Home · Maps · About

Home > SubChat
 

[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[ First in Thread ]

 

view flat

Re: on/topic: Misconceptions

Posted by American Pig on Wed Oct 13 07:39:19 2004, in response to Re: on/topic: Misconceptions, posted by Broadway Junction on Tue Oct 12 16:11:02 2004.

edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr
While it's highly unlikely, you can't prove that there aren't...

Yes I can, and there aren't. If there were, you would see reference to them in the SAS EIS.

Define "popularly". If you mean by majority, then I don't have enough info to say. But BMT numbers were used quite often on lines besides the #1 and #4. I've seen quite a few photos of #2, #7, #10, #13, #14, and #15 trains.

By popularly, I mean that people referred to the train by that number in common usage and everyone understood what it meant. If you've seen photos of trains signed up that way, that doesn't mean that they were regularly signed up that way and people came to know the trains by their number.

They probably aren't. It seems like they are, since they're mostly used on slow lines, and their 75' length makes them sound slower. R-68s can get up to decent speeds in the 6th Ave dash, passing 9th St n/b, and approaching Newkirk Av n/b.

What makes them sound slower is that they're better-insulated and provide for a smoother ride. A smoother, quieter ride just FEELS slower.

Why the hell else would they have built it?

Beats me, but for various reasons it is illogical to assume that the IND would have built a station to block the 7, since the IND cut through an abandoned, never used tunnel of the IRT in Brooklyn (the approach to lower level Nevins).

(There are no responses to this message.)

Post a New Response

Your Handle:

Your Password:

E-Mail Address:

Subject:

Message:



Before posting.. think twice!


[ Return to the Message Index ]