Discussion relating to the past and present operations of the NYC Subway, PATH, and Staten Island Railway (SIRT).

Moderator: GirlOnTheTrain

  by Pensyfan19
 
DutchRailnut wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:38 pm explore or study is not proposal , just sayinn.
Sorry for the wrong terminology. Also, why wouldn't this be the same condition for when csx runs local freight on the electrified hudson line south of croton? So this way only locomotives which can clear the 3rd rail can pass, and can be swapped out before Hell's Gate Bridge if they don't.
  by GojiMet86
 
It doesn't have to run all the way to Astoria.

Jackson Heights-74 Street would make a good terminal. In fact, there's already an abandoned platform (8 cars long though) that was built by the IND for future Rockaway service still there.
  by DutchRailnut
 
Think we should let powers to be do study, not try to influence them with Buff stuff.
  by DogBert
 
Pensyfan19 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2020 12:01 pm
DutchRailnut wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:38 pm explore or study is not proposal , just sayinn.
Sorry for the wrong terminology. Also, why wouldn't this be the same condition for when csx runs local freight on the electrified hudson line south of croton? So this way only locomotives which can clear the 3rd rail can pass, and can be swapped out before Hell's Gate Bridge if they don't.
CSX wouldn't do that. Anything that comes down the east side of the hudson is 3rd rail cleared. Same power goes over hell gate, so that wouldn't be an obstacle.
  by DutchRailnut
 
lets make it clear chances of Amtrak moving two tracks to one side. and CSX giving up its track and getting space for two commuter tracks on hell gate are way below nill .
  by Jeff Smith
 
Cross-posted to LIRR.
  by EuroStar
 
DutchRailnut wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:32 pm lets make it clear chances of Amtrak moving two tracks to one side. and CSX giving up its track and getting space for two commuter tracks on hell gate are way below nill .
CSX giving up the track for the right to run freight during the night hours plus $$$ would not surprise me. CSX really seems to prefer the money over running infrequent services on lightly used tracks and branches. It is not that they run all that much freight to LI.
Amtrak giving up the space for possible future third track though is not going to happen especially with Metro-North going to Penn eventually. Which one owns the bridge? I would have thought that it belongs to Amtrak as part of the passenger takeover from the 70ties.
Isn't there also an issue with needing LIRR type equipment instead of MTA Subway equipment in order to run next to FRA regulated railroad? I doubt that there is enough space on the bridge to satisfy the separation requirements for subway equipment from standard rail equipment. I think PATH is FRA regulated because its tracks mingle too close around the Amtrak/NJT rails in the Newark area.
  by Head-end View
 
EuroStar, I believe the criteria for a railroad to be FRA controlled is whether or not it has track connections to outside railroads. An isolated transit system like the NYC Subway or the Wash. D.C. Metro is not FRA because it's an isolated system. But PATH apparently does have track connections to the adjacent railroads so it is FRA.
  by scratchyX
 
Head-end View wrote: Wed Jan 29, 2020 8:02 pm EuroStar, I believe the criteria for a railroad to be FRA controlled is whether or not it has track connections to outside railroads. An isolated transit system like the NYC Subway or the Wash. D.C. Metro is not FRA because it's an isolated system. But PATH apparently does have track connections to the adjacent railroads so it is FRA.
I thought the PATH connection was cut, year ago?
Other than one for infrequent interchange of equipment, Like WMATA and other standard gauge heavy rail systems have.
  by Jeff Smith
 
Not sure if there's anything new here, but since it's GirlOnTheTrain's favorite news source :wink: here it is: https://gothamist.com/news/mta-consider ... ge-astoria
...
The "Bay Ridge branch," as the MTA is calling it, would begin at the south Brooklyn waterfront, passing Brooklyn College then running parallel along the L line from East New York to Broadway Junction and Bushwick, before turning into Queens and heading up toward Roosevelt Avenue/Jackson Heights and eventually Astoria. Potential connections would exist to N, F, Q, 2, 5, L and M trains.

A similar idea known as the Triboro RX line was first proposed by the Regional Plan Association in 1996. That version would have extended into the Bronx, with the new line stretching over the Hell Gate Bridge to meet the 6 line in Hunts Point.

The new line being studied would pass through several transit-starved neighborhoods—including East Flatbush, Brownsville and Maspeth—and is expected to serve some 76,000 riders daily, roughly 50 percent more than Mayor Bill de Blasio's $2.7 billion streetcar plan, which was also recently resurrected. About half of the Bay Ridge line's riders would be people who don't typically ride the subway, according to some modeling.
...
  by #5 - Dyre Ave
 
GojiMet86 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2020 12:31 pm It doesn't have to run all the way to Astoria.

Jackson Heights-74 Street would make a good terminal. In fact, there's already an abandoned platform (8 cars long though) that was built by the IND for future Rockaway service still there.
Agreed. Terminate the X line there and future-proof it to continue further north into Jackson Heights/East Elmhurst and towards LaGuardia Airport using the BQE/GCP service roads. Why would anyone want to terminate the line in Astoria, high up on the viaduct and just short of the Hell Gate Bridge? That doesn’t seem like a very convenient place for a terminal.
  by Head-end View
 
LOL Height of the structure wasn't a problem at the Smith/9th St. Station in Brooklyn. So why not on the Hellgate Viaduct?
  by Backshophoss
 
A 2 track subway line would wipe out the Bay Ridge Secondary that CSX uses spacing wise.
CSX would then run on Amtrak trackage,Market to Sunnyside Jct,recreated by CSX/Amtrak to reach Fremont/Fresh Pond
on what's left of the Secondary track.
  by #5 - Dyre Ave
 
Head-end View wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:15 pm LOL Height of the structure wasn't a problem at the Smith/9th St. Station in Brooklyn. So why not on the Hellgate Viaduct?
Smith and 9th was planned to be a station from the beginning when the IND subway was being built. The Hell Gate viaduct never had a station connecting to the subway at Ditmars Blvd and I don’t think one had ever been planned until the idea for the RX was first proposed. You’d have to add a station onto the Hell Gate viaduct, an ADA-compliant station complete with elevators leading down to both the N/W platform at Ditmars Blvd and the street. With buildings in very close proximity to both structures. Either that, or forgo a connection with the N/W.

I’d much rather have the RX service continue northeast toward LGA.
  by NIMBYkiller
 
Whatever happens, it's either gotta be time separated or run as FRA compliant. I'd rather see FRA compliant so that it could run over the Hell Gate in the future.