|
|
| Re: Culver Express (1314726) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Culver Express |
|
|
Posted by steamdriven on Tue Sep 23 02:23:58 2014, in response to Re: Culver Express, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Mon Sep 22 22:31:23 2014. K. I'm not privvy to internal changes, I'm thinking of the Union Square smackup. That was years ago, tho.So... if that problem is solved, the the issues are signaling and pennypinching. There are hundreds of new cars on order, so a bit of wear on the trains doesn't strike me as a dealbreaker. The time of 500-1000 people per train is expensive; saving 10 or 15 min one way is 50-100 man-hours. Let's say the average person produces $40/hr worth of something and is paid $20 (both figures are low) that's $1000-$5000 worth of time per run, one way. 10 trips/week, $10-50K value of time per week, counting only weekdays. Say they work 200+ days per year, we're in 6 figures. But that's just one group of passengers - that trainset kept going after they get to work, running lighter loads during the day and at night. Add it up & 1 train x 20 min per full length run saves or destroys over $1M/year worth of time. You can buy a whole lotta spare parts, concrete n rails for that. If a train saves 20 min per complete run, one can (probably) park one train from that line to keep about the same headway, thus ditching maintenance for one trainset. Jamaica-Queensboro alone has around 10 wasted minutes. E-brakes: Currently, they're set to be barely more than normal braking, about 3mph/second. There's more grip on the rails than that, at least 4. But I don't know if the brakes have anti-skid to avoid flat wheels. I can deal with the end of 60mph operation ... make it 70 ;-) |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|