|
|
| Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion (1464991) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 8 of 9 |
||
|
| (1525646) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 2 17:47:21 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Oct 2 10:22:29 2019. Richmond Hill would also need 3rd rail, restored signals system, and PTC, as well as lease it back from NY&A.Belmont Park would be hard without a flyover junction westbound. The Montauk Branch tracks separate at the site of the old Springfield Gardens station. Perhaps stick a relay track there. Rosedale would be hard. Eastbound Atlantic Branch track could spread south, then stick a relay track between them. Then run feeder buses to Green Acres. Any of the above can be thru-routed to Atlantic Terminal and the new Platform F at Jamaica. Thenj consider what equipment could be used and still conform to FRA regs. |
|
|
| (1525649) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Oct 2 18:03:23 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by sloth on Sat Sep 28 22:44:12 2019. But what exactly would Rockaway’s purpose be? Would it be a crosstown Queens service |
|
|
| (1525651) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Oct 2 18:13:59 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by sloth on Sat Sep 28 22:44:12 2019. Oops...hit post a bit too soon...My biggest concern with restoring Rockaway is what type of rail service would operate on the branch. I’m definitely not in favor of restoring it as an LIRR branch as it was prior to its closing in 1962. It needs to be a transit service as opposed to a commuter service in other to attract ridership from the Woodhaven buses. And then, would it be an extension of the M or R, or would it be another subway or possibly a light rail/DMU train? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1525662) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 2 18:36:41 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Oct 2 18:03:23 2019. That's just it. It would have multiple purposes. |
|
|
| (1525663) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 2 18:40:23 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Oct 2 18:13:59 2019. I would divert the M or R.See if CBTC with its purported train capacity increases could allow shoe-horning in G trains as well for 71st Ave. Restore the mezzanine at the 104th Street Jamaica el station at 102nd street for what will be by that time an OMNY transfer. |
|
|
| (1525666) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Oct 2 18:50:35 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 2 17:47:21 2019. Richmond Hill...Belmont Park...Rosedale...Montauk BranchThe Jamaica shuttles would need more investment than the Willets Pt-Bayside shuttle. That's why I separated them. Of course, the MTA may screw up Willets Pt to provide LGA access. Any of the above can be thru-routed to Atlantic Terminal and the new Platform F at Jamaica. I agree. However, MTA planning is very short range. Their object is to preclude further expansion. Then consider what equipment could be used and still conform to FRA regs. These would be regular LIRR equipment with LIRR crews. The fare arrangement would make it a subway. Place SBS machines at the stations. The SBS machines dispense a ticket that's given to the conductor. The Metrocard then provides a free "out of system" transfer, when entering the subway at Willets Pt or Sutphin-Archer. |
|
|
| (1525667) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Oct 2 18:55:38 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 2 18:40:23 2019. See if CBTC with its purported train capacity increases could allow shoe-horning in G trains as well for 71st Ave.CBTC does not increase service level capacity. The constraint on the Queens Blv local tracks is the fumigation policy at Forest Hills. Otherwise, the local tracks can relay 30 tph at Forest Hills. |
|
|
| (1525671) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 2 19:22:43 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by LuchAAA on Tue Oct 1 19:48:33 2019. The Q10 bus, 121st Street el station, and Richmond Hill LIRR station would make for a nice transit hub. |
|
|
| (1525672) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 2 19:29:50 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Oct 2 18:55:38 2019. We know that, but TA says otherwise about CBTC, so hold their feet to the fire. If M or R diverts to the RBB, they should handle the other with the G train at 71st Avenue |
|
|
| (1525673) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 2 20:09:39 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 2 19:29:50 2019. One problem solved would be push service to 179th St..Local trains to the end of the line. Turn express Trains on the upper level, locals on the lower. There is no reason why trains should sit in the station five to ten minutes waiting to be cleared out for relays. |
|
|
| (1525693) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Oct 2 23:23:21 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Joe V on Wed Oct 2 18:40:23 2019. I feel that extending the R will make it even more unreliable than it already is. Between the already long route and the multiple merges, not to mention its triple duty as QB local, Broadway local and 4th Ave local, it’s just too much. Better to run the W to Rockaway, reroute the R back to Astoria (and base it out of 38th Street Yard in Brooklyn) and reroute the N to 2nd Ave alongside the Q. |
|
|
| (1525698) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Thu Oct 3 00:06:08 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Oct 2 23:23:21 2019. I feel that extending the R will make it even more unreliable than it already is.I agree 1000% |
|
|
| (1525700) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 3 01:20:34 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Oct 2 23:23:21 2019. The R is too damn long. |
|
|
| (1525701) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Oct 3 01:24:22 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Oct 2 18:13:59 2019. Making it an extension of the M, and combining it with the Rockaway Park shuttle, would make the overall route of the M train into something of a spiral shape. A very unique path for a transit line. |
|
|
| (1525704) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Oct 3 06:35:17 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Oct 2 23:23:21 2019. We can break up the R train, like not run it south of Whitehall Street, and restructure that service. |
|
|
| (1525725) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Oct 3 10:56:33 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 2 20:09:39 2019. One problem solved would be push service to 179th St..Local trains to the end of the line. Turn express Trains on the upper level, locals on the lower. There is no reason why trains should sit in the station five to ten minutes waiting to be cleared out for relays. That is not happening as much as its used too... Especially on the Overnights.. MTA Police are camped out there now.. NO ONE rides those relays who isn't supposed to and the word is out... They get off that train and quickly... |
|
|
| (1525731) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Oct 3 12:01:15 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Joe V on Thu Oct 3 06:35:17 2019. That’s why I suggested the W. I know Wallyhorse has suggested this in the past, but as part of a “laundry list” of service changes in the Southern Division. All I’m suggesting is reroute the W to Queens Blvd and the Rockaway Branch, while rerouting the R to Ditmars and the N to 96th St. |
|
|
| (1525732) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Oct 3 12:10:16 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by lirr42 on Fri Feb 9 14:17:25 2018. 2.2 million sounds less than it would end up costing. |
|
|
| (1525734) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Oct 3 12:12:56 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Oct 3 12:10:16 2019. Er I meant billion. |
|
|
| (1525749) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Oct 3 14:23:43 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Oct 3 01:24:22 2019. Agreed. But it would also be a very long local line with multiple merges that would be doing “quadruple duty.” Not to mention that the current M often turns back into the old “#10 - Myrtle-Chambers” service when the Queens Blvd Line goes FUBAR. That would leave any hypothetical Rockaway stations not served by the A high and dry.A RBB service could be a 6th Avenue/Queens Blvd Local. But it should be a service that replaces the M or R on the QB local tracks |
|
|
| (1525750) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Oct 3 14:29:41 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Oct 3 14:23:43 2019. We could send M to 96th, and run a V between the RBB and 2nd Avenue/Houston. But that adds a another 6th Ave local service that I do not think they can handle. |
|
|
| (1525754) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by geoffc on Thu Oct 3 15:08:54 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 3 01:20:34 2019. How long is the R? How does it compare to the A at 31 miles?R has 45 stations and is how long? A is 31 miles long and has how many stations? Odd how some stats are easier than others to find... |
|
|
| (1525759) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 3 17:34:51 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by geoffc on Thu Oct 3 15:08:54 2019. The milage isn't the problem.It's the merges.. conflicts with other routes... |
|
|
| (1525760) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Oct 3 17:37:02 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Oct 3 12:01:15 2019. The reason that the R was routed to Ctl was to make Jamaica Yd the home yard fr the Rs which is a lot more efficient than using 36 St Yd. Using 36 St Yd as the home yard for the the Rs requires put ins and layups changing ends on the exp tk N/O 36 St compromising the other services. Not to mention that the R would need an actual maintenance barn to carry out inspections and light repairs which 36 St Yard lacks meaning thet CIY would have to become the maintenance barn for the Rs which would be highly impractical. |
|
|
| (1525763) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Oct 3 17:46:12 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Oct 3 14:23:43 2019. Some of these plans do have some merit. but remember that any Qns Blvd service to Rockaway would have to be a 24/7 service so one of the present part time services like the R or M would have to be expanded. |
|
|
| (1525766) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Oct 3 17:51:32 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by randyo on Thu Oct 3 17:37:02 2019. We know why the N & R swapped, but the remedy is worse than the disease. They cannot or will not dispatch the R train in a reliable manner. |
|
|
| (1525770) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Oct 3 18:04:27 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Joe V on Thu Oct 3 14:29:41 2019. I think 6th Avenue could handle F, M and V services simultaneously. But to make it work, none of them would be able to exceed 10 tph and you’d need to end the E/M merge at Queens Plaza and eliminate Queens Blvd R service. The E/M merge would be replaced by the express E and F running through the 53rd St tunnel with the E running at least 18 tph to make up for the fewer F trains, while the M and V both run through 63rd. It’s either that or run the W between Whitehall and the RBB via the QB local tracks. |
|
|
| (1525771) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Oct 3 18:28:21 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by randyo on Thu Oct 3 17:37:02 2019. The MTA already mentioned making 36th Yd into a home yard for the T while the SAS was in the study phase, so it’s not like they will never even consider making it a yard for revenue service trains. If doing a reverse move on the 4th Avenue express tracks is such a problem, then they should build a track south of 36th St Station that connects from the northbound R local track to the Stillwell-bound D track, which would then allow yard-bound R trains to avoid the express tracks entirely.As for the maintenance barn, I don’t know if the SAS plans called for building one at 36th or have T trains deadhead to CIY for maintenance. If it’s the latter, I fail to see why the R can’t do the same thing. It’s no different than the G deadheading via the F to CIY or the M deadheading to ENY via the J. The only difference is the M has a storage yard at Fresh Pond Road. It’s still workable. |
|
|
| (1525775) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Oct 3 19:07:34 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by randyo on Thu Oct 3 17:46:12 2019. For sure, it would have to run seven days a week. Maybe install a pair of switch tracks that would permit the late night Q to enter 57th Street on the local tracks, which would allow a late night W to have full use of the express tracks to relay. It’s too bad we don’t have an express Woodhaven Blvd station complete with crossover switches that would permit a late night RBB train to switch from the local to the express tracks before entering Woodhaven, terminate there, then reverse out to go back to the Rockaways. This would be very helpful to have in order to terminate a late night RBB train running via the 6th Ave line. |
|
|
| (1525778) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Oct 3 19:10:40 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 3 17:34:51 2019. Agreed. It would be the same problem for the M, even though the full current M route isn’t as long as the R. |
|
|
| (1525807) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 01:09:49 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Joe V on Thu Oct 3 17:51:32 2019. Pre Chrystie, the 4 Av Lcl (RR) ran from 95 to Ctl from about 6A to 830P and I don't recall any problems with the service back then. Maybe because back then we had TRAINMASTERS instead of so called line managers. |
|
|
| (1525808) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 01:15:33 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Oct 3 18:28:21 2019. Nad just where would you put that extra track. The T can be a home yard for a 4 Av service if that service terminated at either 36 St or 9 Av where moves to the yard would not interfere with any mainline service. As for the other services you mentioned, the G deadheading to CIYd is a direct light move that doesn’t require any changing ends on the mainline and the M going to ENY Yd can be done after the rush hour as a transfer move from Fresh Pond unlike a layup from 95 St which has to lay up which thr PM rush hour is still going on. |
|
|
| (1525809) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 01:17:39 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Oct 3 19:07:34 2019. As I have mentioned before, there is infrastructure for the lcl tks N/O 57/7 to access 63 St and the SAS but the cesspool of incompetence that passes toe MTA planning declined to use it. |
|
|
| (1525811) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 01:22:10 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Oct 3 18:04:27 2019. In any case there would need to be some sort of additional 24/7 service. |
|
|
| (1525813) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Oct 4 01:58:12 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 01:09:49 2019. Maybe because back then we had TRAINMASTERS instead of so called line managers.Aren't both positions hiring from the same pool of people? Back then it was dispatchers and motor instructors, and now dispatchers and train service supervisors... |
|
|
| (1525814) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Oct 4 04:58:17 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Oct 2 23:23:21 2019. Why would you want to send the R back to Astoria? Just to make the route a little bit shorter? No, it belongs on Queens Blvd. (where the RR was pre-Chrystie). BTW, the reference to the "QB local" was confusing, since there was a local called the QB (which I don't think ever went to Queens Blvd.) |
|
|
| (1525835) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Oct 4 14:21:57 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Oct 4 04:58:17 2019. So that the R can have fewer merges, run more frequently and be more reliable. The current R service is failing at doing triple duty as a local on Queens Blvd, Broadway and 4th Avenue. Sending onto Rockaway would make it even worse.Why does the R “belong” on Queens Blvd, anyway? Does the M belong on Nassau Street. I’ve seen people post that it does. Don’t know why. |
|
|
| (1525848) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 4 15:42:33 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Oct 4 14:21:57 2019. Don't know Why it 'belongs' there,but for maintainance purposes, the Broadway Queens Blvd 4th Ave service doesn't have other options.The N,when it operated there, had shops at each end of the line, while the R had to back track to Coney Island. While today's situation isn't ideal, the R is best suited to serve Queens and Manhattan. Brooklyn needs an extended J to cover Fourth Ave to 95th st simply because it has less conflict with other routes...runs well. The 4th Ave local J would mean beefed up el service between Manhattan and Queens. No problem. J Broadway Brooklyn Express all day, with Z local to ENY off peak. |
|
|
| (1525849) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 15:48:07 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Oct 4 01:58:12 2019. Not necessarily. I recall a line supt who came from an outside agency and never worked his way up through the ranks. Back in the day, when we had trainmasters, they were required to take a written civil service exam to demonstrate how much actual knowledge they had, pass it and were then called in list order based on how well they scored on their exam. They also had a year’s probation during which the dead wood could be weeded out if they didn’t measure up. Now the supts are appointed based on how well they suck up to upper management and their so called performance evaluation is a lot more discretionary so that certain “fair haired boys” often slide regardless of their incompetence. We had 2 C/Rs assigned the the schedule office on light duty assignments and because they were “useful” to the operation of the office when the regular scheduling staff were made managers, were elevated directly to supts without even having been the lowest level of supervision. A former director of schedules was appointed to a managerial position directly from the outside and at one point had to take the open competitive C/R exam in order to obtain some sort of permanent civil service status while still remaining in the management position. At one point the Chief Transportation Officer, a position normally filled internally by trainmasters, was appointed from the outside because he was a friend of Gunn and his sidekick Feely. |
|
|
| (1525851) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Oct 4 15:51:35 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Thu Oct 3 19:10:40 2019. I think the M's merges aren't as troublesome, IMO. The R has to deal with that merge from Queensboro Plaza to 57th St/7th Ave, which looks like a pain. I also think that length (or at least number of stations) does matter, since it increases the chances of delays by passengers. |
|
|
| (1525852) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 15:57:56 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Oct 4 04:58:17 2019. When the first R-27s arrived the Brighton Lcl went to Qns Blvd as a QT since when Brighton Exps operated the Brighton Lcls operated via the tunnel. Nights and weekends the Brighton operated vial the bridge and carried the designation QB. Post Chrystie, the designation QB was retained for the rush hour specials that operated via the Brighton Lcl and Bway Exp even though it violated the original IND lettering pattern that called for trains that operated express anywherte on their rout to be labeled with single letters. |
|
|
| (1525869) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 17:47:11 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 4 15:42:33 2019. I would send the R down to Whitehall.The W to 36th Street or 9th Avenue or 59th Street The J to 95th/4th Avenue |
|
|
| (1525872) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Oct 4 18:04:47 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 17:47:11 2019. Interesting.8 car J to 95 would be able to accommodate ridership. But people in Bay Ridge would complain about not having direct route to midtown. |
|
|
| (1525882) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 19:06:21 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Oct 4 18:04:47 2019. They can change for a Bridge train at Pacific or Dekalb and save 7 minutes. |
|
|
| (1525889) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Oct 4 19:32:01 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 19:06:21 2019. That is true. J train would run on time better than R out of Forest Hills.And during weekday rush hour some J could be scheduled to turn at Broad. |
|
|
| (1525895) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 4 20:20:04 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 17:47:11 2019. Except,I would have the W service 95th also.That would keep connectivity with the South Ferry area during 'normal service hours'. Evenings,N Service will use the tunnel. |
|
|
| (1525896) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 4 20:37:34 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Oct 4 19:32:01 2019. Why turn them at Broad St?Turn Z trains there..managing North Brooklyn stations not served by J trains. Making the Z a separate route,it would basically be the J local operating 6am to 10 am...3pm to 8pm).. Likewise,J Trains would operate express from Canal St, skipping Bowery Marcy etc to Myrtle...then express to ENY. Here, it's skip stop service to Sutphin Blvd. |
|
|
| (1525901) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Oct 4 21:39:01 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 19:06:21 2019. Plenty of R riders in Brooklyn already do that. They bail on the R at 59th, 36th or Pacific for a faster route to Midtown. |
|
|
| (1525905) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Oct 4 22:36:47 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 15:48:07 2019. I’ve heard the real problem is that nobody wants the job partially because of the politics behind it, but also because the job doesn’t offer any overuse, the qualified dispatchers and supervisors are smart enough to stay in their titles and milk their OT over taking a false pay raise that comes with far too much responsibility. So you end up getting people that take the title to pump up their egos versus being truly qualified and interested in some cases. |
|
|
| (1525914) | |
Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Oct 5 07:48:04 2019, in response to Re: Lower Montauk Branch Passenger Rail Study (Final Report 2018) could cost over $2 Billion, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 4 20:20:04 2019. With a J/Z every 5 minutes for over an hour, shoehorning in a W would be a problem. |
|
|
|
Page 8 of 9 |
||
