metsfan Posted June 9, 2009 Share #1 Posted June 9, 2009 I was thinking, after seeing the falling apart rubbing board on the front page, that the subway's A & B divisions should be separated & treated as unrelated. I think the ancient IRT stations are more prone to being overlooked vs the larger & more numerous (and newer for the most part) BMT/IND stations in terms of safety & overall condition. Thoughts? - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messino Posted June 9, 2009 Share #2 Posted June 9, 2009 I was thinking, after seeing the falling apart rubbing board on the front page, that the subway's A & B divisions should be separated & treated as unrelated. I think the ancient IRT stations are more prone to being overlooked vs the larger & more numerous (and newer for the most part) BMT/IND stations in terms of safety & overall condition. Thoughts? - A Its not the train that is causing that problem. If you look closer the problem is the seam where the two section of platform meet, thats why the concrete and the rubbing boards are not matching up in the pic. Its a structural problem due to shifting of the support columns. I personally would not want to drive the train on any elevated lines. That steel is so old and rusted over the years that every time I get on a platform or train up there you can feel the who thing swaying left to right and you can see stuff in the station booth moving as well. There are alot of stations that are so rusted out its unbelievable how they are still stianding supporting all of that weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Posted June 9, 2009 Share #3 Posted June 9, 2009 The A and B divisions are seperate for RTO employees that is the only difference. In the eyes of the public and most other departments they are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metsfan Posted June 9, 2009 Author Share #4 Posted June 9, 2009 Its not the train that is causing that problem. If you look closer the problem is the seam where the two section of platform meet, thats why the concrete and the rubbing boards are not matching up in the pic. Its a structural problem due to shifting of the support columns. I personally would not want to drive the train on any elevated lines. That steel is so old and rusted over the years that every time I get on a platform or train up there you can feel the who thing swaying left to right and you can see stuff in the station booth moving as well. There are alot of stations that are so rusted out its unbelievable how they are still stianding supporting all of that weight. I'm saying it's because of their age. Newer stations have this problem far less. I mean even the in tsq needs some help. Under that new tile & slate etc are problems the can't afford to ignore. Patch fixes won't work if its a jumble of patched fixes. - A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted June 9, 2009 Share #5 Posted June 9, 2009 Clarify the word separated in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgedPolaris Posted June 9, 2009 Share #6 Posted June 9, 2009 I'm saying it's because of their age. Newer stations have this problem far less. I mean even the in tsq needs some help. Under that new tile & slate etc are problems the can't afford to ignore. Patch fixes won't work if its a jumble of patched fixes. - A Isn't the whole system aging? Most of the stations along the BMT Jamaica line were built in the 1880s as far as I know, where stations along the BMT Brighton line were mostly opened in 1907. All the divisions have age-related problems, of course. As a Queens-commuter most of my life, it was always my opinion that the IRT got more attention, actually let me take that back... that the stations under 96th street in Manhattan got more attention than most of the rest of the system. There are of course a couple exceptions. Disclaimer: I'm not totally up on the subject, so of course if anyone wants to point out where I'm wrong on my Manhattan-bias, feel free! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Posted June 9, 2009 Share #7 Posted June 9, 2009 As a Queens-commuter most of my life, it was always my opinion that the IRT got more attention, actually let me take that back... that the stations under 96th street in Manhattan got more attention than most of the rest of the system. I completely agree with you that Manhattan gets treated far better than the outer boroughs by the TA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOB2RTO Posted June 9, 2009 Share #8 Posted June 9, 2009 Its not the train that is causing that problem. If you look closer the problem is the seam where the two section of platform meet, thats why the concrete and the rubbing boards are not matching up in the pic. Its a structural problem due to shifting of the support columns. I personally would not want to drive the train on any elevated lines. That steel is so old and rusted over the years that every time I get on a platform or train up there you can feel the who thing swaying left to right and you can see stuff in the station booth moving as well. There are alot of stations that are so rusted out its unbelievable how they are still stianding supporting all of that weight. I agree with the elevated portion part, and I'm scared of heights too, but learned to deal with it. If the do a better job with fixing those raggedy tracks along the elevated portion, it would cause less stress on the structure. That constant banging, and side to side swaying, doesn't help. Luckily they are upgrading the tracks from New Lots to Pennsylvania Ave, and they redone the 6 from Soundview to St. Lawrence. Now if the do the rest of those tracks it would be great. Also they do tracks differently now on open cuts (ie the Dyre Line). They are already done, and are in concrete. They just dig into the ground, place the slab with the tracks already on it into the ground, secure it, and pit some ballast for looks. Smooth ride........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maserati7200 Posted June 9, 2009 Share #9 Posted June 9, 2009 I was thinking, after seeing the falling apart rubbing board on the front page, that the subway's A & B divisions should be separated & treated as unrelated. I think the ancient IRT stations are more prone to being overlooked vs the larger & more numerous (and newer for the most part) BMT/IND stations in terms of safety & overall condition. Thoughts? - A Most of the IRT is the same age as most of the BMT lines we know today. Only the Contract I & II IRT lines are built differently than the rest of the system(the parts that opened in 1904-1908). Contracts I and II consist of: The east side line from up to 33rd street, the Grand central shuttle, the west side line up to 242nd street (and the lenox branch), the Brooklyn line up to Atlantic avenue and the White Plains Road line up to 177th street. Those areas have much narrower clearances, tighter curves etc. The rest of the IRT was built with the dual contracts. Both the BMT and IRT built opened these lines from 1915-1924. The IRT portions of the the dual contracts (example: the 7th Avenue line south of TSQ or the Lex line north of Grand Central) can handle BMT/IND sized trains if their platforms are shaved back because they have broader curves and bigger clearances. So really you can't say all of the IRT is much older than most of the system, because it is only a small portion of the system. In there was a plan (either in the 30's or 70's, i forgot which) to use the Pelham line as an extension of the 2nd avenue subway. The Pelham and others can handle BMT/IND equipment if the platforms are shaved. Moreover, the BMT and IRT used to do joint service on the Flushing and Astoria lines. The BMT's smaller elevated cars would run with the IRT cars on the flushing and Astoria lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted June 11, 2009 Share #10 Posted June 11, 2009 There are some instances where platform patches don't work, and a new platform needs to be built. Take example: the Avenue U and Neck Road stations on Brighton. The southbound platforms are completely gone. It will only be a matter of time until the northbound platforms follow suit. I also seem to be misled on how the A and B divisions should be separated. If you mean that there should be no transfer between the A and B divisions, then that's a bad idea. The public relies on both divisions becuase there are some places where the IRT goes but the BMT/IND doesn't and vice versa. Eliminating such transfers would be a field day for workers and would be forced to shelve out extra fares (which everyone seems reluctant on, even shelving an extra quarter come two weeks0. I say no way to separating the divisions transfer-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messino Posted June 11, 2009 Share #11 Posted June 11, 2009 As a Queens-commuter most of my life, it was always my opinion that the IRT got more attention, actually let me take that back... that the stations under 96th street in Manhattan got more attention than most of the rest of the system. There are of course a couple exceptions. It's probably beacuse the neighborhoods below 96th street have more $$ more wealthy people paying taxes and its like any neighborhood in NYC. The poor neighborhoods have the crappy roads and pothole ridden streets while the good neighborhoods dont have that problem as much. It is even like that with Long Island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRG Posted June 11, 2009 Share #12 Posted June 11, 2009 It's probably beacuse the neighborhoods below 96th street have more $$ more wealthy people paying taxes and its like any neighborhood in NYC. The poor neighborhoods have the crappy roads and pothole ridden streets while the good neighborhoods dont have that problem as much. It is even like that with Long Island. Not to cut on the residents of Freeport, L.I., but that neighborhood is basically an example of the slums, where crime is higher and the residents fall below the poverty line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messino Posted June 11, 2009 Share #13 Posted June 11, 2009 Not to cut on the residents of Freeport, L.I., but that neighborhood is basically an example of the slums, where crime is higher and the residents fall below the poverty line. Yep, it's a shame what happened to that place. It used to be a decent area Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmcconnell Posted June 11, 2009 Share #14 Posted June 11, 2009 It's probably beacuse the neighborhoods below 96th street have more $$ more wealthy people paying taxes and its like any neighborhood in NYC. The poor neighborhoods have the crappy roads and pothole ridden streets while the good neighborhoods dont have that problem as much. It is even like that with Long Island. The worst pothole I've ever driven over was in Malba, Queens, and that's not exactly a poor neighborhood... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.