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  
Lawrence St

The (7); BMT or IRT?

Recommended Posts

So there has been a lot of confusion regarding wether or not The (7) is an IRT or BMT line. Just this past pick, the (7) was recategorized as a B divison line. What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

So there has been a lot of confusion regarding wether or not The (7) is an IRT or BMT line. Just this past pick, the (7) was recategorized as a B divison line. What do you guys think?

Was'nt the Astoria and Flushing lines built to serve both IRT and BMT service? As far as operations and what we think did they recategorize it or not? That's your answer if anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

So there has been a lot of confusion regarding wether or not The (7) is an IRT or BMT line. Just this past pick, the (7) was recategorized as a B divison line. What do you guys think?

Where did you get that information from? Can a (7) crew also work a job on the (Q) the next day ? 

 

Edited by Trainmaster5
Additional information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Where did you get that information from? Can a (7) crew also work a job on the (Q) the next day

Sepeate division and cars. Its a no. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Where did you get that information from? Can a (7) crew also work a job on the (Q) the next day ? 

 

From what I've heard, as of now no, however they want that at some point in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Calvin said:

Sepeate division and cars. Its a no. 

I will wait for some reasoning behind the original post. I broke in on the (7) many years ago so I guess I was qualified for the B division all the time 😂. 

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Around the Horn said:

From what I've heard, as of now no, however they want that at some point in the future.

They've wanted all division qualified people for 30+ years. Nothing new here. Carry on.

  • Like 1
  • LMAO! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.. that's all I can say for now..  (to the replied post)

Edited by Calvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also B1 Division on RCC (since it's only connected to the BMT, and so in the same place in the room and the wall track layout as the BMT).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Was (7) ever connected to the IRT directly - including the Elevated Lines?

2nd Avenue El, via the Queensboro Bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC it's technically possible for (7)s to run down Bway and turn at Whitehall or Canal, but I doubt that it would ever happen because the platforms are not built to IRT spec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 4:40 PM, Lawrence St said:

So there has been a lot of confusion regarding wether or not The (7) is an IRT or BMT line. Just this past pick, the (7) was recategorized as a B divison line. What do you guys think?

There is? I ride the (7) every day and all I see are R188s (former R142As) and R62As, all A-Division cars. The signal tripcocks are on the same side as the (crappy old) signals.

1 hour ago, kosciusko said:

IIRC it's technically possible for (7)s to run down Bway and turn at Whitehall or Canal, but I doubt that it would ever happen because the platforms are not built to IRT spec.

But then you’d have do a double reverse move to pass through Queensboro Plaza. You’d have to run Astoria and Flushing trains on no better than 20-minutes headways. That’s fine for late night subway service or even LIRR/Metro-North, but entirely unacceptable for rush hour subway service. And right on about those BMT platforms. 

Though really, I’d welcome the (7) being converted to a B-Division line, provided the line isn’t tied into an existing B-Division line (other than 2nd Ave if we can ever get past Phase 2). Only problem is there’s no money or will to replace the narrow streetcar-width Steinway tunnels with wider ones that can fit B-Division trains. And no money to widen the tunnels in LIC and under 42nd St to handle the larger B-Division trains either...unfortunately.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But then you’d have do a double reverse move to pass through Queensboro Plaza. You’d have to run Astoria and Flushing trains on no better than 20-minutes headways. That’s fine for late night subway service or even LIRR/Metro-North, but entirely unacceptable for rush hour subway service. And right on about those BMT platforms. 

 

Pretty sure there are 2 sets of switches on the (7) heading into Queensboro, eliminating the need for a reverse maneuver. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Pretty sure there are 2 sets of switches on the (7) heading into Queensboro, eliminating the need for a reverse maneuver. 

Nope. Switch is UL only. 

See:

http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/NYC_full_trackmap_19.pdf

And anyway, with 3 services already running through 60th, and an *extremely* convenient cross-platform xfer to Broadway at QBP (not to mention the second one at TSQ42), why would you ever want to create such a service pattern?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But didn't a (7) get sent up to Astoria a few years ago?

Edited by Lawrence St

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RR503 said:

Pic related is the operation I had in mind. Even though it's never ever going to happen, it is possible to do it like this without reversing. (please excuse the poor MS paint skills)

2rEoNl7.png

Edited by kosciusko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, it's possible without reversing. My question to you is why should we do it? On these forums, there's definitely a fetish for using every last inch of track at all costs -- this seems like it is a symptom of that. 

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Sure, it's possible without reversing. My question to you is why should we do it? On these forums, there's definitely a fetish for using every last inch of track at all costs -- this seems like it is a symptom of that. 

If you're going to try and roast people, at least make sure that what you're saying actually applies to the situation at hand.

The ridiculous proposal described above doesn't even put any unused tracks into service.

Edited by P3F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, P3F said:

If you're going to try and roast people, at least make sure that what you're saying actually applies to the situation at hand.

The ridiculous proposal described above doesn't even put any unused tracks into service.

Practice what you preach?

By my count, we have the crossover before Queensboro on the (7), the crossover at Queensboro between the (7) and (N)(W), and in all probability the on after Queensboro on the (N)(W). All currently unused, all used in this proposal. Segments of track don't have to be long to be foambait -- remember all the excitement about the (4) (or was it (5)?) to 86th st GO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RR503 said:

Practice what you preach?

By my count, we have the crossover before Queensboro on the (7), the crossover at Queensboro between the (7) and (N)(W), and in all probability the on after Queensboro on the (N)(W). All currently unused, all used in this proposal. Segments of track don't have to be long to be foambait -- remember all the excitement about the (4) (or was it (5)?) to 86th st GO?

Ok then, some switches get used. Yay?

When people complain about others who want to use unused tracks, it's usually something significant... Like an entire express track...

But hey, what if I suggest turning the (G) at 18th Av... As you observed, there's clearly a fetish for using those poor unused switches south of Ditmas! RR503 has spoken; there can't be any other reason for it!

My point is, please stay on point. It's fine to call people out when they do something wrong, but there's no reason to extend the argument to questionable lengths.

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.