|
|
| Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity (452718) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Wed Jun 27 19:32:16 2007, in response to Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by G1Ravage on Wed Jun 27 16:05:14 2007. The Flushing Line's track numbers are like B div. in the northbound local being 2 instead of 4, but otherwise, it is A Div. style: #### C rather than C1 ###.It originally connected to the rest of the A Div. by the Queensboro Bridge and Second Ave el. The Astoria line was also originally IRT (chain "A") only for the first couple of years, until the dual BMT service bean, but with IRT sized cars. All of the outer lines outside the Contract 1 and 2 (242 and E180-Atlantic via Bway/42nd/Park Av. S. and Joralemon) and the Steinway tube were built to B Div. specs, so the 7 is not unique in that respect. (and it includes south of QBP, excluding the tunnel). This is called "dual Contracts", as it was joint between the IRT and BMT. This appears to even include the infamous "jughandle". It does not even seem as tight as BMT City Hall. The clearance problem there would begin as you merge and enter the 149th St. station. |
|
|
|