|
|
| A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch (781143) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (781143) | |
A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Wed May 6 11:37:19 2009 I wanted to know from any of the Subchatters as to why the LIRR never really spent any money when there was service to this section of the branch to rehabilitate the stations like they did, spending money elsewhere on other projects. To see Fresh Pond with no platforms and there are others like that on the line, I just don't understand the reason why. It seems like these stations where that way since "day one" in most cases. Only Richmond Hill had a real station to talk of. I can't believe low ridership for decades was the root of the problem. |
|
|
| (781150) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 6 11:46:13 2009, in response to A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by streetcarman1 on Wed May 6 11:37:19 2009. LOL.Yup. I remember 1980 when I played little league in Glendale, the league was circulating a petition to start the electrification of the Montauk/LIC line because it passed next to our fields. Plan was to somehow run subway service on the line, but it was shot down. I lived very close to Fresh Pond Rd. I remember one passenger used to get on every day at that stop. I also remember going to Jahn's in Richmond Hill, and visiting the LIRR station after ice cream. |
|
|
| (781157) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Bob Andersen on Wed May 6 12:33:37 2009, in response to A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by streetcarman1 on Wed May 6 11:37:19 2009. At various points in time the "Lower Montauk" was one ofthe busiest line on the LIRR.In 1854 the Flushing RR built from LIC to about Haberman then northeast towards Winfield and Flushing In 1868 the South Side RR built from Bushwick to Fresh Pond to Jamaica. In 1877, after all the RR's were combined into the LIRR, the connection from Haberman to Fresh Pond was made and the "Lower Montauk" was born. (the name "Montauk" comes from the fact that the South Side had gone into receivership and eventually re-emerged as the Brooklyn and Montauk RR) At one point (in the 1880's I think) the main line tracks from Woodside to Jamaica were torn up since the rails were needed elsewhere and the only way to get from Jamiaca to LIC was via the Lower Montauk. Once the East River tunnels were built, ferry service from LIC to Manhattan dropped drastically and the Lower Monauk was used less and less. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (781158) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 6 12:56:51 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Bob Andersen on Wed May 6 12:33:37 2009. So many memories along this line. I notice that train never go faster than about 25mph on this line. Too many things that can go wrong. |
|
|
| (781160) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Kirschner on Wed May 6 13:06:41 2009, in response to A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by streetcarman1 on Wed May 6 11:37:19 2009. Yes. The stepchild branch on the stepchild railroad. Most people probably didn't even know there WAS a station at Fresh Pond or Penny Bridge! What kind of stations were they anyway? Little slab of concrete, no sign.It would have been the perfect conversion for subway service, but NIMBYism killed it (I believe ol' Al D'Amato spearheaded the NIMBY effort too.) Now with all the freight action on it, it cannot be. |
|
|
| (781161) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed May 6 13:07:37 2009, in response to A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by streetcarman1 on Wed May 6 11:37:19 2009. Maybe ridership never justified the expense. If the Far Rockaway line had always terminated at Far Rockaway instead of being part of the loop system, the current Far Rock stations might not have been rehabbed either. |
|
|
| (781162) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed May 6 13:09:24 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Andrew Kirschner on Wed May 6 13:06:41 2009. "What kind of stations were they anyway? Little slab of concrete, no sign."In Kevin Walsh's FNY page on the Bay Ridge LIRR branch, it seems that a number of Bay Ridge stations also had similar stations as Penny Bridge. Again, ridership numbers. |
|
|
| (781168) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed May 6 13:21:52 2009, in response to A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by streetcarman1 on Wed May 6 11:37:19 2009. I'm gonna go with "historical ridership at those stations didn't justify building real station structures there". |
|
|
| (781169) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed May 6 13:24:28 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed May 6 13:21:52 2009. Where did you get that quote, Terp? |
|
|
| (781184) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed May 6 14:03:36 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Mitch45 on Wed May 6 13:24:28 2009. My own words - I summarized the obvious opinion that is shared by, and expressed by, many here. I put it in quotes to show that it is such (the obvious opinion that is shared by, and expressed by, many here) and not some deep insight that I have. I can't believe you didn't catch that. |
|
|
| (781187) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed May 6 14:10:44 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed May 6 14:03:36 2009. Well, I never would have thought that you had some deep insight. That's not your thing. |
|
|
| (781188) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed May 6 14:17:41 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Mitch45 on Wed May 6 14:10:44 2009. That's where you're always wrong, Mitch. I have deep insight on several topics that I discuss here. Usually though I'm showing how you're wrong, so of course you'll be mistaken about how right I am. |
|
|
| (781192) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by d_mind on Wed May 6 14:38:08 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed May 6 14:17:41 2009. Saying that you "have deep insight" is probably the most ostentatious thing you've spewed. Verbal diarrhea. |
|
|
| (781200) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Wed May 6 14:59:30 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Andrew Kirschner on Wed May 6 13:06:41 2009. Little slab of concrete…Fresh Pond didn't even have that! |
|
|
| (781203) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by andy on Wed May 6 15:09:11 2009, in response to A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by streetcarman1 on Wed May 6 11:37:19 2009. The reasons why this branch has had low service levels are:(1) The branch cannot access the East River tunnels, so no through service to Manhattan was ever possible, unlike the Main Line stations such as Kew Gardens and Forest Hills. It only provides a west end terminus for non-electric trains. (2) There were no great activity centers or job clusters at any of the intermediate stations. Only one, Richmond Hill, provided anything remotely close to a subway transfer. (3) As another poster noted, the NIMBYs in neighborhoods along the r.o.w. killed proposals floated in the 1980s that would have electrified the line and merged it into the NYC subway, including service through the 63d Street Tunnel. |
|
|
| (781216) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Brighton Private on Wed May 6 15:51:38 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by andy on Wed May 6 15:09:11 2009. It may also be of some historical interest to the questioner that, prior to the connection to Penn Station, the Lower Montauk was the main passenger line between Long Island City and Jamaica, connecting with ferries to Manhattan. During that time, stations at places such as Glendale looked a lot better than they did in more recent times.During that pre-Penn Station period, the predecessor to what is now the main line was primarily a freight carrier, connecting with the car float gantries on the East River. When the main line was rebuilt and connected to Penn Station, the roles flipped, and the Lower Montauk, which ran along the highly industrialized Newtown Creek, became chiefly a freight carrier. Back in the days when the LIRR handled a respectable amount of freight, there was no reason to load more passenger traffic onto that line. |
|
|
| (781223) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed May 6 16:09:05 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by d_mind on Wed May 6 14:38:08 2009. Its like "Deep Thought" from SNL. |
|
|
| (781232) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Wed May 6 16:28:28 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by R36 #9346 on Wed May 6 14:59:30 2009. At Fresh Pond there was a metal "box" on the roadbed.Other than that there was a stairway that went to the roadbed. If you knew where to find it. |
|
|
| (781235) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Wed May 6 16:36:40 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Mitch45 on Wed May 6 13:07:37 2009. Likely trains out of Far Rockaway/Rockaway Park would have made a turn at Hammels Wye, gone up the Rockaway Beach Branch to White Pot then went to Manhattan via the Main Line.Interesting to wonder what would have happened when the wooden tressle burned in the 1950's. Would the LIRR have rebuilt it again this time in concrete like TA did? Or abondon the line anyway? |
|
|
| (781280) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed May 6 19:20:56 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by andy on Wed May 6 15:09:11 2009. The line does indeed serve some centers of employment in LIC and Maspeth. It also traverses areas of Queens where no nearby subway service exists (Maspeth, Glendale). I think ridership at these stations suffered more from people not knowing the service existed, coupled with the lack of anything resembling a "station" at these locations, excluding Richmond Hill. |
|
|
| (781295) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch? |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Wed May 6 19:40:25 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed May 6 19:20:56 2009. Wasn't the last time Richmond Hill was used was within the last 2-3 years? IIRC Amtrak was on strike so LIRR trains couldn't used Penn Station. One of the contigency plans was to detrain people there and direct them to 121 Street for the J train to Manhattan. |
|
|
| (781301) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed May 6 19:45:29 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch?, posted by daDouce Man on Wed May 6 19:40:25 2009. Richmond Hill was closed on 3/16/98 and the staircase to the platform was filled in with cinder blocks almost immediately.I do recall such contingency plans before 1998, but not after. |
|
|
| (781356) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed May 6 21:02:12 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch?, posted by daDouce Man on Wed May 6 19:40:25 2009. How could it have been used if the plans were only contingency plans? That means they were just plans, not actually carried out. |
|
|
| (781365) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by lonerebel on Wed May 6 21:12:41 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by daDouce Man on Wed May 6 16:28:28 2009. I remember it more as a doorless metal shed |
|
|
| (781368) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by lonerebel on Wed May 6 21:15:24 2009, in response to A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by streetcarman1 on Wed May 6 11:37:19 2009. I was at Greenpoint Avenue today at about 5:00pm and I saw the train go through on its way east and I was shocked it still ran there...mind you I did not see one person on it. |
|
|
| (781373) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch? |
|
|
Posted by d_mind on Wed May 6 21:27:56 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed May 6 19:45:29 2009. Was Richmond Hill the only high level platform on the line? |
|
|
| (781376) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed May 6 21:30:30 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch?, posted by d_mind on Wed May 6 21:27:56 2009. Yes. Of all the stations in question, it was the only one which even resembled a station in any way, shape or form. |
|
|
| (781386) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Wed May 6 21:39:40 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by lonerebel on Wed May 6 21:12:41 2009. More like a metal shed (lean-to?) with no wall to it nearest the track. |
|
|
| (781396) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 21:49:19 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 6 11:46:13 2009. Fresh Pond was the "busiest" station on the line. I think there were about 5 regular passengers at the end.I rode the line often, and from my observations, this is what I have seen as the passenger counts: Richmond Hill: 1 regular morning passenger, 0 regular afternoon passengers Glendale: Occasionally 1 or 2 random people mornings or afternoons Fresh Pond: 5 regular morning passengers, 3-4 random afternoon. Haberman: 3-4 morning passengers, 2 or 3 afternoon Penny Bridge: I never saw anyone getting on or off there. |
|
|
| (781398) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Wed May 6 21:51:08 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed May 6 14:03:36 2009. Main truth is...those areas never wanted subway/transit service through their neighborhoods anyway. Remaining semi-isolated is their main attraction. |
|
|
| (781400) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 21:51:23 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by LuchAAA on Wed May 6 12:56:51 2009. I don't remember the through trains being that slow. What can go wrong on that line? The tracks are in good shape, and not at all in disrepair. |
|
|
| (781403) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed May 6 21:54:53 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by ntrainride on Wed May 6 21:51:08 2009. Mass transit access would increase property values in both Glendale and Maspeth. And the idea that the subway would attract the wrong element (minorities) no longer holds true, both neighborhoods are increasingly becoming more Hispanic. |
|
|
| (781404) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed May 6 21:57:56 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 21:51:23 2009. The train REALLY crawls along Newton Creek, and it moves fairly slowly through Fresh Pond and Richmond Hill. The fastest stretch in my experience is the segment which runs behind Metro Mall.I don't think it's the track, at least not in the Newton Creek area. It's more about tresspassers....lots and lots of them. |
|
|
| (781407) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:01:08 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Andrew Kirschner on Wed May 6 13:06:41 2009. Most people probably didn't even know there WAS a station at Fresh Pond or Penny Bridge!That is true. I lived in Ridgewood, and no one knew there was a station at Metro and Fresh Pond Rd. even I didn't realize there was on there until I got "into" trains. Glendale was known by more people than Fresh Pond, but even so, there was no sign there all through the 80's, and until 1993 or so when they finally put a sign up. None of the stations had signs until 1993. They did have signs from 1993 until 1998 when they closed. Little slab of concrete, no sign. Not even. While Fresh Pond had the stairway crossover from the street, and curbs at the tracks, the platform was just ballast. Haberman, Penny Bridge, and Glendale were NOTHING more than a stop on a regular grade crossing. The stepchild branch on the stepchild railroad. Only for passenger service. There's nothing stepchild about it otherwise. The line handles just about 100% of Brooklyn, Nassau, and Suffolk's freight service. All of Long Island's freight must pass through on this line. It's well used in that respect. Just because it doesn't have passenger service doesn't mean it's "stepchild". It would have been the perfect conversion for subway service, but NIMBYism killed it (I believe ol' Al D'Amato spearheaded the NIMBY effort too.) Now with all the freight action on it, it cannot be. But the freight service is NECESSARY on the line. You can't just through the freight off the line and make it a subway line. That would kill all the freight on Long Island dead in it's track. And while Long Island doesn't have the amount of freight it had prior to the 60's or 70's, the New York and Atlantic has really increased carloads since they took over from the LIRR in the early 90's. It would be a shame to destroy all that progress. The only way it could be converted to subway is if it was expanded to three tracks so one would be a freight track. Either that, or just expand LIRR service, as that would be able to run with freight. The reason the passengers were so sparse is because they made the line impossible to use. How can you have more people if you only have one train in each direction running local? |
|
|
| (781408) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:01:25 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Mitch45 on Wed May 6 13:09:24 2009. The reason the passengers were so sparse is because they made the line impossible to use. How can you have more people if you only have one train in each direction running local? |
|
|
| (781414) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Wed May 6 22:10:40 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:01:08 2009. IMO, Outside of Richmond Hill, Fresh Pond had something that suggested a station. When I explored the line back in 1987, Glendale and Maspeth didn't have anything to suggest they were stations. If I didn't have an atlas, I wouldn't have known there were stations. And Penny Bridge was too far out of the way to walk to. |
|
|
| (781415) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by lonerebel on Wed May 6 22:13:33 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed May 6 21:57:56 2009. Does anyone even ride this train anymore?I mean there is like ONE in the AM and PM or something like that. You know there is another aspect to the fact thats this line lost many of its stations...the cars which were able to use low - platforms are sadly all gone. |
|
|
| (781416) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:16:26 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by R36 #9346 on Wed May 6 14:59:30 2009. Fresh Pond had the curbs of the original ballast platform, and they were still there. It also had a primitive shed, as well as the stairways for the crossover. Other than Richmond Hill, Fresh Pond had the most "amenities" out of any of them!Fresh Pond Station, 1990. Here's the old shed, which was there to the end:  Here's a photo from 1991. The remnants of the original curb of the westbound platform side is on the left, the "wall" side. The train is stopping at the "island" platfrom of the eastbound side. The remnants of that curb is also still there. The other track to the right of that is the Bushwick Branch. Amazingly, this was an ACTIVE open station at the time of this photo!:  |
|
|
| (781417) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:19:22 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed May 6 21:54:53 2009. Agreed. It's safe to say that the people that "NIMBYed" along the line in the 80's aren't even there anymore. It's 20-30 years ago. |
|
|
| (781418) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:21:58 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed May 6 19:20:56 2009. I think ridership at these stations suffered more from people not knowing the service existed, coupled with the lack of anything resembling a "station" at these locations, excluding Richmond Hill.Not to mention, one train in each direction (and only in peak direction) is hardly something that could attract any sort of ridership, as that basically makes it unusable. Also, "peak" direction in the morning would only mean AWAY from Jamaica, the hub of the LIRR. Totally unsable service. |
|
|
| (781419) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:23:16 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch?, posted by daDouce Man on Wed May 6 19:40:25 2009. That was only a contingency, and Richmond Hill wasn't even part of the plan in the last contingency. The last time RH was even part of the Amtrak contingency was the early or mid 90's, when it was still an "open" station. |
|
|
| (781420) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:24:45 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch?, posted by d_mind on Wed May 6 21:27:56 2009. It's the only station that had ANY sort of platform. Fresh Pond had a half assed low level platform (remnants thereof), and was the only other station that even looked remotely like a station (if you can call it that). The other three were nothing more than a stop on a grade crossing. |
|
|
| (781421) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:27:36 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by lonerebel on Wed May 6 21:15:24 2009. The line is used for passenger service twice a day, but no longer local...only express LIC to Jamaica. That must be run there as per the original charter of the line. When the line was chartered in the 1800's, there is a stipulation that the line must always be used for passenger service, otherwise the line would revert back to the adjoining property owners.That is the ONLY reason the LIRR ran the quirky strange local service to those stations for as long as it did. Somehow, they used some sort of loophole to allow for the abandonment of the local stations in 1998, but they still must run those two trains on the line each day as per the original charter of the line. |
|
|
| (781423) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by lonerebel on Wed May 6 22:33:39 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:27:36 2009. I am honestly quite shocked they have not found a loophole through this provision yet.The loophole they used could have been the loss of low level cars and the cost to make the stations ADA compliant (Richmond Hill) |
|
|
| (781426) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:39:07 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by daDouce Man on Wed May 6 22:10:40 2009. Here's all the Lower Montauk Branch stations in Queens that I took in the early 90's, in all their pathetic glory.Penny Bridge:  Haberman (notice the WTC):  Fresh Pond: Glendale:  Richmond Hill:   |
|
|
| (781428) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:45:57 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by lonerebel on Wed May 6 22:33:39 2009. Fresh Pond would have been even harder to make ADA than Richmond Hill! The walkway from Metro Ave was only about three feet wide, and had twists and turns in it at 90 degree angles, no way a wheelchair was getting through there! Not to mention then having to have TWO elevators down to platform level as that is the way it was set up there! No way that would have been justifed. And Richmond Hill would have required an elevator, but imagine justifying that for only 1 regular passenger a day (who wasn't even handicapped!).The other three they could have gotten away with a small ramp and platform for one door, but they would have needed two at each station, one on each side (as it's double tracked). I am sure that must have been the "loophole". |
|
|
| (781429) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by d_mind on Wed May 6 22:46:29 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:39:07 2009. I assume that's the J in the last one? Wonder how I never noticed the abandoned station below... |
|
|
| (781430) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by lonerebel on Wed May 6 22:50:16 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:39:07 2009. U know the Penny Bridge picture looks like a model or a movie set...so crummy and cheap looking wow. |
|
|
| (781435) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Wed May 6 22:56:04 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:39:07 2009. Thanks for sharing those. Is the solitary smokestack near Haberman the last remnant of the Trunz meatpakcing plant that was near the BQE? If so, I didn't relaize the stack lasted that long... |
|
|
| (781438) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by lonerebel on Wed May 6 22:58:10 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by MainR3664 on Wed May 6 22:56:04 2009. Regarding Richmond Hill, does the LIRR still maintain it at all? |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
