|
|
| 3rd rail relocation -- Why? (1167491) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (1167496) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Fri Jul 20 00:16:12 2012, in response to 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by gbs on Thu Jul 19 23:16:39 2012. Safer for customers. |
|
|
| (1167497) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Fri Jul 20 00:16:13 2012, in response to 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by gbs on Thu Jul 19 23:16:39 2012. Safer for customers. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1167499) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jul 20 00:58:57 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Kriston Lewis on Fri Jul 20 00:16:13 2012. What about passengers? |
|
|
| (1167500) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Fri Jul 20 01:12:33 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Kriston Lewis on Fri Jul 20 00:16:13 2012. Not safer for track workers who need to be up against the wall. That is why Philly has it on the platform side. |
|
|
| (1167503) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by BigBusDriver on Fri Jul 20 01:44:32 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jul 20 00:58:57 2012. NYC Transit does not deal with "passengers". They deal with "customers". And they beat the operating personel with that at every chance they get.Except it is not sinking in with ALL the " hourlies", as the rank and file are described by the transit "managers". Some of us still call them passengers. STILL LOL@MTA MISLABELING |
|
|
| (1167523) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Jul 20 09:05:29 2012, in response to 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by gbs on Thu Jul 19 23:16:39 2012. Why was it on the platform side, anyway? Third rails tend to be on the side away from the platform, it seems to me, except on middle tracks, where one side has to be next to the platform. |
|
|
| (1167524) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jul 20 09:33:48 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by SLRT on Fri Jul 20 09:05:29 2012. Maybe it has to do with the curvature of the station. Older equipment had closer tolerances to the position of the third rail, and could have problems with it on some curves.Examine the switches, how the rail is moved further away to allow for the swing of the car. That used not to be possible and there was either just a gap there, or the rail had some sort of a device to keep it from getting hurt. But others who really know the answers about third rails at curves and switches may have the correct answer. Anyway this is the LION's guess, your weird ideas may vary. ROAR |
|
|
| (1167545) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by sitechboy on Fri Jul 20 13:18:16 2012, in response to 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by gbs on Thu Jul 19 23:16:39 2012. york street has it underneath the platforms. |
|
|
| (1167546) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Fri Jul 20 13:20:04 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by sitechboy on Fri Jul 20 13:18:16 2012. They will get to York Street as well if they stay the path.They got to High Street Street as well. |
|
|
| (1167551) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Outside the Box on Fri Jul 20 14:42:07 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Jersey Mike on Fri Jul 20 01:12:33 2012. It would be a logistic challenge, but has the MTA ever considered under running 3rd rails for the subway and LIRR? They're far safer for everyone, and less susceptible to precipitation. |
|
|
| (1167555) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Fri Jul 20 14:44:13 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Outside the Box on Fri Jul 20 14:42:07 2012. how many billions would be spent to do this unnecessary task? |
|
|
| (1167560) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Fri Jul 20 15:11:04 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Jul 20 09:33:48 2012. I suspect that they put the 3rd rail from Fulton to High to simplify the tube construction. Probably was less involved/cheaper to do it that way (and only short runs under the track for the occasional signal) than to string the power all the way through. |
|
|
| (1167568) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Jul 20 15:50:33 2012, in response to 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by gbs on Thu Jul 19 23:16:39 2012. My guess is that 3rd rails on the platform side are invitations to people who fall on tracks to use them as stepping off points in trying to get back onto the platform. The vinyl coverings are probably not as structurally sound as the older wooden kind and it would probably fail, increasing the possibility of electrocution. |
|
|
| (1167571) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Outside the Box on Fri Jul 20 16:07:38 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by tunnelrat on Fri Jul 20 14:44:13 2012. What I am asking is if has MTA looked into the option to install under running in place of top running 3rd rail.Under running is safer to track and train crews. During emergencies its safer to first responders and anyone else on the tracks. Yes, it probably will cost billions, but you need to renew the 3rd rail every once in a while (20-40yrs?) too. It usually coincides with track panel or major rail replacement. As the concrete ties on the LIRR will last 40 yrs or so, we can see an opening on the LIRR starting around 2040 for en mass 3rd rail replacement. Common electrification (and signaling) standards will allow MNRR and LIRR to swap crews and equipment on 3rd rail territory. The other option is to equip the 3rd rail territory with catenary, and rail cars with overhead power equipment and retractable shoes for incompatible electrification avoidance. It would allow through running for MNRR Hudson Line to NY Penn to/from LIRR. Subway tracks are another story. Track panels last ~20yrs, sometimes less, sometimes more. The concrete ties on the Sea Beach Line will likely last 40 yrs. The track panels on the old curved steel elevated sections of the A, 6 and 7 trains won't make it to 20 yrs, maybe 10. The train higher frequency also leads to higher wear levels on the conducting surface, and thus greater replacement frequency. The challenge is to schedule rapid replacement concurrently with 3rd rail shoe switch. It should happen over several weekends. |
|
|
| (1167588) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Jul 20 18:03:59 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Outside the Box on Fri Jul 20 16:07:38 2012. How could they convert the whole system? I guess if the "combo shoe" that Train Man Paul has mentioned as being installed on some M8 cars as a test really works reliably, they could first replace the shoes on the entire subway fleet with these new ones, then start replacing third rail sections whenever work was done on a section of track. It would then take some years to replace the third rail on the whole system. That's about the only way it could happen, but I don't think it is at all likely. |
|
|
| (1167590) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Jul 20 18:15:18 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Jul 20 18:03:59 2012. Underrunning third rail has problems as well in winter. Icing is actually more of a problem than with overrunning. Think of the underside of roof gutter when it rains ... all those drops on the bottom of the gutter. Then imagine it freezing. |
|
|
| (1167614) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Fri Jul 20 23:45:59 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Outside the Box on Fri Jul 20 16:07:38 2012. Forget spending all that money. In Chicago people learn... STAY OFF THE TRACKS and we use an uncovered, overrunning third rail at 600 v. DC. People are not stupid if you force them to learn...they can and THEY WILL. Yes, there may be a few who learn permanently, the hard way. And don't mention those erroneous stories about people peeing on the third rail....DIDN'T HAPPEN. Burn marks show they tripped or fell and otherwise contacted the third rail.DH    
|
|
|
| (1167616) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Joe Saitta on Fri Jul 20 23:56:40 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Fri Jul 20 23:45:59 2012. Love all of these great pictures! |
|
|
| (1167618) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jul 21 00:35:54 2012, in response to 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by gbs on Thu Jul 19 23:16:39 2012. The third rail is the social security of American rapid transit. |
|
|
| (1167622) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by chud1 on Sat Jul 21 04:45:30 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Fri Jul 20 23:45:59 2012. great pictures.chud1 |
|
|
| (1167637) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sat Jul 21 12:01:47 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Fri Jul 20 23:45:59 2012. That third photo, displays an excellent place for 2 Double Slip Switches.That is, if one were to go from the extreme far ends. |
|
|
| (1167662) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? Chicago Pics |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Sat Jul 21 15:04:44 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Avid Reader on Sat Jul 21 12:01:47 2012.  I gotta say I admire a person who appreciates good complicated trackwork. Right on! The photo is looking north through Clark Junction from the Belmont station platform about 1000 ft. away so there's a lot of compression in this telephoto shot....A LOT OF. I shot and reshot this, finally getting it in on Dot Net. The Brown line train is coming SB off the branch onto the four track north side main. The tracks are numbered one through four with one being the farthest and you really don't see four in the picture. The switches shown are all never used in normal moves through the plant. There are three sets of double crossovers and you can see two of them. If there was a blockage ahead on track one, then the Brown line train would be crossed over from one to two on the path you see. A SB Purple on one would do the same in the same situation. A SB Red on two would use this crossover to go from two to one to avoid a blockade up ahead. The crossovers between two and three would involve reverse running so they won't be used except in EXTREME emergencies! There is another double crossover to the right and farther down that IS USED for northbound Brown line trains that go from four to three and then diverge from three all the way over to go out the branch. That's a normal move. So because of the compression, there is no need for double slips....there's plenty of room and here's an uncompressed shot that shows that. Note that the tower has already put in the lineup for a NB Red line train on track three, the yellow over reds.  David Harrison |
|
|
| (1167664) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? Chicago Pics |
|
|
Posted by chud1 on Sat Jul 21 15:16:15 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? Chicago Pics, posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Sat Jul 21 15:04:44 2012. 5 stars over 5 stars on pictures and narration.chud1 |
|
|
| (1167668) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Sat Jul 21 15:24:14 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jul 21 00:35:54 2012. That might actually be correct. Is there a logician in the house? |
|
|
| (1167669) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Sat Jul 21 15:24:47 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Outside the Box on Fri Jul 20 14:42:07 2012. Third rails are actually pretty safe, either under or over touch. |
|
|
| (1167688) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Sat Jul 21 18:53:36 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Fri Jul 20 23:45:59 2012. The fence in the top photo looks like it's only about 4 feet tall. Easy to climb over. |
|
|
| (1167704) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by jasonnyc on Sat Jul 21 19:36:29 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Outside the Box on Fri Jul 20 14:42:07 2012. MNR uses under-rail, right? I've often waited for trains and noticed how they're mounted from the top. But, is the entire rail electrified? Or is the top of the rail insulated and only the bottom open for contact? |
|
|
| (1167726) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Sat Jul 21 22:09:12 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Dan on Sat Jul 21 18:53:36 2012. Chicagoans know to stay off the tracks!!!!! Why climb....go down the alley about 400 ft and cross the tracks at the grade crossing.DH |
|
|
| (1167731) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Jul 21 22:33:18 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Joe Saitta on Fri Jul 20 23:56:40 2012. what he said |
|
|
| (1167744) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Alan Follett on Sat Jul 21 23:47:47 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Avid Reader on Sat Jul 21 12:01:47 2012. It displays an even better place for a flyover from the easternmost track, which may eventually be built as part of CTA's proposed but as yet unfunded rebuild of the Red Line north of Belmont.Alan Follett Hercules, CA |
|
|
| (1167747) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by eyedoctor on Sun Jul 22 00:15:44 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by ChicagoPCCLCars on Fri Jul 20 23:45:59 2012. The Chicago L also has numerous grade crossings on the Brown, Yellow, and Pink line. |
|
|
| (1167781) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Outside the Box on Sun Jul 22 12:46:27 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by eyedoctor on Sun Jul 22 00:15:44 2012. Wasn't there a drunk guy who urinated on the 3rd rail and got electrocuted at one of those crossings? |
|
|
| (1167782) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? Chicago Pics |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sun Jul 22 12:48:48 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? Chicago Pics, posted by chud1 on Sat Jul 21 15:16:15 2012. What he said!Thanks for the explanation, and second photo. |
|
|
| (1167819) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jul 22 14:49:09 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by Outside the Box on Sun Jul 22 12:46:27 2012. No, he got electrocuted but not by urinating on the rail. |
|
|
| (1167905) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jul 22 19:39:27 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by jasonnyc on Sat Jul 21 19:36:29 2012. Originally, the M/N (former NYC) third rail was covered on 3 sides leaving only the very bottom of the rail exposed for contact with the shoes on the cars. I have seen some photos recently where it looks as if the third rail is completely exposed but that may only be an optical illusion since I imagine that wood is no longer being used to cover the third rail and if fiberglass is being used that may account for the unprotected appearance of the rail. |
|
|
| (1167908) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 22 19:50:36 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by randyo on Sun Jul 22 19:39:27 2012. Yep ... it's fiberglass. Has a top of course and rather thin sides. |
|
|
| (1167909) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jul 22 19:52:02 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 22 19:50:36 2012. Thanks! |
|
|
| (1167910) | |
Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 22 19:54:57 2012, in response to Re: 3rd rail relocation -- Why?, posted by randyo on Sun Jul 22 19:52:02 2012. No prob ... get to look out the window every now and then. :) |
|
|
