|
Posted by
GojiMet86
on Sun Jan 10 18:16:16 2021, in response to Re: Vanshnookenraggen: IND Second System Track Map, posted by Billy P. on Sun Jan 10 12:59:58 2021.
Yeah, that was his intention:
The purpose of this map is the show the history of official subway expansion plans which can be broadly broken down into four phases: the 1929 Second System plan, the 1939 Second System plan, post-World War II plans, and the 1968 MTA Plan for Action.
The map acts as a “choose your own adventure” where by each variant of every plan is drawn. The reader can pick and choose which lines they think could have been built and what the system might have looked like today if they had.
To show the evolution of these plans over time this map contains different layers of proposals. The current system is drawn as is but proposed lines are drawn with a black outline. 1929 plans are drawn with the same color pallet as the present system, 1939 plans are drawn in a darker color pallet, and post-War to Plan of Action lines are drawn in a lighter color pallet. Also shown are heavy, grey dashed lines which indicate additional alternatives to the main proposals which were not drawn out in detail for the sake of overall clarity.
Some lines were only proposed once but others, such as the 2nd Ave Subway (drawn as a full 6-track subway) or Utica Ave Subway (drawn as a full 4-track subway), have had multiple proposals over the years which have changed in scope. These lines are drawn as they would look at their largest scopes. Alternative arrangements are drawn branching off the main lines. This is to show different alignments and not to suggest different branches of the same proposal. Some lines show two totally different services at the same time to indicate how service would have differed under alternative plans.
Tracks and station details for much of the map are speculative. Most extensions were only proposed as grand concepts. Some were not serious proposals but added to build political support for the plan. Few ever got to the engineering stage when actual designs were drawn up and station locations chosen. Any station labeled with an asterisk (*) is based not on actual blueprints but where the author presumed planners would have placed one. Likewise, interlockings and track layouts, for the most part, are designed in keeping with how typical IND interlockings and tracks were laid out at the time.
Train routes are also based on speculation. The original IND route naming convention had express trains labeled with single letters (A, E, F) while local routes were labeled with double letters (AA, CC, GG). This convention was simplified to the one we have today in the early 1980s and all proposed extensions are labeled with the modern convention. Exact route labeling, if not evident by historical precedent or determined by track layout, is completely speculative and should be viewed as purely for illustrative purposes.
|
