Talk:IRT Flushing Line

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?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

LED Signs

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)

extension on port washington LIRR tracks

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Port Authority Stop?

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)

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

Template damage

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)