If Frontline, or maybe Michael Bay, pondered why the T couldn't run 24/7 even if it had the money

While there were three competing systems at one point in Manhattan, on any given line all of the tracks were operated by the same entity.

Also, the NY subway has plenty of two-track operation (like the MBTA), especially outside Manhattan.

What the redundancy of lines on parallel avenues does allow is the closure of those two-track lines late nights or weekends for maintenance work, because there is usually service nearby. So while it is true that the NY subway runs 24/7, some lines are cut back late at night, and combined with closures because of maintenance, riding home late night can often take much longer than during the day.

that T management loves to dust off as their stock excuse for not providing late night/early morning service to the local highway network.

Can you imagine the uproar if MassDOT proposed shutting down all but one of the harbor crossings between 11 pm and 6 am and attempted to justify it on the basis that the taxes and fees collected by the traffic using the roads between those times don't justify the costs of operating all four separate facilities 24/7.

Or perhaps something like shutting down I-93 between Somerville and Woburn between midnight and 5 am to minimize wear on the bridges and pavement, and stating that the traffic doesn't need to use the highway, but can use Route 28 instead?

If anybody seriously proposed or supported such measures, they would most likely be greeted by angry crowds brandishing pitchforks and torches. Yet, when it comes to providing a public transportation system that is equally as important as the highway infrastructure, our leaders continue to routinely acccept identical measures and excuses from MBTA management.

Right, I was thinking of the portion beyond Boylston. The stretch from Boylston to Scollay is also from 1897. In any case, my main point there was that most of the subways were constructed in the 20th century.

That report is very interesting. I'm going to have to spend some more time reading it. It seems to be recommending that Park St not be used as a terminal and to route all cars through on one line, and to spread out transfers. Or better yet, convert to rapid transit.

It says that people didn't like the articulated cars back then. Probably because they had a strong chance of derailment.

We may not have a "conga-line" of streetcars going through, but they are still pretty slow moving.

I can't speak for compatibility between cars on what are now the Red and Orange lines, but the Blue line started out as a streetcar line, just like the 1897 subway. Only later was it converted to heavy rail rapid transit. Hence the much smaller cars on the Blue line.

I don't know whether four-track express-local service was ever considered for the Cambridge-Dorchester line (now the Red line). It certainly was not a new concept, since New York's 1904 IRT line was fully four-tracked.

One of the guys misspoke and called it "one track system" vs a "two track system", but that makes no sense at all for a rapid transit line: double-tracking is what we have - one in each direction. Davey referred to it correctly later on.

And there's a pretty simple reason why we don't have quad tracking here. It requires more room. Manhattan avenues are extremely wide, the subways were constructed using cut-and-cover and had lots of space to work with. Think about where the Red and Orange lines go: Summer Street, the Washington Street tunnel, the Longfellow Bridge, Mass Ave tunnel, the old elevated. Not very wide.

While it is certainly nice to have extra tracks for use during maintenance, the Chicago Red and Blue tunnels downtown are only double tracked like ours, and they run 24/7. So it is possible to do, even in America.

The Red line was built from the beginning to handle cars much larger than found on the elevated or Tremont St subway. So it's always been different. The Orange and Blue lines could technically inter-operate, but I'm not sure if it's ever been done. Anything running on the Blue line needs to be able to switch from third rail to overhead line at Airport.

This is just my guess, but I assume three or four tracks were never seriously considered here because the total mileage of the system, and mileage from terminal stations, is much less than in New York. Being able to run express trains probably made more sense for New York.

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com