|
|
| Re: Penn Station (1331964) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 12 of 12 |
||
|
| (1335280) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 23 18:41:11 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Thu Jan 22 21:28:16 2015. "So what? That doesn't answer the question about why you couldn't just look at the monitors."How about because this way before the track assignment was on the monitors. You dumb fuck. Stop acting like you standing next to me and experienced what I did. |
|
|
| (1335282) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 23 18:42:15 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Thu Jan 22 21:28:41 2015. There have been entire topics written about the asshole you are and how great it would to be rid of you.You contribute nothing. You research nothing. You are a troll. |
|
|
| (1338318) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Fri Feb 6 13:47:14 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sat Jan 17 19:17:57 2015. Another stupid post for the only person who's real name is Terrapin Station, who is the only here who constantly changes the letters of his name. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1338363) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Fri Feb 6 15:48:03 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Fri Jan 16 02:42:08 2015. Bump. |
|
|
| (1338457) | |
Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 7 04:59:57 2015, in response to Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 18 00:47:18 2015. Or The Yankees would have used Shea Stadium while the Mets played across at Citi field with both stadiums open during such a period if they knew they had to tear the old Yankee Stadium down to build the new one. An alternative would have been during 2004-'05 (before the new stadium would have been built) would have been to build a new El connection to the Jerome line from the Lenox Line that might have included in that scenario the (3) stopping at 161st Street.Connecting the then-existing Polo Ground Shuttle remains of the 9th Avenue El to the Lenox line would have in retrospect been a very good idea and been very much like the (2) / (5) setup, except the (3) and (4) in this one would have both gone to Woodlawn in all likelihood. |
|
|
| (1338539) | |
Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 7 13:47:49 2015, in response to Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden, posted by randyo on Sun Jan 18 00:47:18 2015. Until a few years ago, I did not realize the power wielded by the Manhattan Elevated Directors, who, according to the 1903 lease, sat on the IRT's Board of Directors. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but 6th and 9th Ave els ran to Woodlawn before the Lexington subway connection at 157th St, Bronx. The MER also controlled the signals after the connection. To me, it appears that the IRT, busy with its other dual Contract subway expansions, handed off the construction of the line from the Putnam Drawbridge to River Ave to its MER directors. In turn, the MER planned the Anderson tunnels for its cars and not for any future IRT subway route. What could have been built 2 feet wider was not done, as an act of future self-preservation. Like 1921-22, when they were almost spun off, due to ITR financial problems with the mandatory 7% return it had to pay on its bonds to the MER. |
|
|
| (1338603) | |
Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 7 15:52:09 2015, in response to Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 7 04:59:57 2015. Are you forgetting that the Giants left the Polo Grounds in 1957 and the NY Central Putnam Division closed in 1958? The former was because the neighborhood around the Polo Grounds had declined and the latter was a decline in Putnam ridership. You already had the IND stop at 155St/8Av, plus the transfer at 149th/Mott (Concourse) to catch a 7th Ave IRT train. Also, the transfer between the D/CC and the #4 at 161St/River Ave. A Lenox Ave extension up 8th Ave to the Putnam Drawbridge would have been overkill, in my book. |
|
|
| (1338624) | |
Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Feb 7 20:04:36 2015, in response to Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 7 13:47:49 2015. I thought the reason the tunnel was built not to pass steel subway cars is that they were too heavy for the 9th Ave. el structure, so this ensured that cars the el was unable to support would not mistakenly find their way there. At least that is what someone posted here a few years ago. |
|
|
| (1338630) | |
Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 7 20:53:14 2015, in response to Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden, posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Feb 7 20:04:36 2015. The 155th Street station and drawbridge originally was built for the Putnam Division, so they could have supported steel subway cars. Steel subway cars could not be used south of 155th Street, nor put in the 159th St yard, I believe. As for the third rails:Talks for the acquisition/lease of the Manhattan Elevated RR began in late 1899 or early 1900. I always found it strange that the IRT did not demand the the MER build the same type of third rail system that they would have. Instead, the MER not only adopted the elevated open type third rail, but even patented the drop-sled contact shoe in 1902. One type third rail for both companies would have saved a lot of money and maintenance for dual service areas, like Jerome Ave. Instead, the MER became almost semi-autonomous, despite the 1903 lease by the IRT. |
|
|
| (1338631) | |
Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 7 20:56:13 2015, in response to Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 7 15:52:09 2015. However,it was first proposed in 1940 around the time the 9 Av el shut down S/O 155 St. Such a connection would definitely been beneficial to then operating flexibility of the IRT, not to mention it would have relieved overcrowding on the Concourse Line by giving passengers from that part of the Bronx another means of access to the west side of Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1338638) | |
Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 7 21:13:09 2015, in response to Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle, posted by randyo on Sat Feb 7 20:56:13 2015. Yes, I believe you are correct. However, ridership on the Polo Grounds shuttle began to dwindle to the point that by Jan 1941, the 3 car shuttles from Burnside Ave were reduced to two car ones from 167th Street. Factor in the Unification costs, plus the IND construction costs, and the Lenox connection became less and less viable, especially after WWII. |
|
|
| (1338678) | |
Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 8 02:54:41 2015, in response to Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 7 21:13:09 2015. I suspect that if the connection had been built, ridership would have increased rather than decreased since it would no longer be a shuttle but part of a through service. |
|
|
| (1338941) | |
Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Feb 9 01:54:31 2015, in response to Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 7 15:52:09 2015. The idea was when the 9th Avenue El was torn down, what was the (3) could have been connected to what was left of 9th Avenue El with that in turn connected to the Jerome Avenue El. From there, the (3) could have joined the (4) going to Woodlawn.That line would likely have long survived the Giants leaving and the Jets and Mets using the Polo Grounds for a few years before Shea opened. What I was talking about was if they had kept the Polo Grounds shuttle and connected it to the (3) instead of having the (3) station built at 148th Street that opened in 1968. When the time came for a new Yankee Stadium to be on the drawing board, what likely would have had to have happened first (and most likely around 2003-'04) would have been a new El section south of the old Yankee Stadium that along with moving the 161st Street stop north a bit (and possibly rebuilt into a two-island platform station that would have more easily allowed for game trains to terminate there) would have allowed a Woodlawn-bound (3) to join the (4) south of 161st Street. |
|
|
| (1339009) | |
Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon Feb 9 12:40:28 2015, in response to Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Feb 9 01:54:31 2015. One of the main reasons that the Giants left NYC was that people were afraid to go into the neighborhood. A new el connection for 7th Ave trains south of the 161st St station? Really? Did you ever take a look at the tunnel/track layouts in one of Peter Dougherty's "Tracks of NYC" books? Or, were you planning a bypass tunnel under Walton Ave, between 149th St and the Jerome line at 153rd Street? |
|
|
| (1339046) | |
Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon Feb 9 16:42:53 2015, in response to Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle, posted by Elkeeper on Mon Feb 9 12:40:28 2015. One more thing. If the #3 goes via a tunnel to Jerome, bypassing 149/Concourse, we'll need an extra platform at 135/Lenox for shuttle trains to 145th and 148th Sts, won't we? or were you planning a split service for the #3? |
|
|
| (1339144) | |
Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 10 07:37:31 2015, in response to Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle, posted by Elkeeper on Mon Feb 9 16:42:53 2015. Connecting the (3) to the Polo Grounds Shuttle would have been long before 148th Street would have been opened, so I don't think that would have been ever done if this had been.The 145th Street station on the (3) would likely have been closed and a nearby above-ground station replacing it. As that has always been a short station anyway, I don't think that would have been as big of a deal. The tunnel in the Bronx that was part of the old Polo Groudnds shuttle likely would have been worked on to accommodate wider trains. The connection to 161st Street-Yankee Stadium would likely have come in an approximately 2003-'04 rebuild ahead of the new stadium being built that likely would also have included the 161st street stop on the Jerome El moved north (and possibly rebuilt to two island platforms to more easily terminate game trains there) so the (3) could connect just south of the rebuilt station. Prior to that, the (3) would have connected to the Jerome El north of 161st Street station. |
|
|
| (1339149) | |
Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Feb 10 09:30:43 2015, in response to Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 10 07:37:31 2015. Like a tunnel under Walton Ave, between 149th St, west of the Concourse, and the Jerome line at 153rd St? |
|
|
| (1339180) | |
Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Feb 10 12:50:54 2015, in response to Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 10 07:37:31 2015. Wallyhorse,I realize that you are playing a "what-if" game concerning the usage of the Polo Grounds shuttle, Yankee Stadium, and a possible connection to the #3 line. There are a few problems with your "what-if" scenario: a) The city was tearing DOWN elevated lines, Sixth Avenue, Ninth Avenue, Third Avenue, Second Avenue and in Brooklyn. The city by law had already decided that there would be no more building of elevated train lines in Manhattan decades ago. In your words: "The 145th Street station on the (3) would likely have been closed and a nearby above-ground station replacing it. As that has always been a short station anyway, I don't think that would have been as big of a deal." So the idea that a NEW above ground station would replace the 145th Street station was NEVER going to happen. Considering Harlem politics and political folk a new elevated subway was not going to happen. The 148th Street station opened BECAUSE of the absence of subway service with closing of the Ninth Avenue el, and the long distances to other nearby subway stations considering the number of large housing developments. A related question concerns the train yard at 148th Street, the original main train yard of the original IRT subway that opened in 1904. Building a platform at the train yard solved several problems in the area. In your scenario just how does the TA still use this important train yard? b) The idea that the heavily used #4 line would be disrupted, the station moved north, and rebuilt with two island platforms - exists in sheer fantasy. In addition the building of a flying junction to enable a set of relocated subway tracks and tunnels during a period when the TA is losing money, let alone the engineering feat required all equals "not happening!" At the 167th Street station on the #4 line are a set of switches that were used to return Polo Grounds Shuttle trains back to Manhattan. c) The basic problem with your idea was opened in 1933, and that is the C and CC trains, and about 10 years later the D-train. The IND Ground Concourse line insured that the #3 would not be extended to the Bronx. Why? Ever notice how on this forum when there is a question of the expansion of any of the IRT services there's always arguments about extending or using the BMT/IND type systems instead? Usually the arguments are IND-type trains are larger, wider, not-as-old, etc. Here you have an IND station serving the 155th Street station (the old Polo Grounds stadium), AND the 161st-Yankee Stadium, as well as traveling down the west-side of Manhattan, and servicing the Central Park West stations folks love to talk about. This made the Polo Grounds Shuttle not relevant, but an "old time relic" to be removed as soon as possible. d) In your words: "The tunnel in the Bronx that was part of the old Polo Grounds shuttle likely would have been worked on to accommodate wider trains." Utter fantasy! The issues with the width of the tunnels insured that the Polo Grunds shuttle would be dis-mantled. The only way to "widen the tunnel" is to dismantle it and re-build it - requiring the payment of good money to do so. This at a time when the TA is getting rid of relics? ------------ The idea of connecting the #3 line to the #4 in the Bronx while useful in terms of flexibility, turns out to be a not very practical idea especially when one takes into consideration the history, practices and policies of NYC and the TA. The best time for such an idea to be realized was during the planning of the original IRT subway system, and during the building of the Bronx transit lines. Then keeping an eye on all construction phases and operations so that an important is wide enough to support subway-width trains, or that elevated trains do not have make sharp curves through Harlem streets to connect the underground and elevated portions, among other details. |
|
|
| (1339222) | |
Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Feb 10 15:58:01 2015, in response to Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle, posted by Michael549 on Tue Feb 10 12:50:54 2015. AMEN!!!!!! |
|
|
| (1339233) | |
Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Feb 10 17:18:42 2015, in response to Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle, posted by Michael549 on Tue Feb 10 12:50:54 2015. According to some transit historians, a plan to connect the Lenox Line to the Jerome Line via a connection to the Polo Grounds Shuttle was developed shortly after the 9 Av el was shut down and a scale model of the connection was supposed to have been built, to demonstrate the feasibility of it. Of course the clearance problem in the tunnel probably caused the project to be dropped but it definitely was considered. As I understand it, the ramp the connecting structure would have been built in approximately the same place as the current 148 St station is located and a new structure constructed to connect to the 155 St el station. Since I haven’t seen any sort of artist’s renderings or other info regarding the project, I can only surmise as to the actual route of the connection. |
|
|
| (1339260) | |
Re: Connecting the (3) to Polo Grounds Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 10 21:28:43 2015, in response to Re: Connecting Lenox Line to Polo Grounds Shuttle, posted by randyo on Tue Feb 10 17:18:42 2015. And this is what I was going by when I wrote what I did. |
|
|
| (1339302) | |
Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Wed Feb 11 07:01:13 2015, in response to Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden, posted by Michael549 on Sat Jan 17 23:12:50 2015. In the 1930's, there was a regular C-train Concourse/Eighth Avenue express train, as well as the rush hour CC local trains....and the 9th Avenue el. |
|
|
| (1339389) | |
Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Wed Feb 11 17:30:11 2015, in response to Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden, posted by Nilet on Wed Feb 11 07:01:13 2015. 6th Ave "L" had its final rush hour express service on Saturday, Dec 3rd, 1938. The el ran local on its last day, Sunday, Dec 4th, 1938.9th Ave "L" had its final express and local services on Monday, June 10th, 1940. |
|
|
| (1339627) | |
Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Fri Feb 13 01:44:07 2015, in response to Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden, posted by Elkeeper on Wed Feb 11 17:30:11 2015. 6th Avenue had express service? It didn't have a middle track... |
|
|
| (1339717) | |
Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 13 18:08:44 2015, in response to Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden, posted by Nilet on Fri Feb 13 01:44:07 2015. Like the IND 6 Av Line prior to the construction of the express tracks, 6 Av expresses made all local stops on 6 Av but made express stops N/O the junction with the 9 Av El at 53 St. IND 6 Av expresses ran express on CPW and in Queens even though they made lcl steps on 6 Av like the F does to this day. |
|
|
| (1339739) | |
Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Fri Feb 13 20:35:59 2015, in response to Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 13 18:08:44 2015. Randy, while we are on the subject- why didn't the City build the crosstown connector on 54th St, instead of 53rd St? Wouldn't it have been easier to do so? |
|
|
| (1339839) | |
Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 14 16:01:57 2015, in response to Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden, posted by Elkeeper on Fri Feb 13 20:35:59 2015. Possibly not since the Xtown line would have to clear the S/E of the 59 St station and the IND liked long smooth curves. |
|
|
| (1339873) | |
Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Feb 14 19:30:12 2015, in response to Re: Madison Cylindrical Garden, posted by randyo on Sat Feb 14 16:01:57 2015. Of course! The IND was designed to use that third notch. :) |
|
|
| (1344876) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 20:10:55 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 23 18:41:11 2015. Who pissed in your cheerios? |
|
|
| (1344877) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 20:11:34 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 23 18:42:15 2015. Let's see:Wrong. Wrong. And wrong! You lose! |
|
|
| (1344886) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Mar 22 20:52:38 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 20:10:55 2015. I did. You wanna make something of it? : ) |
|
|
| (1344887) | |
Re: Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Sun Mar 22 20:53:06 2015, in response to Re: Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Mar 22 20:52:38 2015. That's gross. |
|
|
|
Page 12 of 12 |
||
