|
|
| Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels (1312975) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1313312) | |
Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Tue Sep 16 11:05:49 2014, in response to Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Sep 15 22:03:25 2014. They can pull it off with the B div tunnels IMO, but closing the IRT tubes 24/7, eh, IDK. |
|
|
| (1313314) | |
Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels |
|
|
Posted by JAzumah on Tue Sep 16 11:12:28 2014, in response to Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Sep 16 01:25:42 2014. As inconvenient as it would be, I believe that it may be better just to shut the tunnel down and plow right through it. If we can scale the time by the dollar amount, most of those tunnels will need 5-6 months of zero trains.Of course, Larry Littlefield has stated that he believed that chunks of the subway would have to close for lack of capital funding. This storm probably took all of the margin left out of those tunnels. They will have to close and be fixed because we need this done very quickly. |
|
|
| (1313318) | |
Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Sep 16 11:20:53 2014, in response to Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels, posted by AlM on Tue Sep 16 01:23:08 2014. Logistically it would actually be pretty simple:Run the F in two sections: 179st - Essex Street Jay St - Coney Island Extend the J to perhaps 9th Av. Passengers can use the J from Essex to Jay St as a shuttle (take advantage of the new transfer). They could use the extra F trainsets on the C line and send some of its trains to the east to cover the extra service. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1313321) | |
Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!! |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 16 11:27:28 2014, in response to Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!!, posted by R36 #9346 on Tue Sep 16 01:44:25 2014. You're nuts!Worse than Wallyhorse. The G via the West End AND Culver going thru Stillwell. Seriously? |
|
|
| (1313322) | |
Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!! |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 16 11:29:18 2014, in response to Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!!, posted by Edwards! on Tue Sep 16 02:23:40 2014. At least it's not only me. IDK where this guy will let the crews off to piss. |
|
|
| (1313323) | |
Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!! |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Tue Sep 16 11:31:11 2014, in response to Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!!, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 16 11:29:18 2014. Crew exchange at CI |
|
|
| (1313324) | |
Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!! |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 16 11:32:08 2014, in response to Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!!, posted by Nilet on Tue Sep 16 02:30:25 2014. Trains with passengers are no longer allowed into yards. Too much chance of delays and yard operations would be interfered with. |
|
|
| (1313329) | |
Re: CRANBERRY NOT CLOSED !!! |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 16 12:01:18 2014, in response to Re: CRANBERRY NOT CLOSED !!!, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Sep 16 10:41:13 2014. NY (Toilet Paper) Post like screaming sensational headlines in your spare time. |
|
|
| (1313337) | |
Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 16 12:12:00 2014, in response to Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Sep 16 11:20:53 2014. I don't think the current F ridership would appreciate that.Closing East Broadway? Very busy station. |
|
|
| (1313369) | |
Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Sep 16 13:12:07 2014, in response to Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 16 12:12:00 2014. WHAT IF the CRANBERRY tunnel were to be closed for extensive repairs similar to the Montague Street Tunnel for say, 5 months, here’s what I would do:A Trains - All A Trains would operate out of either 168th Street (day and evening times), and 207th Street (nights), and would travel and make all local stops at all times from 168th Street to West 4th Street, running along Houston Street/Rutgers Tunnel to Brooklyn and at Jay Street switch both to/from the Fulton Street tracks. All of the A-trains that travel between Brooklyn and Manhattan would make all stops in Manhattan and Brooklyn at all times. During the rush hours A-trains would be scheduled at 12 trains per hour to travel between Manhattan and Brooklyn. Since the usual schedule of A-trains is at least 15 trains per hour or more, those “extra” trains could either be assigned to the C-train run as express trains to Chambers Street/Fulton Street, or much more useful as Brooklyn/Queens express runs between High Street and the Rockaways. These “extra trains” would supplement the services provided without burdening the Houston Street/Rutgers pathway. ----------- C Trains - All C trains would operate out of 207th Street (days and evenings) and would travel via CPW/8th Avenue express tracks and make only express stops to Chambers Street, and a “wrong rail” operation to/from the Broadway/Nassau/Fulton Street complex. This would allow riders to make some essential transfers, that are not possible at other stations. ----------- B Trains - Would operate as usual D Trains - Would operate as usual E Trains - Would operate as usual, however during heavy traffic periods some E-trains could run express between 42nd Street and Chambers Street, and terminate as usual at World Trade Center. ---------- F Trains - F trains would operate as usual, except that F-train service in Manhattan would be reduced to 12 trains per hour. Out of Queens and Coney Island the F-train would operate at its usual 15-trains per hour schedule, with those 3 trains traveling via the G-line between Queens and Brooklyn. ---------- M Trains - The M-train would operate at 6 trains per hour between its usual terminals in Queens and Queens. I believe that the M-train usually operates at 8 trains per hour or more. Those “extra trains” would operate between Metropolitan Avenue and Ninth Avenue in Brooklyn, offering a limited connection for riders the A trains at Jay Street and the Broadway/Nassau/Fulton Street complex. ---------- Bottom Line: This plan reserves the local tracks on CPW and 8th Avenue for A-trains making the switch to/from Houston Street, without clogging the 59th Street station with multiple switch operations. This plan also allows the majority of F and M trains to operate as usual without clogging the Houston Street/Rutgers pathways. This plan also provides for the “extra trains” to supplement the reduced A and F services. The C-train becomes express in Manhattan helping Harlem and Washington Heights riders get to/from downtown. The trains are kept moving by having “extra” F-trains travel the G-line, and by having those “extra” M-trains traveling to Ninth Avenue. These “extra” operations will help folks transfer easily to/from other lines. The Jay Street-MetroTech transfer to/from the R-train, and the small number of re-routed M-trains will help some riders. Yes, admittedly in Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn there would be reduction in the usual rush hour frequencies, and changes to the usual operation of a few routes. The closing of a major tunnel artery would never be painless in any scenario. Washington Heights folks have their usual express service, This is what I would do IF the CRANBERRY tunnel were to be closed for extensive repairs for say, 5 months. Mike |
|
|
| (1313373) | |
Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 16 13:22:46 2014, in response to Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels, posted by Michael549 on Tue Sep 16 13:12:07 2014. I don't think there is a "what if" senario.There was a link on this site, some time ago, that NYCT determined that only weekend closures, not 24/7 closures, would be rquired for the Cranberry (A/C) & Rutgers (F line) tubes. |
|
|
| (1313418) | |
Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels |
|
|
Posted by Allan on Tue Sep 16 16:17:33 2014, in response to Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Sep 16 11:20:53 2014. Can Essex St handle 600' trains or is can it only handle 480' trains? |
|
|
| (1313421) | |
Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Sep 16 16:30:57 2014, in response to Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels, posted by Allan on Tue Sep 16 16:17:33 2014. The F platform handles 600' trains right now while the J/M/Z platform handles 480' trains. |
|
|
| (1313460) | |
Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels |
|
|
Posted by Allan on Tue Sep 16 19:24:42 2014, in response to Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels, posted by AlM on Tue Sep 16 16:30:57 2014. The F platform is Delancey St, the J/M/Z platform is Essex St.You confirmed my assumption, so running F trains to Essex St as suggested by Henry R32 #3730 would not be possible. |
|
|
| (1313467) | |
Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!! |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Sep 16 19:38:58 2014, in response to Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!!, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 16 11:32:08 2014. Recently or has that been the rule for awhile? Does it apply to emergency reroutings and fantrips or only scheduled service? |
|
|
| (1313471) | |
Re: CRANBERRY CLOSED !!! |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Sep 16 19:39:10 2014, in response to Re: CRANBERRY CLOSED !!!, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Sep 16 07:39:41 2014. That's numberwang! |
|
|
| (1313472) | |
Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Sep 16 19:39:13 2014, in response to Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Sep 16 11:20:53 2014. 179th - East BroadwayYork - Coney Island On weekends, via Cranberry. |
|
|
| (1313476) | |
Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!! |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 16 19:52:48 2014, in response to Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!!, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 16 11:32:08 2014. Rather recently. |
|
|
| (1313480) | |
Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!! |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue Sep 16 19:59:04 2014, in response to Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!!, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 16 19:52:48 2014. Does this mean no more Nostalgia Trips taking the scenic route to Coney Island? |
|
|
| (1313507) | |
Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Tue Sep 16 21:41:39 2014, in response to Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Tue Sep 16 11:05:49 2014. Can you say, resurrection of Lexington Ave. service to South Ferry? |
|
|
| (1313508) | |
Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!! |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 16 21:57:00 2014, in response to Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!!, posted by Nilet on Tue Sep 16 19:59:04 2014. Not sure. Could make an exception with a Transit Museum trip.I was refering to regular service. |
|
|
| (1313538) | |
Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Sep 17 05:11:26 2014, in response to Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels, posted by Gold_12th on Mon Sep 15 21:49:04 2014. The weekend shutdown makes more sense, however, Lion's question was a "what if" scenario (even if he didn't phrase it correctly). |
|
|
| (1313604) | |
Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!! |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Wed Sep 17 15:26:49 2014, in response to Re: What would happen if lines such as CRANBERRY were CLOSED ?!!, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 16 21:57:00 2014. I think that Transit Museum trips have their own GOs which identify specific routings, wherever they may be.--mark |
|
|
| (1313609) | |
Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Sep 17 15:54:35 2014, in response to Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels, posted by Allan on Tue Sep 16 19:24:42 2014. Same station, I meant the F platforms at Essex St (aka Delancey st). |
|
|
| (1313618) | |
Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Sep 17 16:52:23 2014, in response to Re: Weekend shut downs planned* for Cranberry (A)(C) & Rutgers (F) tunnels, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Sep 16 13:22:46 2014. I meant to add this response to the message stream that concerned a "what-if" scenario. Thanks, Mike. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
