|
|
| Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes (303260) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > BusChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Mar 6 11:42:45 2015, in response to Re: Why We Need a Moratorium on Future SBS Routes, posted by sloth on Fri Mar 6 10:17:22 2015. Bayside can't be used to turn trains efficiently. The switch is in the middle of the crossover and a reverse move would be necessary to get into the "yard".Obviously, the yard approach from the west would be modified to permit entry and exit without the need for a reverse move on the through tracks. The yard would also be electrified. Neither is particularly expensive to implement. All the real estate is already on LIRR property and there's plenty of room for staging the construction. Shea *could* be set up to handle this, but currently it's 5 mph track and it takes a small eternity to bring anything in or out of there. There would also be upgrades to the existing tracks and the station. They have not been used regularly since the World's Fair closed in 1965. Port Wash can't handle this service at the frequency needed to make it worthwhile. It's a non-starter. The Port Wash Line capacity constraints are the single track east of Great Neck and the merge to the main line west of Woodside. The Port Wash can handle much more capacity between these two bottlenecks. Even the LIRR takes advantage of avoiding the bottleneck east of Great Neck. Many trains turn at Great Neck. They don't limit the service between Penn Sta and Great Neck because of the single track east of Great Neck. |
|
|
|