|
|
| G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) (1149519) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
|
| (1149535) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 8 04:50:33 2012, in response to G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 00:17:13 2012. Not much to disagree with there. There's pros and cons from the TA's point of view, but it's mostly all pros from a passenger point of view. It's one of the few service increases that really should be done, as Smith 9th was always sort of a ridiculous place to terminate trains. |
|
|
| (1149536) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 8 05:01:55 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 8 04:50:33 2012. Agreed:I would simply say now they are keeping the G at Church Avenue, though it probably will be pointed out riders at Smith-9th now looking for the R for lower Mahattan can now take the F to Jay Street for the R OR the A/C at Hoyt-Schemerhorn and take that one stop to Jay Street for the R. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1149540) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by sitechboy on Sun Apr 8 07:46:46 2012, in response to G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 00:17:13 2012. i feel G to church is the best option in a lot of ways.my alternate idea could have been addressed during this rehab. (G) Court Sq - 7th Ave (all times) Rather than rebuilding the 4th ave interlocking, I think a new interlocking should have been built N/O 7th ave. These switches would not be exposed to snow, ice, etc. 4th ave tower could still be used. Riders at Church/Ft Ham/15th get to wait inside for the G. G riders get the 4th ave BMT transfer. There's a big mezzanine upstairs for an employee facility. Downside is you're blocking the "Culver Express" if you use both tracks for the relay, but I really don't think that is coming any time soon. |
|
|
| (1149542) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 08:08:14 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by sitechboy on Sun Apr 8 07:46:46 2012. You may not be able to build a diamond crossover at 7th Ave. for the same reason why you can't build a crossover s/b @ B'way Lafayette: you would need to remove crossbeams/columns between tracks. Therefore you are undermining the tunnel.Not to be sarcastic, I don't think we want the street collapsing into the subway. |
|
|
| (1149543) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 8 08:11:06 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by sitechboy on Sun Apr 8 07:46:46 2012. Unless there actually is a Culver Express down the road, 7th Avenue looks like a fair compromise and it does give Park Slope riders looking for R service at 4th Avenue additional service there as well and keeps the direct transfer to the G at 4th Avenue for R riders in place. |
|
|
| (1149549) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 08:42:16 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 08:08:14 2012. You can remove columns, you just have to reconfigure/strengthen the girder that spans over the columns to span a much greater distance. There's discussion of doing this south of 71st-Continental. |
|
|
| (1149550) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 08:45:38 2012, in response to G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 00:17:13 2012. I generally agree with your opinion. How far will Church's Master tower reach? If it will be able to control switches at 18th avenue, then it may make sense to send the G the extra two stops so it can relay on the middle track and not delay southbound F's as it does now. |
|
|
| (1149553) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Sitechboy on Sun Apr 8 09:04:14 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 08:45:38 2012. The church delay is largely caused by fumigating the train before heading into church yard. Terminating on lightly used revenue tracks can address this |
|
|
| (1149557) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Apr 8 09:41:23 2012, in response to G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 00:17:13 2012. Was Smith 9th set up by IND as a terminus to deny a connection with the BMT ? Of all the God-for-saken places to terminate a train.(just like Canal St was made an express stop not for marketing reasons, but to syphon business off BMT's complex). |
|
|
| (1149561) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 09:54:55 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Sitechboy on Sun Apr 8 09:04:14 2012. What lightly used revenue tracks are you referring to? |
|
|
| (1149564) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by sitechboy on Sun Apr 8 10:47:52 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 09:54:55 2012. Referring to my idea for using 7th avenue B3/B4 tracks.Train takes switches from B1 to B3/B4, following F train isn't plugged. I work for signals (in the area we are discussing), but my understanding of the RTO rules regarding fumigating trains is like this: If a train terminates somewhere like South Ferry or WTC, the homeless and sleepy drunks are left alone. If, after making the last stop, the train has to be relayed further down the line to make its next trip (Church Ave, Continental), the train has to be cleared of "passengers" delaying everything behind it. The 18th ave idea would likely run into the same issue, and probably require additional train sets. |
|
|
| (1149574) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 12:10:31 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 08:08:14 2012. They could put headers in....just like when you remove a weight bearing wall in a house.... 7 th ave would be a good compromise. |
|
|
| (1149587) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Apr 8 12:56:01 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 8 08:11:06 2012. I'm all for a "G" to Church Ave, even if it's just for 6AM to 8PM, Mon-Sat. Anyone know why the City chose Smith-9th Streets as the original terminal for the old "GG"? And weren't those express tracks, south of 7th Ave, intended for a Ft. Hamilton Pkwy route to Staten Island? Or, would it have turned towards SI, via another route, after stopping at the Church Ave station? |
|
|
| (1149600) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 13:30:37 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 12:10:31 2012. I'd rather see that money (if it can ever be allocated) s/b at B'way Lafayette. It would do the most good. |
|
|
| (1149644) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 17:14:52 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by sitechboy on Sun Apr 8 10:47:52 2012. If,after making the last stop,the train has to be relayed further down the line to make its next trip (Church Ave,Continental),the train has to be cleared of "passengers" delaying everything behind it. The 18th ave idea would likely run into the same issue,and probably require additional train sets.Relaying at 18th avenue would result in a G switching to the middle track just north of the station, then stopping at the middle track to reverse out northbound. No need to relay the train south of 18th, and it's out of the way of the F. |
|
|
| (1149645) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Apr 8 17:19:30 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Joe V on Sun Apr 8 09:41:23 2012. I don't think it was set up as a terminus. They just built an interlocking there as the easiest place to do so on the line, and it ended up being a temporary permanent terminal. |
|
|
| (1149650) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 17:56:53 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Apr 8 12:10:31 2012. Headers? What exactly are you referring to in a tunnel? |
|
|
| (1149656) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Apr 8 18:24:22 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 17:56:53 2012. an architectural term for a beam spanning a room/hallway/doorway/window or other opening designed to support the structure above same without the intermediate studs/supports normally on close centers. Think lintel. |
|
|
| (1149670) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by MATHA531 on Sun Apr 8 19:50:09 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Joe V on Sun Apr 8 09:41:23 2012. The question of course was Smith 9th Street ever meant to be a permanent terminal for South Brooklyn service...it seems to me that it was meant to be a temporary terminal while the rest of the line was being built to Church Avenue which served as the terminal for many years until the extension to the Culver which while planned for many years finally opened in 1954.It just can't cost all that much money in the scheme of things to run the G through To Church as that was always meant to be a terminal for South Brooklyn service on the IND. |
|
|
| (1149672) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 20:16:51 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Apr 8 18:24:22 2012. Lol, I know what it is, I have a degree in architecture! However, what one would typically consider to be a 'header' is not what you would see in a tunnel, specifically in a situation like the one being described here. I can think of a number of ways to make the condition described work, but adding "headers" is not one of them. |
|
|
| (1149673) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Apr 8 20:18:13 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by MATHA531 on Sun Apr 8 19:50:09 2012. Go to nycsubway.com. Select IND Crosstown line under Stations, and scroll down to the 5th paragraph. It doesn't look like it was designed as a temporary terminal. I am just curious as to why the IND didn't provide for an easier way to turn back trains at Church Ave? |
|
|
| (1149675) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 20:34:32 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by MATHA531 on Sun Apr 8 19:50:09 2012. One reason for all that is because I remember as a young railfan, just before the Chrystie St. merger of the BMT/IND was middays (don't know about the rush) every other D terminated at Church Ave. And we're not talking about a GO either.Mayne some very old timer remembers. |
|
|
| (1149676) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Apr 8 20:38:54 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 20:16:51 2012. well, to me header is a correct description. obviously it cannot obstruct the vertical clearance, however, it has to go somewhere.no degree in architecture but 40 years in the electrical trade. |
|
|
| (1149677) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Apr 8 21:02:00 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 8 08:11:06 2012. Why can't we just relay the "G", south of Church Ave? The lower level trackage is still there, Right? Use what we have! |
|
|
| (1149686) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Apr 8 21:20:12 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Elkeeper on Sun Apr 8 21:02:00 2012. I seem to remember that some CBTC/ATO test installation is planned on the Express tracks. Correction/amplification gladly accepted. |
|
|
| (1149687) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Apr 8 21:22:16 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 20:34:32 2012. dim very dim memory of seeing those. Would not have remembered if you hadn't mentioned it. |
|
|
| (1149688) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 8 21:23:47 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 20:16:51 2012. Well fuckin excuse me, what is wrong with some of you people? |
|
|
| (1149689) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 8 21:24:37 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Apr 8 20:38:54 2012. Exactly. Perhaps "header" is the wrong word, but he knew damn well what was being suggested. It's amazing the high horse some people have to get on to make make themselves feel good about themselves. |
|
|
| (1149690) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 21:27:27 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Apr 8 20:38:54 2012. It would not be a header, because as you described, a header is used in cold formed or wood framing in much the same way a lintel would be used in masonry construction. It represents an interruption in a continuous load bearing system (I know platform/balloon framing is not continuous, but it is spaced very closely). Tunnel structure, however, is a post and beam type construction. Beams span from column to column, and that distance between columns can vary as needed. In this instance, you would be removing columns and have the girder span a longer distance. Additionally, there isn't much clearance between the underside of the structure and the roof of the vehicles using the tunnel, so adding additional members as 'headers' underneath the existing girders is generally a non-starter. There are a number of ways one could attack this problem, but the simplest way IMO would be to either replace or thicken the bottom flange (by welding plates to it) of the tunnel roof beams which span perpendicular to the trackways so that instead of bearing on the column between the express and local tracks, it spans further to bear on the columns between the two express tracks. |
|
|
| (1149695) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 21:51:05 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 8 21:23:47 2012. You said you wanted to "add headers". As I pointed out in another post, whatever you meant by that, adding additional structural members is not what you would do in an area where clearance is already tight and needs to be maintained.I didn't insult you, start my post with the word "WRONG!" and I'm not the one cursing at someone else. You posted something that wasn't correct technically or conceptually, and I responded with a question asking you to clarify what you were talking about. If you can't handle someone questioning what you post without flying off the handle and cursing at people, maybe you shouldn't post on topics you aren't knowledgeable on, maybe you need to ask yourself what your problem is. |
|
|
| (1149696) | |
Re: Crossover at Broadway-Lafayette |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 8 22:04:16 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 13:30:37 2012. That IS where it is needed first and foremost because that would allow for greater operational flexibility, including allowing 8th Avenue line trains when needed to access the Manny B in both directions. |
|
|
| (1149699) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 22:12:23 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Apr 8 21:24:37 2012. Sorry Chris, but I don't come here to 'feel good about myself'. When I see posts that I believe are incorrect, or at the very least misleading, I try to clarify as best I know how, or figure out what i'm not understanding. I didn't mock, scorn or ridicule you, as some are prone to doing on this board when they have knowledge others lack. I'm too old to flame people on the internet about trains, or rail infrastructure. |
|
|
| (1149701) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Apr 8 22:42:13 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 22:12:23 2012. This is exactly why I read your post. |
|
|
| (1149702) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Apr 8 22:56:51 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 21:27:27 2012. The concept is the same. The tight vertical clearance means the strengthened beams(headers) will expand horizontally rather than vertically so as to have more mass bearing the load which has increased by the removal of the columns to clear a crossover. |
|
|
| (1149724) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Apr 9 01:50:19 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Elkeeper on Sun Apr 8 21:02:00 2012. I agree. You need a place to lay up trains.........sometimes the scheduled lay-up isn't and another is becasue the yard wants it........let's be greatful if the line stays outa Church rather than it costing more $$$ and another trainset to turn at 18th Ave. |
|
|
| (1149730) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Apr 9 01:59:37 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Apr 9 01:50:19 2012. CIYD wanting it that is. |
|
|
| (1149744) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 06:49:29 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 21:51:05 2012. It was a suggestion of something they possibly could do, like when you remove studs in a house, it was an analogy, not an exact remedy. There are ways to deal anything they need to do. If "header" is the wrong word, so be it. Then come back and say, "they couldn't do a header, but they would do it this way", not sarcastically attacking by doing it the way you did. |
|
|
| (1149745) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 06:50:58 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Apr 8 22:56:51 2012. Exactly. It's amazing how technical people get here just if someone uses the wrong word. I said "like when they remove beams in a house" when you want open up walls that were structural. Just imagine, the wrong word was used. It's amazing how anal many are about trains, makes me happy I sunk out of this hobby a lot over the last few years. |
|
|
| (1149746) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 06:54:09 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 08:42:16 2012. Wow "strengthen the girder that spans over the colummns". You mean like a "header" would in a house when you remove studs that were load bearing. What a nice analogy. |
|
|
| (1149759) | |
Re: Crossover at Broadway-Lafayette |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Apr 9 09:13:35 2012, in response to Re: Crossover at Broadway-Lafayette, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 8 22:04:16 2012. And so that if D trains have to be rerouted south of 59th Street, you don't need split D service; leaving Columbus Circle is currently a point of no return for the B and D. |
|
|
| (1149760) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Apr 9 09:16:09 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Apr 8 08:11:06 2012. You can't turn trains there, however. In addition, the line comes out of Coney Island Yard, which can maintain many more cars than Jamaica Yard, which is already overcrowded.Does Jamaica Yard maintain the 8-car trainsets or are they maintained at East New York Yard? |
|
|
| (1149762) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Mon Apr 9 09:22:26 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Apr 9 09:16:09 2012. Does Jamaica Yard maintain the 8-car trainsets or are they maintained at East New York Yard?Eight Car R160=ENY Right Car R46's=Jamaica Yard |
|
|
| (1149773) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Apr 9 11:24:10 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by J trainloco on Sun Apr 8 08:45:38 2012. I've suggested that before. And crews can still change at Church. |
|
|
| (1149786) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Apr 9 12:53:59 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 06:50:58 2012. Chris, I have 40 years in the electrical trade give or take. One of the banes of same is dealing w/ the drawings from the architects most of whom have never slung a hammer or drilled a hole. Sadly they often draw items on one sheet obstructed by details on another. |
|
|
| (1149813) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 14:53:21 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Apr 9 12:53:59 2012. You are exactly correct. And the idea is the same....you strengthen whatever is above when horizontally when you take out vertical supports. While the terminology may have been wrong, I am sure he knew what I meant. Heaven forbid someone uses the wrong terminology, haha. You knew instantly what I was getting at, and I am sure most everyone else did too. |
|
|
| (1149821) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Apr 9 15:38:50 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 06:50:58 2012. well..some folk are sticklers for detail..and MUST BE RIGHT at all times.Nothing to get all worked up over,in any case..we do this for "fun" now..[at least I do since its not part of my day to day business anymore]..enjoy it..dont let 'em get to you. |
|
|
| (1149824) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Apr 9 15:42:47 2012, in response to G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 00:17:13 2012. This should be posted in every crew room.Great stuff. |
|
|
| (1149883) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Apr 9 18:34:47 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Apr 8 22:56:51 2012. The concept is the same.Not really. A header intercepts truncated vertical structure when you have a solid structure. A girder is the primary horizontal structure carrying horizontal loads from slabs and beams and transfering them to vertical structure. Googling a header will get you results that describe a lintel, not a girde or a beam. I suppose you could chalk it up to semantics, but then the various different terms for horizontal structural members, such as girder, beam, lintel, header, spandrel, rafter, joist, purlin, have no use. Each term describes a specific condition. And yes, those conditions vary widely. The tight vertical clearance means the strengthened beams(headers) will expand horizontally rather than vertically so as to have more mass bearing the load which has increased by the removal of the columns to clear a crossover. Actually, no. Looking at it in section, Structurally, a beam supported on two sides under load is under compression at the top and tension at the bottom. Because of this, material towards the center of them beam (the neutral axis) is carrying almost no load. This is why trusses are such an attractive solution for spanning long distances: you reduce the material closest to the neutral axis, and push the top and bottom flanges farther away from that axis, causing them to resist the load more effectively. Therefore, simply trying to "expand the beams horizontally" won't work. You will need to expand them vertically. Additionally, since comercially produced wide-flange members in this country can only span at most 45', and the distance needed to add a switch is probably more than that, you would need to completely reconfigure the structure in the area as I mentioned before. Structural design is not always as simple as it looks. |
|
|
| (1149885) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Apr 9 18:45:27 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 14:53:21 2012. And this is exactly what I am getting at, and what you refuse to accept because you stubbornly cling to the idea that you are correct. You can't just reinforce what's there. You would need to significantly reconfigure the structure.While the terminology may have been wrong, It's funny. This is a board where someone might be raked over the coals if he didn't notice the difference between an R42, or an R40M, or even the difference between an R42 overhauled at CIYD, and one overhauled outside, but a description of two totally different types of structural members is me being a nit-pick. If a used the term axles to mean trucks, would that be "basically the same thing"? Should everyone have known what I meant? |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
