|
|
| Re: The Manhattan Bridge (812580) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
|
| (813114) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Jul 26 16:48:32 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by randyo on Sun Jul 26 15:39:08 2009. True. It wasn't until 1980 that the N was cut back to a shuttle between 36th and Stillwell late nights. Seven years later when the N switched Queens terminals with the R, it was restored back to 24-hour service. Of course by then the N only used the bridge during late nights and weekends. |
|
|
| (813186) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by b44nyc on Sun Jul 26 21:13:37 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. Was flexing the reason why the Queensboro Bridge stop carrying rail traffic? |
|
|
| (813187) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jul 26 21:21:48 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by b44nyc on Sun Jul 26 21:13:37 2009. The problem there was that bridge's structural design wasn't capable of accommodating the envisioned load. If rail were ever to be restored across the span - something I very much doubt - vehicular traffic would have to be cut back. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (813200) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Jul 26 21:52:38 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by b44nyc on Sun Jul 26 21:13:37 2009. No.The Queensboro Bridge is not a suspension bridge, it is a cantilever bridge, and as such it would be UNABLE TO FLEX ENOUGH to carry heavy rail traffic, and therefore would suffer fatigue and could break. ROAR |
|
|
| (813221) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sun Jul 26 22:38:27 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Jul 26 21:52:38 2009. Say what now? Aren't many large RR bridges of cantilever desgn? |
|
|
| (813252) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Sun Jul 26 23:38:27 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sun Jul 26 22:38:27 2009. Indeed . . . the Forth Rail Bridge immediately comes to mind. |
|
|
| (813290) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by 5119 on Mon Jul 27 01:45:51 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by randyo on Sat Jul 25 13:40:33 2009. The was an article in the April 1963 Popular Science Magazine that showed how much the bridge flexed when a D Type ran acroos it: the first phot showed the Tip of the Williamsburg Bridge's towers from the Roadway of the Manny B. When a D Tpe approached that spot, you could see the entire roadway of the Willy B. The Manny B appeared to have shifted 12-13 inches. This is why towards the end of their operation, the D Tpyes, normally on the Sea Beach and Brighton Expresses, were ordered off the bridge and ran on the West End Local. |
|
|
| (813306) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Jon Bell on Mon Jul 27 03:11:29 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by randyo on Sat Jul 25 13:40:33 2009. OMG, it's Galloping Gertie (a.k.a. the Tacoma Narrows Bridge) all over again! =:-o |
|
|
| (813342) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jul 27 07:51:49 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sun Jul 26 22:38:27 2009. Yes indeed, however, methinks the Queens span may be longer. But for whatever reason it was deemed unsuitable for the BMT to use, and so they built the 60th Street tunnel instead.ROAR |
|
|
| (813350) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Mon Jul 27 08:13:22 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jul 27 07:51:49 2009. Glad they did. I prefer trains running 60 MPH through a tunnel than 20 MPH over a bridge. |
|
|
| (813352) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Mon Jul 27 08:21:30 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Sand Box John on Sat Jul 25 08:53:30 2009. If you can find it, please post it. |
|
|
| (813354) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Mon Jul 27 08:31:05 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Jul 25 15:27:38 2009. Suppose that a set of tunnels were built near the bridge, on a route parallel to the bridge. Wouldn't the bridge portals be adequate ventilation sites? |
|
|
| (813387) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Think twice on Mon Jul 27 10:17:43 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jul 27 07:51:49 2009. But for whatever reason it was deemed unsuitable for the BMT to use,I remember reading once that the Queensboro was unsuitable for anything heavier than wooden elevated cars of the 2nd Ave el. |
|
|
| (813388) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 27 10:20:00 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. That is COOL! Thanks!! |
|
|
| (813389) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jul 27 10:21:10 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by R36 #9346 on Mon Jul 27 08:31:05 2009. No; there's specific criteria involving a certain amount of air to be moved per minute. |
|
|
| (813394) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 27 10:27:11 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Dan on Sat Jul 25 13:04:11 2009. Well the Williamsburg Bridge is basically a new bridge now, it's been almost completely replaced while in place over the last decade. |
|
|
| (813396) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 27 10:27:58 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by JFK DEPOT on Sat Jul 25 08:33:50 2009. It's normal for a bridge to "flex". It's actually essential to the health of a bridge that it does. |
|
|
| (813472) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 12:23:35 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Jul 25 16:28:37 2009. Only in 2004 did we see a service pattern which saw a greater number of trains use the south side of the bridge (during times both were open). And except for weekends, it's fairly balanced. |
|
|
| (813473) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 12:25:59 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Jul 26 21:21:48 2009. IIRC, the Queensboro was in worse shape 25 years ago than either the Willy B or Manny B. |
|
|
| (813474) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 12:27:44 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by vfrt on Sat Jul 25 17:26:28 2009. Remove the trains and you can add 4 lanes of traffic. And that would still lessen the load. |
|
|
| (813475) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jul 27 12:29:04 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 12:25:59 2009. That might be true; not sure.But the bridge still cannot carry as much traffic, rail or vehicle, as it has capacity to, due to the design. My understanding is that this is the reason for the current traffic pattern across the span. |
|
|
| (813477) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 12:30:26 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by JFK DEPOT on Sat Jul 25 08:33:50 2009. There is nothing scary about it. Suspension bridges are SUPPOSED to do that. It would be scarier if they didn't flex, which would mean that the stress would physically damage the structural integrity of the bridge itself. That's what happened to the Willy B, the expansion joints rusted shut and the bridge was literally shaking itself to death because it couldn't flex. |
|
|
| (813479) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 12:32:14 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sat Jul 25 16:46:18 2009. Closing the Broadway tracks does not impact the system the way closing the 6th Ave tracks does. |
|
|
| (813480) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jul 27 12:33:10 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 12:25:59 2009. Of the four, the Williamsburgh was the worst, with the Manhattan a close second. |
|
|
| (813482) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 12:34:16 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jul 27 12:33:10 2009. Well the Willy B was the only one they had to close completely for fear of collapse. |
|
|
| (813490) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jul 27 12:38:25 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 12:34:16 2009. The Williamsburgh bridge is the worst design for a suspension bridge. Only the main span is suspended. The side spans are deck spans.There's no suspended weight between the towers and the anchorages for the Williamsburgh, and I've never seen a bridge with a similar design. |
|
|
| (813525) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 27 13:10:04 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jul 27 12:38:25 2009. depends though. For Railroad traffic it's the MANHATTAN bridge that has the worst design. Suspension bridges don't lend themselves well to rail traffic as it is, but if it's in the middle, as on the Williamsburg, it's not as bad as on the Manhattan Bridge where it's on the other edges. That combined with the Manhattan Bridge's one side always being much more heavily used than the other was and probably still is a recipe for disaster.Ironically, NY's one Cantilever Bridge, the Queensboro, which lends itself a little better than suspension bridges to rail traffic is the one that no longer has it..,... |
|
|
| (813526) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 27 13:11:31 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sun Jul 26 22:38:27 2009. Yes, I always heard suspension bridges added the most stress when they had rail across them. |
|
|
| (813528) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 27 13:12:16 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by b44nyc on Sun Jul 26 21:13:37 2009. No, the reason was that the Queensboro Bridge fed the 2nd Ave el, which was abandoned. Once that was gone, there was no reason to have rail crossing it anymore. Not to mention, it was basically replaced with the 60th St tunnel. |
|
|
| (813529) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 27 13:13:44 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 12:32:14 2009. Correct, while it's nice that the Bway line crosses the Manhattan Bridge, it can always go around, even if longer. The 6th Ave line is in Chaos when it can't go over the bridge. |
|
|
| (813530) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 27 13:15:19 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 12:27:44 2009. Yes, trains are MUCH harder on a bridge than cars are. |
|
|
| (813537) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 13:22:53 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jul 27 12:38:25 2009. The Willy B's problem wasn't design, it was materials. To save money, they used ungalvanized steel. Rust ravaged the structure. |
|
|
| (813543) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jul 27 13:27:34 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 13:22:53 2009. IIRC one of the main cables had completely rusted through. |
|
|
| (813544) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jul 27 13:28:05 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Think twice on Mon Jul 27 10:17:43 2009. Run a Triplex and it's timmmm-berrrrrrr!!! |
|
|
| (813546) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 27 13:29:33 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 25 14:14:46 2009. And the unbalance of traffic was always a problem. Before, when the Nassau line fed into the bridge, with the Broadway line, the Broadway line's traffic was always higher. Then the 6th Ave line took over the Broadway line's side, and the Broadway line was moved to the Nassau's side, but then it was the 6th Ave line that had all the traffic, and it was the same side that was stressed when the Broadway Line ran with the Nassau line. |
|
|
| (813556) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 13:36:31 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Jul 27 13:27:34 2009. I still remember seeing all the wooden structural supports installed when they re-opened the bridge after the 1988 closure and wondered if we were actually still in the 20th century. |
|
|
| (813568) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by b44nyc on Mon Jul 27 14:01:50 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. With all the El's being demolished for tunnels, I'm surprised no one thought of rerouting rail from all the bridges in favor of tunnels. |
|
|
| (813573) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Jul 27 14:13:16 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jul 27 07:51:49 2009. Yes indeed, however, methinks the Queens span may be longer. But for whatever reason it was deemed unsuitable for the BMT to use, and so they built the 60th Street tunnel instead.I think "whatever reason" was that land in LIC was cheaper and more plentiful to build a portal and ramp than land on the Upper East Side. |
|
|
| (813576) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 27 14:22:01 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by b44nyc on Mon Jul 27 14:01:50 2009. I am embarrased to say this, but back in the mid 80's, when I was a teenager with my friend "riding every line once", I remember riding the Broadway line to the Queens Blvd line, and remember looking at the map and saw the route by the Queensboro Bridge. Since I had only ridden the Williamsburg Bridge by that point, and the 14th St tubes, I mistakenly read the map thinking that it went OVER the Queensboro Bridge, not realizing there was a tunnel there.My friend and I were at the railfan window, all excited about "taking the train over that bridge for the first time", and all of a sudden we were at Queensboro Plaza, and the bridge never came, lol..... |
|
|
| (813581) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 27 14:38:52 2009, in response to The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sat Jul 25 01:35:59 2009. Watching this video again, I notice that the bridge "flexes" the most whenever a train goes through... |
|
|
| (813582) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Q4 on Mon Jul 27 14:39:50 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jul 25 11:53:49 2009. The Bronx-Whitestone Bridge is a close cousin in design to the Tacoma Narrow Bridge(Galloping Gertie). Over the years BWB was retrofitted with Trusses, diagonal bracing (40's)and a mass damper system in the 80's to provide more stability in high winds. This along with a thicker roadway made the bridge heavier and caused more wear and tear. The trusses were removed and replaced by fairings and other revisions made the bridge lighter. |
|
|
| (813584) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 27 14:42:53 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by arnine on Sat Jul 25 12:18:15 2009. I am glad too.... And the Tacoma Narrows bridge was a beautiful looking bridge too. |
|
|
| (813585) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Q4 on Mon Jul 27 14:49:14 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Jul 25 15:21:35 2009. If they removed rail from bridge, it would probably open up for more vehicular traffic like they did with the upper level of the Queensborough. |
|
|
| (813598) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jul 27 15:29:15 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 27 14:38:52 2009. Well d'uh...*That* was the POINT of the video. ROAR |
|
|
| (813599) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jul 27 15:30:47 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Q4 on Mon Jul 27 14:49:14 2009. BUT WE DON'T *WANT* MORE VEHICLES IN MANHATTAN.We want to choke them off so that they will give up on trying. ROAR |
|
|
| (813613) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jul 27 16:12:14 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 27 13:10:04 2009. I guess I wasn't clear on the design issue I was talking about with the Williamsburgh. In suspension bridges, the cables support three spans; two side spans (between the anchorages and the towers) and the center span (between the towers). The Williamsburgh only suspends the main span. The side spans are deck girder bridges, your standard highway overpass.The Outerbridge Crossing and Goethals Bridge are also cantilever. |
|
|
| (813638) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by R42 4787 on Mon Jul 27 16:49:36 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Hank Eisenstein on Mon Jul 27 16:12:14 2009. The Pulsaki Skyway and Tappan Zee are also cantilevers. |
|
|
| (813653) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Jul 27 17:50:55 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Jul 27 12:27:44 2009. Hem, potentially 7 lanes of traffic on the lower deck [would be great for 'reverse peak commuters'] for a total of 11 lanes sounds like a great idea :) |
|
|
| (813655) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Jul 27 17:53:48 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 27 10:27:11 2009. Shame they couldn't widen the roads especially the inner sections. Sometimes it seems like a close call if another cars is right next to you. And if there's like a hummer2 on the inner roadway, you're pretty much stuck behind it.I dunno which would've been more expensive: rebuild the bridge or build a new one and blowup/tear down the old one. But I really wished they went with building a new bridge with wider car lanes. |
|
|
| (813656) | |
Re: The Manhattan Bridge |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Jul 27 17:54:44 2009, in response to Re: The Manhattan Bridge, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jul 27 10:27:11 2009. Shame they couldn't widen the roads especially the inner sections. Sometimes it seems like a close call if another car is right next to you. And if there's car, like a hummer h2*, on the inner roadway, you're pretty much stuck behind it.I dunno which would've been more expensive: rebuild the bridge or build a new one and blowup/tear down the old one. But I really wished they went with building a new bridge with wider car lanes. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
