|
|
| Re: Nostrand Ave. (850060) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
|
| (850828) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Sat Oct 31 20:37:27 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Oct 31 20:15:47 2009. Especially if that part of the station was rebuilt. |
|
|
| (850842) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sat Oct 31 21:10:55 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by randyo on Sat Oct 31 20:06:29 2009. Ok, I agree on all points. The only point I make is that the Bedford Avenue subway idea, was not complete conjecture - a figment of the imagination by transit fans - even if little physical evidence exists. To me at least there is no mystery, the idea of it is as real as any of the non-built subway lines that were planned, there are plenty of those.I hope you did not feel that I was singling you out, personally on any point. I am not. Mike |
|
|
| (850860) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Oct 31 21:45:29 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 17:05:11 2009. "Hylan's way to prevent the IRT from extending their Flushing Line past Times Square."While the layout as recently revealed in the tunneling for the 7 extension seems to support this, keep in mind that nothing likely would have prevented a 7 extension from going underneath the lower level of 8 Av/42 St entirely. That would have been more difficult, but certainly not impossible. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (850877) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Oct 31 22:05:28 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 22:27:58 2009. After the Fulton/Nostrand thread, I'm staying out of this one! lol |
|
|
| (850943) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Sat Oct 31 23:51:06 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Oct 31 21:45:29 2009. If the 7 extention was to have passed under the IND line, especially the lower level, the downgrade would have started immediately after Times Square. |
|
|
| (850949) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Sun Nov 1 00:02:50 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by Elkeeper on Sat Oct 31 22:05:28 2009. I agree. It should have been discussed while Brian was enjoying his day away from here. |
|
|
| (850967) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Nov 1 00:37:52 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by daDouce Man on Sat Oct 31 23:51:06 2009. didn't he just imply that? what are you adding? |
|
|
| (851233) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Nov 1 16:07:47 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by daDouce Man on Sat Oct 31 20:37:27 2009. Actually the rather superficial provision for the Bedford Av subway can only be seen from a RFW in the tunnel itself N/O the station and since trains would be moving at speed through the area what little provision there is is easily missed. There is AFAIK no part of this provision that could have ever been seen from the station itself unlike E Bway and Houston/2 Av where provisions for the Worth St subway and SAS respectively can be seen. |
|
|
| (851235) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Nov 1 16:11:33 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by Michael549 on Sat Oct 31 21:10:55 2009. I didn't think you were. I was sort of trying to explain to some of the other posters why there is so little evidence of the Bedford Av Line. Another mystery line is the proposal to have the IND operate over the George Washington Bridge to New Jersey. There are reports of tunnels and trackways at the N/E of 174 St Yd going all the way to the foot of the GWB but I have never seen anything in print indicating that such aline was ever even planned. |
|
|
| (851239) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Nov 1 16:14:27 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by daDouce Man on Sat Oct 31 23:51:06 2009. You're forgetting that the Flushing Line was built before the iND so there would have been no reason to build around or below something that wasn't even there or even planned yet. |
|
|
| (851241) | |
Re: Small Question About The (L) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Nov 1 16:21:33 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (L), posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 31 05:48:55 2009. The L has two tracks it's entire length, which means service disruptions must be TOTAL. If work must be done on the J in Brooklyn, they can simply re-route one direction as an express. |
|
|
| (851249) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sun Nov 1 16:41:00 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by randyo on Sun Nov 1 16:11:33 2009. "The Bridges of New York" book by Sharon Reier, shows the lower level of the GWB with 4 tracks. A retired IRT motorman told me that the "AA"had been planned to go under Route 4 in NJ to Paterson. Regional transit planning did not exist back then, so it never got off of the ground- or under it. |
|
|
| (851253) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Nov 1 17:01:02 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by randyo on Sat Oct 31 20:06:29 2009. It may be that the congestion of the Loop was a factor. At the time Tower 18, as noted in a Chicago thread, was the single busiest RR junction on the planet. Getting the North South routes into the tunnel made Loop operations saner. |
|
|
| (851282) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Sun Nov 1 18:56:16 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by randyo on Sun Nov 1 16:07:47 2009. Do you mean N/O as in Queens Bound Side?The only provision I've seen over there was a 2 track subway line that would have continued along Lafayette Avenue. |
|
|
| (851290) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Sun Nov 1 19:02:48 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by randyo on Sun Nov 1 16:14:27 2009. IIRC, the Flushing line was extended to Times Square in the mid 1920's. The existing extention was built past the station for a future time. But Hylan had the LL at 42/8 built to block the extention. Consider that a LL was never built on the uptown side. |
|
|
| (851317) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Nov 1 19:56:28 2009, in response to Small Question About The (E), posted by Union Turnpike on Thu Oct 29 22:41:06 2009. There are no small questions, only small answers. |
|
|
| (851328) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Nov 1 20:18:04 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 17:05:11 2009. I say it wasn't. The IND built through the lower level of the IRT south of Nevins Street, so they'd have known that an unused subway level is no obstacle. |
|
|
| (851329) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Nov 1 20:20:13 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 30 13:59:09 2009. It's a psi junction on the southbound side. |
|
|
| (851353) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Sun Nov 1 21:09:20 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Nov 1 20:18:04 2009. And the IRT wanted to use the route along Lafayette.But never built it and the IND did. |
|
|
| (851355) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Sun Nov 1 21:10:39 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Nov 1 19:56:28 2009. Actually the questions are small.But the answers go on and on and on...... |
|
|
| (851362) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Nov 1 21:22:54 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by daDouce Man on Sat Oct 31 23:51:06 2009. The existing tail tracks could have been lowered to clear the 42 St lower level. Again, not easy, but not impossible either. |
|
|
| (851367) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Sun Nov 1 21:28:41 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Nov 1 21:22:54 2009. Definately not easy. But it should have been gone years ago. |
|
|
| (851487) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Nov 2 09:45:16 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by Michael549 on Sat Oct 31 19:32:28 2009. Is it me or do you really have to use the phrase "transit fans" (that includes you) in such a derogatory way? It makes me wonder... |
|
|
| (851497) | |
Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 10:17:39 2009, in response to Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station, posted by daDouce Man on Fri Oct 30 07:02:07 2009. If it hasn`t been posted already,nostrand was built as a 2 level station because the street is narrow there.rather than tear down additional houses they double decked it. this is a quote from an enginering journal[in my collection somewhere]that describes it in detail.hey rando, I got this paper from larry furlong apx.5 or more years ago. |
|
|
| (851501) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 10:34:21 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by randyo on Sun Nov 1 16:11:33 2009. Larry furlong has proof that the lower level of the GWB was supposed to be for rail use.4 tracks for mainline RR`S& 4 tracks for IND SUBWAY. |
|
|
| (851518) | |
Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Mon Nov 2 11:38:41 2009, in response to Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station, posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 10:17:39 2009. Nostrand Ave is a 2 level station.But if you ever think of the track layout there, it is still 4 tracks side by side like a typical local station. The local tracks go to a lower level. But do not go under the express tracks. If you get a chance I'd like to see this paper from larry furlong. |
|
|
| (851519) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Mon Nov 2 11:40:13 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 10:34:21 2009. This proof has to be scanned and put on-line for us to see. |
|
|
| (851540) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 12:38:25 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 10:34:21 2009. thats not gonna happen,larry does not post here.however if your an ERA member you can speak to him at the next meeting.FYI I have seen this documentation at a meeting so I know it does exsist. |
|
|
| (851546) | |
Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 12:45:10 2009, in response to Re: 50 St/8 Av is a unique station, posted by daDouce Man on Mon Nov 2 11:38:41 2009. when I get a chance i,ll go thru my archieves,when I find it i,ll ask for your home address&mail it to you. |
|
|
| (851553) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 13:16:41 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by daDouce Man on Sat Oct 31 15:38:03 2009. there is nothing on the model that shows a bedford ave subway.the tunnel that was built was probably built by the BRT.it runs apx.600feet&it is the roof of the G train.it was rediscovered in late 1965 after the blackout.there are NO blueprints the T.A.has on this tunnel.I have posted several times over the last 4 years on this tunnel. |
|
|
| (851562) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Nov 2 13:41:20 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 13:16:41 2009. which would explain why the Bedford Avenue end exit is so confined space wise. |
|
|
| (851564) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Nov 2 13:43:16 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 13:16:41 2009. which would explain why the Bedford Avenue end exit is so confined space wise. |
|
|
| (851576) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Nov 2 14:47:09 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 13:16:41 2009. What tunnel are you talking about that was probably built by the BRT? |
|
|
| (851577) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Nov 2 14:48:45 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by daDouce Man on Sun Nov 1 18:56:16 2009. Railroad north is going towards Manhattan. |
|
|
| (851578) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Nov 2 14:53:54 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Nov 2 09:45:16 2009. I don't think that he is using the term "transit fans" in a derogatory way at all. I think he may be trying to distinguish transit fans from people like some of the planners at the MTA who THINK they know what they are talking about but are extremely clueless. |
|
|
| (851581) | |
Re: Small Question About The (E) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Nov 2 15:02:36 2009, in response to Re: Small Question About The (E), posted by daDouce Man on Sun Nov 1 21:09:20 2009. When the IND built through the ramp from Nevins LL, the IRT sued, but the NYC PSC ordered the IRT to vacate the suit and it was dropped. In the case of the IRT attempting to build through the lower level of the iND, since the IND was city owned, the IRT would in all likelihood have been prevented from encroaching on city property which the IND was at the time. Once unification took place many options which couldn't have been considered up until that time, became available hence the current extension of the Flushing Line west through 42/8 LL. |
|
|
| (851590) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Nov 2 15:32:39 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by randyo on Mon Nov 2 14:53:54 2009. I think he may be trying to distinguish planners at the MTA from people like transit fans who THINK they know what they are talking about but are extremely clueless. |
|
|
| (851591) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Nov 2 15:36:39 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Nov 2 15:32:39 2009. Having worked with a number of transit planners at the MTA for several years, I think my original statement is more accurate. I've had planners tell me particular service patterns never operated when in fact, I worked those very same service patterns on my way up through the various TA/MTA operating titles. |
|
|
| (851598) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Mon Nov 2 15:46:04 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 13:16:41 2009. From what I know the BRT Crosstown El was planned but never built.I saw in a book where the line was to have been routed and stations that were going to be built. But nothing was actually built. |
|
|
| (851601) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Mon Nov 2 15:51:28 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by randyo on Mon Nov 2 14:48:45 2009. Actually railroad north is heading toward the Bronx or Queens. |
|
|
| (851603) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Nov 2 15:57:38 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by daDouce Man on Mon Nov 2 15:51:28 2009. The problem with the Fulton St Line is that trains can (and once did) operate to Queens in both directions. E trains operated between Rock Pk and Jamaica so they were Queens bound in both directions. I came across a passenger at Jay St who wanted to know which platform was for trains to Queens. Without knowing specifically where he wanted to go, it was impossible to tell him since F trains go to Queens from the N/B platform and A trains go to Queens from the S/B platform. Since no Fulton St trains go to the Bronx anymore and S/B trains go to Queens, describing railroad north as Manhattan bound is correct in this case. |
|
|
| (851611) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Mon Nov 2 16:20:00 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by randyo on Mon Nov 2 15:57:38 2009. When a customer asked what side of the M train went to Brooklyn, I used to ask what part of Brooklyn they wanted. Because the M train went to 2 distinct different parts of Brooklyn. Likewise when someone asked me at Jay Street how to get to Queens, I'd ask where in Queens?If you get on a D train in the Bronx and wanted a N/B to Manhattan, You'd have to take a S/B to get there. |
|
|
| (851615) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Mon Nov 2 16:32:58 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 12:38:25 2009. How is his Second System history book coming? He mentioned this to me a long while back ...--Mark |
|
|
| (851636) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 17:55:51 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by Edwards! on Mon Nov 2 13:41:20 2009. . |
|
|
| (851646) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 18:23:12 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by randyo on Mon Nov 2 14:47:09 2009. I,ve posted on this several times before,so here we go again.in 1967 while working for the t.a. I ran across a former HS classmate who was a S/M.I asked him if he knew of any tunnels/stations that were sealed up that he had been in,yes was the answer.after the 1965 blackout the head of the t.a.was digusted over the amount of garbage that was in the subway&ordered a massive cleanup.rooms&manholes that were unused for years were opened& cleaned.he& his helper were in a fan chamber in the vicinity of bedford/nostrand on the G in a fan chamber,he opened a manhole&smelled fresh concrete.shining his flashlite into the hole they saw a 2 track subway tunnel.upon entering it he said it ran apx.600 feet on a slight curve& deadended on both ends.just an empty type 2 tunnel[ind/bmt]no m/h covers to the street or vents.they had all the top t.a.down there& no one could locate any blueprints on it.the era mentioned this in an article many years ago that the franklin shuttle was supposed to be extended to QBP as a subway&EL on what is much of todays G line&this probably was a provision for the future ext.Brennan also mentions this on his site.he thinks a shell station was built there.I will go by what my friend told me,no station,but 600feet of tunnel.the early ind plans called for the G to hookup with the franklin shuttle.time has erased my classmates name& I could not find the yearbook[he graduated a year ahead of me]that would contain his name&photo.the school was woodrow wilson,now august martin[baisley park,queens]& they do not have the year books I was looking for. |
|
|
| (851650) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 18:26:33 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by Mark S. Feinman on Mon Nov 2 16:32:58 2009. mark,I haven`t talked to larry in over a year.he fell upon hard times& had to move in with family somewhere on L.I. |
|
|
| (851663) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Mon Nov 2 18:39:09 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 18:23:12 2009. off topic: my mom graduated from that school. she too has been looking for a yearbook (but i forget which year, around WWII or right after). |
|
|
| (851737) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Mon Nov 2 21:17:10 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 18:23:12 2009. I heard stories like that about 76 Street. |
|
|
| (851933) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Tue Nov 3 10:57:30 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by tunnelrat on Mon Nov 2 18:23:12 2009. yes you did,posted by me.thanks for the x town map. |
|
|
| (851949) | |
Re: Nostrand Ave. |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Tue Nov 3 11:54:59 2009, in response to Re: Nostrand Ave., posted by randyo on Mon Nov 2 14:47:09 2009. I thought the BRT was planning to build a crosstown El. Not a tunnel. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
