|
|
| Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 (1385244) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (1385244) | |
Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 |
|
|
Posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Fri Feb 12 08:36:01 2016 Tuscarora Almanac - February 12, 1907 - The Book of First Runs A northbound platform is finally opened at 130th Street Station on the 9th Avenue El. There had been a southbound platform at this location since 1893. Tuscarora Almanac - February 12, 1973 - The Book of Wrecks There was a major collision on the southbound express track (B-3) of the IND South Brooklyn Line just north of Church Avenue Station between two empty trains. A ten car train composed of R-1/9's struck a train of R-40's . The consist of the R-1/9 train was (s) 1236, 1105, 1128, 1183, 1324, 1077, 1188, 1254, 1416 and 1155. The consist of the R-40 train was (s) 4306-07, 4181-80, 4317-16, 4264-65 and 4421-20. R-40 4420 was badly damaged and reportedly was cut up on the spot. R-6 1236 was badly damaged and will be scrapped as 754. Source: NYD Bulletin April 1973 Tuscarora Almanac - February 12-13, 1977 - The Book of Last Runs This is the last day of passenger service on the IRT Lexington Avenue Line between Bowling Green and South Ferry. The last northbound #5 Lexington Avenue Express left South Ferry (Outer Loop) in the evening of February 12 about 11 PM. The consist was (n) R-33 8972-3, R-22 7736, R-28 7938-7921. The "SS" Bowling Green Shuttle then began its usual overnight run but this night the run would be cut short. The final shuttle left from Bowling Green to South Ferry (Inner Loop) at 12:04 AM. It departed from South Ferry at 12:10 AM arrived back at Bowling Green one minute later. The train consisted of two R-12's (n) 5705 and 5704. Source: NYD Bulletin April 1977. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (1385251) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Fri Feb 12 09:22:05 2016, in response to Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Fri Feb 12 08:36:01 2016. I don't understand the description of the wreck. If it was on the southbound express track, and the R1/9 ran into the R40, how is it that the north car of the R40 and the south car of the R1/9 were wrecked? Were both trains wrong-railing? Or was it on the northbound express track? Or is the list of cars of the two trains involved actually the reverse? My guess, given the another accident involving R40Ms, on the Queens Line, when an R40 that was defective ran into an R16, that the R40 ran into the R1/9. Please clarify. Thanks! |
|
|
| (1385267) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Fri Feb 12 10:51:35 2016, in response to Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Fri Feb 12 08:36:01 2016. As for the 9th Ave el at 130th St, there had been plans for a 130th St connector to the eastside els. This might explain the missing platform there. The plan was scrapped when the Manhattan Elevated Railway expanded into the Bronxafter its takeover of Suburban Rapid Transit. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1385292) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Feb 12 14:12:33 2016, in response to Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Fri Feb 12 08:36:01 2016. I think that's quite sad. Once "new" South Ferry opens again, I'd like to see Lexington Avenue service returned to old South Ferry, but on the outer loop. Run the 5 on weekends, shuttle weekdays and overnight. If necessary, install a switch so the shuttle can run between the short track at Bowling Green and the outer loop.This would be a great assistance for all who transfer between the ferry and the Lex in cold or hot weather, and for folks who have trouble walking during any season. |
|
|
| (1385309) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Feb 12 15:26:03 2016, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Feb 12 14:12:33 2016. Why bother with a shuttle on the weekdays? Run the 5 to South Ferry instead of taking the inner loop - the 5 frequently stops on the inner loop anyway. |
|
|
| (1385311) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Feb 12 15:34:25 2016, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Fri Feb 12 09:22:05 2016. It’s plain and simple. The south motor of the R-1/9 1236 would be in the exact position to collide with the north motor of the R-40, 4420.The south motor of the train in back would be the car that would strike the north motor of the train in front. |
|
|
| (1385374) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 13 00:59:16 2016, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Feb 12 14:12:33 2016. And, just when is the new South Ferry station going to reopen? |
|
|
| (1385385) | |
South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 13 05:46:35 2016, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by 3-9 on Fri Feb 12 15:26:03 2016. They would have to do a TON of work on the inner loop station and you would have to open up areas that have been walled off. Plus, you would have to program cars to only open up the center doors on the inner loop station AND build transfers between there, the old (outer) loop station and the new South Ferry station and the Whitehall Street station on the (R).The shuttle would be necessary during the week regardless because the (5) goes to Brooklyn pretty much at all times it's running (with limited exceptions) during the week. |
|
|
| (1385386) | |
Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 13 06:04:19 2016, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Feb 12 14:12:33 2016. I brought this up a lot myself before and this was previously discussed to death:As the (4) & (5) both go to Brooklyn pretty much at all times they run (except late evenings and weekends on the (5)), you would need to have the shuttle operate outside of times you can squeeze in the (6) to old SF. With that in mind, if you were to do that, this is how I would do it: Shuttle runs between BG and SF on weekdays starting at 6:00 AM and continuing until 9:00 PM. During PM Rush Hour ONLY, I would if possible have platform conductors in place on the short platform at BG to where they can open select doors to allow people to directly transfer to the shuttle from the first 1-2 cars of Brooklyn-bound trains there. From 9:00 PM-6:00 AM weeknights and 9:00 PM Friday-6:00 AM Monday, the (6) is extended to South Ferry, which has the side benefit of additional service at Fulton, Wall and Bowling Green during those hours for those who live down there (and we all know how many more people live in lower Manhattan today as opposed to 1977). The (5) also runs to South Ferry when it's not running to Bowling Green late evenings and weekends. Obviously, this means work would have to be done to reconnect the short platform at BG to the rest of the station. |
|
|
| (1385392) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 |
|
|
Posted by zac on Sat Feb 13 08:10:27 2016, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Feb 12 14:12:33 2016. It was always more trouble than it was worth to take the shuttle rather than just walk over to BG. There are transfers on the system that involve a lot more walking than the shuttle covers, Court Square and Atlantic come to mind. |
|
|
| (1385402) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 |
|
|
Posted by northshore on Sat Feb 13 09:32:05 2016, in response to Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Fri Feb 12 08:36:01 2016. The Bowling Green Shuttle renovation was another MTA boondoggle. After spending money to renovate the shuttle station, the service only ran for a short time, then discontinued for budgetary reasons. |
|
|
| (1385421) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Sat Feb 13 12:08:48 2016, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by randyo on Fri Feb 12 15:34:25 2016. Thanks! I must have had a temporary mental blockage.... |
|
|
| (1385423) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 |
|
|
Posted by tunnelrat on Sat Feb 13 12:15:07 2016, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 13 00:59:16 2016. when the station agents are equipped with scuba gear. |
|
|
| (1385424) | |
Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 13 12:16:06 2016, in response to Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 13 06:04:19 2016. Masturbo, Masturbare, masturbavi, masturbatus! |
|
|
| (1385437) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Feb 13 13:49:15 2016, in response to South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 13 05:46:35 2016. I think 3-9 means switch the 5 to the outer loop. The switches are already there. |
|
|
| (1385439) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sat Feb 13 13:55:03 2016, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by northshore on Sat Feb 13 09:32:05 2016. From a previous message:"The Bowling Green Shuttle renovation was another MTA boondoggle. After spending money to renovate the shuttle station, the service only ran for a short time, then discontinued for budgetary reasons." Basically you have the sequence of events backwards leading you to jump to the wrong conclusions. The Bowling Green shuttle was in operation from 1909 to 1977. For much of its history, the #4 and #5 trains during and for much of the weekdays ran to and from Brooklyn, often during the mid-days both lines ending at the Atlantic Avenue station center platform. This action left the #2 & #3 trains to carry the bulk of the non-rush hours and non-late night Brooklyn ridership. There was usually a mad scramble of riders at the Nevin Street station transferring to and from the Lexington Avenue trains and the Brooklyn local trains. In 1976 the MTA changed the route of the #5 trains where such trains would end at Bowling Green - basically by having both the #5 train and the Bowling Green shuttle share the inner loop track. This did not help the time performance of the Bowling Green shuttle. I believe - but can not put a date on it - that this was when the #4 train was extended to Utica Avenue weekdays in between the non-rush hours, also. Separating the Bowling Green station was under going a long planned renovation that added several new entrances, a completely new uptown platform with a direct from the entrance entrance, an under platform mezzanine and wider pathways among the various platforms. All of these changes were orders of magnitude greater than the then only single historic entrance and exit head-house at Bowling Green-Battery Park and the original single platform and smaller under-platform pathway to the shuttle train. The construction of the new uptown platform required changes to Bowling Green plaza thus ending the "through" street that once existed in front of the Customs House, but resulted in a dramatic new entrance. In order to retain the usage of the Bowling Green shuttle during the construction - riders had to leave the Bowling Green station via its single entry/exit stairway and re-enter the subway platform from a temporary entrance. This added time and frustration. Separate from the happenings in the subway were the happenings at city hall - the mid-1970's fiscal crisis. Then Mayor Koch decided to REDUCE day-time Staten Island Ferry service from a boat every 20-minutes day-times, evenings and weekends to the midnight schedule - a boat every half-hour. The rush hour schedule of boats was also made less frequent. For SIX months - Mayor Kock cancelled ALL ferry service from 12-midnight to 6am - but after an out-cry and a New York Times editorial restored the midnight-late hours service with one boat every hour. On weekday nights the hourly boats started at midnight. On weekends the boats ran from 11am to 7pm every half-hour, and then from 7pm to 11am every hour. A very difficult schedule if one has to work weekends. This basic ferry schedule remained in place for the next 34-35 years. Only now do the ferries run at every half hour at all times, except rush hours. The Bottom Line - catching the Staten Island Ferry becomes an extremely important affair. The changes at the Bowling Green station caused many riders to simply walk the distance to/from the Staten Island Ferry, because missing a boat involves a great penalty. The decision to stop the operation of the Bowling Green shuttle occurred while the Bowling Green station was still under re-construction. Thus the "new shuttle platform" never ever saw any train service. The station was designed the way it was - because the MTA intended to keep running the Bowling Green-South Ferry shuttle, however the circumstances had changed. The usually praised IND subways have several historical "artifacts" that are now seen as "useless" that were a part of the plans during construction - until the ideas and circumstances changed. The mid-1970's renovation and modernization of the Bowling Green station was in my view NOT an MTA boondoggle, but rather a good decent response to the major problems that the original Bowling Green station had. Mike |
|
|
| (1385443) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sat Feb 13 14:14:54 2016, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Fri Feb 12 09:22:05 2016. Tuscarora Almanac - February 12, 1973 - The Book of WrecksThere was a major collision on the southbound express track (B-3) of the IND South Brooklyn Line just north of Church Avenue Station between two empty trains. A ten car train composed of R-1/9's struck a train of R-40's . The consist of the R-1/9 train was (s) 1236, 1105, 1128, 1183, 1324, 1077, 1188, 1254, 1416 and 1155. The consist of the R-40 train was (s) 4306-07, 4181-80, 4317-16, 4264-65 and 4421-20. R-40 4420 was badly damaged and reportedly was cut up on the spot. R-6 1236 was badly damaged and will be scrapped as 754. Source: NYD Bulletin April 1973 ------------- Basically the first car of the R-1/9 (car R-6 1236) struck the last car of the R-40 (car R-40 4420) train while both trains were headed south-bound on the express track. This could be a violiation of the signal system also as the two trains should normally not have been allowed to get that close to each other under normal rules. Mike |
|
|
| (1385450) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 13 15:46:23 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Feb 13 13:49:15 2016. The #5 used to use the #1 outer track from 7PM-1AM. No reason why they can't expand this now. |
|
|
| (1385466) | |
Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Feb 13 17:26:10 2016, in response to Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 13 06:04:19 2016. The only real reason to resurrect the SF-BG shuttle would be to provide a transfer between the 4/5 at Bowling Green and the 1 and R (late night N) at South Ferry/Whitehall St. The other way to do that would be to construct a transfer passage under the north end of Whitehall St. between the Stone St. entrance of the Whitehall St. station and the below-the-platforms mezzanine of Bowling Green. But that would require a lot of work, such as relocation of utility lines, while the shuttle platform is there and just needs to be opened. Can it fit three cars?I can't see them extending the 6 to SF; if the shuttle reopened, it would run as a shuttle 24/7. All this, of course, presupposes that the 1 will be returned to the "new" SF station. Is the MTA even still working on reopening that? Or have they basically written it off as a loss, with the intention of keeping the current arrangement at South Ferry permanent, at least for the foreseeable future? |
|
|
| (1385467) | |
Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sat Feb 13 17:38:05 2016, in response to Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use, posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Feb 13 17:26:10 2016. From a previous message:"All this, of course, presupposes that the 1 will be returned to the "new" SF station. Is the MTA even still working on reopening that? Or have they basically written it off as a loss, with the intention of keeping the current arrangement at South Ferry permanent, at least for the foreseeable future?" The MTA is CURRENTLY (and has been for some time) working on the newer #1 South Ferry station and in addition the current main entrance of the Whitehall Street-South Ferry station is being made severe weather resilient. In addition, major work has taken place to make Battery Park also severe weather & hurricane resilient. Mike |
|
|
| (1385501) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 07:54:03 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Elkeeper on Sat Feb 13 15:46:23 2016. Oh I agree there, but I was under the impression 3-9 wanted to re-open the inner loop station (which NTT trains could actually allow).The main thing is I believe the (5) runs until 9:00 PM to Brooklyn, so if so it would only run a couple of hours to old SF outer before it went to a shuttle (though as I noted in my own version, the (6) could return to being extended from 9:00 PM-6:00 AM and all times on weekends to old SF outer). |
|
|
| (1385502) | |
Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 07:56:08 2016, in response to Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use, posted by Michael549 on Sat Feb 13 17:38:05 2016. Exactly! |
|
|
| (1385503) | |
Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 08:01:30 2016, in response to Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use, posted by Dyre Dan on Sat Feb 13 17:26:10 2016. The idea would be the shuttle would operate only when it is actually needed (when the 4 & 5 are running to Brooklyn and there is no room to run the (6) to old SF), which would be 6:00 AM-9:00 PM on weekdays (plus in certain other cases when an emergency. G.O. or both require the shuttle be run). All other times, the (6) can be extended to old SF while the (5) also runs there when it's not running to Brooklyn.Extending the (6) to old SF provides additional service at off-peak hours to a part of lower Manhattan that has seen a huge spike in people living there in the 40 years since this was last done. |
|
|
| (1385507) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Feb 14 09:59:14 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 07:54:03 2016. wanted to re-open the inner loop station (which NTT trains could actually allow).Seems like a reasonable assumption. MTA car designers foresaw this possibility and prevented it. The LON Works message specs mimicked on what the hard wired physical devices did. There are messages to open/close all the doors to the right/left. There are messages to determine the state of the individual doors. There are no messages to open/close individual doors in a car. |
|
|
| (1385510) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Sun Feb 14 11:34:54 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Feb 14 09:59:14 2016. Prevented it as in foresaw this possibility and made sure it didn't happen? Care to elaborate?I'm also not sure what you mean by 'messages'; AAS messages or signals within the door control system? I do wonder how exactly would you control individual doors from a central position on any train (new tech or old), especially when you have 60-80 door operators per side? |
|
|
| (1385517) | |
Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Feb 14 12:23:01 2016, in response to Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 08:01:30 2016. Wallyhorse,1) I do not question your sincerity at wanting to propose transit solutions. I question your proposals and ideas, often. 2) Your proposal for restoring the Bowling Green/South Ferry Shuttle is simple and straight forward. Unlike your other schemes this time there was no re-structuring of transit lines all over the map to achieve your goals. 3) Is there is a REAL NEED to restore the shuttle using the outer platform at South Ferry? This can only happen after the newer South Ferry station has been reconstructed. 4) Does solving this REAL NEED cost a huge amount of money? Or fit within the MTA's best interests & goals, and actually helps the riders? The MTA over time has eliminated certain problem areas: 5) By not running the shuttle and having riders walk to/from the ferry at the Bowling Green station, the MTA eliminated certain train maintenance, manpower, and supervision issues for decades. 6) By closing the old South Ferry outer loop station, the MTA also reduced station maintenance and manpower issues, supervision issues, and an "environmental and transit" hazard. The outer loop station is NOT and has never been handicapped accessible. Hurricane Sandy forced the MTA to repair and re-open the South Ferry loop station after both (old and newer stations) were filled with salt water. (After the storm for a time the Rector Street stop was the last station on the #1 line.) Current repair work at the South Ferry complex has reduced the number of entrances/exits back to what existed in 1999 - the single stairway entrance of the old South Ferry loop station, and just two stairways to the R-train at the southernmost entrance on Whitehall Street. All of the other entrances and exits at the park plaza are now closed for re-construction. 7) One major reason for walking the distance between the Bowling Green station and the Whitehall Ferry Terminal - is time. The walk can be done in 3-5 minutes for most able-bodied folk, especially when it is close to "ferry time". People move fast when it is close to ferry time. It is great (fantastic) that the ferries run at every half-hour all of the time - except rush hours with boats running 15 or 20 minutes apart. However there is still a time penalty for missing a ferry! Rushing to the ferry terminal to catch a boat & missing that boat remains a time honored tradition. Missing a ferry makes one LATE!! Being late brings negative sanctions! The serious crowd control issues thought to have been eliminated with the opening of the new terminal and subway complex have been restored. Being relegated at all hours to the first five cars of a train has never been a “great feature.” Those crowd control issues were never helpful to the riders. 8) Your proposed shuttle would have to run often, as in very often for Ferry bound folk to venture to take a chance on using it. With #5 trains running at 10 minutes apart after 9pm, or the #6 running at 20 minutes apart during the midnight hours - very few time concerned folks are going to be waiting at the Bowling Green station for a ride to South Ferry. One problem with restoring a Bowling Green/South Ferry shuttle has been that current #4 and #5 trains are often frequent enough during the workday-times. Meaning that the stream of ferry riders gets “smoothed out” during the walk, and that the newish Bowling Green station is large enough to handle the crowds with its multiple entrances and exits. Folks leaving the ferry headed uptown may take a chance on your shuttle only if the frequency of service is high enough, with durable quick connections to uptown trains. 9) Wallyhorse, in order to make this proposal actually occur you’d have to argue that the current “good enough” situation has changed to “there is a strong need to do this despite the costs”. Good luck with that. |
|
|
| (1385518) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Feb 14 12:38:53 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Jace on Sun Feb 14 11:34:54 2016. The NTT trains use the equivalent of "fly-by-wire" that is used by AirBus planes. Instead of individual wires running between a switch or indicator light and the physical device, there is a 2-wire serial bus (think party line) that runs between all the devices. There's a microprocessor at each of the devices that monitors the serial bus and responds to messages that are directed to the device the microprocessor is controlling. The fly-by-wire approach is a lot cheaper to implement and maintain. It is also more reliable, given there is error detection/correction built into the serial communications.I'm also not sure what you mean by 'messages' The TA chose LonWorks as the car network at the time the first NTT cars were being designed. There was a NYCTA bulletin board that described the system in some detail. One of the items on the bulletin board was a listing of all the messages and their format. I downloaded that item at that time (probably 20 years ago.) I reviewed the messages realized the weaknesses of their systems engineering approach. Their approach was to copy the existing hardwired commands (door open button pressed, door open, etc.) There was a message for door open pressed, door status, etc. This approach's shortcomings are its inflexibility and equipment dependency. A different approach would have been to have the messages be functional and not hardware specific. Additional microprocessors would have translated the functional command into the specific hardware commands required to implement the functional command. This would permitted complete coupling interchangeability between rolling stock. I pointed out this shortcoming at that time. I also believed that NYCT erred in choosing LonWorks. The LonWorks message format was too restrictive. I would have opted for a system that used TCP/IP as the message protocol and an IEEE 802.11 physical layer. It was obvious to me that this was the direction that control engineering was heading. The "technology" part of the NTT trains was obsolete before the first units were designed. |
|
|
| (1385535) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 14 17:25:51 2016, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by Michael549 on Sat Feb 13 14:14:54 2016. If it occurred during a time when the track was not in regular passenger service, the the track became in effect a yard track and as such key bys without permission were allowed. |
|
|
| (1385536) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 14 17:32:30 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Feb 13 13:49:15 2016. If the MTA really wanted to do it, which I doubt, after the new So/Fy station was opened, the 5s could use the outer loop to turn either as a permanent service pattern or temporarily while the inside loop station is modified to remove the wall, install gap fillers and allow all 10 cars of either a 5 train to open there or all cars of a 2 car Bwlg Grn shuttle during hours when through Lex service is not available. Of course, if and when the new So/Fy station is reopened, there would really be no need to rebuild the platform for the inner loop anyhow. |
|
|
| (1385554) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Sun Feb 14 18:47:57 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Feb 14 12:38:53 2016. Yes, the cars up through the R160s and R188s have LonWorks and it has its limitations. I can't say i took part in the decisions to use it but my guess is that it was chosen for simplicity. On the doors for example, wouldn't the additional processors add complexity and with that increase the chances of failure? And for what gain? The fleet to fleet compatibility issues are generally between the communications systems and not between things like propulsion, braking and doors. The two door systems in use work off the same commands making them fully compatible even if the hardware itself is not interchangeable.And you didn't explain how such a flexible door system would work in practice. Tie door control to the AAS? That means that not only the door system but also the AAS is now critical; failure on either one takes a train out of service. This again seems like you'll be decreasing reliability for a marginal gain in flexibility. |
|
|
| (1385562) | |
Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 19:37:49 2016, in response to Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use, posted by Michael549 on Sun Feb 14 12:23:01 2016. I would not have brought this one up at all except someone else did this time and I was simple responding.The shuttle was only one minute each way in its old format between BG and SF and I believe there is no change of positions at SF to return, so the only change of positions would be at BG going to SF. If you can do a round trip every 4-5 minutes, that's 12-15 TPH right there and probably sufficient. Again, I would ONLY have the shuttle in operation when the (4) & (5) are both operating to Brooklyn at frequencies that force the (6) to run as it does now to Brooklyn Bridge. When there is enough room (as noted, 9:00 PM-6:00 AM weekdays and 9:00 PM Friday-6:00 AM Monday except for emergencies and G.O.'s that require the shuttle operation), the (6) is extended to South Ferry while the (5) also goes to SF when its not running to Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (1385563) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Feb 14 19:40:07 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Feb 14 09:59:14 2016. "There are no messages to open/close individual doors in a car."That would actually be useful if someone were holding a door. The system would identify to the conductor which door was being held and the conductor could recycle the single door a couple of times. If that failed, perhaps a jet could squirt some water at the person holding the door. TCP/IP could give the operator that flexibility. |
|
|
| (1385569) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Sun Feb 14 21:01:46 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Feb 14 19:40:07 2016. The NTTs all have such a feature (jet excluded), it's called door local recycle. When all other doors are locked, only the door held will be recycled. This feature is not always used. |
|
|
| (1385572) | |
Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Feb 14 21:46:26 2016, in response to Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 19:37:49 2016. I believe that when your proposed Bowling Green/South Ferry shuttle is in operation that the train operator would have to change positions, once at the Bowling Green station, and then again at the South Ferry station. This would occur because that shuttle train is NOT taking the trip around the loop, but rather going back and forth between the short shuttle platform and the South Ferry outer loop. In such a case, it might make sense to have two train operators per shuttle, and both train operators handle the opening and closing of the doors and needs of passengers.I believe that when your proposed #5 and #6 trains traveling to South Ferry that the train operator will not change position as the trains travel around the South Ferry loop. Mike |
|
|
| (1385573) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Feb 14 21:47:01 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Jace on Sun Feb 14 18:47:57 2016. wouldn't the additional processors add complexity and with that increase the chances of failure?That depends on how the additional processors are interconnected. The usual way to create reliability (absence of catastrophic failure) is to use redundant elements. See Moore and Shannon's classic paper, "RELIABLE CIRCUITS USING LESS RELIABLE RELAYS" from 1956. my guess is that it [LonWorks] was chosen for simplicity. That's been a losing proposition since the late 1980's. The chip makers have been able to consistently pack more complexity into microprocessors while increasing reliability and decreasing cost. The message protocol is limited by LonWork's simplicity. This means the NYCT will be stuck with LonWorks for the 50+ age of the NTT cars. Finding replacement LonWorks hardware will become increasingly more difficult and expensive. LonWorks will be lucky to be economically viable for 15 years. It's the current nature of the semiconductor business. It used to be worse. New IC's were coming out at a ra[od rate in the late 1960's and early 1970's. It was impossible to design any apparatus that wasn't obsolete by the time the prototype was built. The strategy to overcome hardware obsolescence is to make the message structure hardware neutral. The NYCT message protocol is very much tied to the hardware implementation. And you didn't explain how such a flexible door system would work in practice. I did 20 years ago. Here's an example with regard to the propulsion system. The messages state the throttle position. There may be about 100 different positions (I forget the exact details.) Different model cars have different propulsion controllers that generate different acceleration profiles for the same throttle position. That's why different differet propulsion controllers are not MU'ed. Suppose the message had been accelerate to 20 mph @ 2.5 mph/sec instead. The receiving microprocessors would know how to translate that hardware neutral message into the step sequence on that car's propulsion controller. Different equipment could be MU'ed without bucking. Newer generations (read less expensive, faster, more powerful) of microprocessors could be used on newer cars and still MU. |
|
|
| (1385574) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Feb 14 21:51:42 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Jace on Sun Feb 14 21:01:46 2016. This feature is not always used.Using this feature decreases dwell time. |
|
|
| (1385605) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Mon Feb 15 10:12:10 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Feb 14 21:47:01 2016. Redundancy and simplicity. The more hardware, the more higher the failure rates.And you still didn't say how a flexible door system would need to be designed. One way or another, the train would have to know where it is 100% of the time. The only way for it to do so now is by having it told where it starts and which route it will take. Axle tachometers then track progress. This is how the AAS works. Having a door system interconnected to the AAS so that it too knows which doors to open means the AAS is now critical. That's more hardware, more stuff to maintain and more chances of failure for what I'd say is minimal gain (one station that hasn't been used in 40 years). Adding train to wayside capability is no different. The bucking you get now has to do with the way the propulsion system is designed. You'll notice you don't get it on the R142s like you do on the R142As. |
|
|
| (1385606) | |
Re: BG-SF Shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Feb 15 10:34:00 2016, in response to Re: Old South Ferry Station/Lexington Avenue Line Use, posted by Michael549 on Sun Feb 14 21:46:26 2016. You're right, my bad.Then what you would probably do is similar to TS-GC and that is have during at least peak hours T/Os on both ends with the T/O not driving the train acting as the C/R (and even possibly at all times). This would usually be just one two-car train on the BG-SF shutte of most likely R62s with a spare stored somewhere in case it's needed. |
|
|
| (1385617) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Feb 15 12:17:16 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Jace on Mon Feb 15 10:12:10 2016. The more hardware, the more higher the failure rates.You need to read up on fault tolerant networks. Here's a quick synopsis regarding relays. Let's differentiate between faults and failures. A fault is a malfunction in an individual component relay. A failure is the relay network producing a false result. Suppose an individual relay had a closing failure probability of pc. That is the relay contacts should close but don't. If the coils and contacts were wired in parallel, then both relays would have to exhibit a fault before the network of both relays would exhibit a failure. N.B. pc2 < pc for all values of pc < 1. The same paradigm applies to a contact opening failure, only that the coils are wired in parallel and the contacts are wired in series. This is an example wherein redundant components ensure reliability. And you still didn't say how a flexible door system would need to be designed. The message structure would permit opening/closing individual door leaves in each of the cars on the train. Message length is severely limited on LonWorks. This reduces the number of different messages that can be sent. That's probably why the NTT designers did not increase the messages beyond the bare minimum to make the trains operate. One way or another, the train would have to know where it is 100% of the time At this point there are T/O's and C/R's assigned to each train that do that. Axle tachometers then track progress. That's a problem. The tolerance for wheel diameter is 1/8 inch out of 34 inches. That's 0.37% tolerance. That translates to a 19.4 ft error for every mile traveled. Any dead reckoning system to measure distance needs to be reset at intervals that are frequent enough to keep accumulated error within a desired range. I'd say is minimal gain (one station that hasn't been used in 40 years). Let me give you another instance where being able to operate individual doors could be used. The L train station platforms are 536 feet long. They could accommodate 540 ft long trains, with the front and rear overhanging the station by 2 feet. If the front and rear doors did not open, there would be no danger to passengers of missing the platform when they got off the train. This would increase the effective service on the L train by 12.5% or 3 more trains during peak am service. That's a lot cheaper than adding the CBTC equipment on those 3 extra train sets and the recurring cost of 3 crews to operate them. The bucking you get now has to do with the way the propulsion system is designed. Agreed. The propulsion system was not designed to obey specific speed/acceleration commands. That's easy to implement with modern motor controllers (available since the 1970's.) So far as I know, the R142's use open loop motor controllers. Most motor controllers use closed loop control to ensure tight performance specs. |
|
|
| (1385631) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Mon Feb 15 14:14:54 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Feb 15 12:17:16 2016. I agree that you can design in tolerance to reduce the chance of a fault or failure. However, if you tie in the door system to another system that determines train location, now you have two systems that need that same level of redundancy. If the systems are in series, you also need a reduction of failure rates on each system by half to get to the reliability of one on its own (if parallel, the reliability of each will also have to go up but not by as much). Either way, the costs (initial and maintenence) and complexity will go up, likely significantly.If instead you go the manual route by having the crew responsible then you'd probably need a panel for them to key in a code to tell the train to limit the number of doors to open (more hardware...) at a particular station. Do you think this will be 100% effective? What are the risks if it isn't? Hint: take a look at the signs in the conductor's position at the outer loop of South Ferry for answers to both. As for the L, I'm assuming you mean keeping one panel, not one whole door opening shut. The latter would be a terrible idea. But even with one panel opening, you will take a hit on dwell time in peak periods as the ends of the train fill up at Lorimer and Bedford in particular. Not a good idea in my opinion if you're trying to maximize throughput. A better idea would have been designing a slightly shorter car to allow 9 car trains. And by the way, limiting the doors like this can be done on the present system without too much difficulty by changing the software (assuming all the stations are the same). There already is something similar (partial close command). The problem with propulsion has to do with the timing between brake release and powering up the motors. If the two steps happen in series you get bucking, if you start to power the motors before the brakes are fully released, no bucking. |
|
|
| (1385643) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Feb 15 15:52:29 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Jace on Mon Feb 15 14:14:54 2016. If instead you go the manual route by having the crew responsible then you'd probably need a panel for them to key in a code to tell the train to limit the number of doors to open (more hardware...) at a particular station.You use a touch screen interface. That eliminates almost all buttons and switches and most of the hardware with a substantial cost savings. Do you think this will be 100% effective? What are the risks if it isn't? C/R's are expected to figure out which side of the train to open. The potential risk is a lot greater than a single leaf at each end of the train. But even with one panel opening, you will take a hit on dwell time in peak periods as the ends of the train fill up at Lorimer and Bedford in particular. You currently have 56 feet of empty platform (536 - 480) divided among the platform ends. That's why passengers jam the first door. That empty space will be divided between 3 more doors. The crowding will be greatly reduced and there will not be a major half door loading problem. A better idea would have been designing a slightly shorter car to allow 9 car trains. The better idea was to use slightly longer 67 foot cars. The TA tried this with the R110B's. The problem is their engineers didn't copy the BMT's truck dimensions and offset placement. The result was the R110B could not take the curves on the L without hitting the wall. The problem with propulsion has to do with the timing between brake release and powering up the motors. If the two steps happen in series you get bucking, if you start to power the motors before the brakes are fully released, no bucking. Individual propulsion system artifacts should not be part of the messages. They should be accounted for by the hardware/software that interprets and implements the messages. |
|
|
| (1385647) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Mon Feb 15 16:26:19 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Feb 15 15:52:29 2016. As I said, having one whole door opening closed up is an awful idea. People are going to clog the door that opens while the space by the door that doesn't open will go largely unused. You won't gain full capacity of the car and you'll increase dwell times as you have up to two door openings worth of people funneling into and out of one opening. The outer most doors are used as the main station entrances to Lorimer through 3rd Avenue are at the very west ends of the platforms. Even Union Square and 6th Avenue have busy entrances very near their west ends. Those doors will remain popular. As a test I suggest you lock out the outer panels on a train, move the stopping points and see what happens.The bucking has nothing to do with the specific propulsion hardware. It wasn't designed into the control messages on the R142As. |
|
|
| (1385653) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Feb 15 18:02:19 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Jace on Mon Feb 15 16:26:19 2016. having one whole door opening closed up is an awful idea. People are going to clog the door that opens while the space by the door that doesn't open will go largely unused...you'll increase dwell times...The IRT main lines operated 10 car expresses in the late 1940's. Many platforms could handle only 8 and 9 cars. That's the reason they used 2 C/R's. They still operated 30 tph and managed an on time performance of 85%. |
|
|
| (1385675) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue Feb 16 01:12:05 2016, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by Michael549 on Sat Feb 13 13:55:03 2016. Good recollection, thanks! |
|
|
| (1385683) | |
Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12 |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Tue Feb 16 04:36:21 2016, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by Michael549 on Sat Feb 13 14:14:54 2016. I remember seeing 4420 in CI yard with its damaged "A" end cut away. 4421 went on to become a bonnet donor for 4248 when that unit came to accident grief at Dyckman Street in the 80s.wayne |
|
|
| (1385687) | |
Re: Bowling Green Station and BG-SF shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 16 07:04:13 2016, in response to Re: Tuscarora Almanac for February 12, posted by Michael549 on Sat Feb 13 13:55:03 2016. Exactly:The uptown platform at Bowling Green was badly needed as the original planners failed to take into account how things would change over time. The additional entrances were also badly needed by then as the original single entrance just simply was not enough. There also by then were the budget problems in New York, a lot of which was caused as I understood it by corruption but also by attitudes that especially by 1975 were still in place from the 1950's and '60s. That all reared its ugly head on New York during the twin recessions of 1969-'70 and 1973-'75 that combined did a lot of damage and caused NYC to go broke. That caused the budget cuts and the elimination of the BG Shuttle. My plan to return the shuttle is simply what likely would be in place now if the shuttle had never been cut and had been retained all along. In this case (as noted elsewhere), that would be: Shuttle only runs on weekdays between 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM on weekdays, usually with T/Os on each end (similar to what is done on the TS-GC shuttle) and using only one two-car train and running (once the (1) returns to the new SF platform) to the outer platform of old SF. During PM Rush Hour (3:00-8:00 PM) ONLY, platform conductors would be stationed on the short platform to selectively open doors to allow people to do a straight transfer from the first two cars to the shuttle platform (most likely the middle doors of the first two cars). All other times (9:00 PM-6:00 AM weeknights and 9:00 PM Friday-6:00 AM Monday), the (6) would be extended to South Ferry and the (5) would also run to South Ferry when not running to Brooklyn. This as noted would have the side benefit of giving lower Manhattan additional service between Brooklyn Bridge and Bowling Green during off-peak hours they currently don't have. |
|
|
| (1385689) | |
Re: Bowling Green Station and BG-SF shuttle |
|
|
Posted by MTA T on Tue Feb 16 07:49:09 2016, in response to Re: Bowling Green Station and BG-SF shuttle, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 16 07:04:13 2016. The 5/6 to South Ferry plan will cause crowding.The shuttle idea doesn't sound too bad though. |
|
|
| (1385691) | |
Re: Bowling Green Station and BG-SF shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 16 08:02:19 2016, in response to Re: Bowling Green Station and BG-SF shuttle, posted by MTA T on Tue Feb 16 07:49:09 2016. The 5/6 plan would be ONLY during off-peak hours as noted (9:00 PM-6:00 AM on weekdays and 9:00 PM Friday-6:00 AM Monday). ONLY during those hours would the (6) be operating to South Ferry with the (5) joining the (6) going to SF when not running to Brooklyn. All other times, the 5/6 would run as they do now.The Shuttle would ONLY be 6:00 AM-9:00 PM on weekdays as noted and also would be put in use when there is either an emergency situation or a G.O. that prevents the (4) coming from Brooklyn to be able to run north of Bowling Green or Wall Street (and likewise the (5) and (6) from getting down to Bowling Green). Otherwise, when there is enough room for the (6) to get to South Ferry, that would run to South Ferry with the (5) as noted joining the (6) when it's not running to Brooklyn (after 9:00 PM on weeknights and all times it's running in Manhattan on weekends). |
|
|
| (1385738) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Feb 16 15:41:51 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Feb 15 18:02:19 2016. Correct. In fact on 10 car trains of Hi-Vs and Lo-Vs, the very end vestibule doors of trains did not open at all since they were usually past the platform ends. |
|
|
| (1385778) | |
Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station. |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Tue Feb 16 21:56:49 2016, in response to Re: South Ferry Inner Loop Station., posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Feb 15 18:02:19 2016. I don't think IRT expresses of the 1940s and the L of today are a good comparison. An express will run much longer distances between stations giving the passengers on board time to circulate into less crowded cars especially on the Bronx and Brooklyn ends. They would also have more time in Manhattan to get near the exits. Plus you have the local on the main trunk as a major fall back option. You don't have that option on the L; you either cram yourself on or you wait. This crowding, the station layouts and the short durations between key stations leads to the clogging by the doors. Someone going to First or Third Avenue (or even Union Square) will want to be close to the doors to make sure they can get out. They'll block up the doors located closest to the busiest ends of Lorimer and Bedford. Locking out doors at this particular location of the train again is a terrible idea as you'll have even worse crowding and clogging at these doors. I have no doubt dwell times will go up. I'll gladly lend you my keys so you can go experiment by locking out doors on the L if you don't believe me.As for the R110Bs, they would have been a poor option since you'd lose four door openings versus a 9 car train of slightly less than 60's. And it would be difficult to go to five doors per car on the 67's too (with the associated bench seating) due to wheel load limitations - that's the real reason for four door openings and transverse seating on the longer cars. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
