The Paramus Mall! Aackk!
54light15That is so true- While driving on the Turnpike near Elizabeth, Isaac Asimov's wife called it "Mordor."
Very likely Bayway. It qualifies.
There was an article in New Jersey magazine in the latter half of the '70s that said something like "we built an industrial corridor along the major highways so out-of-staters would keep going as fast as possible and not think about invading the many good parts of the state to ruin them".
It does have to be said, though, that even at its worst we never set the Raritan on fire...
OvermodThere was an article in New Jersey magazine in the latter half of the '70s that said something like "we built an industrial corridor along the major highways so out-of-staters would keep going as fast as possible and not think about invading the many good parts of the state to ruin them".
Having made mistaken turns off the Interstate - you play hell in trying to back track and get back on the Interstate in your intended direction of travel. I think I traveled about 10 miles to get back to the point where I made the mistake and return to my intended travel path.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDHaving made mistaken turns off the Interstate - you play hell in trying to back track and get back on the Interstate in your intended direction of travel. I think I traveled about 10 miles to get back to the point where I made the mistake and return to my intended travel path.
That's a clever way to reinforce the idea that you won't come back!
Overmod BaltACD Having made mistaken turns off the Interstate - you play hell in trying to back track and get back on the Interstate in your intended direction of travel. I think I traveled about 10 miles to get back to the point where I made the mistake and return to my intended travel path. That's a clever way to reinforce the idea that you won't come back!
BaltACD Having made mistaken turns off the Interstate - you play hell in trying to back track and get back on the Interstate in your intended direction of travel. I think I traveled about 10 miles to get back to the point where I made the mistake and return to my intended travel path.
I didn't WANT to be there in the first place, however, events conspired to force my presence.
BaltACDI didn't WANT to be there in the first place,
And now even more than before! See? It works!
I took my now ex-wife to the Paramus Mall. Once. I blame it on the jug handles. I didn't think I'd ever get home, but you learn you have to turn right in order to turn left. Jeez!
Aired last night. Quite good and very interesting
https://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2019/12/metrofocus-august-27-2019/
CMStPnP Shock Control So let's accept the fact that you and I have different visions for the future of Penn Station, and then maybe we can watch some Hallmark Christmas movies together and drink some hot cocoa. I think Chicago Union Station is the last and if METRA had it's way it would have been torn down as well. Thank goodness they never got their hands on it. METRA still wants to sell off Chicago Union Station for demo for the money it can pocket on the immediate sale but Amtrak is standing in it's way currently with it's redevelopment plans and METRA is not interested in those or paying higher fees for a redeveloped CUS.
Shock Control So let's accept the fact that you and I have different visions for the future of Penn Station, and then maybe we can watch some Hallmark Christmas movies together and drink some hot cocoa.
I think Chicago Union Station is the last and if METRA had it's way it would have been torn down as well. Thank goodness they never got their hands on it. METRA still wants to sell off Chicago Union Station for demo for the money it can pocket on the immediate sale but Amtrak is standing in it's way currently with it's redevelopment plans and METRA is not interested in those or paying higher fees for a redeveloped CUS.
You seem to be mistaken with who wants to build on top of CUS.
https://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2019/12/24/the-union-station-tower-is-finally-real/?fbclid=IwAR0RXUx_aoxOE8QBBiIAWAp1YdrcctF-QtFK1I0IYwDDutZqzmgBIYPffdo
"For as long as anyone can remember, it’s been lots of discussion but no digging in the West Loop where Amtrak has wanted to add a skyscraper to the Union Station complex since before Amtrak was a thing. In the last 15 years, we’ve seen at least three different plans for Amtrak skyscrapers that simply never got off the ground. But that has finally changed."
An "expensive model collector"
n012944You seem to be mistaken with who wants to build on top of CUS.
Unless I'm mistaken too, the BMO Tower isn't going 'on top of CUS' in the sense he meant. The rendering clearly shows it across the street, doesn't it?
It would be like saying that the Pan Am building was built on top of GCT because it's over the air rights to the ends of the platforms. Definitely not the same as the 23-story 'original' to go over the waiting room, or even Breuer's little boxes.
I'm glad you posted this, because I doubt I'd have come across either the greenlighted BMO, or some of the other Goettsch projects referenced in the link, without your having done so. Good to see the language of pilotis is still alive, even if no more particularly 'well' than when Corb used it.
It's in the next block south of CUS, between Jackson and Van Burn.
n012944I missed the location. CUS is even in the background of some of the pictures. Duh.
Renderings aren't always clear but the map is. Anyway the OP hates Metra so much for inconviencing him a few times that he thinks Metra wants to sell CUS and tear it down, when, of course, Amtrak is the owner.
IMO The clearances at CHI US are a real impediment not only to Amtrak but METRA as well. If new cars for METRA were not height limited then a taller car could be the same as some commuter trains in Europe.
The most recent Metra gallery cars are 15' 10 13/32" tall.
Bombardier bilevels are 15' 11" tall. Do you think the current clearances are so tight that an additional 17/32" would be a problem?
The Siemens Viaggio Twin is about 15' 1.1" (4600 mm).
blue streak 1The clearances at CHI US are a real impediment not only to Amtrak but METRA as well.
Strange that in the city where whole neighborhoods and large buildings were being raised seamlessly before the Civil War -- in part by George Pullman -- nobody can figure out how to increase the overhead clearances by any means.
They could start in the same way we widen streets here: require any new construction ... like that boring Bank of Montreal thing ... to have vertical clearances suitable for proper double-deck and high-level cars plus accommodation for 50kV catenary. Then set about lifting other structures ... say, with a combination of careful seismometry and computer-coordinated jacking ... as you renovate other parts of the rail infrastructure.
Personally, I believe that step alone does quite a bit of future-proofing what Chicago uses for heavy rail commuter service, especially on lines that have already been cleared for double-stack freight running.
Overmod blue streak 1 The clearances at CHI US are a real impediment not only to Amtrak but METRA as well. Strange that in the city where whole neighborhoods and large buildings were being raised seamlessly before the Civil War -- in part by George Pullman -- nobody can figure out how to increase the overhead clearances by any means. They could start in the same way we widen streets here: require any new construction ... like that boring Bank of Montreal thing ... to have vertical clearances suitable for proper double-deck and high-level cars plus accommodation for 50kV catenary. Then set about lifting other structures ... say, with a combination of careful seismometry and computer-coordinated jacking ... as you renovate other parts of the rail infrastructure. Personally, I believe that step alone does quite a bit of future-proofing what Chicago uses for heavy rail commuter service, especially on lines that have already been cleared for double-stack freight running.
blue streak 1 The clearances at CHI US are a real impediment not only to Amtrak but METRA as well.
When bi-levels started running on the C&NW In the late 1950s, the Bush train sheds were lifted higher by using jacks to lift them higher for clearances. This may have happened at CUS also.
Note the heights of various bi-levels.
charlie hebdoThe most recent Metra gallery cars are 15' 10 13/32" tall. Bombardier bilevels are 15' 11" tall. Do you think the current clearances are so tight that an additional 17/32" would be a problem? The Siemens Viaggio Twin is about 15' 1.1" (4600 mm).
Several decades ago the B&O had a Surfacing Gang working on what CSX calls the Philadelphia Sub between Baltimore and Philadelphia. Nobody thought much about it, that is until the Trailer Jet arrived Philadelphia with the roofs of the 17'3" trailers ripped back right at the top jont of the roof to the trailer side. Half a inch is half a inch.
But the Siemens cars are what are being considered. I notice you conveniently omitted to say what the Philly clearance was so you could utter another in your endless supply of cliches and hackneyed quips.
charlie hebdoBut the Siemens cars are what are being considered. I notice you conveniently omitted to say what the Philly clearance was so you could utter another in your endless supply of cliches and hackneyed quips.
I think part of what he's noting 'between the lines' is that there's a reason for that Chicago height to be measured in 32nds, and that even a fractional inch might cause an 'interference' (with fairly dramatic results).
On the other hand, absolute vertical clearance for bilevels is likely complicated both by load weight and by sway at the top edges of the clearance diagram due to the relatively high (and presumably 'top-heavy' when loaded) carbodies. In some cases the clearance is measured relative to a curved roof ... I thought at least part of the Trailer-Jet incident Balt mentioned was due to 'square corners' more than to nominal ride height; you see this in the Philistine tunnel conversions to double-stack clearance that 'notch out the corners' just enough to clear at appropriate speed...
Are the Siemens Viaggios being considered 'as built'? To me, they seemed relatively cramped upstairs for American service...
Overmod charlie hebdo But the Siemens cars are what are being considered. I notice you conveniently omitted to say what the Philly clearance was so you could utter another in your endless supply of cliches and hackneyed quips. I think part of what he's noting 'between the lines' is that there's a reason for that Chicago height to be measured in 32nds, and that even a fractional inch might cause an 'interference' (with fairly dramatic results). On the other hand, absolute vertical clearance for bilevels is likely complicated both by load weight and by sway at the top edges of the clearance diagram due to the relatively high (and presumably 'top-heavy' when loaded) carbodies. In some cases the clearance is measured relative to a curved roof ... I thought at least part of the Trailer-Jet incident Balt mentioned was due to 'square corners' more than to nominal ride height; you see this in the Philistine tunnel conversions to double-stack clearance that 'notch out the corners' just enough to clear at appropriate speed... Are the Siemens Viaggios being considered 'as built'? To me, they seemed relatively cramped upstairs for American service...
charlie hebdo But the Siemens cars are what are being considered. I notice you conveniently omitted to say what the Philly clearance was so you could utter another in your endless supply of cliches and hackneyed quips.
Since the Superliners are 16' 2", bluestreak's concern is moot.
charlie hebdoSince the Superliners are 16' 2", bluestreak's concern is moot.
Now that you mention it ... 'tis, 'tisn't it?
Were the clearances more radically restricted when the gallery cars were designed?
Overmod charlie hebdo Since the Superliners are 16' 2", bluestreak's concern is moot. Now that you mention it ... 'tis, 'tisn't it? Were the clearances more radically restricted when the gallery cars were designed?
charlie hebdo Since the Superliners are 16' 2", bluestreak's concern is moot.
I don't know about CUS when the CB&Q introduced the concept in 1950, but the Bush trainshed had to be raised at Madison St. when the C&NW introduced theirs in the mid-50s. RI at LaSalle St.? I don't know.
In breaking news: Cuomo apparently wants to fix some of the scuttling-rat issue by redeveloping 7th to 8th between 30th and 31st as a grand thing of some kind. He has gotten off on the wrong foot, though, by not bothering to tell the property owners there of his wonderful plan in advance. This may get comical fairly quick.
Overmod In breaking news: Cuomo apparently wants to fix some of the scuttling-rat issue by redeveloping 7th to 8th between 30th and 31st as a grand thing of some kind. He has gotten off on the wrong foot, though, by not bothering to tell the property owners there of his wonderful plan in advance. This may get comical fairly quick.
There are currently only two tracks tunneled under the North River, insufficient capacity for Amtrak and NJT.
Probably will take some event that renders one or both tunnels useless. Then the requisite handwringing and fingerpointing takes place, followed by the Herculean effort to make things new.
Meanwhile, NASA moves forward towards its moonshot. Could inspire a new generation.
NASA is going back to the moon? Wow, only fifty or so years since the last time.
54light15NASA is going back to the moon? Wow, only fifty or so years since the last time.
And the sad thing is that so little has changed in those years. We were supposed to have working transatmospheric vehicles in the 1980s, for heaven's sake. Even the predecessor to VentureStar (the one with the 20 J58s) would have been workable. The Russians came depressingly close to heavy industrial presence in space in that decade, and while I think it was a darn near thing we could shut them down before they did, basically nothing 'open' has been done either for space exploration or space colonization with their approaches since then.
I suppose it's OK, though. Can you imagine the 'fun' trying to run an actual commercial space operation with our current software-development paradigm of fixing or reprogramming when it breaks? The sad thing being that, in the right hands, that's as good a way to design software and hardware capabilities as it is for actual PTC... something else that's only fifty or so years overdue by now.
Overmod states--- " basically nothing 'open' has been done either for space exploration or space colonization with their approaches since then"
Pioneer 10 1973
Pioneer 11 1974-79
Voyager 1 1979-80
Voyager 2 1979-81-86
Galileo 1995-2003
Ulysses. 1992-2004
Cassini/ Huygens 2000-04-17
Huygens. 2005 ( Titan lander)
New Horizons 2007-15
Juno 2016-2021
Planned
Clipper--- Jupiter/Europa
Lucy------Asteroids
JIME------Ganymede
Dragonfly - Titan lander
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.