|
|
| Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... (1147409) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 10 of 12 |
||
|
| (1149353) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Apr 7 11:53:06 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sat Apr 7 09:02:12 2012. Don't agree at all. Those buses most definitely were there to plug gaps between trains, not compete with them.As a youngster, I once wrote the LIRR that they had a 5 hour gap betweeen South Shore Road'n'Rail buses at some time of day. (I still have the letter). He wrote back and said, true, but we have 3 trains inbetween - think of them as ONE service. So there you have it, right from the horses mouth in the 1960's - those buses were there to compliment the trains, not replace them. Long Island did not have enough reclining seat buses to inhale those Friday and Sunday trains loads anyway. The tour department, which would often take up 2 or 3 coaches on the train portion, used 6 - 8 SCHOOL buses for the rest of their journey, such as Easter Sunday Tour to Greenport and Mitchell's Reastaurant. (I was on it in 1965). |
|
| (1149420) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sat Apr 7 16:50:20 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by Joe V on Sat Apr 7 11:53:06 2012. Yes....because they didnt WANT to run the trains.....so they ran these buses instead. They were not at all to compliment the trains....they were there to replace the trains. |
|
| (1149425) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Apr 7 17:02:09 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 05:43:02 2012. Why would it be only doable with light rail? It carries heavy rail presently. Why couldn't you run heavy rail passenger trains with the freight trains. |
|
| (1149430) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 7 17:08:05 2012, in response to Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Apr 7 00:36:52 2012. I always saw the end of the Bushwick Branch as the opening to the unbuilt freight rail tunnel under the Hudson. |
|
| (1149432) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sat Apr 7 17:12:58 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by J trainloco on Sat Apr 7 17:02:09 2012. Because its full of grade crossings. |
|
| (1149434) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Apr 7 17:29:16 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sat Apr 7 17:12:58 2012. But how would that be any different if it were light rail? |
|
| (1149435) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Apr 7 17:31:00 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 7 17:08:05 2012. The freight rail tunnel under the hudson will not be built under manhattan. |
|
| (1149438) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sat Apr 7 17:39:22 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by J trainloco on Sat Apr 7 17:29:16 2012. You think they would be running subway with third rail there with all those grade crossings? And LIRR service with diesels would make even less sense. |
|
| (1149443) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Apr 7 17:57:16 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sat Apr 7 17:39:22 2012. You think they would be running subway with third rail there with all those grade crossings?Chicago seems to be able to do just that. And LIRR service with diesels would make even less sense. What about modern rail diesel cars? |
|
| (1149446) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Apr 7 18:22:29 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sat Apr 7 16:50:20 2012. That's nothing but your opinion. They ran the buses in ADDITION, not "instead" of. Only the commuter train to Greenport came off initially in 1963, and that was the end of it. The day train stayed, while 6 buses were added, and it kept Greyhound out of the Twin Forks, who would have been aggressive and competent enough 50 years ago to do so.Can you find an ICC or PSC filing or any other paper trail to justify your claim ? A RR running a bus does not always mean they want to kill the train. Not of their behaviors to train-offs were evident: 1) The trains did not come off after RPO contracts were cancelled in 1965 or 66 as most were across the country 2) The parlor and bar cars continued 3) Train frequency was not reduced 4) Bus frequency was not increased 4) Parlor car fleet was replaced in 1968 5) Greenport got summer Monday service added in 1971 |
|
| (1149459) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 7 19:05:56 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by J trainloco on Sat Apr 7 17:31:00 2012. It'll have to be, otherwise it'd be under New York Harbor instead. Going under there would make it a longer tunnel due to the harbor's width as well. |
|
| (1149462) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Apr 7 19:38:43 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by Olog-hai on Sat Apr 7 19:05:56 2012. It'll be nearly as long crossing under Williamsburg, the east River and manhattan before it gets to the Hudson.I would rather see the SIR north shore line reactivated and connected to the Bay Ridge line and operated with both freight and passenger service. Much shorter tunnel. |
|
| (1149474) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 19:56:29 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by Joe V on Sat Apr 7 18:22:29 2012. They ran the buses in ADDITION, not "instead" of.No, it's not an opinion, it was INSTEAD of. Instead of running trains as they should have, they ran the buses in between instead, covering what the trains were supposed to do. They wanted to abandon both east end lines, east of Ronkonkoma and east of Speonk respectively. The only reason they ran the few trains they did was because they couldn't officially abandon it. A RR running a bus does not always mean they want to kill the train. But in this case that was in fact the case. They ran the buses INSTEAD of the trains when they could. |
|
| (1149476) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 19:59:17 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by J trainloco on Sat Apr 7 17:57:16 2012. This isn't Chicago, and that is done on old pre-existing lines. And LIRR style service would be useless on the line even using RDC's. If it was to be a viable line it would need frequent rapid transit style headways, not commuter railroad headways. With Light Rail they could do that easily. Converting it to subway would be a lot more expensive (cost prohibitive actually because of the grade crossings), light rail would make much more sense. |
|
| (1149480) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Apr 7 20:19:12 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 19:59:17 2012. This isn't Chicago,and that is done on old pre-existing lines.What difference does it make that it's not Chicago? Is there some reason why Chicago can operate third rail infrastructure with grade crossings and NYC cannot? If it helps, LIRR does it. And Bushwick is a pre-existing line. If it was to be a viable line it would need frequent rapid transit style headways,not commuter railroad headways. I didn't say operate it with commuter rail headways. I said operate it with heavy rail vehicles and allow freight operations to continue on the line. I agree that it would likely need greater headways that commuter rail typically provides. At any rate, I don't think the Bushwick line is the line that should have passenger operations on it anyway. I would rather the Lower Montauk get connected to the subway and operated with freight and rapid transit service. |
|
| (1149481) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 20:22:18 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by J trainloco on Sat Apr 7 20:19:12 2012. The LIRR does it, but not in an urban environment like the Bushwick runs through. And no, the Bushwick is a relic of the past, have you seen the infastructure of that line? It would have to be rebuilt from scratch, so no it's not a "preexisting" line with a third rail. |
|
| (1149483) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 20:22:54 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 20:22:18 2012. ...actually, I don't think it's even two trackways wide in spots it's so narrow. |
|
| (1149489) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Apr 7 20:49:43 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 20:22:18 2012. The LIRR does it,but not in an urban environment like the Bushwick runs through.Hence my reference to CTA. And no,the Bushwick is a relic of the past,have you seen the infastructure of that line? It would have to be rebuilt from scratch,so no it's not a "preexisting" line with a third rail. All lines have to have their infrastructure rebuilt at some point. The Atlantic Avenue branch of the LIRR was totally rebuilt. Does this mean that it was not a pre-existing line? |
|
| (1149491) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Apr 7 21:16:21 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sat Apr 7 09:06:03 2012. The ROW is wide enough. How wide do you think a modern footing needs to be? The 7734 with the NIMBYS: It is an active ROW and it can become more active without any further input.A modern elevated structure is virtually silent, and far from creating a Chinese wall, it actually opens the neighborhood up a bit. ROAR |
|
| (1149492) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 21:17:30 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by J trainloco on Sat Apr 7 20:49:43 2012. There is no way they will rebuild a line into a modern heavy rail line in an urban area like Bushwick with all those grade crossings. |
|
| (1149520) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 01:14:14 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Apr 7 08:05:38 2012. Building an el over the line will never happen over there, nor should it |
|
| (1149530) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 8 04:16:43 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Apr 7 21:16:21 2012. As for tbe Bushwick....I dont know if the ROW is wide enough...The ROW is wide enough. How wide do you think a modern footing needs to be? The 7734 with the NIMBYS: It is an active ROW and it can become more active without any further input. Oh Really..... View Larger Map View Larger Map |
|
| (1149551) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 08:47:43 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 21:17:30 2012. I don't think they will either, but they certainly are capable of it. |
|
| (1149554) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Apr 8 09:31:46 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 19:56:29 2012. < covering what the trains were supposed to do. >Define "supposed to" and "trains when they could". They were a private railroad, that got only some capital grants from DOT, and pulled off virtually no trains to add buses. They did have an operating budget and got little in anything from operating subsidies from the state. Alternative was continuing with 2 trains per day per branch. What they privately "wanted" doesn't really matter. As you said "couldn't officially abandon it". There was no intent on abandonment, except maybe for water cooler grumbling in Jamaica offices, which was inconsequential. |
|
| (1149559) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Apr 8 09:49:15 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 8 04:16:43 2012. That ROW *might* be wider than it looks to you. It probably goes up to the wall on that welding building, but maybe not, nobody is going to increase pax traffic on that route anyway.ROAR |
|
| (1149566) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Sun Apr 8 11:06:22 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by Joe V on Fri Apr 6 20:04:56 2012. . The only Greenport train on weekdays and non-summer weekends was basically 9am east, 3p west which had mail, baggage and expressProof, I suppose, that today's wretched service on the Greenport line is nothing new. My blog |
|
| (1149578) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Apr 8 12:44:37 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 31 10:41:07 2012. Woodhaven and Richmond Hill aren't analogous. Woodhaven was located in an area that was not directly serviced by a subway. Richmond Hill's problem is that it's 2 blocks from the 121st St J line station and this has no reason to be used.Glendale, Haberman and Penny Bridge were the three stations which served areas that lacked any subway alternative. |
|
| (1149579) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 12:45:09 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 20:22:18 2012. Please, it's a pre-existing line and if its crossing at grade as a light rail line, then how is that any different at all than crossing at grade as a commuter or subway line? |
|
| (1149580) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Apr 8 12:46:31 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 31 18:03:10 2012. It had a shelter and high platform. Fresh Pond had a rickety staircase, the remaining three stations had nothing but signage. The only other station I can remember in recent history with a similar lack of infrastructure was Finderne, on the Raritan Valley Line. |
|
| (1149581) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Apr 8 12:48:31 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 05:43:02 2012. No, it would limit rail to overnights. Not sure NYC can actually have a rapid transit/light rail service that shuts down at night (the horror!). |
|
| (1149582) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 12:49:07 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sat Apr 7 17:39:22 2012. But what exactly is the difference, you didn't answer the question. You say LIRR won't work b/c of lack of frequency (which really, I don't see this as needing a mountain of service. I was seeing it more as an additional opportunity for west end terminal capacity when 40 years from now everything else is full as well as the origin for reverse commuters). So that leaves subway vs light rail, which we'll assume will run at the same frequency. So if they're both running at the same frequency and blocking the crossings just as much as the other would, what does it matter what type of train it is? |
|
| (1149583) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 12:50:33 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by Joe V on Sat Apr 7 07:37:43 2012. So that's where the difference was. That is plausable, a 3 seat ride in the suburbs is not |
|
| (1149584) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Apr 8 12:51:04 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by J trainloco on Sat Apr 7 20:19:12 2012. FRA compliant DMU's could work, but would up the cost. Light rail is very popular because it's cheaper. |
|
| (1149585) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 12:52:37 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 06:20:05 2012. Considering that the area is developing more and more, I'd say it would be a mistake to close the station. Have we not learned from our past mistakes? |
|
| (1149586) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 12:54:04 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Apr 7 06:22:18 2012. Ask on the NYA board at railroad.net to find out for sure because I definitely remember them doing some night time moves. And either way, SCREW EM, the yard was there first |
|
| (1149588) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 12:56:48 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by Joe V on Sun Apr 8 09:31:46 2012. It hasnt been private since 1966. The ran buses INSTEAD of trains not to compliment |
|
| (1149589) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 12:58:00 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Apr 8 09:49:15 2012. No...the fence is at the property line. |
|
| (1149591) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 13:05:50 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 12:45:09 2012. Big difference. First off...light rail will use overhead wire. Do you truly think they would be running R160s on a line with grade crossings? Please. |
|
| (1149593) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 13:08:59 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Apr 8 12:44:37 2012. Yet Fresh pond was the most used. Maspeth which right near doesnt subway. The fresh pond rd M station is not "close" |
|
| (1149594) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 13:13:04 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 12:49:07 2012. In this day and age if you think they would be running R160s on a line with grade crossings in an urban environment like bushwick ...you are dreaming. |
|
| (1149595) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 13:14:02 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 12:52:37 2012. They can use LIC station.... |
|
| (1149597) | |
Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 13:16:17 2012, in response to Re: Glendale Re: Long Island City..., posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Apr 8 12:54:04 2012. Way easier said then done....the neighborhood there has been venemous to the railroad. |
|
| (1149603) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Sun Apr 8 14:04:45 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Apr 8 12:44:37 2012. Woodhaven and Richmond Hill aren't analogous. Woodhaven was located in an area that was not directly serviced by a subway.Wasn't the main issue with the Woodhaven LIRR station the fact that people thought it was unsafe? My blog |
|
| (1149604) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Apr 8 14:22:24 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by Peter Rosa on Sun Apr 8 14:04:45 2012. Not sure, it was a good neighborhood then and I'd feel safer here today than either Nostrand Ave or ENY (without the constant NYPD presence). I think the problem with Woodhaven (besides the lack of service) was the need to pay an additional fare to get into Manhattan.Today there's a significant reverse commuter demand from Brooklyn to Nassau and Suffolk that could justify Woodhaven's existence eastbound in the AM and westbound in the PM. |
|
| (1149605) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Apr 8 14:24:50 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 13:08:59 2012. I would like to know why. The industrial area is further west and I can't see any demand today for any service between Nassau/Suffolk and Middle Village outside NY&A employees. |
|
| (1149606) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 14:26:17 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Apr 8 12:46:31 2012. The staircase wasnt all that rickety...although it sure looked bad. Fresh Pond also had a metal shed....I posted a photo of it in this thread. But the shed was more like Satan's den.....kids used to do campfires in it..so the inside was all sooted up. |
|
| (1149607) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Apr 8 14:27:34 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 14:26:17 2012. I looks very "gonna need a tetanus shot if you use it" in the pics I've seen. |
|
| (1149608) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 14:28:34 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Apr 8 14:22:24 2012. It was percieved as unsafe....it was like an underground subway station that anyone could go into.... |
|
| (1149609) | |
Re: Long Island City... |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 14:30:21 2012, in response to Re: Long Island City..., posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Apr 8 14:27:34 2012. Yes.....it was very rusty...but surprisingly stable. |
|
| (1149646) | |
Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 17:31:19 2012, in response to Re: Bushwick (Re: Long Island City...), posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 13:05:50 2012. And heavy rail can't use overhead wire? It would be far more beneficial to use heavy rail and continue to allow freight to use the line than to convert the line to only light rail. |
|
|
Page 10 of 12 |
||