|
|
| Design studio proposes E train extension Via G (1403299) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (1403299) | |
Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Meridian on Tue Jul 26 10:13:28 2016 http://qns.com/story/2016/07/25/design-studio-proposes-e-train-extension-to-alleviate-negative-effects-of-the-18-month-l-train-shutdown/ |
|
|
| (1403317) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Jul 26 13:51:04 2016, in response to Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Meridian on Tue Jul 26 10:13:28 2016. The ReThink Studio proposal |
|
|
| (1403319) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Jul 26 13:51:39 2016, in response to Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Meridian on Tue Jul 26 10:13:28 2016. As commenters have already noted, supposedly there is no capacity in the Cranberry Tube for E trains. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1403322) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jul 26 14:02:06 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Jul 26 13:51:39 2016. Eh... The (C) can terminate at WTC...The (E) can then go Crosstown as proposed with the (A) taking on the local stops along Fulton. Perhaps alternate (E) trains can do Cross town and Euclid, but with the (A) still making all stops. Maybe we can even break out the old (EE) Signs for the Crosstown. : ) ROAR |
|
|
| (1403323) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Tue Jul 26 14:03:49 2016, in response to Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Meridian on Tue Jul 26 10:13:28 2016. Aren't the G and A/C tracks at slightly different levels? |
|
|
| (1403324) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jul 26 14:03:50 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Jul 26 13:51:04 2016. Well, what do they propose to replace "E" service to Jamaica and the LIRR? Run 8 car expresses on the "M" line? Also, there are no track connections between the "A" and "G" tracks at either end of Hoyt-Schermerhorn. |
|
|
| (1403337) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Allan on Tue Jul 26 14:37:48 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Dan on Tue Jul 26 14:03:49 2016. At Hoyt-Schermerhorn? No they are on the same level but are "opposite" directions.On the platform for the s/b "A/C" you have a n/b "G" (to Court Sq) across the platform. You have the opposite on the n/b "A/C" platform. |
|
|
| (1403339) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jul 26 14:41:55 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jul 26 14:02:06 2016. Lion, it sounds like Brother Wallyhorse is spending the summer at your monastery! |
|
|
| (1403342) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Tue Jul 26 15:00:21 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jul 26 14:02:06 2016. re: Maybe we can even break out the old (EE) Signs- they'll need to run the arnines then |
|
|
| (1403347) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Jul 26 15:22:03 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jul 26 14:03:50 2016. E service to Jamaica would not change.The proposal already addressed the H-S track connection issue. |
|
|
| (1403348) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Jul 26 15:26:24 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jul 26 14:02:06 2016. Without looking into your ideas in depth, my first reaction is that A service could become deficient and/or the alternating E trains world not adequately service one or both of the southern branches. |
|
|
| (1403349) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Jul 26 15:28:53 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Allan on Tue Jul 26 14:37:48 2016. But that doesn't affect the proposed plan. |
|
|
| (1403360) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jul 26 16:37:45 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Express Rider on Tue Jul 26 15:00:21 2016. R-32s also had EE signs even though the cars were never used there. |
|
|
| (1403366) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Tue Jul 26 17:03:45 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Jul 26 13:51:04 2016. The E would then have a transfer to another part of its own line at Court Square/23rd St. A rather unique situation. And what would become of the WTC terminal platform? Simply close it? |
|
|
| (1403373) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jul 26 18:38:46 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jul 26 14:03:50 2016. Actually, if done right, the (E) could actually operate as a loop line with Jamaica Center the sole terminal if done this way (as coming back, the (E) could actually continue via QB local). Perhaps if so such a service could be given a different letter to distinguish itself.That said, an easier alternative to me would be to extend the (G) (M) and (R) all to 179th and have the (F) run express its full route. That would essentially serve the same purpose as this proposal. |
|
|
| (1403374) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jul 26 18:45:24 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Dyre Dan on Tue Jul 26 17:03:45 2016. This is where it too bad you can't simply convert the Transit Museum back into an active train station:Then, what you could do is split the (C) by having half the line run between Court (current Transit Museum) and Euclid and the other half run between 168 and Chambers with the (E) replacing the (C) at Hoyt-Schermerhorn in this scenario. That would be IF you can add the track connection proposed in it. |
|
|
| (1403375) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jul 26 18:46:05 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jul 26 14:41:55 2016. LOL!!! |
|
|
| (1403379) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jul 26 19:12:34 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Jul 26 13:51:39 2016. If Peter Dougherty's map from 2000 is still correct, that's the least of their problems. You can't get from the G to the A/C/E at Hoyt-Schermerhorn. |
|
|
| (1403382) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jul 26 20:05:44 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by AlM on Tue Jul 26 19:12:34 2016. Not without alignments and switching! |
|
|
| (1403389) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 26 20:39:11 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by AlM on Tue Jul 26 19:12:34 2016. that's the least of their problems.No it's not. You can't get from the G to the A/C/E at Hoyt-Schermerhorn.That issue was already addressed by the plan. So it's like I said... |
|
|
| (1403395) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Jul 26 21:34:45 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 26 20:39:11 2016. My my...Making up for time lost,arent we? You go boy...make those pennies. |
|
|
| (1403405) | |
Edwards is an anti-Semite and Racist -- Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 26 23:35:29 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Edwards! on Tue Jul 26 21:34:45 2016. See previous post here: Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G (1403395)I know, I know, he can't help himself. But that doesn't mean he needs to drag the rest of the forum down with him. |
|
|
| (1403410) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Jul 27 00:08:43 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Jul 26 15:22:03 2016. The proposal might have addressed the Hoyt-Schermerhorn switch issue, but that does not mean their solution is adequate. Why would you want to have a sharp curve in the last few dozen feet of an otherwise nearly tangent platform? Also is there sufficient clearance above the trains for the girders that'd be required to carry the load of the columns that'd have to be deleted in the red hatched areas? And finally, positioning the switch at the very end of the platform would seem to require the train to nearly knock down the signal while platformed. That could have a catastrophic impact on G train capacity right when it is most needed. |
|
|
| (1403416) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jul 27 00:13:30 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by WillD on Wed Jul 27 00:08:43 2016. The proposal might have addressed the Hoyt-Schermerhorn switch issue, but that does not mean their solution is adequate.I never said it was adequate. |
|
|
| (1403419) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Jul 27 00:30:42 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jul 27 00:13:30 2016. No, you said it was addressed, without further comment on your part. In that case I can only assume you felt their solution was adequate. |
|
|
| (1403422) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Jul 27 00:50:10 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Allan on Tue Jul 26 14:37:48 2016. They may well be at different levels by the location a switch would end at. |
|
|
| (1403424) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Wed Jul 27 01:05:02 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by randyo on Tue Jul 26 16:37:45 2016. thanks for the info. |
|
|
| (1403426) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Wed Jul 27 01:12:20 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jul 26 18:45:24 2016. that's absolutely pointless...The transfer havoc this would cause would be absolute chaos. Hoyt would be a zoo. |
|
|
| (1403427) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Wed Jul 27 01:15:48 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Dan on Tue Jul 26 14:03:49 2016. at the ends of the stations, yes, the G tracks start to drop as they leave. |
|
|
| (1403437) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Wed Jul 27 07:14:06 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by WillD on Wed Jul 27 00:30:42 2016. No, I was responding to someone who obviously didn't read the plan and therefore obviously felt that it wasn't addressed at all. |
|
|
| (1403448) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jul 27 10:32:28 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jul 26 18:38:46 2016. Your last, although a blast, is not in the cards. 179 has not the problem, Canarsie does have the problem.ROAR |
|
|
| (1403449) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jul 27 10:33:28 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by The Silence on Wed Jul 27 01:12:20 2016. HOYT is already a zoo.And they got animals down there to proff it. |
|
|
| (1403450) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jul 27 10:34:52 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by randyo on Tue Jul 26 16:37:45 2016. LION is not so sure about that. Certainly the 27s and 30s did use them, yes? |
|
|
| (1403484) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Jul 27 15:13:07 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by The Silence on Wed Jul 27 01:15:48 2016. As soon as they leave? Then there isn't even sufficient space to build the connecting switches between the G and the A/C. Not to mention that Hoyt and Canal would be even bigger bottlenecks than they already are. |
|
|
| (1403489) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Jul 27 15:20:58 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jul 27 10:34:52 2016. The original roll signs on the R-27s through 38s didn’t have then but when the new post Chrystie roll signs were installed on those cars, the reading was included. |
|
|
| (1403501) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Wed Jul 27 18:48:58 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jul 26 18:46:05 2016. you can do it, Wally! I survived Catholic grammar school/high school/university (St John's)! |
|
|
| (1403502) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Wed Jul 27 18:54:48 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jul 26 14:02:06 2016. First things first! Can crossovers between the "A" and the "G" tracks be installed? |
|
|
| (1403507) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jul 27 19:22:04 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Elkeeper on Wed Jul 27 18:54:48 2016. The whole thing is so riddled with problems that that's the last question to ask.Not that many L train riders live close to the G. People in the Bedford Ave neighborhood and around Graham to Morgan might as well take a shuttle bus to the M. People beyond Myrtle might as well take their inbound L and switch to the 3, A, J/Z, or M. People in Greenpoint are just going to take the G to the E/M anyway. The key is having extra G trains, extra Ms in both directions, a few extra J/Zs, and maybe an extra A and 3. |
|
|
| (1403518) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Wed Jul 27 20:14:24 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by AlM on Wed Jul 27 19:22:04 2016. perhaps, you are right. Besides, by the time any crossovers are installed, east or west of Hoyt, the 14th St tunnel will be finished! |
|
|
| (1403548) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Wed Jul 27 23:14:16 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jul 26 20:05:44 2016. No, You take the G at Lorimer and transfer (cross platform at H-S to the A or C and the if you want the F at Jay. Or you take the G to Court Sq. and transfer to the E/F to Manhattan for another method. |
|
|
| (1403635) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Jul 28 16:42:13 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by The Silence on Wed Jul 27 01:12:20 2016. If the A and E could open their doors on both sides at Hoyt, it should be workable. And I don't see why they couldn't. On cars with full-width cabs, it shouldn't be a problem. (Except that they aren't about to convert Court St. back to being an active station.)I'm just wondering how the signage at Court Square would look. E and G this way, E and M that way. |
|
|
| (1403637) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Jul 28 16:50:21 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Jul 28 16:42:13 2016. If the added switches were west of Hoyt, then of course it would be only the A opening on both sides. |
|
|
| (1403646) | |
Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jul 28 17:53:24 2016, in response to Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Jul 28 16:50:21 2016. There is even less room west of Hoyt than there is east of it. |
|
|
| (1403717) | |
Re: Edwards is an anti-Semite and Racist -- Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Jul 29 09:19:14 2016, in response to Edwards is an anti-Semite and Racist -- Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 26 23:35:29 2016. Why link to a message that is already linked to automatically via the "in response to" field? |
|
|
| (1403753) | |
Brian is a certified Asshole. and 128545;that everyone knows...RE: E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Jul 29 13:25:13 2016, in response to Edwards is an anti-Semite and Racist -- Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jul 26 23:35:29 2016. The Problem here,is the fact that YOU can help yourself,but choose not to.ASSHOLE. |
|
|
| (1403754) | |
Re: Edwards is an anti-Semite and Racist -- Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jul 29 13:27:07 2016, in response to Re: Edwards is an anti-Semite and Racist -- Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Jul 29 09:19:14 2016. Emphasis? |
|
|
| (1403757) | |
Re: Brian is a certified Asshole. and 128545;that everyone knows...RE: E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Fri Jul 29 13:37:39 2016, in response to Brian is a certified Asshole. and 128545;that everyone knows...RE: E train extension Via G, posted by Edwards! on Fri Jul 29 13:25:13 2016. iawtp |
|
|
| (1403762) | |
Re: Brian is a certified Asshole. and 128545;that everyone knows...RE: E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jul 29 14:52:39 2016, in response to Brian is a certified Asshole. and 128545;that everyone knows...RE: E train extension Via G, posted by Edwards! on Fri Jul 29 13:25:13 2016. Be careful. Nostalgia dared to challenge His Turtleship on BusChat, and now both he, and the relevant thread, are gone. Only The Turtle seems to have the ability to delete threads (and posters) he doesn't like, from this site.Gee, I wonder why that is? |
|
|
| (1403799) | |
Re: Brian is a certified Asshole. and 128545;that everyone knows...RE: E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Fri Jul 29 20:03:38 2016, in response to Re: Brian is a certified Asshole. and 128545;that everyone knows...RE: E train extension Via G, posted by JayZeeBMT on Fri Jul 29 14:52:39 2016. You wonder? Because I own the site and am the moderator, right? |
|
|
| (1403800) | |
Re: Edwards is an anti-Semite and Racist -- Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Fri Jul 29 20:04:35 2016, in response to Re: Edwards is an anti-Semite and Racist -- Re: Design studio proposes E train extension Via G, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Jul 29 13:27:07 2016. Sure, why not. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
