|
|
| Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? (486414) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (486902) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Sep 6 21:36:21 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by WillD on Thu Sep 6 14:29:05 2007. >>>...but the MTA should be looking to increase service into Lower Manhattan with the federal funding, not shunt riders into new versions of existing stations. The Water St Subway would have allowed the V train to run straight into Lower Manhattan rather than terminating at 2nd Ave.<<<Could not agree more. Another way into/out of Lower Manhattan would have been a much better way to spend that money, along with extending the existing SF platform to hold 10 cars and add additional exits. |
|
|
| (486903) | |
Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...) |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Sep 6 21:38:33 2007, in response to Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...), posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Thu Sep 6 20:01:21 2007. This will cut my wife's commute in half but we'll be retired (hopefully) by then. |
|
|
| (486908) | |
Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...) |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Sep 6 21:44:35 2007, in response to Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...), posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Thu Sep 6 20:01:21 2007. Definitely a good proposal. Would have made for a very useful alternate way of getting into/out of Lower Manhattan and would have allowed the MTA to get a head start on the SAS. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (486915) | |
Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...) |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 6 21:52:59 2007, in response to Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...), posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Sep 6 21:35:38 2007. I already know about Van Cortlandt, but Will mentioned SF as well, and I certainly disagree with your statement only because there is no actual information about it describing it in detail. All you can see now is the bright blue tunnel leads heading down and the diagrams dating back to 2005, when the whole project was still pending....and on a side note...the new SF tunnel kind of reminds of the German U-Bahn U7 tunnels except with brighter lights. |
|
|
| (486916) | |
Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 6 21:56:04 2007, in response to Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...), posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 6 20:24:52 2007. WillD, I'm not sure if you've been down to South Ferry lately, but throughout August, during the height of the PM Rush Hour, there was almost always three trains below Rector St at any given time. One is usually at the station, and two are waiting behind it. This happened to me every weekday afternoon and caused me to miss quite a few boats. I'm not sure about those absurd numbers brought about, as the (1) is quick as-is, but it frequently gets clogged with a few trainsets outside of South Ferry. Then South Ferry, has the whole issue of the narrow staircases and the platforms becoming dangerously crowded as people hurdle to form single lines up the steps.One can now see the new SF Terminal lead tracks and the routing down there looks to be so much more direct than the current loop route. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE TOLD YOU THAT THE "BACKUP" YOU SEE IS NOT CAUSED BY THE SOUTH FERRY STATION? NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU FORGET WHAT WE TELL YOU, YOUR VERSION OF THE FACTS IS NEVER GOING TO BE CORRECT. |
|
|
| (486917) | |
Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 6 21:56:52 2007, in response to Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...), posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 6 21:52:59 2007. All you can see now is the bright blue tunnel leads heading down and the diagrams dating back to 2005, when the whole project was still pending.IGNORANCE IS BLISS, AYE? |
|
|
| (486953) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by (X) 2nd Avenue Local on Thu Sep 6 23:07:44 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Sep 6 12:43:25 2007. Nice idea, but impractical for using Dyckman for turning trains, as there's no physical space to add a third track, much less room to schedule terminating trains and through trains on two tracks. |
|
|
| (486985) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by El-Train on Fri Sep 7 00:59:00 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 6 12:57:07 2007. Well, I travel downtown during mid-afternoons, around 3ish. And the Uptown platform has trains coming every 2-3 minutes, while the wait on the Downtown side is painfully slow. I've always noticed it gets like that on the Downtown side after the morning rush. What gives, a bottleneck further Uptown or something? |
|
|
| (486996) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by El-Train on Fri Sep 7 01:54:56 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 6 13:03:23 2007. What should be added are more trains on the local between SF and 137.Sure, it is the only solution, but what's the holdup on that? Lack of actual trains? And what's the problem with the Van Cortlandt Park terminal that I see more than one person alluding to? |
|
|
| (487001) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Fri Sep 7 02:17:45 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Dave on Thu Sep 6 06:50:47 2007. 8-track was thought to be betterbut I tried it, and switched to cassette |
|
|
| (487038) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 7 06:14:24 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Sep 6 12:00:56 2007. 'I don't think El-Train meant rush hour.'El-Train actually said: 'You'd think that with the 9 train being canned that there would be much more frequent 1 trains running, but the headways are still annoyingly long (5+ minutes)' The 9 only ran in the rush hour, so I assumed he was referring to rush hour. The 9 was irrelevant otherwise. |
|
|
| (487040) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 7 06:17:49 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Alex L. on Thu Sep 6 14:37:02 2007. 'if you increase terminal capacity somewhere north of 96 St sometime in the future''And the likelihood of that is what - something on a par with the chances of the proverbial snowball in hell?' Well, that is the precise likelihood of anything whatsoever being done about this problem in the next fifty years. But, if the MTA became convinced of the need to do something aboput headways on the 1, creating an intermediate terminal at 137th would be a lot cheaper than adding a fourth track, or reconfiguring the junction north of 96th. |
|
|
| (487042) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 7 06:22:34 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Michael549 on Thu Sep 6 12:15:18 2007. What WillD was saying was that plenty capital money could be *saved* by more sensible spending (or non-spending) in other places, namely the rebuilding of South Ferry terminal and the Fulton Transit Center, and the unneccesarily expensive alignment of the downtown end of the SAS (which isn't being built yet anyway, but we'll let that pass), sufficient to fund improvements to the 1 line. He wasn't saying that building a line to the Upper East Side was a good substitute for improvements to the lines to the extreme Upper West Side. |
|
|
| (487043) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 7 06:24:41 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by WillD on Thu Sep 6 14:29:05 2007. 'nobody in their right mind would spend nearly a billion dollars on a subway station'Topic drift, but London Underground is doing just that at Victoria underground station (half a billion pounds, just about a billion dollars at current rates of exchange). |
|
|
| (487045) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 7 06:38:05 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 7 06:24:41 2007. 'nobody in their right mind would spend nearly a billion dollars on a subway station'Topic drift, but London Underground is doing just that at Victoria underground station (half a billion pounds, just about a billion dollars at current rates of exchange). And that's just slightly excessive for a rebuild that doesn't address the massive problem of the interface between the Victoria Line and Central Section stations. |
|
|
| (487046) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 7 06:40:00 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 7 06:38:05 2007. 'Topic drift, but London Underground is doing just that at Victoria underground station (half a billion pounds, just about a billion dollars at current rates of exchange).''And that's just slightly excessive for a rebuild that doesn't address the massive problem of the interface between the Victoria Line and Central Section stations.' Just like NYC projects, really..... (8-) |
|
|
| (487048) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 7 06:44:43 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by El-Train on Fri Sep 7 00:59:00 2007. Well, I travel downtown during mid-afternoons, around 3ish. And the Uptown platform has trains coming every 2-3 minutes, while the wait on the Downtown side is painfully slow. I've always noticed it gets like that on the Downtown side after the morning rush. What gives, a bottleneck further Uptown or something?There's a well-known phenomenon of trains being twice as frequent in the direction opposite to that in which one is traveling. |
|
|
| (487049) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 7 06:50:51 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by El-Train on Fri Sep 7 01:54:56 2007. What should be added are more trains on the local between SF and 137.Sure, it is the only solution, but what's the holdup on that? Lack of actual trains? Version 1: Operational practices -- the MTA are paranoid about passengers riding relays, so they have all trains thoroughly checked ("fumigated" in Subtalk terms) at the last station before a relay. This takes time and would delay the train behind. Version 2: But that paranoia is justified because those passengers might clobber the T/O as he changed ends. Version 3: If there were another track on the other side of the uptown platform, fumigation would no longer cause knock-on delays. And what's the problem with the Van Cortlandt Park terminal that I see more than one person alluding to? Just the typical problems with a two-track terminal without any tail tracks. |
|
|
| (487051) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 7 07:02:40 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 7 06:40:00 2007. 'Topic drift, but London Underground is doing just that at Victoria underground station (half a billion pounds, just about a billion dollars at current rates of exchange).''And that's just slightly excessive for a rebuild that doesn't address the massive problem of the interface between the Victoria Line and Central Section stations.' Just like NYC projects, really..... (8-) Perhaps we should swap Ken Livingstone for Joe Bruno and see what happens... |
|
|
| (487058) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Sep 7 07:28:38 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by El-Train on Fri Sep 7 01:54:56 2007. Sure, it is the only solution, but what's the holdup on that?No way to short turn the trains at the north end. |
|
|
| (487064) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Sep 7 07:33:21 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by monorail on Fri Sep 7 02:17:45 2007. Elcaset was supposed to be even better.
|
|
|
| (487074) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Sep 7 07:45:26 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 7 06:14:24 2007. The 9 used to run mid-day before it became rush only but he said in another post "during mid-afternoons, around 3ish" so it doesn't matter. |
|
|
| (487102) | |
Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...) |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Sep 7 09:03:34 2007, in response to Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...), posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 6 20:24:52 2007. during the height of the PM Rush Hour, there was almost always three trains below Rector St at any given time.That's pretty good. The distance between the Rector station and South Ferry is approximately 2000 feet - measure it on Google Earth. Each train occupies approximately 800 feet: 510 feet for the train itself and 300 feet as a buffer between the trip arm and the back of the train in front. That means that those 3 trains below Rector need at least 2400 feet of track. One reason for backups at terminals is a result of the TA's "improved" on-time performance. One of the TA's strategies to "improve" on-time performance was to increase the scheduled running times. The running time from 242nd to South Ferry used to be 49 minutes; currently it's 55 minutes. The majority of trains did not need the extra 6 minutes, even when on-time performance was an abysmal 66%. They would arrive at their terminals substantially early. Trains were not released from terminals early. The result was that all the pockets at the terminal were probably filled up for two-thirds of arriving trains at terminals. The result was instant backup. How long a backup? The recovery time at the terminal is 3 minutes plus the additional off book recovery time of 6 minutes from the inflated schedule for a total of 9 minutes. Service levels are 20 tph for 3 minute headways. So, 9/3 = 3 for 3 trains in limbo. H'mmm..... |
|
|
| (487117) | |
Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Sep 7 09:34:45 2007, in response to Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...), posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Sep 7 09:03:34 2007. PWN3D, for like the 2 billionth time on this subject |
|
|
| (487141) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Sep 7 10:47:40 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 7 06:50:51 2007. Just the typical problems with a two-track terminal without any tail tracks.Not quite. There is also a stoopit arrangement of tracks there. It is not just a typical crossover since there are three tracks approaching a two track station. Thus there is a long section of track that a train arriving for the west track or a train departing the east track must transverse before the plant can be cleared to handle the next train. See:  |
|
|
| (487143) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Sep 7 10:49:01 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Terrapin Station on Fri Sep 7 07:28:38 2007. The LION has suggested TWO ways of short turning the trains at the north end. But nobody will listen to me. (Especially since both entail major construction and $$$$$$$$.)ROAR |
|
|
| (487148) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 7 10:58:32 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Sep 7 10:47:40 2007. Not quite. There is also a stoopit arrangement of tracks there. It is not just a typical crossover since there are three tracks approaching a two track station. Thus there is a long section of track that a train arriving for the west track or a train departing the east track must transverse before the plant can be cleared to handle the next train.In principle, the middle track should allow trains to queue for each pocket separately. But there's still the killer exit move... |
|
|
| (487149) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Sep 7 11:04:13 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 7 06:22:34 2007. You miss the point entirely.Building a new yard, or improving an interlocking buys a politician NOTHING. They need something shiny and new that people can see, touch and use. And they need to be seen and photographed cutting the ribbon. Anything less is worthless to a politician and not worth the money or the wind. ROAR |
|
|
| (487158) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 7 11:23:37 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Sep 7 10:49:01 2007. The LION has suggested TWO ways of short turning the trains at the north end. But nobody will listen to me. (Especially since both entail major construction and $$$$$$$$.)All that's needed is something as simple as this: 
|
|
|
| (487163) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Sep 7 11:31:40 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 7 10:58:32 2007. The long black line between stations could do that, but it is the shorter red line that I was speaking of. Those extra 2 to 4 car lenghts add say 30 seconds to each transverse of that track.That is 100 minutes in the course of a day. (if my numbers were counted correctly... 30 seconds * 200 trains ROARing |
|
|
| (487166) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Sep 7 11:38:21 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 7 11:23:37 2007. THAT is not simple!Lion would take the east-most yard track and cause it to descend and loop under the yard ascending again on the west-most yard track. Declare it to be Revenue track and the hell with the fumigators. With the LION's plan all construction takes place underground and has minimal impact above. It takes only two yard tracks out of service, and does not require the construction of platforms or new roadbeds. ROAR |
|
|
| (487168) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 7 11:39:18 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 7 11:23:37 2007. With, presumably, uptown trains carrying on to Van Cortlandt PArk using the new blue track, and terminating trains using the existing uptown local track. These terminating trains would relay in the yard, using the new blue crossover to reach the downtown local track.But - it's a relay, so they have to fumigate. Instead why not, south of the existing crossover from the uptown local track to the middle track, put in another crossover from the middle track to the downtown local. Now the T/O can walk along the platform instead of through the train... O.K. - downtown passengers from 137th have to play 'guess the platform'. But a better service for everyone else results from the quicker turnrounds at 137th - 'greatest good of the greatest number' etc. |
|
|
| (487172) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Sep 7 11:43:02 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 7 11:39:18 2007. Just one problem: At 137, 145, and 157, one cannot cross between platforms without having to leave fare control. If one has to do fumigation, it would be best to have trains run up to Dyckman instead. |
|
|
| (487174) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Sep 7 11:45:45 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 7 07:02:40 2007. I'm not sure Ken could survive in this state's, or city's politics...as mayor, he would be SO hated by the City Council that they would cut him out of the loop entirely. Remember that Red Ken did not have to consult any other branches of government to introduce congestion pricing. |
|
|
| (487179) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Sep 7 11:52:14 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Sep 7 11:45:45 2007. Hey. *I* do not have to consult with any other branch of government to institute congestion pricing in NYC. All I gotta do is sent dozens of homeless out there with dirty rags to clean windshields for people. Either they pay up to keep the dudes away from their cars, or they get their windows "cleaned."The longer they delay or argue, the more windows on their car get "cleaned." ROARING |
|
|
| (487183) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 7 12:03:30 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by AMoreira81 on Fri Sep 7 11:43:02 2007. 'Just one problem: At 137, 145, and 157, one cannot cross between platforms without having to leave fare control. If one has to do fumigation, it would be best to have trains run up to Dyckman instead.'O.K., scrub my alternative and revert to Rail Blue's idea; with relaying in the yard, all downtown trains would run on the downtown local track and no 'guess the platform' is required. |
|
|
| (487186) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 7 12:05:24 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Sep 7 11:38:21 2007. Anyone want to guess why I think the LION is wrong here? |
|
|
| (487201) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri Sep 7 12:24:02 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Fytton on Fri Sep 7 11:39:18 2007. With, presumably, uptown trains carrying on to Van Cortlandt PArk using the new blue track, and terminating trains using the existing uptown local track. These terminating trains would relay in the yard, using the new blue crossover to reach the downtown local track.Exactly. And there's a small "park" above where the new uptown through platform would be, so disruption would be fairly minimal (and the neighborhood could be bought off with a nicer park at the end of it all). And you might have noticed that I drew it as a London-style cross-platform transfer (i.e. two caverns with connecting passages), as that would avoid demolishing too much of the original 1904 station. But - it's a relay, so they have to fumigate. Yes, it's a limitation, but one that almost certainly would not be met in practice. Assuming South Ferry can indeed handle 24tph, then the obvious service pattern would be having 12tph relaying and 12tph continuing. And we already know that relay terminals can handle in excess of 12tph (look at Continental). Instead why not, south of the existing crossover from the uptown local track to the middle track, put in another crossover from the middle track to the downtown local. Now the T/O can walk along the platform instead of through the train... That would work, but it could well end up with passengers unexpectedly having a trip back down to 96th. Of course, there's a very good reason a relatively cheap construction project at 137 couldn't happen: finally having enough terminal capacity at that end of the line would really emphasize the quality of South Ferry. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
