Dasglion Posted March 26, 2009 Share #1 Posted March 26, 2009 :confused:ive heard a few thing about the SIRR being intigrated into the NYCS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTrainExp Posted March 26, 2009 Share #2 Posted March 26, 2009 Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5G77 Safari/525.20) Throughout history, has wanted to create a tunnel for the SIRT to connect to the Bay Ridge 95 Street station. However, it has not happened because of budget issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metsfan Posted March 26, 2009 Share #3 Posted March 26, 2009 Line on the vnb would be cheaper. - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 26, 2009 Share #4 Posted March 26, 2009 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duelingdragons Posted March 26, 2009 Share #5 Posted March 26, 2009 It's been discussed before. The currents are very strong in the waters between Staten Island and Brooklyn.. that's right where everything "opens up"... I doubt it will happen any time in the forseeable future. I don't think you'll ever see trains on the VNB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dasglion Posted March 27, 2009 Author Share #6 Posted March 27, 2009 I pretty much agree with all of you. They could make a tunnel as the VNB is not the only option. :tup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted March 27, 2009 Share #7 Posted March 27, 2009 Can the Verrazzanos' structure handle trains going over it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metsfan Posted March 27, 2009 Share #8 Posted March 27, 2009 Can the Verrazzanos' structure handle trains going over it? Yes. It could in theory, with new suspenders, handle 2 whole more road decks. It is a monstrous beast. If track were put on it, it would be 2 tracks to minimize static weight. - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Posted March 27, 2009 Share #9 Posted March 27, 2009 :confused:ive heard a few thing about the SIRR being intigrated into the NYCS I would be shocked if this ever happened. The cost would ridiculous either building a tunnel or putting the tracks on the bridge. Plus then the TA would have to set up all of the staten island stations with HEEPS and additional personnel. It would also cause employee problems because SIR is a federal railroad so it's employees get a federal pension not a city pension and they make more money than there TA equals. The SIR would no longer be a railroad if they were to be included in the TA. There would be union issues also because the engineers for SI are part of a much better and more powerful union than TWU, the brotherhood of locomotive engineers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted March 27, 2009 Share #10 Posted March 27, 2009 There would be union issues also because the engineers for SI are part of a much better and more powerful union than TWU, the brotherhood of locomotive engineers. I didn't know TWU was that bad... Either way, there are two choices: reactivate the North Shore Line -or- build a rail connection to Brooklyn. When/if the North Shore Line is ever used again, I don't see the FRA granting SIR anymore waivers to run subway equipment on a railroad...especially since it would constitute a connection to the nationwide rail network. Just imagine R160's running on the LIRR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R44 5278 Posted March 27, 2009 Share #11 Posted March 27, 2009 Yes. It could in theory, with new suspenders, handle 2 whole more road decks. It is a monstrous beast. If track were put on it, it would be 2 tracks to minimize static weight. - A If the TsingMa bridge in Hong Kong can hold two tracks for the MTR Airport Express, then so can the Verrazano Bridge. The two are constructed with similar designs and it was the TsingMa Bridge that exceeded the Verrazano in length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewUtrecht91 Posted March 27, 2009 Share #12 Posted March 27, 2009 I thought the tunnel connection was to be just south of 59th Street, and I believe the had begun construstion a while back, but it was stopped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FriedChikkin Posted March 27, 2009 Share #13 Posted March 27, 2009 :confused:ive heard a few thing about the SIRR being intigrated into the NYCS We'd need another Robert Moses for that to happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Julio Posted March 27, 2009 Share #14 Posted March 27, 2009 We'd need another Robert Moses for that to happen...With another Robert Moses, it will never happen then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metsfan Posted March 27, 2009 Share #15 Posted March 27, 2009 Robert moses would pave over all the LIRR tracks and make into a parking lot for "improvement". I think they should use the VNB, but the only trick is where to put the approaches in brooklyn. I think a tunnel is more expensive than via bridge. - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Julio Posted March 27, 2009 Share #16 Posted March 27, 2009 Wouldn't work over the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. The bridge was designed to be flexible with the high winds that it must deal with due to the tall heights of the bridge and towers. With the trains crossing over, it would cause the bridge to flex and sway too much, which is what already happening on the Manhattan Bridge due to the tilting and swaying that the heavy trains cause to the Bridge. So they would then need to make the Verrazano-Narrows rigid in order to prevent the subway trains from causing the bridge to sway and tilt, which would then cause problems with having the bridge stay flexible in the wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metsfan Posted March 28, 2009 Share #17 Posted March 28, 2009 Wouldn't work over the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. The bridge was designed to be flexible with the high winds that it must deal with due to the tall heights of the bridge and towers. With the trains crossing over, it would cause the bridge to flex and sway too much, which is what already happening on the Manhattan Bridge due to the tilting and swaying that the heavy trains cause to the Bridge. So they would then need to make the Verrazano-Narrows rigid in order to prevent the subway trains from causing the bridge to sway and tilt, which would then cause problems with having the bridge stay flexible in the wind. Nah, you'd put them in the middle, not on the outside. I for one would not want to be dangled that high over nothing but water. You'd but 2 tracks, as close as possible to each other down the center. You could keep the bridge in service, or take it out of service, whichever, and do the track and new suspenders at the same time, or put new suspenders in with existing suspenders, keep the old ones, then construct the new support structure for the tracks,, then put the timbers etc up, and run test trains etc. See how fast you can run them, then put the line in service. - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 28, 2009 Share #18 Posted March 28, 2009 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted March 28, 2009 Share #19 Posted March 28, 2009 They could just not run trains over the bridge... The or (SIR) can run over the bridge... ! WHAT are you talking about? Clarify that statement. Seems like you're contradicting yourself. Grammar, grammar, grammar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duelingdragons Posted March 28, 2009 Share #20 Posted March 28, 2009 They could just not run trains over the bridge... The or (SIR) can run over the bridge... ! Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 28, 2009 Share #21 Posted March 28, 2009 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metsfan Posted March 28, 2009 Share #22 Posted March 28, 2009 The VNB is a LOT stronger than it looks. The towers don't even begin to approach any kind of straining point even with the 2 decks. You could load it end to end with fully loaded tank trucks and it would make no difference at all. There are longer bridges with trains that run on/over/through them. MUCH longer. The suspender cables as they are now are sufficient for road decks only, to support the dynamic loads a tracked deck would bring, you'd need to add a smaller additional single or pair of suspender cables next to each existing connection point. This combined with the tracks being inside the towers and in the center would restrict the flexing that plagues the manny b and willy b to a barely noticeable % and nothing close to anything that would affect the integrity of the bridge. Problem solved. Next? - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Julio Posted March 28, 2009 Share #23 Posted March 28, 2009 The VNB is a LOT stronger than it looks. The towers don't even begin to approach any kind of straining point even with the 2 decks. You could load it end to end with fully loaded tank trucks and it would make no difference at all. There are longer bridges with trains that run on/over/through them. MUCH longer. The suspender cables as they are now are sufficient for road decks only, to support the dynamic loads a tracked deck would bring, you'd need to add a smaller additional single or pair of suspender cables next to each existing connection point. This combined with the tracks being inside the towers and in the center would restrict the flexing that plagues the manny b and willy b to a barely noticeable % and nothing close to anything that would affect the integrity of the bridge. Problem solved. Next? - A but remember, those bridges are designed like that BEFORE they are built. It's a whole different thing adding rail service to something that wasn't planned for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot178 Posted March 28, 2009 Share #24 Posted March 28, 2009 Wouldn't work over the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. The bridge was designed to be flexible with the high winds that it must deal with due to the tall heights of the bridge and towers. With the trains crossing over, it would cause the bridge to flex and sway too much, which is what already happening on the Manhattan Bridge due to the tilting and swaying that the heavy trains cause to the Bridge. So they would then need to make the Verrazano-Narrows rigid in order to prevent the subway trains from causing the bridge to sway and tilt, which would then cause problems with having the bridge stay flexible in the wind. Would one track straight down the middle fix that? Of course it's less capacity than 2 tracks, but I'm sure Staten Islanders would appreciate the connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dasglion Posted March 28, 2009 Author Share #25 Posted March 28, 2009 Would one track straight down the middle fix that? Of course it's less capacity than 2 tracks, but I'm sure Staten Islanders would appreciate the connection. Listen guys, the VNB is out of the question. Its much more complicated to build a second deck on a bridge that is heavily in use. The only option is a tunnel of 2 or 3 tracks and then connecting the directly to the SIRR. There would be a problem with that since the SIRR uses the same station and car demensions as the IRT lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.