|
|
| Re: Increase in L train service (1160846) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
|
| (1161046) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Jun 9 13:53:09 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Jun 9 13:36:53 2012. How is what not safe? |
|
|
| (1161048) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 14:32:28 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Jun 9 13:38:33 2012. worse yet EVERY CARNot that bad. Two sets of equipment per train are required for CBTC: one at the head and one at the tail. |
|
|
| (1161054) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Jun 9 14:42:42 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by bzuck on Sat Jun 9 08:22:47 2012. My simpler plan would be to run 2 or 3 trains between Myrtle and 14/8. They could quickly fumigate at 8th Ave and return empty to Myrtle in the Am hours. Reverse in the pocket track and head back to 14/8. keep a cop or 2 on the platform, in case someone refuses to get off. Not rocket science is it? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1161055) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 14:42:48 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Easy on Sat Jun 9 13:15:35 2012. That was perhaps once considered the safe capacity, but the reality is that has not been considered the safe operating capacity for many years.Operating capacity for the 14th Street Line is determined by the 8th Ave terminal geometry and emergency braking rates. Terminal geometry has not changed since the line was extended to 8th Avenue. Emergency braking rates for new equipment is specified as being no worse than its predecessors. The major impediment for not returning to 24 tph during rush hours is economic. Adding trains to both the AM and PM rush hours requires two separate crews. |
|
|
| (1161056) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Jun 9 14:45:45 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 14:42:48 2012. How about 2 or 3 extra trains running from Myrtle to 14/8 and returning empty to Myrtle? The AM rush seems to be the biggest problem on the "L" line. |
|
|
| (1161057) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Jun 9 14:46:28 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Edwards! on Fri Jun 8 22:27:32 2012. On the IND, the term "full length trains" generally implies 600 ft trains. |
|
|
| (1161058) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Jun 9 14:49:04 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Jun 9 14:45:45 2012. It would cause more delays fumigating the trains at 8 Av than merely letting them run back to Myrtle in service like they did when I was on the road. |
|
|
| (1161059) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Jun 9 14:55:10 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by randyo on Sat Jun 9 14:49:04 2012. Okay, let them run back in service to Myrtle Ave! Will this increase in service see trains from Myrtle to 14/8? |
|
|
| (1161060) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 14:58:25 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Easy on Sat Jun 9 13:24:44 2012. Although $1.7 million per year is fairly cheap as it is. Can they eventually run 30 tph?It's going to take a lot more money to operate more than 24 tph. There are two parameters that determine a line's service level capacity: terminal capacity and intermediate station capacity. Terminal capacity is usually the more stringent of the two. One way around this is to have the line branch out at both ends. The capacity for non-loop terminals is determined by the distance between the crossover switches and the platform and the speed by which trains can enter the station. There other factors such as speed to change the switches. Nominal capacity for a stub end terminal with the crossover close to the platform is around 20 tph. Adding overrun tracks will increase this to 40 tph. Increasing the distance from the platform to the crossover to 300 feet will reduce the capacity to 12 tph. Intermediate station capacity is nominally 40 tph. However, stations spaced too close to one another or speed restrictions at station entrances or exits will reduce this number. To get around the capacity restrictions of the 8th Ave terminal, the least expensive solution would be to make 6th Ave an alternate terminal. This would require adding a switch west of the 6th Ave station. There are 3 tracks between 6th and 8th Avenues. Access to the center track is only from 8th Ave. Providing access to this track from 6th Ave should not require any structural work to the tunnels. |
|
|
| (1161063) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jun 9 15:03:00 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 19:17:49 2012. I rarely saw R46 N trains on weekends, when the line terminated at 57th St. |
|
|
| (1161064) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jun 9 15:07:14 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 9 00:39:51 2012. Even the new signal system has it's limits. Adding 2 cars to every train adds capacity without adding trains or incurring more labor costs. |
|
|
| (1161066) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Jun 9 15:12:28 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Easy on Sat Jun 9 13:53:09 2012. higher TPH |
|
|
| (1161067) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jun 9 15:13:13 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by randyo on Fri Jun 8 19:17:49 2012. I also recall the interchanging of trains between the Bway and Nassau St R trains, especially in the morning. That's how the R16's ended up on the Broadway line during the day. |
|
|
| (1161068) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jun 9 15:16:11 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 14:42:48 2012. I don't think they can run 24 TPH without extending the tracks past the wall at 8th Ave so the trains can enter the terminal at speed. Past operations under differing safety regulations aren't applicable here. They should really consider extending the tracks 650' west, to allow more trains during the day and to lay up trains overnight. |
|
|
| (1161070) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Jun 9 15:45:43 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Jun 9 13:36:53 2012. The safety issue is this: trains can only enter a stub terminal at a certain speed, for fear that they will hit the wall if they don't stop in time. Moving so slowly across the terminal interlocking causes a drop in throughput. |
|
|
| (1161071) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Jun 9 15:47:54 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 12:16:13 2012. CBTC's advantage is the ability to maintain throughput across a range of speeds, something a fixed block system has trouble doing. |
|
|
| (1161072) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Jun 9 15:54:09 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 12:05:35 2012. Every car protected by wayside signalling with stop arms must have onboard equipment as well... |
|
|
| (1161076) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jun 9 16:26:23 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jun 9 15:03:00 2012. I remember one on a Saturday, only 4 cars long. |
|
|
| (1161077) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Jun 9 16:27:31 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 14:58:25 2012. To get around the capacity restrictions of the 8th Ave terminal,the least expensive solution would be to make 6th Ave an alternate terminal. This would require adding a switch west of the 6th Ave station. There are 3 tracks between 6th and 8th Avenues. Access to the center track is only from 8th Ave. Providing access to this track from 6th Ave should not require any structural work to the tunnels.Ccurrent NYCT policies prevent that from being a practical solution. |
|
|
| (1161085) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jun 9 16:58:07 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 9 06:31:39 2012. Lol...ridiculous to see it that way,since the KK was on the R27/30 roll signs from the early 60's..meant to operate in tandum AS the JJ/KK NASSAU ST LOCAL from Crescent st,168TH,Atlantic avenue,Rockaway Pkwy stations TO Canal st,Chambers st and Broad st..there was nothing to indicate that was the intention.. |
|
|
| (1161091) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jun 9 17:16:06 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by J trainloco on Sat Jun 9 15:47:54 2012. is this a safety issue..or is it a still working the bugs out of the system issue..or are they afraid of running the system full out? |
|
|
| (1161099) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sat Jun 9 18:04:42 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 14:58:25 2012. So it can be done, but money would have to be spent to redesign the terminals to add longer tail tracks? Then it's probably not gonna happen in the foreseeable future. I was only wondering because I know that London just increased the Jubilee Line to 30 tph at rush hour. In fact, the service provided throughout the day is 20 tph. And yet with only a few more stations, the Jubilee line manages to transport 4 times the number of people as the L train. |
|
|
| (1161104) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 9 18:32:05 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Edwards! on Sat Jun 9 16:58:07 2012. No intention, but some along the route did not like it, regardless of where in Manhattan it went to. |
|
|
| (1161125) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Jun 9 20:40:42 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Joe V on Sat Jun 9 18:32:05 2012. It might have worked today, given the changing demographics of Williamsburg and Bushwick. The rerouted "M" seems to be a success. |
|
|
| (1161126) | |
Re: MTA on Facebook (was: Increase in L train service) |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Jun 9 20:42:17 2012, in response to MTA on Facebook (was: Increase in L train service), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Jun 8 20:05:02 2012. And no mention of short turns at Myrtle, I presume? |
|
|
| (1161131) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 20:52:54 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jun 9 15:16:11 2012. I don't think they can run 24 TPH without extending the tracks past the wall at 8th Ave so the trains can enter the terminal at speed.If trains could enter and leave stub terminals at full speed, that terminal's capacity would be close to 40 tph. The 24 tph capacity of the 8th Avenue terminal, assumes that trains do not enter at full speed. Past operations under differing safety regulations aren't applicable here. Safety is guaranteed by trains in emergency being able to stop before a collision with either the bumper or the train in front. The emergency braking rate nor the emergency braking distance has not changed. They should really consider extending the tracks 650' west, to allow more trains during the day and to lay up trains overnight. Tunnels cost a lot of money to build. Overnight layups at 8th Avenue are of minimum use. Early morning demand is for trains coming towards 8th Ave not originating there. |
|
|
| (1161134) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Sat Jun 9 21:02:05 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Jun 9 14:55:10 2012. Looking at the latest L schedule (as of June 10th) it appears this is already the case. It shows five Brooklyn bound trains terminating at Myrtle Av in the AM rush. (The Manhattan bound AM rush schedule doesn't go into details.) |
|
|
| (1161137) | |
Re: MTA on Facebook (was: Increase in L train service) |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Sat Jun 9 21:40:54 2012, in response to Re: MTA on Facebook (was: Increase in L train service), posted by Elkeeper on Sat Jun 9 20:42:17 2012. In case you missed it in a later post, it does appear there wil be short turn L trains at Myrtle Av. |
|
|
| (1161139) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Jun 9 22:35:16 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by VictorM on Sat Jun 9 21:02:05 2012. Let's hope it helps with the overcrowding! |
|
|
| (1161141) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sat Jun 9 23:06:33 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jun 8 14:59:11 2012. Or they can run 10 car trains with the existing platforms and do what they did on the #1 train at the old South Ferry station...announce for the passengers to move forward to exit at each station! :-) |
|
|
| (1161143) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 9 23:41:04 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Easy on Sat Jun 9 13:15:35 2012. 5 tph to 20 tph is a 33% increase after CBTCAnd, more importantly, that represents a greater capacity improvement than would have been gained by investing solely in longer platforms and trains. |
|
|
| (1161147) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 9 23:59:01 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jun 9 15:07:14 2012. Even the new signal system has it's limits.As does adding two cars to every train. In fact that limit is 125% and it's far more fixed than any signaling system change. Actually the limit is a bit less than 125% since the eight car train will clear interlockings and so on faster. Adding 2 cars to every train adds capacity without adding trains or incurring more labor costs. Unless the MTA opts for R143-compatible married pairs and peak period cuts and adds those two cars will have a very definite cost. Maybe that cost won't come in labor, but they'll be forced to provide a per-train capacity for rush hour on a 24/7 basis and the additional capacity will need to be paid for. Those two additional cars will rack up a lot of VMTs providing no noticeable reduction on crowding during the other 16 hours of the day that aren't part of the peak period. Seeking capacity increases with throughput improvements at 8th to maximize the benefit of the CBTC system provides a flexibility in dealing with rush hour, the shoulder periods, the midday, and overnight. And of course if the MTA would buck up and make OPTO a priority for ATO/CBTC equipped lines they'd achieve cost reductions on the labor side even as they increased the number of trains being operated. |
|
|
| (1161148) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Sun Jun 10 00:03:31 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 9 23:41:04 2012. Yup. And given the choice between longer trains and more frequent trains as a method for increasing capacity, the latter is obviously better from a rider's perspective. That's why I asked whether they could run 30 tph as that's another 33% improvement. |
|
|
| (1161149) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 10 00:03:44 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 12:05:35 2012. The problem is the TA did not purchase enough car borne signalling equipment to operate the line at capacity.If the alternative is to sink millions, if not at least a billion dollars into extending the platforms over some vague timeline then simply ensuring all rolling stock on the Canarsie Line is equipped with a CBTC system costs almost nothing, can be done on a far shorter timetable, and is far easier to implement. |
|
|
| (1161155) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 10 00:52:58 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Easy on Sun Jun 10 00:03:31 2012. Exactly. And once you lengthen the platforms you've invested that money and are pretty much SOL for any further increase in demand. We'd be better off pooling the (more than likely) billion dollars that'd be invested lengthening the Canarsie Line platforms into extending the line to a terminal which can fully exploit the new signalling system. Perhaps an extension to Chelsea Piers and a terminal station with a flying crossover between the two terminal tracks such that crossing moves can be made into and out of the terminal simultaneously.Hell, extend the Flushing line down its 1200 foot long tail tracks to a terminal station at 23rd shared with the Canarsie Line where each line gets a flying crossover on their respective ends and 600+ foot tail tracks along the other line's ROW in the opposite direction. I just can't figure out a way to do cross platform transfers in a manner that doesn't involve fumigating the trains and taking them back onto those tail tracks. |
|
|
| (1161156) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Jun 10 00:57:11 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 10 00:52:58 2012. "And once you lengthen the platforms you've invested that money and are pretty much SOL for any further increase in demand."Why exactly is this so. Couldn't you still add more TPH? |
|
|
| (1161157) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 10 01:27:05 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Train Dude on Sun Jun 10 00:57:11 2012. Oh certainly. But extending the platforms is an extremely expensive undertaking for an increase in capacity that is less than the far more affordable signaling system upgrades. If we're picking between either implementing CBTC or lengthening trains, then one would have to go with CBTC and shorter headways, particularly if it were paired with OPTO implementation to mitigate the labor costs that would otherwise result. If we're dealing with the Canarsie Line going forward, then a viable next step would be to ensure all equipment is CBTC equipped so as to fully utilize that investment and determine the maximum capability of the system to turn trains at 8th.Beyond that if further capacity growth is warranted by demand then one would have to make the difficult choice between two expensive alternatives. We can either extend the platforms and the trains, or extend the Canarsie line to a station where throughput can be improved. But why leap to the expensive alternative when there are low hanging fruit which can yield further performance improvements at little or no cost compared to rebuilding every line on the platform. |
|
|
| (1161158) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 10 01:37:20 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jun 9 12:16:13 2012. That's still only 80% of what they had before the CBTC investment.But as Easy noted that throughput was achieved with less regard for the operator's liability in the event of a problem. The MTA (and most transit systems) simply do not trust their operators enough to go back to those policies which provide provide no confirmation to the supervision and management that their policies are being obeyed and their backsides are firmly covered. The CBTC system provides the means for the MTA to loosen the reins on their operations while still maintaining the sort of positive control their numerous timers failed to provide. The degree to which they achieve what the BMT managed to do two generations ago at 8th St is entirely up to the management and the degree to which they trust the black boxes driving and the train making the stop. If they decide they can run that equipment in the same manner the station was utilized once upon a time, then we'll see if they're capable of turning 24 trains per hour at the station. If they prove to be a bit more risk averse, as I'm sure many here would expect, then we'll see a somewhat lower utilization of the 8th St Station. But it's not the signal system, it's the management and the feedback they receive from the signal system which will ultimately determine to what degree the 8th St Station can fulfill the Canarsie Line's demand. But IMHO it's foolish to embark upon a very costly platform lengthening project when we do not even know if the MTA will choose to use the CBTC system to its fullest. |
|
|
| (1161159) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Jun 10 01:45:08 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 10 01:27:05 2012. CBTC has already been implemented. Your options are adding more trains or lengthening the platforms |
|
|
| (1161160) | |
AM Short Turns & Myrtle Ave. (was: Increase in L train service) |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jun 10 01:55:15 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by VictorM on Sat Jun 9 21:02:05 2012. In looking at the employee timetable, yes, there will be 8 s/b L trains in the AM rush terminating @ Myrtle/Wycoff with 7 going back to Manhattan. First one arrives @ Myrtle 7:50 and relays for a 8:06 back to 14/8, with the last one arriving @ Myrtle/Wycoff @ 9:22 and relays for a 9:40 back to 14/8. There is a 9:39 Myrtle/Wycoff arrival that lays up (does not return to 14/8), but I don't know where to. This is not important.Keep in mind these times are not set in stone if the line does not run according to schedule. IT'S A PAPER RAILROAD. Designated crews (jobs) are on these short turns so if the railroad is jacked up, these crews will arrive @ Myrtle/Wycoff out of place so naturally can't make the designated interval back to 14/8. |
|
|
| (1161161) | |
Re: AM Short Turns & Myrtle Ave. (was: Increase in L train service) |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jun 10 02:01:34 2012, in response to AM Short Turns & Myrtle Ave. (was: Increase in L train service), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jun 10 01:55:15 2012. No drop back crew at Myrtle. Crew leaves 14/8, they relay at Myrtle/Wycoff and bring the same train back to 14/8.Don't know if a switchman/platfrom c/r will assist. One of you guys will have to go out there, observe the operation, then report back. |
|
|
| (1161162) | |
Re: AM Short Turns & Myrtle Ave. (was: Increase in L train service) |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Sun Jun 10 02:55:59 2012, in response to Re: AM Short Turns & Myrtle Ave. (was: Increase in L train service), posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jun 10 02:01:34 2012. They do presently, so I imagine they'll continue to, especially if the headway is even tighter. |
|
|
| (1161165) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jun 10 04:12:46 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Edwards! on Sat Jun 9 17:16:06 2012. They don't have enough trains to max it out. It's also unnecessary right now. |
|
|
| (1161166) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jun 10 04:14:38 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jun 9 15:16:11 2012. Under ATO, trains DO enter the terminal at damn near full speed. |
|
|
| (1161170) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 10 04:20:53 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jun 10 04:12:46 2012. how so..?and that only answered ONE question.. |
|
|
| (1161172) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 10 04:22:52 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Jun 10 04:14:38 2012. thought the terminals werent under ATO control..thought it was done manually..with ATS hanging over his shoulder.. |
|
|
| (1161174) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Bounad Hanhic on Sun Jun 10 04:32:34 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Jun 9 22:35:16 2012. A better way to help with overcrowding is to improve M service as the M is of much greater utility as it goes to Midtown while the L only goes to 14th Street. |
|
|
| (1161175) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Jun 10 04:34:05 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 10 00:03:44 2012. If the alternative is to sink millions, if not at least a billion dollars into extending the platforms over some vague timeline then simply ensuring all rolling stock on the Canarsie Line is equipped with a CBTC system costs almost nothing, can be done on a far shorter timetable, and is far easier to implement.You have neglected to factor in the TA's specification for car borne equipment that is proprietary, already obsolete and no longer manufactured. The cost for equipping a train with this obsolete equipment is approximately $4 million per train, in addition to the cost of the train. The lead time to get this equipment on a special order is 2 to 4 years. Even with the additional trains, the 14th St Line will not be able operate at service level capacity of 24 tph because of insufficient CBTC equipped trains. They will need another order to get sufficient number of CBTC trains to operate at the line's service level capacity. The alternatives were: keep the existing 80 year old signal system and add any avaialable 60 foot rolling stock or replace the 80 year old signal system with a modern solid state traditional block system at about half the cost of the 14th Street CBTC implementation in about half the time. |
|
|
| (1161176) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Jun 10 04:44:52 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 10 01:37:20 2012. The degree to which they achieve what the BMT managed to do two generations ago at 8th St is entirely up to the management and the degree to which they trust the black boxes driving and the train making the stop. If they decide they can run that equipment in the same manner the station was utilized once upon a time, then we'll see if they're capable of turning 24 trains per hour at the station. If they prove to be a bit more risk averse, as I'm sure many here would expect, then we'll see a somewhat lower utilization of the 8th St Station.From what I understand, operation into the terminals is under operator not ATO control. If this is the case, then that trumps all your arguments regarding trusting machines over operators, etc. |
|
|
| (1161177) | |
Re: Increase in L train service |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Jun 10 04:51:14 2012, in response to Re: Increase in L train service, posted by Bounad Hanhic on Sun Jun 10 04:32:34 2012. True..weekend and later evening weekday service to Manhattan service may divert more L line riders.. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
