|
|
| Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) (1149519) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1149887) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Apr 9 18:50:55 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Apr 9 12:53:59 2012. Chris,I have 40 years in the electrical trade give or take. One of the banes of same is dealing w/ the drawings from the architects most of whom have never slung a hammer or drilled a hole. Sadly they often draw items on one sheet obstructed by details on another.Yeah, architects are famous for that. I don't have 40 years experience in anything, but I have been a field inspector and office engineer for a few years now, and one of my banes is when the electrical contractor doesn't follow his own drawings, installs the wrong thing in the wrong place or orders the wrong product entirely! Architects aren't the only ones screwing things up, haha. 40 years in Electrical eh? Journeyman? Foreman? Super? PM? |
|
|
| (1149888) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Apr 9 18:54:13 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 06:49:29 2012. not sarcastically attacking by doing it the way you did.Show me where I sarcastically attacked you. I asked you: "What exactly are you referring to in a tunnel?" How is that a sarcastic attack? |
|
|
| (1149893) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Mon Apr 9 19:20:28 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by J trainloco on Mon Apr 9 18:45:27 2012. Wow. As I said...I am not fnaticallly involved in this hobby like some of he people here re. The way you reacted to a simple wrong word just kind of shows hou pribably would be the type of person runs from when at a party or something.Again...I couldnt be happier to leave the anal types that makeup a lot of the railfn community. Next time you should probably just say its a girder not a header and move onAnd for the record....if someone called it a axel instead of a truck....do you really think most normal people would care. Question: "Are the axels on the R42s interchangeable with the ones on the R46s"? Answer: "No the trucks are not interchangeable." |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1149915) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Apr 9 19:49:39 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by gp38/r42 chris on Mon Apr 9 19:20:28 2012. The way you reacted to a simple wrong word just kind of shows hou pribably would be the type of person runs from when at a party or something.How did I react? I asked you a question. You're the one who has resorted to cursing at me, getting upset, and desperately seeking confirmation from another poster who agrees with you. Now you're making generalizations about me based off a few posts and resorting to attacking me as a person, which I haven't done to you. Again...I couldnt be happier to leave the anal types that makeup a lot of the railfn community. Aside from posting here a few times a day, I don't "railfan" at all. Next time you should probably just say its a girder not a header and move on Next time, you shouldn't insinuate that someone is "sarcastically attacking" you when they ask you a question. And for the record....if someone called it a axel instead of a truck....do you really think most normal people would care. Question: "Are the axels on the R42s interchangeable with the ones on the R46s"? Answer: "No the trucks are not interchangeable." But you didn't answer the original question. If someone did ask about the axels, did they really mean axels or trucks? If you asked them to clarify what they were referring to, then that would make the issue much clearer, no? |
|
|
| (1149949) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Apr 9 22:47:14 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by J trainloco on Mon Apr 9 18:50:55 2012. no particular title. I have run jobs w/ a crew, more often I work solo. Most of my work is upgrades/rewires. Recently completely replaced knob and tube and a bit of ancient bx w/all new romex and MC. The house dates to 1910+/- with OOS piping for gas lights and no boxes for the lights just wires poking through the lath & plaster. Now it is cleaned up and has enough circuits/plugs.As to failing to follow the plans/using wrong hardware, not good work. |
|
|
| (1149952) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Apr 9 23:17:29 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by J trainloco on Mon Apr 9 18:34:47 2012. the header like a beam in post and beam buildings eliminates the need for closely spaced vertical supports. the comment about horizontal increase was an imprecise way of suggesting that if for instance one needed to have a 4x12 for the span in question but no more than 8" vertical space one might well use a couple 8x8 bolted together to form a sufficient beam for the span. In all of these cases, the horizontal mem not only supports whatever is above but also ties together the vertical walls or post on which it rests.FWIW, I did work on a remodel where we used trus-joists "R" in order to support a new upper floor solely from the reinforced side walls. They were so new (1979) that the company sent out an engineer to educate/placate the building inspector. I was somewhat dubious on first look, but AFAIK no damage was reported after the Loma Prieta quake a decade later. |
|
|
| (1149970) | |
Re: Crossover at Broadway-Lafayette |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 10 06:59:38 2012, in response to Re: Crossover at Broadway-Lafayette, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Apr 9 09:13:35 2012. That was a given. The B/D could both run via 8th Avenue if necessary and still get to the bridge in that scenario.This would as noted also allow the A/C/E to have access to the Manny B tracks in an emergency or a G.O., especially if for example there is a situation where the 6th avenue tracks AND Rutgers Tunnel are out. |
|
|
| (1149971) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 10 07:00:50 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Apr 9 23:17:29 2012. And that's exactly correct, and all I was trying to say. It wasn't meant to get into some huge conversation about engineering that this was dragged into. It was a simple statement, and only meant as such.This whole thing has been absurd. |
|
|
| (1149972) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Apr 10 07:05:18 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Apr 9 22:47:14 2012. My old building used to have that. The building was built in 1912, and it didn't originally have electricity, it originally was gas lighting, and that's what all the ceiling lights were, wires sticking out of the ceiling without boxes, and live gas pipes still in the ceiling! While the building was "rewired" in the 1960's, a lot of the original wire conversion stuff still remained there which dated to the 1920's or 30's. So there was a mix of old outlets and new ones.I remember every so often when an electrician would change the ceiling light or something, you would smell gas if the gas pipe was disturbed in the ceiling, so then that would have to be dealt with too...what a pain. |
|
|
| (1150010) | |
Re: Crossover at Broadway-Lafayette |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 10 13:09:44 2012, in response to Re: Crossover at Broadway-Lafayette, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Apr 10 06:59:38 2012. Sorry, I meant 8th Avenue south of West 4th and the Rutgers Tunnel. |
|
|
| (1150031) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Apr 10 13:48:40 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Apr 9 23:17:29 2012. the header like a beam in post and beam buildings eliminates the need for closely spaced vertical supports.Yes, and your sentence hints at the difference. Headers transfer horizontal loads from those closely spaced (or in the case of a bearing wall, completely continuous) structural members while beams and girders do not. Even when one uses a transfer beam, it generally has one or two point load(s) on it. the comment about horizontal increase was an imprecise way of suggesting that if for instance one needed to have a 4x12 for the span in question but no more than 8" vertical space one might well use a couple 8x8 bolted together to form a sufficient beam for the span. Not imprecise at all, you were pretty clear. The principle you mention starts to become ineffective when you transition to greater spans. You HAVE to make the members substantially deeper with larger spans, simply sistering more members won't do the trick. This is one reason why steel columns in buildings are generally heavier but beams are deeper. In all of these cases,the horizontal mem not only supports whatever is above but also ties together the vertical walls or post on which it rests. A header is typically not about tying vertical structure together. It's about transferring a load over an opening, except in the instance of top plates. In a brick wall, the brick wall is already tied together quite nicely by its mortar joints, even when an opening is made in it. I did work on a remodel where we used trus-joists "R" in order to support a new upper floor solely from the reinforced side walls. They were so new (1979) that the company sent out an engineer to educate/placate the building inspector. I was somewhat dubious on first look,but AFAIK no damage was reported after the Loma Prieta quake a decade later. Trusses seem to intuitively be fragile, but in structures, shape is often more important than size. The biggest problem with trusses is that since there's so little material, it heats up quick, so they perform poorly in fires. |
|
|
| (1150035) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Apr 10 13:54:50 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Apr 9 22:47:14 2012. Ancient BX cable? Heh, I saw demolition of an existing electrical system that had fabric sheathed wires running through wood sleepers in the floor. Building dates back to the 1800s.Romex? I only see that stuff used for temporary installations. Of course, NYCT requires almost everything be run in Rigid galvanized conduit, so we don't even see BX cable installations. |
|
|
| (1150113) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Apr 10 18:47:16 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by J trainloco on Tue Apr 10 13:48:40 2012. yet none of this has anything to do with the topic at hand... |
|
|
| (1155170) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Mon May 7 19:19:46 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 08:08:14 2012. Wait...someone here a while back said that there was a diamond between B2/B4 at B-L but it was removed during Chrystie construction (before I lived in NY). It has been over 30 years since I used B-L on a regular basis and I just don't remember what the ROW looked like around there. |
|
|
| (1155266) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue May 8 08:45:50 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Dupont Circle Station on Mon May 7 19:19:46 2012. The crossover was east of B-L. Similar setup as Roosevelt Ave. |
|
|
| (1155268) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Mr. D - Type on Tue May 8 08:52:18 2012, in response to G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 00:17:13 2012. As usual Bill, you are totally correct. |
|
|
| (1155340) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue May 8 15:45:40 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 9 06:54:09 2012. Actually, that was done N/O Rockaway Av between the express tracks on the IND Fulton St Line. If you notice when looking out the RFW on either an A when the R-32s go there in a few weeks, or even on a C, you will notice that there are double the number of columns between the local and express tracks on both N/B and S/B sides to compensate for the columns that would have been between the N/B and S/B express tracks if a diamond Xover did not have to be installed for turning trains during the period when Rockaway Av was the terminal for the A Line. |
|
|
| (1155341) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue May 8 16:01:20 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 20:34:32 2012. Pre Chrystie, alternate Ds terminated at Church Av all day from approximately 600AM to 800PM M - F. Sat and Sun all Ds ran through to Stillwell although I do recall some Sat early AM put ins coming out of Kings Hwy. |
|
|
| (1155391) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue May 8 20:01:53 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 20:34:32 2012. I remember the B'KLYN-CHURCH AVE signs on the "D". seems that McDonald Ave never has had the ridership of other Coney Island bound lines. |
|
|
| (1155409) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue May 8 21:54:58 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Elkeeper on Sun Apr 8 20:18:13 2012. The Church ave lower level lay up wasnt always suppose to be "a lay up"..it was once part of a proposal to extend further east and west across Brooklyn.The GG,and the Lafayette avenue subway[the line to Broadway, Bushwick and Ridgewood]would have used this route. |
|
|
| (1155439) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Wed May 9 00:09:31 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Apr 8 20:34:32 2012. Truly every other, 50% of the D trains? That does surprise me, though I guess it's not impossible. Perhaps it was in the period just before the rush, so the trains turning at Church could be mixed with the trains from Coney Island to provide more frequent service to the Bronx during the early part of the rush?I wasn't a regular D rider then, but on one occasion a week or two before the Chrystie St. opening, I was on an uptown D and was very surprised to see the southern terminal was shown as one of the stations on Fulton St., I think it was Utica Ave. I checked several cars to see if they all said that, rather than it being just some kids playing with the signs, and as I remember at least three cars had their signs saying that. I still don't know what was going on there. |
|
|
| (1155451) | |
Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece) |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed May 9 01:32:53 2012, in response to Re: G Train: Present and Future (Opinion Piece), posted by Elkeeper on Tue May 8 20:01:53 2012. IINM there is a cemetery along one side--not much ridership there. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
