|
|
| Re: Underbuilt IND? (1139594) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (1139901) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 15 23:00:19 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Feb 15 15:47:36 2012. You can't run 50 TPH on a single track. |
|
|
| (1139903) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Wed Feb 15 23:18:12 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by grand concourse on Tue Feb 14 23:54:07 2012. I think we would be more likely to see a 3 Avenue subway or even a 1 Avenue subway than another set of tracks built along 2 Avenue. |
|
|
| (1139905) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Feb 15 23:21:39 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Feb 15 18:06:51 2012. this was considered ONCE by the TA when the 63rd st tunnel/line was the microscope years ago..the conclusion was reached to say it would require too many trains for it to work. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1139906) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Wed Feb 15 23:23:57 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Feb 15 00:01:02 2012. ...and you would need less of them! |
|
|
| (1139910) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Feb 15 23:32:53 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 15 23:00:19 2012. Sure can't. That's one train every 72 seconds. |
|
|
| (1139916) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Gene B. on Wed Feb 15 23:45:57 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Feb 15 16:44:50 2012. The comment about Hylan was the reason that Queens was underbuilt. Hylan's main purposes, as stated above, were to put the private companies out of business an d to preserve the five cent fare. If the IND were built into undeveloped areas, there is no way it could turn a profit and maintain the five cent fare, ergo it was primarily built in the already developed areas with a ready made volume of passengers. |
|
|
| (1139917) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Feb 15 23:48:31 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Edwards! on Wed Feb 15 23:21:39 2012. Well Forest Hill Rider, there's your answer! |
|
|
| (1139921) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Thu Feb 16 00:09:59 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Andrew Saucci on Wed Feb 15 23:18:12 2012. Why build under either of those avs when you already have 2nd av? Wouldn't it just be 'easier' to drill below the existing segment? |
|
|
| (1139964) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Feb 16 05:41:04 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by grand concourse on Thu Feb 16 00:09:59 2012. I wonder how much room (vertically) would have to be left between the two levels of tunnels to ensure that the upper one could not collapse into the lower. |
|
|
| (1139966) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Feb 16 07:05:17 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Outside the Box on Wed Feb 15 19:18:06 2012. There is still the human element called passengers that can affect station dwell time.90 second headways consist of 30 seconds braking; 30 seconds of acceleration and 30 seconds of dwell time. Dwell time is defined as the interval between when the doors open and the trains starts moving again. That 30 seconds is sufficient, if service levels are adequate to meet demand. The old 3rd Ave El also ran shorter consists than current IRT. The MUDC's also had acceleration and braking rates that were roughly half that of current IRT equipment. This more than compensated for the extra length of today's consists. Running 10 car trains at 90 sec headways require very strict headway keeping. Operating at the intermediate station service level capacity is fairly easy. The signal system, which is designed to prevent collisions, will also act as a supervision system. It's when trains operate at less than the intermediate station service level capacity, that a separate supervision system is required. The Moscow Metro (40 tph operation) has clocks that allow crew to keep station dwell to a set time frame. NO!!! The clocks in the Moscow Metro tell the crew how far behind they are from their leader. Similarly, the Paris Metro uses clocks at each station to tell the crew when to depart. In both these instances, they have eliminated the problem of accumulated errors inherent in a system based on dwell time clocks. |
|
|
| (1139970) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Thu Feb 16 09:18:06 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Feb 16 05:41:04 2012. What is under GCT for the new LIRR terminal at GCT? |
|
|
| (1139971) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Thu Feb 16 09:20:53 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Feb 15 00:01:02 2012. Running faster means stopping harder.Remember the trains are carrying EGGS. |
|
|
| (1139972) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Forest Hill Rider on Thu Feb 16 09:21:17 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Feb 15 23:48:31 2012. Well thank you for indulging me by discussing it! I learned a lot. |
|
|
| (1139980) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Outside the Box on Thu Feb 16 12:13:56 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Avid Reader on Thu Feb 16 09:18:06 2012. That might be the Flushing Line. Can someone check? |
|
|
| (1139981) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Outside the Box on Thu Feb 16 12:45:49 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Feb 16 07:05:17 2012. 30 second dwell time is not adequate for stations like 60th st-Lexington ave, 53rd st-Lexington Ave and 74th st - Roosevelt Ave. It is the high passenger transfer volume at these stations that drive up dwell time and limit line capacity.Running 33-40% more trains will yield a reduction in AVERAGE car loading. However, riders prewalk to and disproportionately load the subway cars at stair and escalator locations. These cars won't be at crush load as they are now (due to more trains per hr), but they will have close to or more than 140 riders per car. A partial solution might be adding more stairs (though that comes at the expense of platform space) and adding more transfer passageways. Another partial solution is subway cars that have interior and door designs that minimize dwell time. |
|
|
| (1140022) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Feb 16 15:33:00 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Avid Reader on Thu Feb 16 09:20:53 2012. CTA does a pretty good job of higher acceleration/deceleration than the fastest NYCT equipment. NYCTA had higher accelerating/decelerating cars, the Multis and chose to scrap them. |
|
|
| (1140072) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Feb 16 19:26:53 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Feb 14 20:09:16 2012. It's more than just fare collection. Until the LIRR gets to Penn Station or Atlantic Ave, the connections with the subway aren't that great. And once it reaches there, that's it. Great if you work relatively near these stops - not so great otherwise. Compare that with what the Queens Superexpress would have done - gather commuters from eastern Queens, skip past much of the middle, then drop people off in multiple points in Manhattan. It's essentially what services like the A, E, F and even express buses do - local at the source, fast express, then local around the destination. |
|
|
| (1140073) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Feb 16 19:36:35 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Feb 15 16:44:50 2012. I think it's also that a 6-track main line was kind of unheard of at the time. 3-track lines were already carrying large number of passengers in Brooklyn and Queens, so 4 tracks must have seemed deluxe. |
|
|
| (1140075) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Feb 16 19:47:54 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Feb 14 21:09:47 2012. There are 3 4-track trunk lines west of 5th Ave which don't give me the impression of being underutilized. What makes you think a 2-track trunk line on the underserved east side is going to suffer from that? |
|
|
| (1140085) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Feb 16 21:13:51 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Feb 14 21:09:47 2012. The ridership is already there but now utilized the 1 and 2 Av bus service or jams into Lex Av trains. Once the SAS is built even if initially only to 96 St bus and Lex Av ridership will diminish. Actually, one of the original purposes of the SAS which was to connect to the IRT Pelham Line will not be realized in the foreseeable future, thus Bronx passengers will not see the relief that was originally intended. If the SAS were extended to the Bx, then the passenger density would have warranted high service levels. |
|
|
| (1140087) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Feb 16 21:17:39 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Elkeeper on Wed Feb 15 15:29:36 2012. heck..they didn't even need its express tracks until the extension to Union Turnpike. |
|
|
| (1140088) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Feb 16 21:19:11 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by randyo on Thu Feb 16 21:13:51 2012. actually..it was originally suppose to connect to the Concourse line. |
|
|
| (1140092) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Feb 16 21:36:25 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Edwards! on Thu Feb 16 21:19:11 2012. I haven't seen any documentation about that but prior to unification, there were supposed to be new IND lines in the Bx to serve the eastern part of the borough which would have been connected to the SAS. After unification, the SAS was to have been connected to both the Pelham Line and the newly acquired Dyre Line which is one of the reasons the Dyre line uses the IND track numbering system instead of the IRT. Although many people aren't aware of this, sometime in the 1970s the MTA altered the Bx SAS plans and opted to leave the Pelham Line with the IRT and instead connect to the Wh Pl Rd Line N/O E180 St which would have all IRT service terminating at E180. Of course with the fiscal crisis of the 1970s, none of these including the full SAS were completed. |
|
|
| (1140111) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Feb 16 22:52:43 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Outside the Box on Thu Feb 16 12:45:49 2012. More frequent service levels will proportionately reduce the number of passengers in each car, the number of passengers waiting on the platforms and the number of passengers crossing the door threshold at each stop.It's very difficult to extrapolate current dwell times at selected stations with what would be expected at 40 tph. The current headway variability with 26 and 30 tph is a big problem. Another reason for extended loading times is the method used to determine when to close doors. The C/O has to wait for all the doors to be clear before closing them. A better strategy would be for doors to close individually, when they are clear of passengers. The R142's supposedly have a feature whereby a closing door would automatically re-open, if a passenger were stuck. They don't use this feature for fear that passengers would keep doors open indefinitely. It would result in shorter not longer loading times, if it were used. Another reason for extended loading times is passenger car design that encourages passengers to remain in the doorways. The BMT standards were designed so that passengers holding onto poles would not block the doorways. The doorways were also substantially wider to give passengers a pole to hang onto but still give passengers a clear shot to get on and off. Despite having only 3 doors per side, the Standards did not have excessive loading times with crush loads. |
|
|
| (1140112) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Feb 16 23:13:07 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by randyo on Thu Feb 16 21:36:25 2012. Funny how unification made all that disappear, didn't it? |
|
|
| (1140116) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Thu Feb 16 23:56:28 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by randyo on Thu Feb 16 21:13:51 2012. The ridership is already there but now utilized the 1 and 2 Av bus service or jams into Lex Av trains.But it remains to be seen if said ridership will ever constitute a requirement for four tracks... then the passenger density would have warranted high service levels Are we planning on running anything more than 15 tph at peak to Bronx? Otherwise, you can skate by on two tracks like the rest of the world, and Paris does a pretty good job of moving near NYCTA numbers with only two track lines... |
|
|
| (1140131) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Feb 17 00:59:27 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by randyo on Thu Feb 16 21:36:25 2012. If the Pelham line had gone to the SAS though, where would the Lex Ave local service terminate? |
|
|
| (1140132) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Feb 17 01:02:51 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by randyo on Thu Feb 16 15:33:00 2012. I don't it's so much the deceleration, as it is the sudden stops/starts. |
|
|
| (1140135) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Feb 17 01:31:43 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by 3-9 on Fri Feb 17 00:59:27 2012. hunts points. |
|
|
| (1140137) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Feb 17 01:52:38 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Edwards! on Fri Feb 17 01:31:43 2012. So that means it would have shared the tracks with the SAS? |
|
|
| (1140147) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Feb 17 07:40:04 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 15 22:59:20 2012. And from PABT. |
|
|
| (1140149) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Fri Feb 17 07:56:17 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by N6 Limited on Wed Feb 15 03:27:14 2012. I think the E and F are more crowded throughout their length. The Lexington Line is packed mostly between the UES and Downtown. The F is usually SRO at rush hour leaving 179th Street. A friend of mine says he usually gets a seat on the 5 at Gun Hill Road at rush hour. |
|
|
| (1140193) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 17 14:01:41 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by 3-9 on Fri Feb 17 00:59:27 2012. More than likely, Lex lcls would have either been routed to Woodlawn or West Farms unless 138/3 was retained by the IRT for use as the terminal. |
|
|
| (1140196) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Feb 17 14:17:17 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 15 14:03:23 2012. Why not route some of the E trains to Euclid in place of some of the C trains? If it isn't done already, have some C trains do a one-way trip during rush hours. Some F trains can similarly do one-way trips to Coney Island/Kings Highway/Ave X. |
|
|
| (1140240) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Fri Feb 17 17:21:11 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by 3-9 on Fri Feb 17 14:17:17 2012. Leave the "E" alone. It's crowded enough, as is! After the 9th St viaduct is done, run extra "F" trains to Church. A lot of people get on between Church and Jay. Not as many between Church and Kings Hwy. It was always that way. Back in the BMT days, expresses ran against the prevailing direction. |
|
|
| (1140329) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Feb 17 23:55:02 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by 3-9 on Fri Feb 17 01:52:38 2012. no..the SAS had to options that the MTA was considering using.First option was a line under 138th st[shared with the Pelham line]then over to the then PENN CENTRAL trackage,where one branch would continue to elevated line outside of Hunts Point and the other would continue to the Dyre Ave line. Second option[far cheaper] would be bringing the trains from the Harlem River tunnel to an open cut,then embankment at 138th st withing the old PENN YARDS..using that row to Hunts Point..then branch off to the tow terminals. |
|
|
| (1140330) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Feb 18 00:01:21 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Forest Hill Rider on Wed Feb 15 13:46:36 2012. no..any reduction in C service would be a slap in the face in any BROOKLYN CENTRAL PARK WEST rider...find another way or forgetaboutit! |
|
|
| (1140516) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Sat Feb 18 19:09:34 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by randyo on Thu Feb 16 21:36:25 2012. Interesting plans. Should the Pelham line be annexed to the SAS, would the (6) terminate at 3rd av and use trains from Jerome yard? |
|
|
| (1140517) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Sat Feb 18 19:11:05 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 17 14:01:41 2012. Interesting. (plz disregard my other post as you answered my question) |
|
|
| (1140519) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Sat Feb 18 19:17:02 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Thu Feb 16 23:56:28 2012. A 72nd st station with 3 tracks would've been useful for short turns if there was a problem either north or south of the station. A 2 track line in this city might have problems without some back up. |
|
|
| (1140572) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Feb 18 23:58:03 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 17 14:01:41 2012. option one=the SAS wasnt suppose to take over the 138th st subway[Lexington Pelham subway in the Bronx]..it would have ran beside it!The IRT line would have terminated at Hunts Point,while the SAS would take over from there.. option two=i already explained it in this thread. |
|
|
| (1140665) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Think twice on Sun Feb 19 13:48:36 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by PATHman on Tue Feb 14 19:25:33 2012. I always wondered if the Roosevelt Ave viaduct was structurally sound enough for a second deck of tracks, thereby making it a five-track elevated. Ideally though, the whole line should be a four-track subway.The Ego Trip Express: egotripexpress.tumblr.com |
|
|
| (1140718) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 19 17:36:52 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Edwards! on Sat Feb 18 23:58:03 2012. What routing would it have used to run "beside" it? |
|
|
| (1140719) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 19 17:39:42 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Edwards! on Sat Feb 18 23:58:03 2012. According to the 1951 B of T map of proposed Lines, the SAS was supposed to connect to the Pelham Line between 138/3 and Brook Av which means that the likely terminal for #6 service would have been 138/3. |
|
|
| (1140721) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 19 17:40:52 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by grand concourse on Sat Feb 18 19:09:34 2012. That's what is looks like on the 1951 B of T map. |
|
|
| (1140722) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 19 17:41:29 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Edwards! on Sat Feb 18 23:58:03 2012. According to the 1951 B of T map of proposed Lines, the SAS was supposed to connect to the Pelham Line between 138/3 and Brook Av which means that the likely terminal for #6 service would have been 138/3. |
|
|
| (1140724) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Sun Feb 19 17:48:28 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by randyo on Sun Feb 19 17:39:42 2012. Interesting and neat. |
|
|
| (1140813) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 20 00:45:04 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by randyo on Sun Feb 19 17:39:42 2012. thats 1951,dude...you know the plan changed.BROOK AVE was to be rebuilt into a double deck station[sas under the IRT]..the line would not stay under that street..it would transition over to the rail yards/amtrak row..which means the pelham line would keep it tunnels,ending at Hunts Point. |
|
|
| (1140816) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Mon Feb 20 01:56:00 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 20 00:45:04 2012. Yes, but annexing the line just east of 138th (which would make a good 3 track terminal) and save on costs of having to drill a parallel line beneath the existing line. The simpler, the better. |
|
|
| (1140841) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Feb 20 13:55:04 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Edwards! on Mon Feb 20 00:45:04 2012. As I mentioned in another post, by the 1970s the plans changed enough so that Pelham was to be left with the IRT and the Wh Pl Rd Line N/O E180 was to be connected to the SAS instead along with the Dyre Line. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
