|
|
| Re: Richmond Hill (201170) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (202639) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Jan 18 23:35:40 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by Line 13 on Wed Jan 18 23:18:24 2006. I'm more concerned with ferry service to Pier 11, WFC, and Jersey City. Those are 3 areas in which the CBD is VERY close to the water.I agree though. I would love to see Lower Montauk extended to perhaps an NYP lower level which will be tall enough for not only the DM/C3s, but also freights. Honestly though, anyone who wants can just hop the free NY Waterway shuttle after they get off the ferry in midtown and make it into the central parts of Manhattan quite fast. |
|
|
| (202640) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Wed Jan 18 23:39:04 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jan 18 23:19:21 2006. Yeah, I forgot that the Patchogue line held it for years. I think I did ride it in from Islip once or twice. One thing I remember, if you got into Jamaica by around 8 in the morning, most people who wanted to get to the 7 line would take a Hunterspoint Avenue diesel, and they would get pretty crowded. But the L.I.C. train always had plenty of seats. That always surprised me. I guess fear of the unknown kept most people off the line.I think I'm due for another trip on the now express run up the branch. Still think getting out at L.I.C. is a unique experience, especially with the ferry connection, and I'm curious about the current state of the lineside. |
|
|
| (202649) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jan 18 23:54:36 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Jan 18 23:35:40 2006. And the LION says that the LM should cut under the East River in a SOUTHERLY direction, making landfall on the Isle of Manhattan around Avenue C and following that around to the WTC and then continuing into the land of Jersey, New. The route could be used by LIRR, NJT and NY&A, with direct connections to Newark Airport and LaGuardia.ROAR |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (202651) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jan 18 23:56:24 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jan 18 23:23:42 2006. "The cemetery DEFINITELY has a fence around it (and has for eons)"*WHY* do they but fences around cemeteries? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Because people are just dying to get in! hehehehee... |
|
|
| (202659) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jan 19 00:15:22 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jan 18 23:54:36 2006. I say use the Bushwick for that |
|
|
| (202732) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Jan 19 07:48:09 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jan 19 00:15:22 2006. How, pray tell, would the Bushwick get you anywhere near Manhattan?Here is the LION's plan! |
|
|
| (202741) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 19 08:08:17 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by Line 13 on Wed Jan 18 23:18:24 2006. after ESA, I would like to see a connection built from the LM terminal area in LIC to the southern NYP East River tunnel and have it thru run with NJT. Main Line LIRR would also access the same tunnel and thru-run with NJT. The Northern tunnel would be taken over by a new MNR-NH service to NYP and by Amtrak. LIRR ESA would be using the new connection to the 63d St tunnel to GCT as scheduled. |
|
|
| (202795) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 12:03:52 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jan 19 00:15:22 2006. Hahahahaha! The Bushwick Branch!!! The Bushwick Branch is an at grade unimproved line (much like the old Evergreen line was), that jusyt dead ends in the middle of no where at Bushwick Ave and Montrose Ave. How in the world will that bring you anywhere near a connection to Manhattan, even forgetting the fact that it is only about a track wide, with buildings all around it!At least the Western Montauk line is basically improved railroad ROW, and leaves you just near the shore of the East RIver! But the Bushwick Branch! Hahahahahahahahahaha! |
|
|
| (202799) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Thu Jan 19 12:09:05 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Jan 18 23:15:08 2006. If they really wanted to get creative about it, they, the MTA should have Light Rail service feeding on this Lower Montauk line into Jamaica. At the other end, the west end portion, lines could hit varies area along the way including the industrial areas of Maspeth. The point being is give workers/commuters more options of getting around. |
|
|
| (202800) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 19 12:10:18 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Jan 18 23:15:08 2006. I'm proposing conversion to subway service. Federal law would mandate seperate ROW's. |
|
|
| (202801) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 19 12:14:17 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jan 18 22:47:50 2006. I got pics of Jamaica Ave the year before the el's construction began (1914). It was lined with large homes with extensive front yards. By 1921, all the existing storefront apartment buildings had replaced them. It's interesting to note that the homes south of Jamaica were built at the turn of the century, and it was demand from people living in these houses that led to the el being built. Before then, the closest rail service was the Union Course station on the Atlantic Ave LIRR surface route. |
|
|
| (202802) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 19 12:16:36 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jan 18 23:14:40 2006. Richmond Hill on the Montauk line? |
|
|
| (202805) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 12:22:40 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 19 12:10:18 2006. Subway would be ideal for this line. You would need the frequency of subway service to make the line sucessful. The LIRR is not in the rapid transit business, so there is no way the LIRR would work out for the service necessary on the line to make it both useful and attractive to use.That being said, that would mean seperate ROW's would be necessary. The line is basically two tracks, and in some areas there are sidings that would allow for three tracks. The remaining sections would have to be widened to allow for a third track. I think the line could work with one track, bidirectional (with some passing sidings) for the freight on the line, which MUST remain. The other two tracks would be for the subway, one in each direction. The other option that would work is light rail. That would also provide the necessary headways needed for the line, however, light rail, like the subway, also needs the seperate tracks from the freight tracks pass federal law. The line would in essence be like RIverfront streetcar line in New Orleans operates. The streetcars (light rail) operate on two tracks, and the heavy rail operates on the third track, bidirectional. Of course they don't share tracks (just the ROW itself): In this photo the heavy rail is using the outer third track, and streetcar is using the middle streetcar track.  In this photo the UP freight is running in the opposite direction as the red engine in the above photo, but on the same track, and you can see the two streetcar tracks in the foreground:  This is in essence how the Montauck Branch would be run if it were to have subway or light rail added. |
|
|
| (202806) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 19 12:25:41 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by ntrainride on Wed Jan 18 23:03:04 2006. I smell an awesome Subchat field trip had this service lasted beyond 1998. |
|
|
| (202807) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 12:26:56 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 19 12:16:36 2006. What do you mean? Yes, Richmond Hill on the Montauk Branch in Queens, in the same spot it is today. That photo is from before the grade elimination.I know people get mixed up with the "Montauk Branch", which is the real one that runs out to Montauk. You have to remember that what is the Montauk Branch was built by the South Side Railroad (not the LIRR). It originall was built from Long Island City to Patchogue where it terminated. The LIRR bought the South Side railroad, but the "Montauk Branch" was considered from LIC all the way out east. Today of course, what is now the LIC line is still called the Western Montauk Division because it really was part of what is the LIRR Montauk Branch out east. |
|
|
| (202810) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 12:33:20 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 12:26:56 2006. Oh, just to add, "RIchmond Hill" was originally called "Clarenceville" when that little rural depot was built. I think when it went for it's zip code from the postal service, it was changed to Richmond Hill.Here's another photo of it. I believe this is looking from Babbage st towards where the RKO KEiths Richmond Hill theater is by Jans, that group of buildings in the background:  |
|
|
| (202811) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 12:35:43 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 19 12:14:17 2006. Yes, I also have seen photos like that. One that vividly in my mind was a large farmhouse at the corner of 168th St and Jamaica Ave with a white picket fence around it. Hard to believe it was Jamaica, and not Sag Harbour or something. |
|
|
| (202821) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Thu Jan 19 13:00:42 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 12:33:20 2006. In the background that looks like the block (Hillside Avenue) where Jahn's and the theature is. That steeple in the background might be the Church on 118 Street South of Jamaica Avenue. |
|
|
| (202841) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Thu Jan 19 14:28:41 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 12:03:52 2006. Well it could be worse, he coulda said the Evergreen branch, LOL. |
|
|
| (202843) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Thu Jan 19 14:34:07 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 12:22:40 2006. You could have light rail run in a timeshare setup like the RiverLINE, although the problem with that is you could only have service during the day - it would have to close for some number of hours at night while the mainline freight moves take place. Fresh Pond's switching ops as well as Bushwick Branch ops and transfers to/from the Bay Ridge and NYCRR could continue during the day, but no mainline Montauk moves could be made. |
|
|
| (202844) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Thu Jan 19 14:37:25 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 12:26:56 2006. Thanks, I never even knew that. I thought it was just because of the way the tracks went through Jamaica (ditto for the Atlantic branch) and Valley Stream. |
|
|
| (202848) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 19 14:41:36 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by daDouce Man on Thu Jan 19 13:00:42 2006. Agreed. Can't believe how much it's changed. |
|
|
| (202853) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 19 14:44:23 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 12:35:43 2006. Jamaica Ave. was once lined with those houses. I wish I had a scanner. I have one at what is now Forest Parkway (called something else back then) right where Chase Manhattan Bank is today. Looks like Little House on the Prarie. |
|
|
| (202858) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jan 19 14:52:32 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Jan 19 07:48:09 2006. I've seen your plan over a dozen times.Sink the Bushwick as it gets towards the end of the line and then extend it under the East River just like in your plan. |
|
|
| (202859) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jan 19 14:53:56 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 12:03:52 2006. Just a thought. Maybe it'd be better as a light rail line connecting to the Willy B.If only the Willy B could have commuter rail on it again.... |
|
|
| (202869) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Bob Andersen on Thu Jan 19 15:45:03 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 12:33:20 2006. There was a Clarenceville station on the Atlantic Ave. Line. It kept the name Clarenceville even after the area was renamed Richmond Hill to avoid confusion with the other station on the Montauk Branch
|
|
|
| (202872) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Bob Andersen on Thu Jan 19 15:50:43 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 12:26:56 2006. You have to remember that what is the Montauk Branch was built by the South Side Railroad (not the LIRR). It originally was built from Long Island City to Patchogue where it terminated.Not quite true. The SSRR originally went from Bushwick to Patchogue. The western terminal did not become LIC until later, after the SSRR had been assimilated into the LIRR and a connection from Fresh Pond to the old NY&Flushing RR line at Haberman was made. |
|
|
| (202876) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 16:03:39 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by Bob Andersen on Thu Jan 19 15:50:43 2006. Ah, thanks. I forgot that the Bushwick line was actually the original terminal of the line that eventually went to Patchogue. |
|
|
| (203018) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jan 19 21:53:38 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 19 08:08:17 2006. Are you actually suggesting that LIRR shift all it's operations to a tunnel from the lower montauk? Do you realize that the LIRR is already having a hard enough time funneling all those trains through 3 tunnels. I doubt building a 3 track tunnel is going to happen, and any less tracks will greatly reduce LIRRs capacity.And LIRR will never thru-run with NJT unless they are taken over by private firms. I think all of us here can agree that the likelyhood of two government railroads thrurunning is next to none. Here is my idea...several parts: 1. Have some tracks at LIC sunk and extended into a new 2 track tunnel to a new lower level of NYP. 2. New 2 track tunnel for NJT under the Hudson into the same new lower level of NYP. Both tunnels plus the new lower level will be high enough for double stacked freights. LIRR will shift as much of their operations as possible onto one of the tracks into the new lower level. The other track will be used for freights. The same goes for NJT. This allows Amtrak to have more space on the main level as well as the existing tunnels. At the same time, it gives MN a place to send it's NH trains at NYP b/c there will be space now on the main level at NYP. |
|
|
| (203023) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jan 19 21:58:48 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by R7 Torresdale Express on Thu Jan 19 14:34:07 2006. I highly doubt NYA will ever agree to shifting all their operations to night. Plus, you'd end up getting even more bitching from residents. |
|
|
| (203037) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 22:31:22 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Jan 19 21:58:48 2006. Plus, you'd end up getting even more bitching from residents.Yes, and that's already a major problem the NY&A has. They only occasionally do it, and especially Glendale has a lot of real sticklers there. |
|
|
| (203043) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Thu Jan 19 22:56:55 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 19 14:41:36 2006. And I can't believe some parts hasn't changed. |
|
|
| (203045) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Thu Jan 19 22:59:28 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 12:03:52 2006. Didn'y yhat line that ended at Bushwick and Montrose once go to Quay Avenue by the East River? |
|
|
| (203048) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Thu Jan 19 23:04:29 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by Bob Andersen on Thu Jan 19 15:45:03 2006. How many lanes did Atlantic Avenue Traffic have before the line was taken underground? The road must have been narrow while RR traffic was running on the surface. |
|
|
| (203132) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 20 06:38:45 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by daDouce Man on Thu Jan 19 22:59:28 2006. In the back of my head, I seem to recall remembering it going further than Bushwick and Montrose, but I really don't remember. Bob will have to fill us in, as it's been a while since I read anything about it. |
|
|
| (203144) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Fri Jan 20 08:40:58 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Jan 19 12:03:52 2006. It comes tantalizingly close to the "L" line, causing one to have nocturnal emissions.Avid |
|
|
| (203250) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jan 20 12:43:01 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 20 06:38:45 2006. The "Bushwick" branch always ended at Bushwick terminal. The Evergreen line went all the way to Greenpoint. It crossed the Bushwick at grade (South Side crossing). In the 1880's, the section from South Side crossing to Greenpoint was abandoned and the Evergreen line connected to the Bushwick and ran south to Bushwick Terminal. Passanger service to the terminal from either line ended around 1895. |
|
|
| (203257) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Bob Andersen on Fri Jan 20 13:11:17 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jan 20 12:43:01 2006. The Bushwick line did go all the way to Broadway Ferry, but I read that only horsecars or steam dummies were used on that stretch since they wouldn't allow regular steam trains to run there.Check out the timetables at Arrts-Arrchives |
|
|
| (203303) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 20 14:14:16 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jan 20 12:43:01 2006. I thought passenger service ended in the 1920's to Bushwick Terminal, but I may be confused with the Bay Ridge line which ended in the 20's. |
|
|
| (203308) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jan 20 14:25:20 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 20 14:14:16 2006. Bay Ridge - Manhattan Beach: 1924 Bushwick: 1894 According to lirrhistory.com |
|
|
| (203315) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 20 14:30:57 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jan 20 14:25:20 2006. That's strange, because http://www.oldnyc.com/ says it closed in the 1920's to passenger service. In Ron Zeil's book "Victorian Stations of LI" it says 1924 I believe, but I really am not sure which is right. |
|
|
| (203430) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 20 17:06:28 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 20 06:38:45 2006. You're right, but I doubt that actual LIRR steam trains used the line. I believe it was street running for the majority and then had it's own ROW as it got closer to the river. My hagstrom shows lots of tracks and a small yard extending from the east river a few blocks back east. |
|
|
| (203489) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Bob Andersen on Fri Jan 20 17:54:01 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jan 20 14:25:20 2006. My website is wrong!I just looked at the Bob Emery Maps I have and one of the notes says that the last day of passenger service to Bushwick was May 13, 1924, which is also when the Manhattan Beach and Bay Ridge branches closed for passenger service. |
|
|
| (203496) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Jan 20 18:02:36 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by Bob Andersen on Fri Jan 20 17:54:01 2006. Better late than never |
|
|
| (203500) | |
Re: Richmond Hill |
|
|
Posted by Bob Andersen on Fri Jan 20 18:11:32 2006, in response to Re: Richmond Hill, posted by Bob Andersen on Fri Jan 20 17:54:01 2006. What my website should have said(and now does)is that service to Bushwick via the Evergreen Branch stopped in 1894; it continued from Bushwick through Fresh Pond to the Bay Ridge/Manhattan Beach Branch until 1924. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
