daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 10th, 2017, 02:56 AM   #4181
Fan Railer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 657
Likes (Received): 566

J train snowy RFW round trip ride:


Time-lapse version:


Full Length G train action (weekend G.O. extension to Coney Island):





C train to 2nd Avenue:
__________________
Fan Railer no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 12th, 2017, 12:58 AM   #4182
Fan Railer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 657
Likes (Received): 566

R160B Siemens SMS Test Train in The Rockaways (1/11/17):
__________________

carl_Alm, dimlys1994, mrsmartman liked this post
Fan Railer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2017, 06:27 AM   #4183
Fan Railer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 657
Likes (Received): 566

Morning rush on the Jamaica El @ Lorimer & Flushing:
__________________

carl_Alm, mrsmartman liked this post
Fan Railer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2017, 06:40 AM   #4184
Fan Railer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 657
Likes (Received): 566

That R32 A train @ Broad Channel:
__________________
Fan Railer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 12th, 2017, 09:03 PM   #4185
LTA1992
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 57
Likes (Received): 56

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
The E runs 150% of the frequency, sharing tracks with the F, M and C. The F also, sharing with the E, M and G. It works.

The E and F are both maxed at 15tph each though. 30tph is the limit per pair of tracks without CBTC. The M and G services are scheduled to fit in the extra space. Those services also intermix on younger, and better designed, sections of the subway. The structure itself allows for more efficient running of services.

Also the 15-10tph A-D split can't be helpful, nor the 7.5-10tph splits with the other two lines. Upping the D would help it mesh with the other lines easier.Far far easier to sort than building a second branch of the SAS in the Bronx, as 00Zy99 wants. It's entirely a signalling and timetabling problem, rather than a construction issue.

But it is a construction issue. The construction dictates how many trains can run on a line. The construction dictates train speed. The construction of trains themselves dictates how fast crowds ender and exit trains which takes up valuable time. Terminals also help to dictate tph on a line. Theoretically, all pairs of tracks can accommodate 30tph each. But on most lines, that is lowered to around 24 because the time it takes to enter stations without tail tracks. All of these factors play a role in how many trains can actually run.

And with the non-meshing nature of the D with the N and B, I'd argue that more D trains might make it easier to sort.Here's me wondering why all the frequencies are low and uneven with each other, finding out that the frequencies are set so each line has equal amounts of crowding unless the line is genuinely maxed out, and then getting confused by this.

Upping the D to 15tph would mean going from 17.5 to 22.5 - a 29% increase. Demand then for 30tph, rather than 22.5, on the Third Ave (or wherever the T goes in the Bronx) is then far less.
And as I said, "The SAS can still give a massive amount of capacity to the Bronx, even if a quarter of it turns off to serve Harlem." If you want it to go up 3rd Avenue, then there's nothing stopping that.

Except you can't up the D as said before. The junction above DeKalb Avenue, which is used by 4 services, dictates maximum service on the B, D, N, and Q. The more trains you have using an area of line, the less of each service you can run. You not only have these four services sharing a pair of switches, but there is also the time it takes for dispatchers to not only find out what train is at the switch, but which one goes is of higher priority, and then there's the time between route selection and switch change. The B Division doesn't have the ATS system that the A division does, so this may take slightly longer than it should. The IND sections don't have that issue as they were build to speed service and improve where the older systems failed. So even without the modern ATS systems of the A Division, route merges are easier. Then, with the D, there's the issue of number of train doors that slows boarding and alighting. It's one of the reasons 75 foot cars will never be purchased again.

Yeah, you can take away half of potential Bronx SAS service, but what about the southeast Bronx? Where another huge portion of Lex Service comes from? What about the need for new housing that only new subway lines to unserved areas can bring? A 125th Street Crosstown can't have that effect. On top of that, the Q (because of DeKalb Junction) can't reach needed service levels by itself. So everything needs to be done to not only provide adequate service for people using the new line from areas currently unserved, but also for transferring passengers on existing services. The combination would provide the needed capacity to handle any population increases in the next few decades.


I rather liked the idea, BTW, of ending phase 2 at the 6 train in the Bronx, rather than at 125/Lex. However, I think that it would make phase 2 more expensive, and thus less likely to be built. Also, I'm not sure whether a train every 8 minutes is attractive for those who'd you'd want to change - you'd need phase 3 for it to work.

If you meant ending it at the 2/5 at Third and 149th, then yes. But it won't be more expensive. Look at the price they are estimating for phase 2. Phase 2 already exists in two 10 block sections. A third of the tunneling is already done. Tunneling on Phase 1 cost 774 Million. That's tunnels from scratch in a project that eventually cost 4.5 Billion. Stations cost 2.4 Billion of the final price. So why is it that a phase that already partially exists will cost an extra 2 Billion? I can guess that the 125th Street terminal will, by itself, cost around 3 Billion. Why are we throwing so much money at this when we could send the line to The Bronx for a similar price?

An under river tunnel wouldn't be more expensive than sending it to 125th Street either. It's the Harlem River, not the East. A much smaller body of water. Immersed tunnels are a thing. If we are going to spend 6 Billion on this, two TBMs might as well be used. One on each side of the river. Meeting at the already built immersed tunnel.

That is one thought I have. I just cannot agree with a 125th Street Crosstown.
Responses in red.
__________________

dimlys1994, streetscapeer, mrsmartman liked this post
LTA1992 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2017, 12:38 AM   #4186
Woonsocket54
PC LOAD LETTER
 
Woonsocket54's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: East Millinocket, Maine
Posts: 5,637
Likes (Received): 5737

"48 People Were Killed by Subways in 2016, Lowest in 5 Years, MTA Says"

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201...-mta-2016-year
__________________

dimlys1994, Fabio1976 liked this post
Woonsocket54 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2017, 12:40 AM   #4187
luacstjh98
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,356
Likes (Received): 285

Alright, here's an idea that I don't really see mentioned:

Can traction voltage be increased to 750V?

Apparently increasing the traction voltage can help trains perform better. But should the existing fleet (including NTTs) be incapable of it, perhaps they might want to have the R211 or further orders be able to take 750V.

Then ban any stock that can't take 750V from sections of the subway equipped to take 750V.
__________________
Doors closing. Please stand clear of all train doors.

I have a bad habit of retroactively editing my posts without prior warning.
luacstjh98 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2017, 03:03 AM   #4188
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

They upped the voltage on the LIRR about 40 years ago. If they were going to up the voltage on the subway, it would have been done then, since they were both getting new fleets at the time. The distances between stops on the subway are too short to really take advantage of higher voltage.
__________________

mrsmartman liked this post
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2017, 06:12 AM   #4189
Miami High Rise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Miami
Posts: 2,533
Likes (Received): 2558

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fan Railer View Post
That R32 A train @ Broad Channel:
Those R32s are still shiny.
Miami High Rise no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2017, 07:01 AM   #4190
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

Budd builds the only truly permanent structures.
__________________

mrsmartman liked this post
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2017, 08:56 AM   #4191
Miami High Rise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Miami
Posts: 2,533
Likes (Received): 2558

Well well well Mr. TPH people, look what this nicely edited MTA video of the SAS shows, one of many high resolution gems, along with the super streets:

At about two minutes in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAziJqwjjoU
At 2:10

Looks like they figured all the good lines to be 34 TPH, more than we do with CBTC, and about 10 more tph than without.

It also seems to show a familiar vintage video segment of the subway operating that I recognize from one of those "oldest footage of New York" videos.

It shows a video of a train from behind, but smoothly enough to guess that it was taken from a following train that was right behind and keeping up. How's that for max headway?
As long as you gotta have a real driver on the train (even with CBTC no less), imagine this?



Sorry to all first day foamers and seasoned NYC subway video fanatics, this is the best SAS video :P
__________________

dimlys1994, mrsmartman liked this post
Miami High Rise no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2017, 11:00 AM   #4192
Miami High Rise
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Miami
Posts: 2,533
Likes (Received): 2558

34 tph

Well sure enough 34 tph seems to be a common high tph number, just doing a quick google search I didn't get that image, but it seems the Victoria and Central lines on the Underground are now at 34 tph, part of the new tube for london by TFL etc progress.
Also

Quote:
On the Third Avenue elevated, in January, 1907, the company operated during the rush hours 34 trains per hour, or 238 cars with 11,900 seats, at intervals of 1

On al el? That government SAS video said the other major El problem than being a visible monstrosity was worse service? A lot of this is finagling with longer trains and they go by "seats" which is odd and ambiguous to describe and urban service where standing is much better.

I know safety was less of thing back then, so logic would say with 2 second reaction time you could just eyeball the train in front of you and if they brake, you brake, so just like cars on the road following distance up to 50 mph can be pretty close.

On the issue of dwell time, which has been incited as more of an issue than train length, why would that necessarily be more with a longer train? All the doors open and close simultaneously, so as long as the "door density" and area (wider doors) is kept large enough, shouldn't matter.

34 tph would be a good number for New York, it would be a pretty huge boost that would cut a lot of delays, just like mid 20s to a full 30 will.
__________________

mrsmartman liked this post
Miami High Rise no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2017, 02:23 PM   #4193
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,545

Quote:
Originally Posted by LTA1992 View Post
Except you can't up the D as said before. The junction above DeKalb Avenue, which is used by 4 services, dictates maximum service on the B, D, N, and Q. The more trains you have using an area of line, the less of each service you can run. You not only have these four services sharing a pair of switches, but there is also the time it takes for dispatchers to not only find out what train is at the switch, but which one goes is of higher priority, and then there's the time between route selection and switch change.
Where is this single set of points? Nowhere, that's where. The junction was designed to fully segregate all the flows, and has holding space for many flows, so as to not create issues. As junctions go, it's very hard to create one that causes fewer issues but provides the same functionality.

The key reason why they have to work out which train is of a higher priority is because of the uneven frequencies (10tph and 3 x 7.5tph creates a right pigs' ear that 15tph and 3 x 7.5tph doesn't) and terrible timetabling. De Kalb Junction is perfectly fixable - it's better than the ABCD junctions in terms of layout. The issue is, first and foremost, signalling and timetabling.
Quote:
Then, with the D, there's the issue of number of train doors that slows boarding and alighting. It's one of the reasons 75 foot cars will never be purchased again.
Then replace them? Still far cheaper than having 2 new lines through the Bronx not far from other lines due to none of them running to their potential and are therefore overcrowded.

75' cars still run on the F, which has a 30tph section (though most are now new 60' cars). And it's not like this train issue is a construction issue that you insist is the problem with upping the D frequency.
Quote:
Yeah, you can take away half of potential Bronx SAS service, but what about the southeast Bronx?
For the third time, I said "The SAS can still give a massive amount of capacity to the Bronx, even if a quarter of it turns off to serve Harlem."

Quote:
If you meant ending it at the 2/5 at Third and 149th, then yes. But it won't be more expensive. <snip> An under river tunnel wouldn't be more expensive than sending it to 125th Street either. It's the Harlem River, not the East. A much smaller body of water. Immersed tunnels are a thing. If we are going to spend 6 Billion on this, two TBMs might as well be used. One on each side of the river. Meeting at the already built immersed tunnel.
An immersed tunnel is more expensive than just keeping the TBM running as it requires a different construction crew and equipment! With a cross-river tunnel of any form there's also issues of pumping, etc - especially with an immersed tube. Ignoring your doubling of tunnelling costs proposal for 2 TBMs, and the cost-increasing immersed tube, you are building over a mile more tunnel by going to 149th rather than 125th, which is a doubling of the length of tunnel that actually needs to be built, and adds 60% on to the amount of track needed.

But the main thing is that you'd need more stations - instead of 3 stations you'd have 5 - politically, even if you yourself hate Harlem, the SAS is going to have to have a station on 125th to get built, and then there's 138th for the 6 train, and 149th at the Hub. You've nearly doubled the costs of phase 2!
__________________

streetscapeer liked this post
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2017, 03:27 PM   #4194
luacstjh98
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,356
Likes (Received): 285

To add on - Hong Kong has 75 foot cars (approximately) that have 5 doors. An 8-car MTR train has 40 doors - the same as a 10-car NTT of 60-footers.

I would guess the reason why NYCT went back to 60-foot cars is to allow for standardization across the entre B Division (since 75 foot cars are banned from the J L M Z if I'm not mistaken).
__________________
Doors closing. Please stand clear of all train doors.

I have a bad habit of retroactively editing my posts without prior warning.
luacstjh98 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 13th, 2017, 04:09 PM   #4195
Fan Railer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 657
Likes (Received): 566

7 train action @ 90th St. - Elmhurst Av.
__________________

mrsmartman, dimlys1994 liked this post
Fan Railer no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2017, 09:46 AM   #4196
LTA1992
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 57
Likes (Received): 56

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miami High Rise View Post
Well well well Mr. TPH people, look what this nicely edited MTA video of the SAS shows, one of many high resolution gems, along with the super streets:

At about two minutes in:

At 2:10

Looks like they figured all the good lines to be 34 TPH, more than we do with CBTC, and about 10 more tph than without.

It also seems to show a familiar vintage video segment of the subway operating that I recognize from one of those "oldest footage of New York" videos.

It shows a video of a train from behind, but smoothly enough to guess that it was taken from a following train that was right behind and keeping up. How's that for max headway?

That was specifically done for that shot. That's not how regular service was. The signals on the IRT and BRT/BMT portions of subway are spaced to widely for trains to ever run that close. Then and now.

As long as you gotta have a real driver on the train (even with CBTC no less), imagine this?



Sorry to all first day foamers and seasoned NYC subway video fanatics, this is the best SAS video :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miami High Rise View Post
Well sure enough 34 tph seems to be a common high tph number, just doing a quick google search I didn't get that image, but it seems the Victoria and Central lines on the Underground are now at 34 tph, part of the new tube for london by TFL etc progress.
Also

They also don't intermix with any other services.

On al el? That government SAS video said the other major El problem than being a visible monstrosity was worse service? A lot of this is finagling with longer trains and they go by "seats" which is odd and ambiguous to describe and urban service where standing is much better.

I know safety was less of thing back then, so logic would say with 2 second reaction time you could just eyeball the train in front of you and if they brake, you brake, so just like cars on the road following distance up to 50 mph can be pretty close.

The old "L"s didn't have signals on the local tracks. Only the bi-directional express. They were able to get a high TPH at the cost of safety mechanisms. At express stations on the Third Avenue Line, for example, the only indication a motorman had at night regarding a train ahead at one of the double deck express stations was a light to shine above the end of that train suspended from the platform above.

On the issue of dwell time, which has been incited as more of an issue than train length, why would that necessarily be more with a longer train? All the doors open and close simultaneously, so as long as the "door density" and area (wider doors) is kept large enough, shouldn't matter.

It's not the legnth of the train, but the number of doors. An 8 car train made up of 75 foot cars has 64 doors a side versus the 80 on a 10 car train of 60 footers. Less openings means people won't get in and out quicker. There's also the issue of the swinging ends that result in the end doors being locked. In a serious emergency, that could be an issue. It also restricts certain cars to certain sections of subway. Mind you, the maximum size that the Dual Contract IRT and BMT tunnels can fit is 67 feet. The IND was 60. In order for 75 footers to fit, the tunnels had to be modified in many places. Wider doors also take away seating which reduces capacity. This system is reaching it's upper limits and that cannot be wasted.

34 tph would be a good number for New York, it would be a pretty huge boost that would cut a lot of delays, just like mid 20s to a full 30 will.

Easier said than done. The only services that could actually run that (with CBTC and modifications at terminals) are the 7 and L as they don't share tracks with any other services. The delays would still occur. People holding doors, breakdowns, injuries, normal events during the day. The delays would just be more extensive. The current signal system on the existing lines won't allow for more trains after the safety buffer was widened after the 1995 Williamsburg Bridge accident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
Where is this single set of points? Nowhere, that's where. The junction was designed to fully segregate all the flows, and has holding space for many flows, so as to not create issues. As junctions go, it's very hard to create one that causes fewer issues but provides the same functionality.

ACTUALLY. I was referring to the junction (Manhattan-bound) right before the Manhattan Bridge. The B and D head straight to the North Side, while the N and Q merge to a single track to head to the South Side. Three switches total taking 4 services from two tracks, to a very brief three, before going back to two. The DeKalb junction was already modified once to increase capacity as per the 1944 and 1945 plans for the Second Avenue Subway. The Christie Street Connection and 57th Street were part of those plans. The reconstruction was to allow room for new services. The south side originally just had a single diamond crossover. It was rebuilt into the junction you are referring to and Myrtle Avenue Station was closed as a result of one of the new tracks taking the place of the southbound platform. The maximum capacity, while better than pre-1961, still sets in stone the maximum capacity of the Southern Division services.

The key reason why they have to work out which train is of a higher priority is because of the uneven frequencies (10tph and 3 x 7.5tph creates a right pigs' ear that 15tph and 3 x 7.5tph doesn't) and terrible timetabling. De Kalb Junction is perfectly fixable - it's better than the ABCD junctions in terms of layout. The issue is, first and foremost, signalling and timetabling.
Then replace them? Still far cheaper than having 2 new lines through the Bronx not far from other lines due to none of them running to their potential and are therefore overcrowded.

That has nothing to do with it. Certain services are more important. The D over the B. The Q over the N. Homeball Alley is far more efficient because it was built to be that way from the start. Longer switches to increase speeds from 10mph to 25. The IND sections having closer signals which fits in more trains than both the IRT and BRT/BMT sections with their further spaced signals. There is no way to fix DeKalb Junction without another rebuild. And let me tell you something about SAS in the Brinx. How often do you go up their? Because frankly, it doesn't sound like too often if you called both potential routes "too close" to other lines. If that were the case, the Lafayette Avenue Line would not have been proposed then. While the first phase of the IND was to replace IRT and (some) BMT elevated lines and compete with the survivors, the second phase fixed the issues of the first by going into areas unserved and ripe for development.

The Third Avenue corridor had a service taken away that was never replaced. As a side effect, people now wither have to take the Bx15 down to The Hub for the 2 and 5, or the more utilized crosstown options for the 4 and D services to the west. It takes a good 20 minutes walking to get from Third Avenue to the Grand Concourse and even longer to reach the White Plains Road Line. Secondly, the numerous housing developments and tenements along the corridor (plus St. Barnabas Hospital) NEED an alternative that is easier and will provide some sort of economic relief there as well. Same for the Lafayette Avenue corridor. What you are literally saying is that the poorest borough in this city and one of the poorest counties in the country do not need more service because of an issue in another borough that does not have an immediate solution (BTW, CBTC is just a stop-gap measure. CBTC will only add, at most, 5 more trains per pair of tracks. And since most tracks carry multiple services, those need to be shared. New lines are inevitable.) and also under the false notion that both corridors are "too close" to other lines. Pretty much, F*** The Bronx, right?


75' cars still run on the F, which has a 30tph section (though most are now new 60' cars). And it's not like this train issue is a construction issue that you insist is the problem with upping the D frequency.
For the third time, I said "The SAS can still give a massive amount of capacity to the Bronx, even if a quarter of it turns off to serve Harlem."

The F only uses R46s because Bay Ridge complained to the MTA about the R utilizing only them without a regard to the operational reasons why. Had it not been for that, the F would be 100 percent R160 as it was intended to be. But they got too used to the R160s during the Montague reconstruction. Secondly, I read that the first two times, but my own personal and extensive knowledge of both areas (and the overall Transit Problem) says otherwise. I actually commute up there quite often and see it with my own two eyes. The primary goals of the SAS will not be met if you take away half the service to give a short strip of commercial district a subway that it doesn't need. There are people within the MTA and others who have long retired that agree as well. There's a forum specifically dedicated to the NYC subway system and they argue these same points all the time. For years. The only, and I mean ONLY, reason Phase Two is going to 125th and Lex is to get approval from Upstate commuters. Most of which who won't even use the line since most MNRR passengers get off at Grand Central. It was to get the money. And now we have an absurdly large price tag for Phase Two that could be better spent sending the line to The Bronx.

An immersed tunnel is more expensive than just keeping the TBM running as it requires a different construction crew and equipment! With a cross-river tunnel of any form there's also issues of pumping, etc - especially with an immersed tube. Ignoring your doubling of tunnelling costs proposal for 2 TBMs, and the cost-increasing immersed tube, you are building over a mile more tunnel by going to 149th rather than 125th, which is a doubling of the length of tunnel that actually needs to be built, and adds 60% on to the amount of track needed.

Yeah, but most of the cost will still go to the stations. The tunnel cost is minute to that. Let's take the 63rd Street Line for example. By the time it opened in 1989, it cost approximately 898 Million in 1989 dollars. That's $1,762,651,037.34 in 2016 dollars. That was built with an immersed tube tunnel that has TWO levels, mind you. The issue with cost goes to the massive stations. Not the tunnel structure. 63rd Street (nor Archer Avenue for that matter) has the massive stations SAS has. So I don't see an issue with the Immersed Tunnel option. Slim down the stations and costs will fall like a rock.

But the main thing is that you'd need more stations - instead of 3 stations you'd have 5 - politically, even if you yourself hate Harlem, the SAS is going to have to have a station on 125th to get built, and then there's 138th for the 6 train, and 149th at the Hub. You've nearly doubled the costs of phase 2!

I don't hate Harlem. It just doesn't need a crosstown subway. Anyone with knowledge of this city and it's transport networks (as well as the housing issue) would know that. As I said before, the main issue of cost does not come from the tunnels, but the massive and overbuilt stations. The costs wouldn't double. 125th Street and Lex alone seems like it would take up half of Phase Two's cost of what is as of this moment said to be 6 Billion. If that doesn't strike you as absurd and would have better use in a direct route north, I don;t know what to tell you.

And then there's that fault under the western end of 125th Street...
Responses in Red, Rojo, Aka, Rouge.
__________________

mrsmartman liked this post
LTA1992 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2017, 10:32 AM   #4197
luacstjh98
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,356
Likes (Received): 285

Woah.

I can't help but think someone feels personally offended here at the thought of a 125th crosstown... Here's some whataboutism - if you think being forced to take a bus detour is bad, you might want to try living in Asia for a while. Train stations everywhere but they're all super-packed. For one, the average commuter at MTR Admiralty station can only expect to take the fifth Kowloon-bound train from when he reaches the Tsuen Wan Line platform, and they run at much better frequencies than the NYC Subway.

Here's an idea. Push 125/Lex east so that it's nearer to 2 Avenue as opposed to straddling Lexington and Park Avenues. The station is probably deep enough to allow escalators from the railroad north end of the platforms to bridge the gap to Park Avenue and Metro-North.

Flying junction between the 125th Crosstown (stopping only at 125/Lenox and 125/St. Nicholas beneath the ABCD platforms, and feeding into the layup tracks at 135) and the Bronx-bound SAS, which takes a sharp turn to follow Third Avenue.

Shuttle runs between the third platform at 125/Lex and 125/St Nicholas or 168/Broadway via CPW local, with some peak hour short-turn T trains extended up to 168/Broadway.
__________________
Doors closing. Please stand clear of all train doors.

I have a bad habit of retroactively editing my posts without prior warning.

sotonsi, streetscapeer liked this post
luacstjh98 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2017, 03:12 PM   #4198
Arnorian
Registered User
 
Arnorian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Moesia Superior
Posts: 2,735
Likes (Received): 14594

__________________
I know the pieces fit cause I watched them fall away

mrsmartman, streetscapeer liked this post
Arnorian está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2017, 05:57 PM   #4199
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

Arnorian, I don't think that will give adequate coverage to the Bronx. I would at LEAST put the Dyre Ave Line into the SAS. And extend the Third Ave Line further north.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 15th, 2017, 05:59 PM   #4200
Tower Dude
Registered User
 
Tower Dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 76th Street Station
Posts: 1,044
Likes (Received): 593

Ya Bronx expansion with the current SAS configuration is a pain
__________________

"Make no small plans they lack the magic to stir men's blood!" - Daniel Burnham

"The scale is Roman and will have to be sustained."
- Charles Follen McKim (In a letter to a friend concerning the design of Penn Station)
Tower Dude no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
метро, metro, new york city, subway

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium