|
|
| Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave (559236) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 7 |
||
|
| (559329) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by B47man on Sat Jan 26 01:22:06 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Jan 25 23:18:53 2008. Well we know that's not going to happen..at least not in our lifetime anyway. We've been waitng for the SAS since 1929...and we're still waiting... |
|
|
| (559330) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 26 01:25:44 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 00:16:57 2008. Well, they'll probably assign some trains to Pitkin and what does not fit will layup on main line. Like they use the express tracks in Queens from 75th to Union Tpke, and other places. |
|
|
| (559331) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by B47man on Sat Jan 26 01:27:26 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by FarRock on Fri Jan 25 23:17:09 2008. Nice idea. That'll cut the congestion at Jay. But you're going to have to increase service on the "V". Otherwise your Fulton St local service waits is going to be longer than it is now. Oh by the way what fleet are you gonna use? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (559346) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sat Jan 26 02:50:22 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. Would work only if you switch:E-F C-V E to Coney Island via Culver F to WTC via 6th Av V to Euclid via Fulton local C to 2nd Av or potentially Church Av via Culver [or to Metropolitan via C-M combo] |
|
|
| (559347) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sat Jan 26 02:52:02 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:18:36 2008. There's not much demand for local service on Fulton. If you mean as an express w/the A then maybe. But I still would say you'd be better off switching the C and V. |
|
|
| (559348) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sat Jan 26 02:55:39 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by FarRock on Fri Jan 25 22:58:53 2008. Or they can have the A only R38 and R44 and [additional R32's if needed]. The V gets mostly R32's. |
|
|
| (559353) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sat Jan 26 03:06:42 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by FarRock on Fri Jan 25 23:17:09 2008. ...have (C)s run down 6th Av via the connection at CC.That service existed until the 1990s. It was called the (B). |
|
|
| (559355) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 26 03:31:57 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. If operated thur WEST 4TH ST..to Church st..then Cranberry st tunnel..Yes..It could work. Using the Jay st crossover...NO!! |
|
|
| (559358) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 26 03:37:00 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:18:36 2008. You are very tight lipped..Is this speculation..Fantasy planning.. or are you tossing feelers out there for a potential new route? |
|
|
| (559363) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by MJF on Sat Jan 26 04:33:50 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. Be my guest. I won't be picking it. |
|
|
| (559387) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 07:43:49 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. I discussed the scheduling difficulties of multiple merges within the last couple of weeks. The E,F,R,V is already a nightmare. Adding an additional merge of the V with the A/C makes things even worse.A merge at W 4th is a non-starter because the V would have to merge with the C/E, then the C/V would have to merge with the A. I assume the purpose is to relieve passenger crowding, rather than implementation of the new management mantra of line superintendents. The cordon counts support the hypothesis that trains through the Cranberry St Tunnel are overcrowded. The question is where does the overcrowding occur. Station turnstile counts suggest that crowding occurs at Jay St, when riders from the F move to the A/C. My reasoning is that the turnstile counts for the Fulton and Culver lines are roughly the same but the cordon counts show that Cranberry is much more favored than Rutgers St. That would imply that riders want downtown access. Switching the V at Jay St isn't going to provide any help. I'd assume the object is to provide more service for both downtown and Fulton St. The obvious solution is to run longer and more frequent trains on the existing services. The C is still operating 480' trains. Increasing them to 600' should be the first priority. One problem is that demand us unbalanced between uptown and downtown. If you schedule services to handle Washington Hts and the Bronx, then Brooklyn suffers. If you meet Brooklyn's demands, then CPW and points north have excess service that busts the budget. That's not the way combining services was supposed to work. The solution is to operate short runs. I've been told that this is more difficult than operating on time by "knowledgeable" TA sources. Also, the track topology does not make it easy. The only possibility that I see is short-turning trains at Penn Sta on the express. |
|
|
| (559389) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 07:51:27 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 07:43:49 2008. The solution is to operate short runs.Do you really want to tell people that you take the "short train" to work? |
|
|
| (559392) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jan 26 07:57:40 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by monorail on Fri Jan 25 22:13:46 2008. I'll have to investigate that one. |
|
|
| (559393) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jan 26 07:59:17 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. Nope. F riders won't be too happy at Jay St. seeing A/C/V's on across the platform! Crew costs and equipment costs are an issue too. |
|
|
| (559396) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sat Jan 26 08:22:53 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 07:51:27 2008. As long as that "short train" stops at your destination. |
|
|
| (559401) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Sat Jan 26 08:57:47 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by SMAZ on Sat Jan 26 03:06:42 2008. That service ctill exists today. |
|
|
| (559404) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Qveensboro_Plaza on Sat Jan 26 10:16:42 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by FarRock on Fri Jan 25 23:17:09 2008. Not much fun for CPW riders who want 8th Avenue local service... |
|
|
| (559409) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 10:31:49 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Jan 25 23:27:24 2008. You CANNOT schedule them that closely, because all trains gain or loose a few minutes enroute.ROAR |
|
|
| (559416) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 10:42:06 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 10:31:49 2008. You CANNOT schedule them that closely, because all trains gain or loose a few minutes enroute.You can schedule trains closely. The key is to have systems in place that permit corrections en route, when they are in seconds. This prevents deviations of minutes later on. N.B. you talk only of "loosing" time. Gaining time is also a problem. |
|
|
| (559419) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jan 26 10:44:18 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 10:42:06 2008. By the way, it's losing time, not "loosing" time. "Loosing" time is usually by the hour, depending on which brothel you visit. 8-) |
|
|
| (559423) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 10:55:59 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 26 03:37:00 2008. I knew a guy who tossed out some feelers. He is no doing 1-5 for froterism.ROAR |
|
|
| (559425) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jan 26 11:10:31 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008.  No sir, I don't like it at all. |
|
|
| (559427) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 26 11:13:52 2008, in response to "V" to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Fri Jan 25 22:05:29 2008. If you switch the V, you have to switch the F and C also, to avoid gridlock at W 4th or Jay.So now you have V to Euclid with the A remaining as express to Lefferts and Far Rock, C to 2nd Ave (allowing it to be merged with the M as an 8 car train that doesn't cause trouble on the QB line!), and F to WTC. This is nice in that now both IND lines below W 4th have access to both 6th and 8th, and the M can now go to midtown, albeit 8th Ave and not 6th. The killer is that now Culver trains all go to 8th Ave. That would probably raise a major stink, and actually might make for even more cross-platform transfers at Jay St. If it weren't for that snag, I'd assume NYCT would be giving the idea serious consideration. |
|
|
| (559432) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sat Jan 26 11:17:23 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 26 11:13:52 2008. I'd assume NYCT would be giving the idea serious consideration.If there are Supplements being dropped in all bets are off.. I see nobody mentioned that yet... |
|
|
| (559439) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Jan 26 11:28:29 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 26 11:13:52 2008. Wait, what prohibits the (F) from still going down the Culver though? |
|
|
| (559443) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Jan 26 11:38:21 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Jan 25 23:18:53 2008. Leave the Transit Museum alone. |
|
|
| (559448) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Jan 26 11:43:41 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jan 25 23:05:19 2008. Or maybe send the (C) across the WillyB to Metropolitan.I agree. |
|
|
| (559450) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 11:45:48 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 07:43:49 2008. One thing that might be considered, instead of sending trains uptown on CPW is to send them to Queens. There's considerable overcrowding already along the E route from Penn Station to Lexington Av-53rd St, and until LIRR's ESA is finished sometime hopefully within the next 6-10 years, it would provide some relief along that stretch while also serving Brooklyn/Lower Manhattan commuters.Effectively, we're talking about an extended E train, to Euclid Av. But the difficulty is that one can't put these trains on to the Queens Blvd express tracks. OK, so run them local on Queens Blvd. The problem then is finding a northern terminal. Well, Jamaica Center clearly won't do. Neither would Forest Hills. That leaves Jamaica-179th St or Parsons Blvd. Given the timing, these trains might only be doing a one-way trip, but if it's a round trip, then there's a relay required, although it's possible to perhaps platform these trains at 179th St, change ends, then run express to Kew Gardens, without going into the relay, if the platforming track is picked right, and the moves are coordinated smoothly, so that one train's movements wouldn't raise a conflict with another's. So this plan calls for special E trains, maybe |
|
|
| (559452) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 11:46:58 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 10:42:06 2008. Gaining time is also a problem.Lots of holding lights.... |
|
|
| (559453) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 26 11:47:55 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Jan 26 11:28:29 2008. Wait, what prohibits the (F) from still going down the Culver though?If trains cross over at W 4th or Jay, there's too much merging. So, for the V to go to Euclid, it has to keep going stright down 6th Ave at W 4th. That means the F also has to do the same. So, below W 4th, the F looks like the E used to like, i.e., it terminates at WTC. Meanwhile at W 4th the E and C head across Houston toward 2nd Ave. Now the E continues to the Culver Line just like the F used to, and the C either terminates at 2nd Ave or merges with the M. It all works great: no crossovers to vause merging delays, except for the "minor" snag of all Culver trains now being Es that go to 8th Ave. |
|
|
| (559457) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 26 11:51:08 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jan 25 23:05:19 2008. LION would be in favor of sending the (V) to Chambers/WTC which would put the (C) into the Rutgers tunnel, and thence on to the Culver. Let the (C) run local to Church Street, let the (F) run express from CI.If both C and F run across Houston, while the V goes down 6th to WTC and the E continues to go down lower 6th Ave, then you've got those pesky merge delays at W 4th that you've been rightly saying are unacceptable. |
|
|
| (559459) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 11:58:55 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Jan 26 11:38:21 2008. Nah, it should eventually be moved to a larger and more spacious venue. Imagine one with four times the display area for subway cars, and display space for busses. I don't know where this would go, how much it would cost, or who would pay for it, but that's what I'd like to see. |
|
|
| (559464) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Jan 26 12:10:15 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 11:58:55 2008. Nah, it should eventually be moved to a larger and more spacious venue. Imagine one with four times the display area for subway cars, and display space for busses. I don't know where this would go, how much it would cost, or who would pay for it, but that's what I'd like to see.Like where ?..... And don't say lower level 9th Ave. Bill "Newklirk" |
|
|
| (559465) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 12:16:04 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 11:45:48 2008. One thing that might be considered, instead of sending trains uptown on CPW is to send them to Queens.You already have 23 tph (15+8, E+V) on the 53rd St line. You could add another 7 to bring service up to 30 tph. Where are you going to turn them around? You either have to turn them around at Queens Plaza or run them on the local because the F's 15 tph have to merge with the E. Turning at Queens Plaza means fumigation and 15 tph total. Run them on the local to Forest Hills? Fumigation at Continental limits existing R+V service to current levels. Fumigation at Continental also precludes running the new service out to 179th on the local. |
|
|
| (559466) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 12:17:18 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Jan 26 12:10:15 2008. Well, there are some abandoned parts of stations on the Nassau St Line, at Bowery and Canal St. |
|
|
| (559467) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 12:18:36 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Jan 26 12:10:15 2008. I already said that I don't know where.That said, if money was no object, building a museum on a deck over CIY could work out well. Lots of space, and close proximity to the largest subway yard and the largets subway terminal. |
|
|
| (559470) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Jan 26 12:21:02 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Jan 26 11:38:21 2008. Let's have the active subway use the Transit Museum and turn the rest of the subwauy into a museum. :0) |
|
|
| (559471) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 12:21:13 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 12:16:04 2008. You already have 23 tph (15+8, E+V) on the 53rd St line. You could add another 7 to bring service up to 30 tph.Where are you going to turn them around? You either have to turn them around at Queens Plaza or run them on the local because the F's 15 tph have to merge with the E. Turning at Queens Plaza means fumigation and 15 tph total. Run them on the local to Forest Hills? Fumigation at Continental limits existing R+V service to current levels. Fumigation at Continental also precludes running the new service out to 179th on the local. How effective do you think a new terminal station for QB local trains would be if it was a three track, two island station that utilizes the Jamaica Yard loop? The station would be east of the yard. |
|
|
| (559473) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 12:23:04 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 26 11:13:52 2008. If you switch the V, you have to switch the F and C also, to avoid gridlock at W 4th or Jay.How many tph going through Cranberry St for the A+F+V? That's 10+15+8=33! Tilt? I know it can be done. But the TA will have to explain why it isn't done on other lines, if they do it through Cranberry St. |
|
|
| (559474) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Jan 26 12:23:15 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 11:58:55 2008. Yeah... If only we had an idea on where to build it (maybe Floyd Bennett Field since some people here oppose my Far Rockaway idea). |
|
|
| (559475) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Jan 26 12:24:45 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 26 11:47:55 2008. Alright, thanks for the information. I will kinda like this new arrangement, the (C) goes to Metropolitan which is something I've wanted for the longest and Fulton Street/Culver have another option to Manhattan. |
|
|
| (559479) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 12:29:28 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Jan 26 12:23:15 2008. Floyd Bennett Field would work well if we had a Utica Avenue line that connected to it. |
|
|
| (559480) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 12:32:28 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Newkirk Images on Sat Jan 26 12:10:15 2008. LION leaves the transit museum as it.LION builds TWO new tunnels. LION builds ORANGE TUNNEL LION builds PINEAPPLE TUNNEL right next to CRANBERRY TUNNEL The ORANGE STREET Tunnel connects to the Mytrle-Fifth Avenue Subway The PINEAPPLE STREET Tunnel connects to the LOCAL Tracks on Fulton Street. The CRANBERRY STREET Tunnel connects ONLY to the EXPRESS tracks on Fulton Street. ROAR |
|
|
| (559481) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 12:35:11 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 12:21:13 2008. The station would be east of the yard.Now you're talking money, not scheduling fixes. The East Side Access will be in operation by the time a fast-tracked capital project could be implemented. That will take the pressure off the need for more Penn Sta to Lex-53rd service. We're still left with the original problem: overcrowded trains in the Cranberry St Tunnel. |
|
|
| (559482) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 12:38:58 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 12:35:11 2008. Now you're talking money, not scheduling fixes. The East Side Access will be in operation by the time a fast-tracked capital project could be implemented. That will take the pressure off the need for more Penn Sta to Lex-53rd service.We're still left with the original problem: overcrowded trains in the Cranberry St Tunnel. That doesn't answer if such a new station would address the terminal capacity problem for QB locals. Either increasing terminal capacity on the QB local, or addressing overcrowded trains in the Cranberry tunnel will cost money. MTA officials have recently floated the idea of increasing the C train from 8 to ten cars, so that should help. |
|
|
| (559483) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 12:40:35 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 12:32:28 2008. LION builds ORANGE TUNNELLION builds PINEAPPLE TUNNEL right next to CRANBERRY TUNNEL You might be able to get Tropicana or Dole to sponsor your idea. |
|
|
| (559484) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 12:44:36 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 12:16:04 2008. Fumigation at Continental also precludes running the new service out to 179th on the local.My premise, arguably flawed, was that 1 out every 3 trains would be able to punch through the fumigation gauntlet at Forest Hills. I add that I'm not particularly confident in that premise, although perhaps a third of trains continuing on through might be workable on the sequences: R, Of course, this is concededly speculative. |
|
|
| (559487) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by B47man on Sat Jan 26 12:53:20 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by FarRock on Fri Jan 25 23:17:09 2008. Like I said before, that sounds good.You'll eliminate the bottlenecks at W. 4th and Jay St. Trust me, there is a demand for Fulton St. local service. |
|
|
| (559491) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Jan 26 12:59:33 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 26 12:23:04 2008. How many tph going through Cranberry St for the A+F+V? That's 10+15+8=33! Tilt?33! = 33 * 32 * 31 * 30.... Uh oh! (Kidding). |
|
|
| (559492) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 13:03:40 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 12:40:35 2008.  See how nicely my new lines and tunnels fit into the existing Brooklyn infrastructure with almost no disruption of existing service at all! The connection to the Fulton Street Local is accomplished in the tunnels between Hoyt and Court Streets, so the cut-in only affects the museum tracks for the length of time it takes to make the actual cut-in. The Orange-Pineapple tunnels run three levels deep under existing downtown Manhattan services beneath Wall Street, six tracks. The Orange Street Tunnel (4 tracks) carries the Myrtle-Fifth Avenue Subway while the Pineapple Street Tunnel (2 tracks) carries the Fulton Street-Ninth Avenue Subway. There is likewise NO CONNECTIONS TO or interruptions of any existing subway in Manhattan.   |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 7 |
||
