|
|
| Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation (1500391) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (1500391) | |
Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 18 16:34:06 2019 The Canarsie Tunnel ran single track the last 4 midnight hours. This was to permit tunnel inspection.One big "if" regarding the no closure plan is how well the MTA can handle single track operation. If the last 4 nights' experience is any indication, the answer is not well at all. I captured the operation from the real time feed and present it as a spreadsheet that you can download. The spreadsheets show the data as schedules, with one sheet per day. Each day has 4 schedules: plans & results Manhattan bound; plans & results Brooklyn bound; plans Manhattan bound and plans Brooklyn bound. The plans for Tuesday and Wednesday (20190115 and 20190116) are basically the same. A Manhattan bound train will approach Lorimer St at 10, 30 and 50 minutes past each hour. These trains will depart Lorimer 30 seconds later. These trains will arrive at Union Sq at 17:30, 37:30 and 57:30 past each hour. Simultaneously, a Brooklyn bound train will arrive at Union Square at 17:30, 37:30 and 57:30 and depart 30 seconds later or 18, 38 and 58 minutes past each hour. These trains will arrive at Lorimer at 28, 48 and 08 past each hour. The Manhattan arrivals at Union Sq permit the Brooklyn bound trains access to the single tube with a 30 second buffer. The Brooklyn arrivals permit the Manhattan bound trains access to the same single tube with a 2 minute buffer. How did it work? On the 15th, the first Manhattan bound train was supposed to arrive at Lorimer at 00:10:00; it actually arrived at 00:06:52. It left Lorimer at 00:07:29 instead of 00:10:30. It arrived at Union Sq at 00:16:52 instead of the scheduled 00:17:30. How did it arrive early at Lorimer? It would appear that the scheduled travel time between stations between Myrtle and Lorimer are padded. The train made up the extra time there. The second Manhattan bound train was supposed to arrive at Lorimer at 00:30:00 and arrived at 00:29:52. It left at Lorimer at 00:30:29 instead of the scheduled 00:30:30. It arrived at Union Sq at 00:38:52 instead of 00:37:30. The train took too long traveling between 3 Av and Union Sq. Its late arrival was enough to make the Brooklyn bound train late. The world caved in on the third Manhattan bound train. It arrived 6 minutes late at Lorimer, 00:56:07 instead of 00:50:00. How? It left Canarsie 4 1/2 minutes late: 00:29:29 instead of 00:25:00. That was the ball game on day 1. The schedule was knocked out in the first inning on day 2 (20190116). The first train arrived 1:05 late at Lorimer because it nearly 2 minutes late leaving Canarsie: 00:06:27 instead of 00:05:00. Not to be outdone, the second train was 3 minutes late leaving Canarsie. The strategy changed on day 3. Manhattan bound trains arrived at Lorimer at 04:30, 24:30 and 44:30 past the hour. They left 30 seconds later and were schedueld to arrive at Union Sq at 15:00, 35:00 and 55:00 past the hour. The Brooklyn bound trains were scheduled to arrive at Union Sq at 15:30, 35:30 and 55:30 past the hour and leave 30 seconds later. These trains were scheduled to arrive at Lorimer at 03:30, 23:30, and 43:30. This provided a 1 minute buffer at Lorimer and 2 minute buffer at Union Sq. Lightning struck again on day 3. The first train was 2 minutes late leaving Canarsie and the second was 3 minutes late. It did not get better on day 4. The Manhattan bound train was only 1:14 late on arriving at Lorimer. It was 1:37 late leaving Lorimer and 2:14 late arriving at Union Sq. This delayed the Brooklyn bound train 2 minutes 7 seconds, even though it was 29 seconds early on its Union Sq arrival. |
|
|
| (1500392) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Jan 18 17:30:56 2019, in response to Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 18 16:34:06 2019. Which is to say, L line performance isn't very good. So, what will it take to get trains to at least leave Canarsie on time? |
|
|
| (1500394) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 18 17:53:14 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Jan 18 17:30:56 2019. Despite CBTC bullshit. They ran more reliably with old signals system and BMT Standards and Multis. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1500395) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Jan 18 17:56:24 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 18 17:53:14 2019. something about personnel interested in actually performing and mgmt. not punishing initiative. |
|
|
| (1500396) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Fri Jan 18 18:08:54 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Jan 18 17:56:24 2019. There you go, confusing the issue with facts again. |
|
|
| (1500399) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Fri Jan 18 18:46:11 2019, in response to Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 18 16:34:06 2019. What were the reasons for the lateness out of Canarsie? It is important for context. Was it late arrivals or u known issues at Canarsie such as cleaning soiled trains or other misc issues |
|
|
| (1500401) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 18 18:52:03 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Jan 18 17:30:56 2019. what will it take to get trains to at least leave Canarsie on time?Late starts are not confined to Canarsie. It's the reason I post a Late Start report. Nothing's likely to be done until management realizes how close the need to adhere to a realistic schedule. |
|
|
| (1500403) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Jan 18 18:56:00 2019, in response to Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 18 16:34:06 2019. Schedule the trains to leave Rockaway Parkway 3 to 5 minutes "early". If everything goes OK, they will have to wait a few minutes at Lorimer for the Brooklyn-bound train to clear the tube. If they are delayed en route, they can make up for it simply by not waiting as long at Lorimer. Likewise, Brooklyn-bound trains should leave 8th Ave. with the expectation of having about a one minute hold at Union Square. |
|
|
| (1500405) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 18 19:05:21 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by ClearAspect on Fri Jan 18 18:46:11 2019. Was it late arrivalsDownload the spreadsheet. It shows the arrivals and departures for each station in both directions. There's enough data in those spreadsheets to condemn a lot of operations. The RT0 columns are the original schedule for a particular trip. The time above it is when the schedule was issued. It should be 30 minutes before departure. If it's significantly less than 30 minutes, the trip is probably amended as a result of a dispatcher's action. Schedules are updated during the trip. The RTN columns show the arrival and departure times for the last updated schedule showing that particular station. This is not good engineering practice because it hides problems. The POS columns show the position feed for the train. The position data is crude. It shows only the station and status: stopped_at; in_transit_to; and incoming. The position feed is broadcast every 30 seconds. The first stopped_at status coincides with when the countdown turns steady orange with 0 time to arrival. The incoming status coincides with the countdown clock flashing an orange 0 time to arrival. The in_transit_to status means the train is in motion. I'm not happy with my methodology because I use the last time I get a stopped_at status for the departure time. This is because some feeds show only the stopped_at status. I'd also be happier if the feed came every 7.5 seconds rather than every 30 seconds. That would obey the Nyquist Sampling rate. |
|
|
| (1500406) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 18 19:16:56 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Jan 18 18:56:00 2019. Schedule the trains to leave Rockaway Parkway 3 to 5 minutes "early"I think there's a corollary to Parkinson's Law at work in NYCT. Delays will increase to fill any slop in the schedule. |
|
|
| (1500411) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 18 19:57:47 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 18 19:16:56 2019. A couple of weeks ago, Trip Planner had me on an F departing Jackson Hts at 9:55am. It was spot on. Arrival time at 179th was to be 10:21am. We arrived at 10:14am. I don't know what the written schedule is, but they didn't fuck off along the way. I was taken aback. |
|
|
| (1500475) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 19 11:14:19 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Jan 18 17:30:56 2019. Why aren't they leaving on time?What time are they *supposed* to leave? How so you know that they are leaving late? Have you the operating skets or the pax skeds. The operating schedule is usually a mionute or two past the passenger schedule to give the geese that last minute change to catch der train. Oh wellL Who cares if it leaves on time or not, it is going to get held up on the way anyway, but of this you can be sure: You will get there eventually, and what more can you ask from your subway system? ERGO if you want better performance the fare would be $5.00 each trip. ROAR |
|
|
| (1500487) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 19 11:59:36 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 19 11:14:19 2019. Have you the operating skets or the pax skedsThe operating schedules and actual performance are available online. I showed them side by side for each station in the linked spreadsheet. Oh wellL Who cares if it leaves on time or not, Approximately 400K people use the L train daily. To put this in perspective, that's more than half the entire population of North Dakota. if you want better performance the fare would be $5.00 each trip. Performance data from the time shows more reliable and frequent service, when the fare was a nickel. |
|
|
| (1500514) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 19 14:25:52 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 19 11:59:36 2019. " Performance data from the time shows more reliable and frequent service, when the fare was a nickel."And with inflation added, that would come to exactly $5.00. ROAR |
|
|
| (1500516) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Sat Jan 19 14:40:16 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 19 11:59:36 2019. When did canarsie service run as frequently as it did today? I believe you are horribly mistaken |
|
|
| (1500518) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Sat Jan 19 14:41:51 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 18 19:05:21 2019. Your spreadsheet leads to a lot of assumptions and no concretes, we need more data such as dispatchers comments to breathe in a full picture. Numbers only tell part of a story. |
|
|
| (1500524) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 19 15:24:07 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 19 14:25:52 2019. $1 in 1948 is $10.77 today (10.77 times)So how does 5 cents in 1948 become $5 in 2019 (100 times) ? (The equivalent of 1 USD on 01 January 1948 is 10.77 USD on 01 January 2019 Inflation over the period : 977.14 %, used index:USCPI31011913 (Bureau of Labor Statistics), Initial Index: 238.41, End Index: 2 568.01) |
|
|
| (1500525) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 19 15:34:02 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by ClearAspect on Sat Jan 19 14:40:16 2019. When did canarsie service run as frequently as it did today?Here's a link to the peak hour service level map that appeared in the BOT's 1949 report. Here's another link to the peak hourservice level map that appeared in the NYCTA's first annual report in 1954. In both cases you will note that the peak hour service level was 24 tph. Today it's only 20 tph. It may got to 22 tph, if the MTA pays its electric bill. BTW, you will note that the uptown single track service level for the Third Ave El was 42 tph on the 1949 map. I believe you are horribly mistaken Those who ignore history are doomed to accept the MTA's Kool Aid. |
|
|
| (1500528) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 19 15:42:22 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by ClearAspect on Sat Jan 19 14:41:51 2019. Numbers only tell part of a story.The numbers tell: 1 - what the target was (RT0); 2 - what the results were (POS); and 3 - how the dispatchers intervened (RTN). we need more data such as dispatchers comments to breathe in a full picture. The dispatchers' comments should make interesting reading. |
|
|
| (1500529) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jan 19 15:48:56 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 19 15:42:22 2019. What about an arrival crossing over which causes a train to leave late?Do we have the leaving train leave early as the switches being so close to E.105 is going to cause one of them to be late? |
|
|
| (1500530) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Jan 19 16:16:44 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jan 19 15:48:56 2019. With the new signaling, new switches have been installed close to R/P station. |
|
|
| (1500535) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Jan 19 16:40:00 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by ClearAspect on Sat Jan 19 14:40:16 2019. Back in the BMT Eastern’s glory days, the 14 St Line had quite a bit of service operating on it. from Canarsie itself there were 14 St line trains and Bway Bkln Lcl trains. N/.O Atlantic Av, Bway Bkln trains left the line and were replaced by 14 St/Fulton trains coming from Lefferts and at Myrtle/Wyckoff, shortline trains were put in service to handle the lcl service since trains from Canarsie and Lefferts ran “express" between Myrtle and Lorimer. |
|
|
| (1500540) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 19 16:58:24 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jan 19 15:48:56 2019. What about an arrival crossing over which causes a train to leave late?In addition to Mr. Randyo's comment, this is at a time when scheduled headways are 20 minutes. The necessity to meet at the tunnel makes it impossible to set terminal recovery time 10 minutes. If you look at the schedule, you will note: trains are scheduled to arrive at RPY at 16:30, 36:30 and 56:30 past each hour. They are scheduled to depart RPY at 03:00; 23:00 and 43:00 past each hour. This gives arriving trains a 5 1/2 minute buffer to avoid interfering with departing trains. |
|
|
| (1500541) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Jan 19 17:02:25 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by randyo on Sat Jan 19 16:16:44 2019. Thanks. |
|
|
| (1500546) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Sat Jan 19 19:12:18 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 19 15:34:02 2019. Looking at the maps you provided it says “24 tph of 140 cars” meaning doing the math it was 24 6 car trains.The L runs 20 tph and soon 22 tph running 8 car trains. Which is 176 cars which if we convert to number cars to a train in 1954 would be equivolent to operating 30 trains. Or 6 trains over. So what is all this talk about kool-aid sir? |
|
|
| (1500555) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 19 22:08:06 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by ClearAspect on Sat Jan 19 19:12:18 2019. Which is 176 cars which if we convert to number cars to a train in 1954 would be equivalent to operating 30 trains.Not quite. Each 60 ft. R142 holds 145 passengers of whom 44 are seated. That's a total of 23,200 passengers of whom 7040 are seated. Raise those figures 10%, if the MTA ever pays its electric bill. The 1954 and 1949 trains used 67 ft. BMT Standards cars that sat 75 passengers with standing capacity for 100 more. The carrying capacity was 25,200 with 10,800 seated. They could have operated 8 car long trains (with the exception of the 6 Multis from Lefferts), if there were a capacity problem. |
|
|
| (1500560) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Sat Jan 19 22:37:29 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 19 22:08:06 2019. The R143 NOT R142 has the following capacities240 (A car) 246 (B car) So 20 sets is equivilent to 38880 passenger. So 3000 more passengers than your 1954 setup. So add another 4500 when the line goes to 22 TPH. 43000 passengers per hour carrying capacity. No matter how you want to dice it your own numbers were the downfall. The Canarsie Line now capacity wise exceeds the Canarsie Line of 1954. Would you now agree sir? |
|
|
| (1500563) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 19 23:02:03 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by ClearAspect on Sat Jan 19 22:37:29 2019. My mistake. I meant R143's. The R142 has a capacity of 110 passengers per car with 34 seated. The 75 footers come in at 175 passengers per car.The capacity you are reading is the equivalent weight capacity for the motors @ 150 lb/passenger. Do a sanity check. The interior R143 size is a nominal 60x9 or 540 sq ft. 1 foot is taken by the wall thickness. That comes to 2.25 sq ft/pass or 1.5 ft on a side. You won't fit any nominal 150 lb. human in that space. The 145 load level capacity figure comes to 3.72 sq ft or 1.9 ft on a side. That's still too tight for reliable operation. |
|
|
| (1500570) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Jan 20 00:40:03 2019, in response to Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 18 16:34:06 2019. Why are they running through service this time instead of the shuttle they used to run during single-track periods? Though it would require a transfer at Bedford, the shuttle wouldn't have problems with ill-timed meets clogging up the road.Do they need one track at Bedford to stage work trains? |
|
|
| (1500572) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Jsun21 on Sun Jan 20 00:58:51 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 19 23:02:03 2019. NYCT loading guidelines are predicated on 3sq Ft/Pass, which gives you 180 pax standing, given that cars are recorded at 125+% of loading guideline (at least 225 people standing, not including seated pax which is another 42) it is clear that this number is achieved on a regular basis.Now for the Standards, they had a nominal capacity of 270 passengers at design stage although this was on the basis of 1.5 sq/ft per passenger. So it is likely the ABs were at parity or less under similar circumstances since seats take up a lt of square footage for fewer passengers. https://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/The_New_York_Municipal_Car_(BMT_Standards)_(1915-1921) |
|
|
| (1500580) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jan 20 19:48:14 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Jsun21 on Sun Jan 20 00:58:51 2019. this was on the basis of 1.5 sq/ft per passengerI suspect this was always based on wishful thinking. I have counted the passengers in half of crush-loaded A Division cars (so 230 square feet for the half car) and never gotten as high as 75. |
|
|
| (1500589) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 20 20:37:38 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Jsun21 on Sun Jan 20 00:58:51 2019. The BMT standards, along with the Triplexes, were built to carry the masses. |
|
|
| (1500598) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Jan 20 21:35:00 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Jsun21 on Sun Jan 20 00:58:51 2019. NYCT loading guidelines are predicated on 3sq Ft/Pass,No. The guidelines are 3 sq ft per standing passenger. You must subtract out the space occupied by the sitting passengers from the interior dimensions before dividing by 3. |
|
|
| (1500601) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Jan 20 22:04:03 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Jan 20 21:35:00 2019. Here's a link to an MTA document that states the load levels for 60 and 75 foot cars. If you follow the footnote, you will see the 3 sq ft is for standing passengers. |
|
|
| (1500603) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Abba on Sun Jan 20 22:33:52 2019, in response to Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 18 16:34:06 2019. Do you have a website with real to,e data captured? I would like to see it |
|
|
| (1500604) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Abba on Sun Jan 20 22:34:12 2019, in response to Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Jan 18 16:34:06 2019. Time |
|
|
| (1500609) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Jan 20 23:39:05 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Abba on Sun Jan 20 22:33:52 2019. The raw data is freely available from the MTA. Go to the MTA website and click on the Developer Resources link down on the left hand column. A license from the MTA is required to access the real time data. Archived data real time data can be retrieved without a license from the data feed page for division B. Alas, the L train is not included in that archive. There is a private archive that you can find, if you look through the MTA Developers Google Group forum. That's the one I used for my after the fact L train analysis.The real time data uses the GTFS-RT format. The data is highly compressed. It requires a fairly strong programming background to retrieve the underlying data in a usable form. The protobuf program will take the feed and translate it to a pseudo XML file. I wrote a program that corrects the XML syntax from the protobuf output. My program then translates the XML files to a series of csv files and then imports these csv files into a postgresql database. If you feel you are up to the challenge, I'd be happy to upload the protobuf output files for my L train single track analysis. That way you can verify that I did not fudge any of the data. |
|
|
| (1500613) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Jsun21 on Mon Jan 21 00:12:03 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Jan 20 21:35:00 2019. I'm simply using the square footage you cited to demonstrate that a sanity check actually reveals a substantial capacity value for the R143/160 that is above the 145 number you cited, which is a design number from Kawasaki. While the capacity of the Standards may be a bit overstated since the obtrusive seating design denies a substantial amount to standees, and part of the figure is derived from a personal standing space that is less than that of a mosh pit.As for the proven capacity, for the R143 is 191, The actual loading guidelines state 145 as the maximum capacity for a 60ft B division car, and the L train oninternal observations is noted as 135% of the maximum guideline. |
|
|
| (1500615) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Jsun21 on Mon Jan 21 00:29:34 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Jsun21 on Mon Jan 21 00:12:03 2019. The point is, that even if we take the BOT service and assume every train is fully packed to the state capacity, we have 23,975 people going to Manhattan, even spotting all of those trains to 8 car trains we have . With the proven capacity of the R143 we have 30,560 bodies going into the Core using the 20tph, so the current MTA is doing more with less. |
|
|
| (1500617) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 21 02:51:25 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 19 14:25:52 2019. You seriously should maintain your business instead of ours.We dont need you or your input. WS really fucked you up. |
|
|
| (1500618) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 21 02:51:26 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 19 14:25:52 2019. You seriously should maintain your business instead of ours.We dont need you or your input. WS really fucked you up. |
|
|
| (1500619) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 21 02:51:26 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 19 14:25:52 2019. You seriously should maintain your business instead of ours.We dont need you or your input. WS really fucked you up. |
|
|
| (1500620) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 21 02:51:26 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 19 14:25:52 2019. You seriously should maintain your business instead of ours.We dont need you or your input. WS really fucked you up. |
|
|
| (1500621) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 21 02:51:26 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 19 14:25:52 2019. You seriously should maintain your business instead of ours.We dont need you or your input. WS really fucked you up. |
|
|
| (1500622) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 21 02:51:32 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 19 14:25:52 2019. You seriously should maintain your business instead of ours.We dont need you or your input. WS really fucked you up. |
|
|
| (1500625) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Mon Jan 21 06:33:33 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by ClearAspect on Sat Jan 19 19:12:18 2019. Those 6 car trains were longer than today's |
|
|
| (1500683) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Jan 21 13:00:25 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Jsun21 on Mon Jan 21 00:29:34 2019. It would not take a whole lot of effort to run 9 car trains on the L, except for shuffling CBTC equipment from R143's to R160's. |
|
|
| (1500686) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Mon Jan 21 13:19:26 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Joe V on Mon Jan 21 13:00:25 2019. In a related way, A four car set shares components, with only the front of the first car, and the rear of the last car having controls. What happens in the middle car of a 5 car set? Is it just a trailer with no parts needed as part of a two car set? A-B-B-A, would a 5 car set be A-B-C-B-A, or are there components that are shared with the cars on either side. I am thinking of the original two cars sets where the compressors were in 1 of the pairs and other components were in the other, so neither car could run as a single. |
|
|
| (1500690) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Jan 21 13:39:53 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by jabrams on Mon Jan 21 13:19:26 2019. I don't think it is totally a trailer, though maybe a dummy truck with no brakes either |
|
|
| (1500737) | |
Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 21 18:37:21 2019, in response to Re: Canarsie Tunnel Single Track Operation, posted by Jsun21 on Mon Jan 21 00:12:03 2019. The loading guidelines are designed in insure there isn't excessive dwell time. 135% of load level means that a 20 tph cannot be maintained. That's why the figures of 225 for the R43 and 275 for the Standards are meaningless.Passengers need to get to/from the interior of the car to keep dwell time reasonable. This means that some available floor space must be reserved for aisles to/from the door. Two questions are how much aisle space is requires and how can standees be prevented from occupying the aisles. NYCT's 3.0 sq ft/standee is pushing the envelope. The question has been studied and reported in the TCRP's "Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual", in chapter 5. This is how NYCT's loading guideline is described: 2.2-3.1 ft2/p *Approaching uncomfortable conditions for North Americans *Moving to and from doorways extremely difficult, increasing dwell time *Passengers waiting to board may try to shift to a door in a less-crowded section of the vehicle, increasing dwell time To avoid increasing dwell time the following space is recommended for standees: 4.3-5.3 ft2/p *Standing load without body contact *Standees have similar amount of personal space as seated passengers *Reasonably easy circulation within vehicle Decreasing the area per standee counter productive. Any gain in passengers/car is more than compensated for by a decrease in cars/hour. N.B. the standee density is approximately equal to that for sitting passengers. Thus, the idea of trading sitting space for standing space in the hope of increasing pass/hr is an illusion for short dwell times. There's still the question of how to arrange the interior so as to discourage standees from blocking the aisles. The Standards and subsequent BMT designs employed some subtle techniques. The doors were wider. The placement of standee of amenities discouraged crowding near the doors. (They did not do it with arrows on the floor.) The seats can define the aisles. The galley seating used since the R16's does not define any aisles. The offset doors compound the problem. The Standard's "obtrusive seating" defines aisles, where the with standee grab bars and handles on the transverse seats. The vertical poles are situated so that there's a diagonal aisle to the wide doorway. So, not only did the BOT provide more frequent service in terms of trains per hour but they also moved more passengers per hour in greater comfort. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
