

the technology we need doesn't. basicly the entire brooklyn IRT leaks and Nevians lower is one the low points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) The water table there is extremely high so unless if you have some technology that doesn't exist yet I don't think it is possible.

 

2) There are plenty of abandoned stations in the NYC Subway system and in other subway systems around the world. There is no logic to turning them back on when there isn't a need to.

 

3) Running the (G) to Nevins Street would require the (G) to turn north of Hoyt Schermerhorn. This would require the (G) to abandon it.

 

The G passes close by Nevins St in order to get to Fulton ST so I dont understand why it would have to run north of Hoyt Schermerhorn.

It's already flooded

 

 

 

Nevins lower has never been used, ever. It was ment for connecting the IRT to lines that have never been built. It was incudled under the pretense that the IRT would get the 4th ave line, a route over the Manny B, and a subway under laffeyette. It would only have delt with Southbound IRT trains. Adding the G would require digging a whole new tunnel and platform to serve southbound Gs (the alingment would make Nevins lower a northbound platform). we are talking about spenind tons of money for the simple sake of using a platform.

 

 

If the G made the turn to Nevins, it would not be able to make the turn back to Hoyt-Schermerhorn.

 

G trains would stop first at Hoyt then Nevins(northbound)

1) Doesn't exist yet? We had the same flooding tunnel problem here in The Netherlands in The Hague. We solved it and street cars are now running through the tunnel just fine. So yes, that technology does exist.

 

when you consider the size and scope of the work, the cost of what ever they did the the hauge would basicly be beyond the MTA's means.

 

This should be cheaper than extending the 7 train

And really, the (A) and (C) to Manhattan are enough.

 

No they are not . Talk to anybody who takes the G and they will tell you that they wished it had more connections

... and your point is? I wasn't talking about money, I was just talking about the fact that it exists. I'm not in any way encouraging this idea, I was just correcting roadcruiser.

 

Interesting idea. I would love to see the (G) connect to the IRT.

 

Another (possible) option would be to connect the (G) at Hoyt and Schermerhorn to the the (2) and (3) at Hoyt st. I would actually really like to see that transfer.

 

I would like (G) riders to have more transfer options.

 

This idea is a good one. But I thought it would be nice to include another G train stop in downtown Brooklyn

 

1) The water table there is extremely high so unless if you have some technology that doesn't exist yet I don't think it is possible.

 

2) There are plenty of abandoned stations in the NYC Subway system and in other subway systems around the world. There is no logic to turning them back on when there isn't a need to.

 

3) Running the (G) to Nevins Street would require the (G) to turn north of Hoyt Schermerhorn. This would require the (G) to abandon it.

 

It's already flooded

 

 

 

Nevins lower has never been used, ever. It was ment for connecting the IRT to lines that have never been built. It was incudled under the pretense that the IRT would get the 4th ave line, a route over the Manny B, and a subway under laffeyette. It would only have delt with Southbound IRT trains. Adding the G would require digging a whole new tunnel and platform to serve southbound Gs (the alingment would make Nevins lower a northbound platform). we are talking about spenind tons of money for the simple sake of using a platform.

 

 

If the G made the turn to Nevins, it would not be able to make the turn back to Hoyt-Schermerhorn.

 

1) Doesn't exist yet? We had the same flooding tunnel problem here in The Netherlands in The Hague. We solved it and street cars are now running through the tunnel just fine. So yes, that technology does exist.

 

when you consider the size and scope of the work, the cost of what ever they did the the hauge would basicly be beyond the MTA's means.

 

And really, the (A) and (C) to Manhattan are enough.

 

... and your point is? I wasn't talking about money, I was just talking about the fact that it exists. I'm not in any way encouraging this idea, I was just correcting roadcruiser.

 

Interesting idea. I would love to see the (G) connect to the IRT.

 

Another (possible) option would be to connect the (G) at Hoyt and Schermerhorn to the the (2) and (3) at Hoyt st. I would actually really like to see that transfer.

 

I would like (G) riders to have more transfer options.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, let me try to explain this.

 

If the G were to divert to use the lower level of Nevins St, it would need to curve back to meet the existing IND, I got perpendicual confused with paralell, which is what the two Nevins levels are. The G would not be able to swing back to meet Hoyt Schermerhorn street

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Start fantasyville) The best way to even bring the (G) down there is to make Nevins its new terminus (adding a platform to make it a complete island) and abandon the piece that goes on Culver. Too bad there isn't anything up there of note during the night even though it's a hub during the day. Also, it would free up Culver for thru all-Manhattan express and local service with the (G) gone (End fantasyville). :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's already flooded

 

 

 

Nevins lower has never been used, ever. It was ment for connecting the IRT to lines that have never been built. It was incudled under the pretense that the IRT would get the 4th ave line, a route over the Manny B, and a subway under laffeyette. It would only have delt with Southbound IRT trains. Adding the G would require digging a whole new tunnel and platform to serve southbound Gs (the alingment would make Nevins lower a northbound platform). we are talking about spenind tons of money for the simple sake of using a platform.

 

 

If the G made the turn to Nevins, it would not be able to make the turn back to Hoyt-Schermerhorn.

 

Of course if this extension were made they would have to build another trackway. I'm sure that the people who built the station probably wanted it to be a two track-island platform station but never finished.

when you consider the size and scope of the work, the cost of what ever they did the the hauge would basicly be beyond the MTA's means.

 

If this is beyond the MTA's means then MTA must not be capable of building anything. If they can extend the 7 train from 42nd St to 34th st they should be able to do this.

And really, the (A) and (C) to Manhattan are enough.

 

No they are not. Ask any G rider if the G should have more connections, and I bet they would agree.By the way i'm sure that people who ride the train are not just tryin to go to Manhattan. Did you consider that maybe G riders want greater connections in Brooklyn I spoke to a woman in Greenpoint who told me it took over an Hour for her to get from where she lives to Flatbush and Church ave.

Interesting idea. I would love to see the (G) connect to the IRT.

 

Another (possible) option would be to connect the (G) at Hoyt and Schermerhorn to the the (2) and (3) at Hoyt st. I would actually really like to see that transfer.

 

I would like (G) riders to have more transfer options.

 

That is an idea that thought of too. But the 4,5 trains skip there so it would be better if the G would go tho a station in which all the Brooklyn IRT lines serve. Plus it would give the G another stop in downtown Bk rather just having one

(Start fantasyville) The best way to even bring the (G) down there is to make Nevins its new terminus (adding a platform to make it a complete island) and abandon the piece that goes on Culver. Too bad there isn't anything up there of note during the night even though it's a hub during the day. Also, it would free up Culver for thru all-Manhattan express and local service with the (G) gone (End fantasyville). :P

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course if this extension were made they would have to build another trackway. I'm sure that the people who built the station probably wanted it to be a two track-island platform station but never finished.

 

Sure? You have a big statement to defend there.

 

If this is beyond the MTA's means then MTA must not be capable of building anything. If they can extend the 7 train from 42nd St to 34th st they should be able to do this.

 

Logic fail here. You imply that the connection is so simple and obvious that being able to engineer such a connection takes less planning and construction than extending the (7) by tunneling under 8 Avenue.

Analogy #1: If I fail calculus III, one must assume I must have failed calculus II, calculus I, pre-calculus, algebra, and basic math too!

Analogy #2: If I can lift 100 pounds, I should be able to lift 200 pounds too.

 

No they are not. Ask any G rider if the G should have more connections, and I bet they would agree.By the way i'm sure that people who ride the train are not just tryin to go to Manhattan. Did you consider that maybe G riders want greater connections in Brooklyn I spoke to a woman in Greenpoint who told me it took over an Hour for her to get from where she lives to Flatbush and Church ave.

 

This problem should be solved by improving bus service for the short term and building out the subway in the long term. Those plans from the early and mid 1900s would have provided for an easier link between Queens and Brooklyn. Removing a connection to shoehorn in another connection is… (see next paragraph.)

 

That is an idea that thought of too. But the 4,5 trains skip there so it would be better if the G would go tho a station in which all the Brooklyn IRT lines serve. Plus it would give the G another stop in downtown Bk rather just having one

 

Did you read anything in this thread? You can only pick one: Hoyt–Schermerhorn, the existing transfer to the (A) and (C); or Nevins Street, for a transfer to the (2), (3), (4), and (5) instead—something that will be quite costly to abandon Hoyt–Schermerhorn for. You don't get an additional stop in Downtown Brooklyn; you must choose between the two.

 

Let's not forget that the (G) also has an important connection at Bergen Street that takes it deeper into Brooklyn. At Bergen Street is the (F) and at 4 Avenue is the (R). During night time, the 4 Avenue transfer provides a connection to the (N) and (D) instead. You could possibly lose those connections since I don't see any obvious way to make a stop at Nevins Street and continue to the Culver line. The area is full of existing tunnels and well-developed.

Edited by CenSin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they are not. Ask any G rider if the G should have more connections, and I bet they would agree.By the way i'm sure that people who ride the train are not just tryin to go to Manhattan. Did you consider that maybe G riders want greater connections in Brooklyn I spoke to a woman in Greenpoint who told me it took over an Hour for her to get from where she lives to Flatbush and Church ave.

 

 

You bet? Do you know for sure. (G) riders can get an (A) or (C) and transfer at Fulton Street where there are connections to the (2)(3)(4) and (5) lines. They can also transfer the the (L) farther up.

Edited by Quill Depot

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.