|
|
| IND Curiosity (1506923) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (1506924) | |
Re: IND Curiosity |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 13 18:34:14 2019, in response to IND Curiosity, posted by R42ToMoffat on Wed Mar 13 18:29:42 2019. My theory (only my theory) is the IND did not want too much time differential between local and express south of 59th Street. So they left off local stops at 18th and 28th to speed up locals, made Canal Street an express stop to slow down expresses, to say nothing of poaching business out of the BMT's Canal Street complex. |
|
|
| (1506940) | |
Re: IND Curiosity |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Wed Mar 13 21:54:44 2019, in response to IND Curiosity, posted by R42ToMoffat on Wed Mar 13 18:29:42 2019. I would vote for train length first, because the IND was set up for 660 ft trains at the start, vs. the IRT's 205 (260?) ft. Plus, I think they wanted to go for faster service overall, so they made the stations further apart. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1506946) | |
Re: IND Curiosity |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Wed Mar 13 23:16:20 2019, in response to IND Curiosity, posted by R42ToMoffat on Wed Mar 13 18:29:42 2019. Partially train length, partially performance. Note that there are only two local stations south of 59th. If the IND was engineered for both higher overall speeds and longer trains, it makes sense to have fewer stops with greater reach - note that 14/8 has exits at 14th and 16th, and 23/8 has exits at 23rd and 25th. It's easy to imagine an 18/8 station with exits at, say, 18th and 20th, and a 28/8 with exits at, say, 26th and 28th or 28th and 30th, so there's not much point to building those intermediate stops if their exits might be only a couple of blocks from another station.I suppose 163rd and 175th can be seen as filling the IRT gaps. It would be difficult to have a station at 66th because of the flyovers for the CPW double-level transition. (Though, 103rd and 110th border the other double-level transition, so I guess it wouldn't have been completely impossible.) |
|
|
| (1506949) | |
Re: IND Curiosity |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Wed Mar 13 23:28:27 2019, in response to Re: IND Curiosity, posted by Joe V on Wed Mar 13 18:34:14 2019. The advertised time differential between the local and express on opening day in 1932 was only two minutes. (I suspect that was at least somewhat aspirational, but still, it's easy to see that the IND was designed for high speed.) |
|
|
| (1506962) | |
Re: IND Curiosity |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Mar 14 17:52:12 2019, in response to Re: IND Curiosity, posted by K. Trout on Wed Mar 13 23:16:20 2019. Yes, the IRT north of 145th has stations much farther apart than typical IRT stations. That is because the tunnel was drilled in bedrock and it would have been cost-prohibitive to have too many stations. So in upper Manhattan the IND filled in a few gaps. Also, the IND is on a diagonal avenue there, so a 6-block distance is actually closer to 7. |
|
|
| (1506966) | |
Re: IND Curiosity |
|
|
Posted by andy on Thu Mar 14 18:06:06 2019, in response to Re: IND Curiosity, posted by italianstallion on Thu Mar 14 17:52:12 2019. Correct on both. Also note that when the IRT was built, Manhattan above 155th Street still had a lot of open land, due to lack of transit access. The IND tunnel is close to street level, up to 168th Street, and was designed to add service to an area that by 1920 was fully built up. Above 168th the IND is in a deeper tunnel, and serves an area that needed more transit by the 1920s. That area, now called Hudson Heights, is a difficult walk between the IRT stations at 181st and 191st and areas west of Broadway because of the hilly topography. |
|
|
| (1506969) | |
Re: IND Curiosity |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Mar 14 18:11:58 2019, in response to Re: IND Curiosity, posted by andy on Thu Mar 14 18:06:06 2019. Yes. |
|
|
