|
|
| Re: Future expansion wish list? (876585) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 9 of 9 |
||
|
| (880372) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Dec 31 02:12:51 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Gene B. on Sun Dec 27 20:20:03 2009. Perhaps if they rebuild the connection between the local and express tracks at Broadway-Lafayette, the C train could perhaps then run with the D on the West End line on a full-time basis, running from Bay Parkway-168th, while the V could replace the C on the 8th Avenue line to Euclid.That might very satisfy that part of having a line fron Southern Brooklyn on the 8th Avenue Line and eliminate the need for the M to Bay Parkway. |
|
|
| (880383) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Dec 31 06:50:11 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Dec 30 23:34:40 2009. I'm done. It's not worth arguing with someone so blind and ignorant as yourself |
|
|
| (880385) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Dec 31 06:50:44 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Dec 30 08:50:59 2009. I'm just saying for it to run to the border, not into Nassau County. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (880389) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Dec 31 06:58:32 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Dec 31 06:50:11 2009. He's actually usually right on the ball. I find it quite telling that you reacted the same way to both he and I when we try to correct your mistaken impressions. You really should wise up and listen to the people who know way more than you on certain subjects. |
|
|
| (880467) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Thu Dec 31 11:29:44 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Grand Concourse on Tue Dec 29 05:19:17 2009. Also, you could route SAS trains via the expanded Concourse, by depressing the "storage" tracks between 135 St and 125 St and connecting them to a westward expansion of SAS Phase II. (I say this because an "expanded Concourse yard" was considered for the SAS project...) |
|
|
| (880528) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Dec 31 14:08:47 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Concourse Express on Thu Dec 31 11:29:44 2009. Heh . . . "Grand Concourse" and "Concourse Express" talking to each other. (Haven't seen Mr. Mabstoa or Mabstoa Yard Operator do that. Hope nobody registers here as "Uruk-hai" . . .) |
|
|
| (880542) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Thu Dec 31 14:46:27 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by WillD on Wed Dec 23 20:15:33 2009. Manhattan Commuter Distributor Tunnel Track MapVery interesting idea. That would be New York's Crossrail ... literally. I have always thought that the New York rail region network is too narrowly confined by municipal and state boundaries. If NJT snd LIRR trains are interoperable (having the same track gauge and loading gauge), the "X" could be configured in a variety of ways. The tracks shown in gray could provide additional useful connections. Would your "X" accommodate bi-levels? |
|
|
| (880842) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Fri Jan 1 00:51:23 2010, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by WillD on Wed Dec 23 20:15:33 2009. I think the reason why this would never be built is that it provides four tracks of north-south capacity between Lower- and Mid-Manhattan, where none is needed. A more useful connection might be the part from the Mass Transit Tunnel and Penn Station to Grand Central and East Side Access. |
|
|
| (880846) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 1 00:57:41 2010, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by David Fairthorne on Fri Jan 1 00:51:23 2010. A more useful connection might be the part from the Mass Transit Tunnel and Penn Station to Grand Central and East Side AccessNobody's proposing that, and connecting to ESA wouldn't work out well. That goes to the low-clearance (AFAIK) 63rd Street tunnel where overhead wire can't be installed, and possibly the LIRR terminus there might be just as low-clearance. (NJT isn't going to put third-rail shoes on their ALP-46s or Arrows for any purpose anyhow.) ARC tunnel to GCT lower level? Possible? Dunno, but at least there's clearance for overhead wires at the Metro-North lower level, if not the Park Avenue tunnels (and that could be installed, with some work to those tunnels) . . . |
|
|
| (880869) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Jan 1 04:26:13 2010, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Concourse Express on Thu Dec 31 11:29:44 2009. True, should they fail to ever get the 3rd Av segment built, a connection to the Concourse line would be a decent alternative [as long as it is a 4-track line]. |
|
|
| (880960) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Fri Jan 1 13:50:31 2010, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 1 00:57:41 2010. Nobody's proposing that, and connecting to ESA wouldn't work out well.Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't sure if NJT and LIRR were interoperable, but obviously they are not! ARC tunnel to GCT lower level seems a better idea. |
|
|
|
Page 9 of 9 |
||
