N-Trizzy2609 Posted January 2, 2009 Share #1 Posted January 2, 2009 Lower Bergen was knocked out of service in 1980 due to a singal fire. That ended all Express service during rush hour. According to the 2005 Capital Plan, the Culver Viaduct project would put the tracks beck into service and Lower Bergen would reopen serving while train work local. The new plan does not say it anymore. Accoring to these pics, if Lower Bergen is opening up in 2012, it going to be need to be worked on NOW! Special thanks to Robert Mencher for posting these up on Nycsubway.org Lower City Hall is in better shape! And that's a G.O. that made the and lay-up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Julio Posted January 2, 2009 Share #2 Posted January 2, 2009 I passed through the lower level once. They were doing some work on the Coney Island track at 4th Avenue so the ran the train through the express tracks to 7th Avenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 2, 2009 Share #3 Posted January 2, 2009 Only the A went to Lower Bergen that weekend, to switch. The C was suspended, so the A ran local between Jay and 168th and Utica to Queens. Yeah, that station really looks pathetic. If it is going to be used for service it really needs a big rehab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Julio Posted January 2, 2009 Share #4 Posted January 2, 2009 Only the A went to Lower Bergen that weekend, to switch. The C was suspended, so the A ran local between Jay and 168th and Utica to Queens.Yeah, that station really looks pathetic. If it is going to be used for service it really needs a big rehab. Nah, I was on a revenue service that ran through the station. It didn't stop, it just ran through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 2, 2009 Share #5 Posted January 2, 2009 Nah, I was on a revenue service that run through the station. It didn't stop, it just ran through. Yeah, I think I recall the same thing as well. NTrizzy, you said signal fire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Beach Posted January 2, 2009 Share #6 Posted January 2, 2009 so the would use the local tracks and go to Church Ave and the to CI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UlmerPark B6 Posted January 2, 2009 Share #7 Posted January 2, 2009 so the would use the local tracks and go to Church Ave and the to CI? Most likely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 2, 2009 Share #8 Posted January 2, 2009 so the would use the local tracks and go to Church Ave and the to CI? I doubt the is going to Brooklyn, it was not in the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted January 2, 2009 Share #9 Posted January 2, 2009 so the would use the local tracks and go to Church Ave and the to CI? I doubt the is going to Brooklyn, it was not in the plan. What would be the point of the going to CI? The already runs there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sea Beach Posted January 2, 2009 Share #10 Posted January 2, 2009 What would be the point of the going to CI? The already runs there. well they can make the run local via viaduct and culver, to Church and via viaduct and culver exp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 2, 2009 Share #11 Posted January 2, 2009 What would be the point of the going to CI? The already runs there. There is no point of it. The original intention was to send the G to Church, truncate the line permanently at Court Sq (I believe), base it out of Coney Island Yard and leave the F express thing as a future option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amtrak7 Posted January 3, 2009 Share #12 Posted January 3, 2009 I think that the express should only run express between Bergen St. and Church Av. The should provide local service. A lower Culver express is too much. Does the G.O express through Lower Bergen have to run at restricted speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 3, 2009 Share #13 Posted January 3, 2009 I think that the express should only run express between Bergen St. and Church Av. The should provide local service. A lower Culver express is too much. Does the G.O express through Lower Bergen have to run at restricted speed? Yeah If say the G terminates at Kings Highway, it will affect the "F express" service between Church and Kings Highway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 5278 Posted January 3, 2009 Share #14 Posted January 3, 2009 The V running express definitely makes more sense. It'll run to Church Avenue just as how the B runs to Brighton Beach. Therefore, the G would have no problem turning in Ditmars Avenue on the center tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTR Admiralty Posted January 3, 2009 Share #15 Posted January 3, 2009 The V running express definitely makes more sense. It'll run to Church Avenue just as how the B runs to Brighton Beach. Therefore, the G would have no problem turning in Ditmars Avenue on the center tracks. Why do you want to send the V to Brooklyn and make it express? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark1447 Posted January 3, 2009 Share #16 Posted January 3, 2009 I thnk the should stick to 2nd avenue, there is no point of extending if it belongs to Jamaica, otherwise CI would overcrowd The Can be the Culver Lcl to church and Express down there.. And how are people able to get down the bergan station under? I would love to go there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted January 3, 2009 Share #17 Posted January 3, 2009 Nah, I was on a revenue service that ran through the station. It didn't stop, it just ran through. Yeah...they never do...there's a sign even at Jay that says "DO NOT STOP AT BERGEN LOWER LEVEL" by the front of that platform Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R62A 1991 Posted January 3, 2009 Share #18 Posted January 3, 2009 I thnk the should stick to 2nd avenue, there is no point of extending if it belongs to Jamaica, otherwise CI would overcrowd The Can be the Culver Lcl to church and Express down there.. And how are people able to get down the bergan station under? I would love to go there I agree. I'm not sure, but there are some metal doors on the upper level platform. I've always been suspicious about them. For the photos taken, I'm sure that was probably from a relaying train crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amtrak7 Posted January 3, 2009 Share #19 Posted January 3, 2009 See here: http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/bergenst.html Yes, those 4 sets of stainless steel double doors (2 on each platform) lead to the lower level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metsfan Posted January 3, 2009 Share #20 Posted January 3, 2009 Sadly the condition of that station is not too far off from the worse off stations still in regular use. - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted January 3, 2009 Share #21 Posted January 3, 2009 I agree. I'm not sure, but there are some metal doors on the upper level platform. I've always been suspicious about them. For the photos taken, I'm sure that was probably from a relaying train crew. hmm i know who it is...and yes, the person who took those pictures does indeed work for transit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N-Trizzy2609 Posted January 3, 2009 Author Share #22 Posted January 3, 2009 As for a Express, i think the they should do a Parkchester thing. Have Terminate at Kings Highway, then have continue to Coney. It's a very good way that get the <6>going smooth in The Bronx. As for Bergen Lower, they should at least maintain it in running condition just in case a fire happen on the upper level if they wont use it in 2013. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North-Eastern T/O Posted January 3, 2009 Share #23 Posted January 3, 2009 Not a problem guy for the Photos, I was working a Switching Relay job for that G.O.. We were doing double ended relays. I was pulling the trains back into Jay St and had time to get off the train while in the station. I was testing out me new Camera and was having fun doing it. In joy the rest Dave just posted some more today over on NYCSuway.org. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R62A 1991 Posted January 3, 2009 Share #24 Posted January 3, 2009 Not a problem guy for the Photos, I was working a Switching Relay job for that G.O.. We were doing double ended relays. I was pulling the trains back into Jay St and had time to get off the train while in the station. I was testing out me new Camera and was having fun doing it. In joy the rest Dave just posted some more today over on NYCSuway.org. Sounds cool. Was it really filthy down there? Any tiles on the walls? Nice pictures too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North-Eastern T/O Posted January 3, 2009 Share #25 Posted January 3, 2009 Sounds cool. Was it really filthy down there? Any tiles on the walls? Nice pictures too. Yes it was Filthy down there, Water dripping from the roof, mud on the floors. I waked back on the train and left foot prints on the car floors. No there was no tiles on the walls. Thanks for the complement about the photos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.