Talk:IRT Flushing Line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I noted the first part that says that because of the Asian popluation in the Flushing area the #7 was nicknamed the "Orient Express". I see where you have a reference to how that name came about. To be honest that is the first time I have ever heard of that.

The #7 is nicknamed the "International Express" because of the diverse number of communities that it goes through.

I am going to add that to the article.


--Allan 14:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No Second Avenue Station?[edit]

A major issue is the fact that the line will be traversed by the Second Avenue Subway (T Line). As of yet, it seems that the line will connect with the Grand Central/Lexington Avenue Station of the 7 Line. This will mean too much crowding for that 7 Line station. Why not add an additional 7 Line station at Second avenue to connect to the new T Line? Dogru144 15:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Flushing Line is too deep at that point, Plus, I believe there is a switch at that point. Pacific Coast Highway {ho ho ho • under the tree} 16:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is indeed a scissors crossover switch somewhere between Grand Central and the East River, but the biggest reason is probably the depth. Another factor is probably the proximity of that location to the shoreline. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 06:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the issue came up during the public comment period for the Second Avenue Subway. LarryV is indeed correct. You can't put a station there because the Flushing Line is on a slope at that point. Switches could be moved, and there are other deep stations, but you can't have "angled" platforms. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the S-line could be extended to connect to the T? Anyway, if it is not going to happen, we can't write about it.--Bk1 168 (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 42 Street Shuttle operates as three trains running back and forth, each on its own track. Also, the Grand Central shuttle platform is arranged so that walkways connect the eastern ends of the platforms, at track level. An extension of the shuttle would require a complete rearrangement of the Grand Central area, in addition to changing the operations of the shuttle from three separate single-track lines to one two or three track line. This would be necessary to avoid confusion. Hope this will help. Coasterlover1994 21:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LED Signs[edit]

Is the 7 train the first train to have the green circle of LEDs to designate local vs. red diamond of LEDs to designate express? It seems they are installed on all the cars running nowadays. In searching for it, I can see references to an earlier test where the LEDs spelled out "LCL" or "EXP" but I think the green circle / red diamond are more effective. The only place the route signs on the sides of the train are mentioned in the aritcle are in the first paragraph, but I'm not sure this edit is a key fact for the article. Dialt0ne (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

extension on port washington LIRR tracks[edit]

I have heard of plans to extend the line 7 to the east using LIRR tracks of the Port Washington Branch. I have my doubts if this makes too much sense, because there are only two tracks to share, but is there any evidence that these plans existed or have been dropped? I understand that the third rail of LIRR and NY-subway is compatible.--Bk1 168 (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most likly NOT. The FRA would not allow subway trains and LIRR trains to share tracks because of the differences in construction strength. A crash between the two would be devastating for the weaker car (subway). Acps110 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the characteristics of Subway rolling stock. But what you are saying makes sense. So for the sake of this article, it is a bad idea to persue this issue any further. But one aspect is worth mentioning in the LIRR- and NYC-subway articles (unless it is wrong): That they could technically use the same tracks, because the third rail electrification is the same. Off course beyond the FRA-issues it is quite clear that subways, especially those from the IRT-branch, are much narrower.--Bk1 168 (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically yes, however there are other differences as well. The LIRR uses a different voltage on their lines and the distance from the top of the rail to the floor is also different. A platform to serve both types would have to be a compromise. The floor height would make it a deal-breaker for ADA compliance which mandates accessibility for disabled people. At accessible stations throughout the NYCS there is a raised portion of the platform near the center which allows level entry for wheelchairs. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the subway uses 600V. And I have heard, that the LIRR has changed the voltage to 750V. So I assume that that is the incompatibility in voltage? Even if it is not so relevant for the line 7, I do see that the different voltages and the geometric compatibility of the third rail between LIRR and NYC-subway (and not Metro North) is useful and interesting information for articles about the subway and LIRR in Wikipedia in general. The only hard information I found about this 750V in Wikipedia was in an article about Railroad electrification in the United States which mentioned the 750V since the 70s.--Bk1 168 (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you aren't thinking of the Proposed New York City Subway expansion (1929–1940), which would've included an extension of the IRT Flushing Avenue line out towards Alley Pond Park, and a spur through Whitestone and College Point? ----DanTD (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Port Authority Stop?[edit]

Why isn't there a stop at the Port Authority being made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.146.236 (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the MTA, not us. ----DanTD (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template damage[edit]

I forget how often this has happened, but something on the Template:IRT Flushing Line got messed up again. ----DanTD (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Termini[edit]

Someone had put Queensboro Plaza as the line's weekend terminal..--VMIKEW (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it was a temporary change that hadn't been undone. Vcohen (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To-do[edit]

Sonoma's bridge (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Steinway Tunnel[edit]

The two articles talk about the same set of tunnels under the East River, and can sufficiently be explained within one article. Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the List of fixed crossings of the East River article we can see a list of 12 East River crossings (bridges and tunnels) that are part of some subway line. 5 of them are redirects to articles about subway lines, and 7 have their own articles. If you merge these two articles as you have proposed, the relation will be 6 redirects and 6 own articles. I think if we are changing something we have to make it more consistent. Considering the fact that at least Manhattan Bridge and Williamsburg Bridge are serious articles that cannot be merged into anything else, I think the right way is to create articles and not to merge them. Vcohen (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The tunnel pre-dates the Flushing Line, and was originally built more for the Steinway Railway than anything else. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7th Street in Manhattan and 11th Street in Long Island City[edit]

Has anybody seen the single line diagram of this line back in the days when it was referred to as the "Steinway Line?" (http://www.bmt-lines.com/cars-and-tracks/maps-and-drawings/) (http://www.bmt-lines.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/astoria-flushing.pdf) Evidently, Times Square (IRT Flushing Line) was originally going to be named Seventh Avenue (IRT Flushing Line) and there was a proposed 11th Street (IRT Flushing Line) station in LIC. Seems like that one might be a little too far west of Queensboro Plaza and Court Square, don't you think? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DanTD: Looks like 11th Street was going to be located at where Vernon Boulevard–Jackson Avenue is now... epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure of that, because they already have a separate "Jackson Avenue" station proposed there. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DanTD: OK, so maybe Hunters Point Avenue? Hunters Point Av and Vernon-Jackson are pretty close together. Hunters Point Av probably is close enough to 11 St for there to be an entrance from 11 St. epicgenius (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They had a Hunters Point Avenue station there too. I just keep thinking this might've been an old proposed alignment of the tracks. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably. It doesn't make sense to have 3 stations so close to each other. epicgenius (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DanTD: It looks like "11th Street" is actually Court Square. This keeps in mind that the avenues were originally streets (i.e. "Ely Avenue" is now 23rd Street, while "11th Street" is 45th Road). You can tell because Jackson Avenue and Davis Street are the modern-day names as well. epicgenius (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot more sense. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on IRT Flushing Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mileage?[edit]

I could not find any info on the length of the line in miles. Am I missing something? 31.94.7.151 (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IRT_Flushing_Line&oldid=1202482323"