|
|
| Re: flushing line isolation (1509562) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (1509657) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Wed Apr 10 20:54:10 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Wed Apr 10 19:52:59 2019. Composites - with their original braking*, Hi-V electrical system, with original trucks & motors.... wow!!and yet when they were transferred to the el in 1916 the trucks changed to those maximum traction because they determined the original trucks were deemed too heavy for the el. interesting... *this the original Westinghouse pneumatic only braking system - am I correct about that? Conversion of Hi-V & Composite fleets to AMRE didn't occur until a few years later - I forget which year(s) do you have that noted somewhere? |
|
|
| (1509659) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Westcode44 on Wed Apr 10 21:05:53 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by randyo on Wed Apr 10 00:47:46 2019. East New York (R143/160)WE-44 |
|
|
| (1509661) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Westcode44 on Wed Apr 10 21:09:52 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by TRAIN DUDE on Wed Apr 10 08:17:30 2019. There were issues with the loop track at COR--not sure if it's been rectified yet. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1509665) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Apr 10 21:50:18 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Wed Apr 10 18:04:44 2019. It probably could have handled the Triplexes, too.:) |
|
|
| (1509669) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Wed Apr 10 23:33:31 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Westcode44 on Wed Apr 10 21:09:52 2019. From an aerial view the loop radius is 153 feet, which should be adequate for A division stock. |
|
|
| (1509676) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Thu Apr 11 01:27:51 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Apr 10 18:41:13 2019. Actually, the same exact thought came into my mind as well |
|
|
| (1509678) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Apr 11 07:21:41 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Wed Apr 10 18:04:44 2019. Well, that's the first time I heard of that happening. Never read about that in any of my books, though I knew of the original H&M cars testing. . |
|
|
| (1509679) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Apr 11 07:23:17 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Apr 10 18:41:13 2019. I though they did it via Corona, the LIRR, and Hell Gate Bridge, eventually to E180th St ? |
|
|
| (1509683) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by bulk88 on Thu Apr 11 07:53:41 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by AlM on Tue Apr 9 20:22:55 2019. The 7 platform is below the lower level GCT loop tracks. As part of ESA or midtown rezoning deal is turning lower level loop track into a mezzanine that opens onto the landing at midlevel of 7 Platform west escalators, allowing LIRR/MN pax to reach 7 without going through lex ave fare control. |
|
|
| (1509684) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Apr 11 08:35:42 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Westcode44 on Tue Apr 9 22:13:46 2019. That's crazy. Why not just set it up at Corona? You know, since the 7 is based there and not in CI? |
|
|
| (1509690) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Apr 11 10:52:20 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Joe V on Thu Apr 11 07:23:17 2019. WTF? No! |
|
|
| (1509693) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Thu Apr 11 11:10:42 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Joe V on Thu Apr 11 07:23:17 2019. AFAIK, there was never a switch between the LIRR & the Corona Yards. |
|
|
| (1509698) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 11 11:36:24 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Wed Apr 10 18:04:44 2019. Second Avenue el was strong enough to hold a modern day rail car.Out of All the Manhattan els..it was the One row that should have remained until the SAS. |
|
|
| (1509699) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Jimmymc25 on Thu Apr 11 12:11:58 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 11 11:36:24 2019. Which means it would still be here now |
|
|
| (1509700) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Apr 11 12:27:39 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Thu Apr 11 11:10:42 2019. I though there was, and they ripped it out in the 1960's. |
|
|
| (1509708) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Apr 11 14:51:12 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Express Rider on Wed Apr 10 20:54:10 2019. Although the original brakes on the Composites and the Gibbs were all pneumatic, they may not have been WABCO but possibly Christensen which was later absorbed in to Allis - Chalmers and I believe also on the Manhattan el cars. |
|
|
| (1509709) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Apr 11 14:52:44 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Jimmymc25 on Thu Apr 11 12:11:58 2019. I definitely agree with that. It also would have provided direct one seat access from lower Manhattan to Queens via the Qnsbro Br. |
|
|
| (1509710) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Apr 11 14:55:25 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by qveensboro_plaza on Wed Apr 10 18:41:12 2019. Why would there have been a problem with the wooden el cars since the extensions would have been either at surface, open cut or el structure? |
|
|
| (1509713) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by IRTRedbirdR33 on Thu Apr 11 15:16:41 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Joe V on Thu Apr 11 12:27:39 2019. Joe: There was a connection between the Flushing Line and the Long Island Railroad just outside of Hunter's Point Avenue. This was in use 1915 to 1928. There never was a connection at the Corona Yards. Larry, RedbirdR33 |
|
|
| (1509715) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Apr 11 15:21:47 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Wed Apr 10 18:41:13 2019. Not a good idea to change ends on the mainline especially if the train may have some mechanical problem that is the reason for its being shopped in the first place. |
|
|
| (1509717) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Apr 11 15:34:06 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Westcode44 on Wed Apr 10 21:05:53 2019. I’m talking about heavy main sho work. Even the routine maintenance of the Flushing fleet is done at Corona barn. |
|
|
| (1509719) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Apr 11 15:39:20 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by 3-9 on Thu Apr 11 08:35:42 2019. As i mentioned in my other post, routine maintenance and inspection is done at Corona Yd but heavy main shop maintenance like truck changes etc have to be done at a larger facility. |
|
|
| (1509724) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Thu Apr 11 16:26:17 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Express Rider on Wed Apr 10 20:54:10 2019. Is there some place on the system besides Queensboro Pl where the 7 is close to another line? A ramp, short elevated or whatever could be built to make a service connection. |
|
|
| (1509726) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Apr 11 16:37:06 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by randyo on Thu Apr 11 15:39:20 2019. Do the R188's have double trip cocks ? |
|
|
| (1509731) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Thu Apr 11 17:28:35 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by randyo on Thu Apr 11 14:55:25 2019. If the Flushing line was ever to be extended beyond Main St, I'm sure that would be a cut & cover subway since Main St was already underground. The nearby LIRR was already an open cut. Two open cut rail lines that close together would not work. Besides, Extending and re-elevating the line over Roosevelt Ave. after 1927 in that section of Queens would be next to impossible, as in nobody would go for it IMO |
|
|
| (1509739) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Thu Apr 11 19:14:02 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by TRAIN DUDE on Wed Apr 10 08:17:30 2019. I have a corollary question: how often do they loop them? I know they will try to rotate which cab is operating vs conductor, since without looping the sets the cabs would never be able to change roles. |
|
|
| (1509740) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 11 19:29:10 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by randyo on Thu Apr 11 14:52:44 2019. Yup...which is exactly the route the SAS recreating via a 63rd st crossing.The city needs a crosstown trunk line to deal with overflow from both the Flushing and Queenboro routes. The Port Washington route would be FANTASTIC for hybrid subway services. Not to mention the Main Line to Southeastern Queens. The fact that the MTA has either found an excuse each time...or bent to the NIMBYwhining and didnt build Anything is some thing that should be examined. |
|
|
| (1509752) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Apr 12 01:29:36 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by randyo on Thu Apr 11 15:39:20 2019. But that doesn't explain why the R-188's are not being maintained at Corona (at 207th instead, not CI as I originally stated). It sounds like somebody messed up again. |
|
|
| (1509754) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Fri Apr 12 01:53:46 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by randyo on Thu Apr 11 14:51:12 2019. Thanks for clarifying.The name Christensen for braking systems does ring a bell. I probably read this in a post here, possibly elsewhere. |
|
|
| (1509755) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Fri Apr 12 02:02:36 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Steamdriven on Thu Apr 11 16:26:17 2019. The 7 is not close to another IRT line. Except for the only other option of building underground, a curving ramped connection to either the Lex. or the 7th ave. line. Which, would be well, prohibitvely expensive.....From other posts in this thread, it seems that moving any portion of the relatively smaller Flushing fleet over BMT & IND ROW's to 207, Jerome yard, or any other IRT facility, can be done late nights, with minimal disruption to revenue service. |
|
|
| (1509757) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Fri Apr 12 02:15:00 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Joe V on Thu Apr 11 07:21:41 2019. IIRC, I read that it was the Steinway Lo-V's that operated via the second ave. el to the IRT subway for moves to the 148th St. shops. |
|
|
| (1509761) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Apr 12 07:05:28 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 11 11:36:24 2019. Actually, I've seen Roger Arcara's videos (maybe you did as well?) of SAEL cars crossing the Queensboro Bridge. That ride looked absolutely awesome. Maybe NYC could just have kept the SAEL, like Chicago kept the Loop?Fantasy, I know, I know... |
|
|
| (1509762) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Apr 12 07:07:56 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Edwards! on Thu Apr 11 19:29:10 2019. Agree. Another hybrid service that was actually planned, and of course, never built, was to provide local subway service on the local tracks of the Harlem Line in the Bronx.The list of sadly wasted and lost opportunities is endless... |
|
|
| (1509763) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Fri Apr 12 07:09:32 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by r17-6599 on Wed Apr 10 10:11:17 2019. 9th Avenue El cars ran through the Sedgwick tunnel... |
|
|
| (1509769) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Apr 12 09:01:00 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Apr 12 07:07:56 2019. Another hybrid service that was actually planned, and of course, never built, was to provide local subway service on the local tracks of the Harlem Line in the Bronx.That would never have been realistic, other than through a ROW expansion to allow for 6 tracks. There's 15-20 tph on all 4 tracks during the rush hour, and there have been close to that for longer than any of us have been alive. |
|
|
| (1509781) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Fri Apr 12 11:06:55 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Express Rider on Fri Apr 12 02:02:36 2019. OK, so there is/are enough connections for getting cars to/from the shop. Good enough!-- I'm sort of curious HOW that's done, is it via some sorta extreme shuffle move at Queensboro Plaza? |
|
|
| (1509782) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by TUNNELRAT on Fri Apr 12 11:18:55 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by AlM on Fri Apr 12 09:01:00 2019. 1972 plans called for a lirr hybrid service using the Montauk div. a tunnel[single track] was to tunnel thru forest park from Jamaica station heading RR south to howard beach.it would then enter kennedy airport on a private ROW.upon entering there would be a lirr inspection shed.heading north it would tie in in the exsisting subway tunnel under 66th ave and connect to the local tracks of the queens blvd.IND. no subway trains would use this connection.I wonder what the unions had to say about this. |
|
|
| (1509783) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Apr 12 11:49:26 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by TUNNELRAT on Fri Apr 12 11:18:55 2019. Yeah, but that's totally different. Montauk Division never had many trains. The Harlem Line has had tons of trains for longer than any of our lifetimes. |
|
|
| (1509795) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by Express Rider on Fri Apr 12 13:52:19 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by MainR3664 on Fri Apr 12 07:05:28 2019. Yeah, those are incredible videos.With a bit of that "only in New York style," for the RFW view and feel of the ride, when your train left the el, to rise and curve east onto the bridge approach. And then riding city-bound, looking out the RFW, down the el tracks' incline as they leave the bridge, and seeing all of Manhattan's east side, and beyond spread out beforoe you. Do you remember seeing in one of the videos, the RFW view leaving QP, to turn onto the Astoria line, and if you look down and to the left (at the approach tracks to the BMT side), for a second or two, you can see a train of Q-types that are approaching QP. |
|
|
| (1509804) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Apr 12 15:45:17 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by AlM on Fri Apr 12 09:01:00 2019. Wait - the 4 tracks on the Harlem line combine with the 3 tracks of the Hudson line to squeeze into 4 tracks south of 149th St. to Grand Central. Thus it seems to me there has to be extra capacity on the Harlem line, even in rush, that could allow local subway-like service from Mt. Vernon to a new station at 149th St. to allow transfers there to the subway. |
|
|
| (1509811) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Apr 12 16:10:46 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by italianstallion on Fri Apr 12 15:45:17 2019. Nice theory but in practice it doesn't work.Probably what's going on is that the express tracks are slightly underutilized and the local tracks are at full capacity. In the AM rush in my experience the outbound local track is solidly packed, often with delays at Woodlawn. In the PM rush the inbound local track is very heavily utilized, often with delays at the merge with the Hudson Line. The local tracks that run with the rush hour direction are probably similarly busy; I just don't know them well enough. Many reverse rush hour trains (9 tph) stop at Fordham, which already slows down the non-stop trains. Adding in subway trains would cause even more delays. |
|
|
| (1509826) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Apr 12 19:36:24 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Express Rider on Fri Apr 12 01:53:46 2019. There are a few publications about rail equipment that make mention of Christensen brakes but I can’t recall which ones or which systems they were about. |
|
|
| (1509827) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Apr 12 19:39:23 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by AlM on Fri Apr 12 11:49:26 2019. It’s possible that with the removal long distance Amtrak New England trains from GCT the MTA might have felt there would be sufficient capacity for rapid transit. |
|
|
| (1509828) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Apr 12 19:41:15 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by AlM on Fri Apr 12 16:10:46 2019. If the lcl tks on the Harlem Line were dedicated for rap[id transit, Harlem and NH trains would probably not make lcl stops in the Bronx. |
|
|
| (1509829) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Apr 12 19:43:12 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Thu Apr 11 17:28:35 2019. If I recall from riding the Port Wash branch years ago, the cut is 4 tks wide with the intention of rapid transit trains making lcl stops and LIRR trains using only the middle tks. |
|
|
| (1509830) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Apr 12 19:46:10 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by 3-9 on Fri Apr 12 01:29:36 2019. Nobody said the R-188s weren’t being maintained at Corona, but as I mentioned in my other post, while routine maintenance and inspections are done at Corona, major repairs and overhauls have to be done at a larger facility such as CI Yd or 207 Yd. |
|
|
| (1509831) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Apr 12 19:50:10 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by Steamdriven on Fri Apr 12 11:06:55 2019. With the new switches recently added N/O Qnsbro Plz the move should be easier than it used to be. I believe that transfers from Corona Yd can Xover the the N/B tk N/O Qnsbro Plz Xover the the N/B BMT tk and wrong rail through the station and Xover back the the S/B BMT tk S/O the station. |
|
|
| (1509833) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Apr 12 19:56:49 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by randyo on Fri Apr 12 19:39:23 2019. LOL. Maybe 1 tph in the rush hour in each direction.Meanwhile MNRR has added trains. |
|
|
| (1509834) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Apr 12 20:00:53 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by randyo on Fri Apr 12 19:41:15 2019. Harlem and NH trains would probably not make lcl stops in the BronxThus putting thousands of Bronxites with jobs in Westchester and CT out of work. That would go over really well. And you can't dedicate the local tracks to the subway without canceling a lot of other commuter trains too. The trains that don't stop at Fordham can't possibly fit on only two tracks under the current signaling system. It's something like 70 tph and MNRR can't handle more than 20 tph on a track. |
|
|
| (1509835) | |
Re: flushing line isolation |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Apr 12 20:01:44 2019, in response to Re: flushing line isolation, posted by randyo on Fri Apr 12 19:41:15 2019. Harlem and NH trains would probably not make lcl stops in the BronxThus putting thousands of Bronxites with jobs in Westchester and CT out of work. That would go over really well. And you can't dedicate the local tracks to the subway without canceling a lot of other commuter trains too. The trains that don't stop at Fordham can't possibly fit on only two tracks under the current signaling system. It's something like 70 tph and MNRR can't handle more than 20 tph on a track. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
