|
|
| Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale (1144837) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (1146417) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 24 21:37:50 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 24 20:05:08 2012. Please re-read my posts. I was merely pointing out what would be ideal and what is actually planned. |
|
|
| (1146439) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 22:14:48 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 24 18:47:26 2012. Loose lips of political appointees, eh. I don't see why the P32AC-DMs won't do it; nice wye in Montauk and everything.One thing I won't soon forget is Jeff Warsh (while NJT ED) saying that there was a possibility of building a tunnel under Newark Bay for the Hudson-Bergen LRT system to have it run on the former CNJ into Elizabeth and possibly further west. They'll say anything . . . |
|
|
| (1146478) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 24 23:52:11 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 24 22:14:48 2012. I think Claytor was as much a railroad man as he was a politician. Without him I don't think we would have had the Empire Connection. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1146537) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sun Mar 25 11:05:07 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Charles G on Mon Mar 19 13:45:22 2012. The open air parking at Ronkonkoma, is currently supersaturated.Go there midday during the work week, and you will find SUVs, and Pickups that have hopped the curbs and park on the grass portions of the lot. That, and a number of commuters are dropped off, or get there by bus. |
|
|
| (1146555) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 11:55:03 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Avid Reader on Sun Mar 25 11:05:07 2012. There needs to be a O&D study as to where the 7,000 loadings really come from: points east ,north, or south.3rd rail should be extended on either the Port Jeff, Main line, or South Shore regardless of what the capital planning eggheads have thus far determined. The market is what should drive it. |
|
|
| (1146562) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 25 12:10:56 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 18 17:25:43 2012. Agreed, even until about the Hamptons the towns are mostly centered around the train(not so much with some of the Hamptons stops) and likewise with PJ line. I was simply making a point about the main line, which I still think would see depcent ridership out to riverhead |
|
|
| (1146563) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 25 12:13:30 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Charles G on Mon Mar 19 13:45:22 2012. I accept that most of the ridership would come from those folks already at ronkonkoma, but I do believe you would also see riders coming off the jitney and out of their cars, especially folks working in places like farmingdale and central nassau |
|
|
| (1146564) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 25 12:14:50 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Mar 21 00:36:25 2012. I'm told its the way the gates are timed |
|
|
| (1146566) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 25 12:16:37 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Avid Reader on Fri Mar 23 11:52:19 2012. Agreed, but to speonk and and riverhead |
|
|
| (1146569) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 25 12:21:19 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 11:55:03 2012. 100% agreed, see where these folks are coming from and expand service to that corridor. |
|
|
| (1146571) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 25 12:26:11 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 18 20:40:00 2012. All true, but why not fight to densify already heavily developed areas instead of bringing this sprawl shit further out. I don't mean cover all of nassau and western suffolk in high rise apartments, but at least build up a bit in the centers of towns near the train stations |
|
|
| (1146576) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 25 12:57:27 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 18 20:40:00 2012. All true, but why not fight to densify already heavily developed areas instead of bringing this sprawl shit further out. I don't mean cover all of nassau and western suffolk in high rise apartments, but at least build up a bit in the centers of towns near the train stations |
|
|
| (1146595) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 14:29:32 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 25 12:10:56 2012. Yahphank to Riverhead is a long stretch with no stations. Manorville and Calverton are long gone. |
|
|
| (1146599) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 14:36:07 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 25 12:26:11 2012. The trouble with the Main Line east of Ronkonoma and west of Riverhead is that it is Pine Barrons. The population and sprawl is really lined up along Rt 25 and the LIE. That's why there was a proposal in the 1960's to relocate the LIRR into the median.So I'd rather see the Port Jeff electrified, promised on and off since Ronan: -dense, walkable villages -a RR line with excess parking, -an excessive amount of controlled sidings, -long platforms, -rather new train yard in Port Jeff, -CTC. It would be a cheap electrification. The line east of Ronkonkoma is still, infrastructurally, and in a word, SHIT, and in God's country. |
|
|
| (1146606) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sun Mar 25 14:44:09 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 14:29:32 2012. Makes for a faster trip. |
|
|
| (1146609) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sun Mar 25 14:47:46 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 14:36:07 2012. Grade Crossing is at a minimum.South shore has more then I can count. |
|
|
| (1146639) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 25 16:56:32 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 25 12:26:11 2012. why not fight to densify already heavily developed areasRight; destroy the reason why people moved away from the cities in the first place by turning their suburbs into cities that they want to move away from. |
|
|
| (1146640) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 25 16:58:39 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 14:29:32 2012. Sounds like you might want to build a case for a Tanger Mall station . . . |
|
|
| (1146713) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 21:01:17 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 14:36:07 2012. OK, one time too many. It's barrens, not barrons. |
|
|
| (1146761) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Mar 26 01:07:24 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 14:36:07 2012. I don't know about "God's Country" but it certainly is beautiful as seen from the cab of a DE30 heading east. |
|
|
| (1146779) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Mar 26 08:31:18 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 25 21:01:17 2012. If it's so stuck in the 1800's on that line, perhaps they DO have robber barrons. |
|
|
| (1146780) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Mar 26 08:33:46 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 25 14:36:07 2012. But people will come. It's safe to say that 80% or better of Ronkonkoma's, Brentwood, Central Islip, etc's passenger counts are from people that drive from the North or South shores to those stations to get the train.For example, Ronkonkoma isn't really all that much of a place either. Sure it's not "Manorville" or "Yaphank", but it's also not a town that would support the type of passenger traffic that uses it's station either. |
|
|
| (1146982) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Mar 27 15:39:42 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Avid Reader on Wed Mar 21 09:39:42 2012. The BB-3 were built for 11kv 25Hz AC overhead for use on the Bay Ridge Branch of the LIRR. They were later re-classified as PRR B1.Finding photos of them in LIRR livery seems quite imposiible. Model trains only. 
|
|
|
| (1147006) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 27 17:16:30 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Mar 27 15:39:42 2012. Who really maintained them: LIRR Morris Park (where they would have been towed) or PRR at SSY ?I thought all AC motors on the Bay Ridge line were New Haven's. |
|
|
| (1147148) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Wed Mar 28 09:47:41 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Mar 27 15:39:42 2012. Thanks for the input.I don't believe MTH would have put a false livery on one of their models. Lionel did, and frequently. That, and incorrect trucks. They , however were toy makers. |
|
|
| (1147156) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Mar 28 10:18:12 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 27 17:16:30 2012. There isn't enough documentation about them on the net or any of the books that I have, but since the PRR owned similar units too, I'd guess Sunnyside serviced them.PRR B1 on Wikipedia |
|
|
| (1147161) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Kahlua on Wed Mar 28 10:43:19 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Avid Reader on Wed Mar 21 09:39:42 2012. NH E33 wrecked on the Bay Ridge Branch |
|
|
| (1147225) | |
Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 28 19:00:38 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Kahlua on Wed Mar 28 10:43:19 2012. One H too many.hhttp://www.nhrhta.org/htdocs/photo.htm |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
