|
|
| Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch? (781143) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (782405) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri May 8 20:56:08 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 8 13:26:10 2009. Richmond Hill was on the contingency with the Amtrak strike that was threatened in either 1992 or 1993. I have the pamphlets somewhere telling people to use Richmond Hill. Diesel service from points east were going to skip Jamaica (as not to cause a mob scene), and have people transfer at Richmond Hill/121st St to get the infamous famous P train that was make stops at 121st St, Bway Junction, and then run to Essex St, and then through Chyrstie to West 4th St, and then to the 8th Ave line if I am not mistaken. I don't know where they were going to terminate them though.I remember I was all ready the night before to get up early to take the subway to Jamaica to ride this special train. (I never rode through the Chrystie St connection yet at that time). I was a little disappointed when the strike was cancelled, but I am sure most commuters weren't. Richmond Hill lost it's last chance to have huge amounts of passengers through it, even if just for a day. |
|
|
| (782528) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat May 9 00:56:33 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri May 8 12:09:32 2009. Daily (Red) Ticket machines don't sell 10-Trip, Monthly, or Weekly tickets while the Grey does IIRC. |
|
|
| (782557) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch? |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Sat May 9 04:34:53 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch?, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri May 8 12:07:56 2009. He never answered so I'll take it as an admission of guilt. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (782641) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 9 11:42:30 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by LuchAAA on Thu May 7 03:32:01 2009. They've had them for quite some time. |
|
|
| (783103) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by lonerebel on Sun May 10 17:29:59 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 9 11:42:30 2009. I wonder since Richmond Hill is still in "usable" condition if it may ever see service again. |
|
|
| (783105) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun May 10 17:39:35 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by lonerebel on Sun May 10 17:29:59 2009. I doubt it will be used again.When I was a kid, there were plans to electrify those tracks and run subway service there. Every community board along the line opposed it. This was around 1980-81. I wonder if it would be opposed today? The plan was to run service from Jamaica to Manhattan via 63rd tunnel IINM. |
|
|
| (783106) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Sun May 10 17:39:41 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by lonerebel on Sun May 10 17:29:59 2009. If anyone sees a work team working on the station,then either they are going to re-open the station (I doubt it!) or are considering using it the next time the LIRR doesn't have access to Penn Station. |
|
|
| (783108) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Sun May 10 17:48:01 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by LuchAAA on Sun May 10 17:39:35 2009. IMO, community boards along the line would like to approve the idea.But unless there was some assurance from TA or MTA to prevent people from trespassing on the ROW, Forget about it! |
|
|
| (783110) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by lonerebel on Sun May 10 18:02:21 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by daDouce Man on Sun May 10 17:48:01 2009. why not put a barb wire fence up? |
|
|
| (783111) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Sun May 10 18:16:37 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by lonerebel on Sun May 10 18:02:21 2009. That's a lot of territory to cover. The line goes through parks, and has several grade crossings. Would've helped Queens Corridor though. |
|
|
| (783112) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Sun May 10 18:28:04 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by LuchAAA on Sun May 10 18:16:37 2009. There would also be lawsuits if someone's dog got Zapped in the act of pissing on it. |
|
|
| (783122) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Doctor B on Sun May 10 19:11:37 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by LuchAAA on Sun May 10 17:39:35 2009. In the mid-1990's Queens Community Board 5 petitioned the LIRR for a WB that would stop at Haberman at 7:00 A.M. They promised heavy patronage; passengers from UPS/Fedex/Coke, etc. MTA replied a bilevel platform would be too expensive. Stairways to serve a few cars was an option never discussed. Let the workers drive. |
|
|
| (783200) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by lonerebel on Sun May 10 21:46:12 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Doctor B on Sun May 10 19:11:37 2009. many problems would have been avoided if the MTA did what NJ Transit did, and got cars which were modern, bilevel, and could operate both low and high level platforms. |
|
|
| (783201) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by d_mind on Sun May 10 21:46:55 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by lonerebel on Sun May 10 21:46:12 2009. The LIRR likes to reinvent the wheel. |
|
|
| (783205) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun May 10 21:55:15 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by lonerebel on Sun May 10 21:46:12 2009. The LIRR moving to a uniform platform height was an excellent move. Metro North is pretty much there, too.As far as the Haberman thing, a 1 car long wooden platform with ramp couldn't have cost any more than a single bilevel car... |
|
|
| (783414) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by streetcarman1 on Mon May 11 15:16:48 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by daDouce Man on Sun May 10 18:28:04 2009. I doubt that.....otherwise the entire LIRR electrified would be subject to those kind of lawsuits with dog piss...lol...ya gotta laugh...besides...a judge would throw that out the window like a rock saying why was Fido not on a LEACH in the 1st place??? |
|
|
| (783415) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon May 11 15:20:53 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by streetcarman1 on Mon May 11 15:16:48 2009. Good point. But city people are more likely to act stupid and get into trouble along a very active ROW like a Montauk branch with frequent service. That's why it was opposed. |
|
|
| (783416) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by DCmetrogreen on Mon May 11 15:29:19 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Fri May 8 11:50:14 2009. He's supposed to be at HCPN (Hollywood Casino at Penn National this month, according to the commercial. |
|
|
| (783460) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Mon May 11 18:27:53 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by streetcarman1 on Mon May 11 15:16:48 2009. Fido would likely be on a leach when he lifts his leg against the fence. |
|
|
| (783503) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon May 11 20:29:57 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu May 7 06:59:58 2009. When I work in Long Island City, I will often try to get the 4:54 home just because I like being able to sit to Jamaica. It's worth the walk, even though Hunters Point Ave is a bit closer to our client. Sometimes I can't finish by 4:30 though. |
|
|
| (783506) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch? |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon May 11 20:32:28 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 8 13:26:10 2009. "Richmond Hill's enterance was blocked up very soon after it was closed."I drove past the Lefferts Blvd entrance yesterday. It just has a gate across the staircase. Is it blocked at the platform level? |
|
|
| (783514) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 11 20:58:22 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch?, posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon May 11 20:32:28 2009. That's all I ever saw there too. I don't know where all the talk about cement blocks and stuff came from. A gate was across the stairway pretty early on, after the station closed, but I thought that's all it got. |
|
|
| (783525) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch? |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon May 11 21:33:06 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 11 20:58:22 2009. It looks to me as though it could be reopened right away if needed. Maybe if Long Island City were connected to Hoboken or Lower Manhattan or Flatbush Avenue via Lower Manhattan. I know, I've just spent $10 billion just so we'd have an excuse to open a forsaken high-platform station.But then again, they must have some reason for not having demolished it completely. Most other closed stations are either in ruins or gone without a trace. Take Springfield Gardens, for example-- all that is left is a space between the tracks where the island platform was. It makes me wonder if they expect to need it at some point for something. |
|
|
| (783531) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Mon May 11 21:41:44 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 11 20:58:22 2009. I think people meant it was cemented upstairs, at the platform level, to seal the stairs off. Well, we'll ask railman or NETO or subbusENY, guys who pass there all the time on the J, to tell us what they see from above. |
|
|
| (783589) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue May 12 06:10:52 2009, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by Andrew Saucci on Mon May 11 20:29:57 2009. That was also one of the inconveniences of the former local service. It was a bit late in the morning, and a bit early in the afternoon. Not to mention only in one direction. |
|
|
| (1443942) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jul 21 15:08:32 2017, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:39:07 2009. +MuchoI love those photos. |
|
|
| (1443944) | |
Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch |
|
|
Posted by ftgreeneg on Fri Jul 21 15:20:19 2017, in response to Re: A Question about the Lower Montauk Branch, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 6 22:39:07 2009. Besides Richmond Hill where's the stations? Lol. Nice pics btw |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
