|
|
| Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW (1535898) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (1536378) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 08:01:27 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jan 22 20:36:37 2020. Yep. The University wanted it gone from the vicinity. Not helping matters was the Governor of NJ is by definition on the University's Trustee Board, can vote, and twist arms. Then the Transportation Commissioner is by definition NJT Board Chair. So what the University wants in this Princeton Monarchy is what the University gets. |
|
|
| (1536379) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 08:01:30 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jan 22 20:36:37 2020. Yep. The University wanted it gone from the vicinity. Not helping matters was the Governor of NJ is by definition on the University's Trustee Board, can vote, and twist arms. Then the Transportation Commissioner is by definition NJT Board Chair. So what the University wants in this Princeton Monarchy is what the University gets. |
|
|
| (1536383) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 23 08:19:57 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Wed Jan 22 17:24:05 2020. It's not impractical when you have a big fleet of MUs. It's hella impractical when you don't.Non transit-dependent people aren't going to ride the Dinky either. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1536387) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 08:28:02 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jan 22 20:45:27 2020. "This is, after all, taxpayer dollars we're talking about here"Hah, What a nonsensical statement. They need 9 dual-powered locos with that capability for weekday service. They already have 35 such locos. Now they are getting 17 more at $10 million. Ordinary diesel locos cost half that much. But the lazy fucks at MMC don't want another type of loco to deal with, so the stupid Board and upper management goes along spending tens of million of dollars on toys that they do not need. "Unless the person has some reason where they cannot take a bus 2.7 miles" The train covers that in 5 minutes. A bus cannot. |
|
|
| (1536389) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 08:32:15 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 23 08:19:57 2020. They can get MU's from piggybacking on M-8 and a future Silverliner VI order, the EXO MR-90 cars in 3 years, or a battery/diesel MU.People with autos ride the Dinky. You obviously do not understand the area, the market, nor the subject matter. |
|
|
| (1536391) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jan 23 08:38:36 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 08:28:02 2020. What a nonsensical statementI'm happy I didn't make it, then. They need 9 dual-powered locos with that capability for weekday service. They already have 35 such locos. Now they are getting 17 more at $10 million. Ordinary diesel locos cost half that much Sadly, the tightening number of diesel-electric (normal diesel) locomotive makers drives the cost up too. A new unit would be in the range of $6 million these days. The way NJT is doing things, they're spending more than enough money to not only electrify to Bay Head but also rebuild the old Philadelphia & Long Branch RR to Seaside Heights (including electrification). The train covers that in 5 minutes. A bus cannot It'd be miraculous to find a bus that can achieve a 32˝-mph average speed over 2.7 miles. Consider the acceleration factor. |
|
|
| (1536393) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 23 08:47:19 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jan 22 20:45:27 2020. So spend taxpayer dollars for completely gutting the ROW and putting buses on it, never mind the higher maintenance costs of roadways and the shorter-by-comparison service life of buses that nobody would want to ride by contrast?NJT's excellent at profligate spending, don't forget. They had no problem shelling out $12 million a unit for sight-unseen ALP-45DPs, something definitely not off the shelf, never mind spending the most per mile that I've seen for LRT (hundreds of millions per mile on HBLR, which is on pre-existing rights of way for the most part). First you say buses are expensive, but then you point out how expensive it is to get the latest rail equipment. How expensive do you think it'll be to get MUs for a 2-stop shuttle, when their fleet is almost entirely locomotives and unpowered coaches, as opposed to grabbing a couple of buses from their already massive bus fleet? There used to be a lot more than that before NJT started making the Dinky miss connections deliberately. They probably also factor service cancellations due to shoddy maintenance into "ridership". And how long ago was that? That wouldn't be before Princeton U set up a free bus service which goes around campus before terminating at Princeton Junction, would it? Unlike the Dinky, which can't go beyond Princeton station? LOL, not "done". Guess you don't know what goes into roadway maintenance. BTW, as for signals, the Dinky runs on track warrants; after all, what other trains occupy the ROW? Then you missed the part where they installed all those electronics for PTC. Yet another thing to maintain, unlike a dedicated busway, which wouldn't need sophisticated signals and overhead power lines. How many city buses can get up to the same average speed as the Dinky over the same 2.7 miles? Absolutely none, even if it were on a dedicated ROW. What makes you think that Arrows have high operating costs versus a bus? Because a bus doesn't have to be certified by the FRA, and like I said before, buses are vastly cheaper and easier to replace, esp. since NJT can buy them in bulk, with at most minor mods from the manufacturer. BTW, the Dinky runs at an average of 32 mph. I think a bus can make that on a dedicated roadway, easily. |
|
|
| (1536394) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 23 08:55:38 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 08:32:15 2020. They can get MU's from piggybacking on M-8 and a future Silverliner VI order, the EXO MR-90 cars in 3 years, or a battery/diesel MU.All of which are hella expensive, pie-in-the-sky ideas, unlike the huge bus fleet NJT has right now. People with autos ride the Dinky. You obviously do not understand the area, the market, nor the subject matter. Then explain to me why people would rather trudge through the campus to get to the Dinky to take it 1 stop, as opposed to taking a bus which can circulate around the campus before going on a dedicated busway, which would be way more convenient. And please don't tell me it's because it's the "charm" of the Dinky, which are old railcars that only rail fans find "charming". |
|
|
| (1536396) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 23 08:57:29 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 08:28:02 2020. You too? You really think a bus on a dedicated roadway can't make better than 32 mph? |
|
|
| (1536402) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Brightonr68 on Thu Jan 23 11:30:48 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 08:28:02 2020. This is why run as fast as you can away from government control of healthcare . Buy an inferior x ray machine just because the repair department does not want to learn how to fix a different model . |
|
|
| (1536405) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 12:10:31 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 23 08:55:38 2020. Piggybacking other car orders is VERY cost effective. It is not "hella expensive" pie in the sky". NJT's bus fleet size is completely irrelevant.Again you have ZERO, and I mean ZERO, understanding of how people travel in this area or what traffic is like. Making a campus circulator bus double as a train station shuttle does provide reliable connections main line connections. You sound like an NJT mole doing armchair analysis in your cubicle. |
|
|
| (1536406) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 12:11:34 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 23 08:57:29 2020. No and not with your hair-brained idea that it must start off as a campus circulator. |
|
|
| (1536409) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 12:18:48 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 23 08:47:19 2020. You are generalizing.Only NJT is stupid enough to spend $10 on a locomotive. NOBODY cares how big NJT's bus fleet is and NOBODY riding the Dinky will ride a bus to Princeton Jct. They will all drive or call Uber. You slept through the 10 month period when the Dinky was suspended due to NJT's crew shortages. The entire Princeton community put NJT through living hell. The University does not run Tiger Transit bus along the Dinky route. Alexander Road is impossible and takes 3 to 4 times as long during rush hours. The Princeton Branch is EXEMPT form PTC, again showing you ignorance. |
|
|
| (1536439) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Jan 23 15:22:53 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jan 22 20:53:20 2020. I remember seeing "Conrail" on the conductors' hats before the MTA created Metro-North. But the Newark-Philly trains were branded SEPTA in the 1970s, and the old Reading Terminal had SEPTA signage everywhere during that era. Both trains were also subsidized by PennDOT, just like today's RRD services are. (I don't recall the crews wearing "Conrail" cap devices, but this was not a well-known service.) Most telling of all, though, is that you could buy SEPTA tickets (that said "SEPTA" on them) in Newark. Today, you can buy SEPTA tickets at NYP, Newark, and all the NEC stations between NYP and Trenton. Getting SEPTA to do the Dinky wouldn't be nearly the obstacle some imagine it might be. |
|
|
| (1536442) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Thu Jan 23 16:13:54 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Brightonr68 on Thu Jan 23 11:30:48 2020. Do you even know what you are talking about? |
|
|
| (1536491) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Jan 24 04:25:06 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 12:10:31 2020. Piggybacking other car orders is VERY cost effective. It is not "hella expensive" pie in the sky". NJT's bus fleet size is completely irrelevant.It's not irrelevant, since it shows that buses are readily available and easier and cheaper to repair and replace. Who's going to repair all those MUs you just proposed? NJT isn't qualified to repair any of them. Again you have ZERO, and I mean ZERO, understanding of how people travel in this area or what traffic is like. Making a campus circulator bus double as a train station shuttle does provide reliable connections main line connections. OK, what does that campus circulator do now? It has to deal with traffic to connect with the Dinky. Wow, that one stop shuttle increases reliability by an order of magnitude. Or you can stay on the circulator and have it take you to Princeton Junction, thus cutting out the extra transfer. |
|
|
| (1536492) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Jan 24 04:39:27 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 12:18:48 2020. Only NJT is stupid enough to spend $10 on a locomotive.Which passenger railroad in the US, or even in North America, is getting electric locomotives cheaper? NOBODY cares how big NJT's bus fleet is and NOBODY riding the Dinky will ride a bus to Princeton Jct. They will all drive or call Uber. If it's the same bus that takes them to Princeton station, I think they'll stay on. You slept through the 10 month period when the Dinky was suspended due to NJT's crew shortages. The entire Princeton community put NJT through living hell. My number was from 2017. Where's your numbers? The University does not run Tiger Transit bus along the Dinky route. Alexander Road is impossible and takes 3 to 4 times as long during rush hours. That's what the busway would solve. You know, the thing we've been talking about all this time. The Princeton Branch is EXEMPT form PTC, again showing you ignorance. *sigh* This source, among others: Link. Now who's showing their ignorance of local transit, esp. rail? |
|
|
| (1536493) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Jan 24 04:48:34 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 12:11:34 2020. *rolls eyes and sighs* |
|
|
| (1536510) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 24 11:09:07 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 12:18:48 2020. Hope he listens this time. |
|
|
| (1536511) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 24 11:16:28 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 07:58:46 2020. Now you need low platforms again. And there's the reliability of those Stadler GTWs to look at once more. Also, the question of ticketing between the DBOM operator thereof and NJTR is raised; and no, Amtrak would not allow a "fifth track" to be built on their ROW.That's an old pipe dream by several railfans and a few politicians, as well. |
|
|
| (1536512) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 24 11:17:50 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Thu Jan 23 16:13:54 2020. Yes he does, in that respect.Do you ever know what you're talking about? |
|
|
| (1536515) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 24 11:20:30 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 07:56:21 2020. In retrospect, diesel services could have been based out at the airport instead, re-routing RDG diesel trains via the lower level of 30th Street en route. But pipe dreams are made of this . . .Thing is, during the past two decades, the former diesel territory would have experienced a resurgence. |
|
|
| (1536529) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 24 13:18:59 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Thu Jan 23 12:10:31 2020. He doesn't like trains; that much is clear.I don't mind bus fans, so long as they are not of the kind to replace trains with their beloved mode. Same goes with streetcars; I always thought it rather interesting that electric streetcars and buses were actually contemporaries mostly, same applying to their horse-drawn forebears. |
|
|
| (1536551) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 24 17:35:28 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by 3-9 on Fri Jan 24 04:25:06 2020. They are not going to use just any bus. Read the proposal. They can repair whatever is given to them as they have been for 30 years. They did not how to repair ALP45DP and MLV cars until they got them, got manuals, and parts stream. We do not run a railroad for the convenience and whims of the maintenance people. They are there to serve us. These buses would likely cost $500K a piece, would need 2 of them to replace a rail car, and have 1/3rd the life expectancy, and can never a MDBF of 50,000 - 100,00 miles. They are no bargain. Do the capital budget math.I am not going to explain how this or any University circulator works, because you obviously know absolutely nothing, except I have daily experience watching the Rutgers system and occasionally the Princeton system. You cannot set your watch by them, they can be jammed packed, and leave people behind. They also average 5 - 10 MPH, stopping everywhere, and at every crosswalk. It cannot be merged with a line haul system to make train connections. Few people now transfer between the 2 systems in Princeton. They walk from the Dinky station. That's why the Dinky Branch has been there for 100 years. Few Tiger Transit buses go to Princeton station or Princeton Jct station. |
|
|
| (1536553) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 24 17:42:52 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by 3-9 on Fri Jan 24 04:39:27 2020. $10 million locos are dual-purpose ALP45DP, yet needed only to repalce old diesels. They are a wasteful purchase. But obviously they have capital money to burn. This is not about saving money.It is now 2020. If you slept from 2017, that's your problem. Busway solves no problems except to turn a faster rail service into a bus service with unknown right of way capital cost conversions of its own. It is not a simple matter of rolling asphalt. They tried a US1 Busway proposal, then tried to incorporate the Dinky 10 years ago to puff up abysmal ridership projections. It was rejected. If you believe the PTC excuse, you're nuts. It was engineer shortages. They are now crewing it with Raritan Line extra board on weekends. There are plenty more local press documents that you have never seen. |
|
|
| (1536554) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 24 17:43:45 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by 3-9 on Fri Jan 24 04:48:34 2020. Maybe try to educate yourself instead of being a bus fan and acting like you know the area. |
|
|
| (1536580) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Jan 24 23:30:08 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 24 17:42:52 2020. Comparative costs of electric locomotives in other North American railroads?How about your daily ridership numbers for the Dinky then? Yeah, I thought not. Since you visit it so infrequently, even your anecdotal evidence is nearly worthless. Busway solves no problems except to turn a faster rail service into a bus service with unknown right of way capital cost conversions of its own. It is not a simple matter of rolling asphalt. They tried a US1 Busway proposal, then tried to incorporate the Dinky 10 years ago to puff up abysmal ridership projections. It was rejected. The busway does solve problems and introduce additional possibilities, as I mentioned before. The only complexities I can see is the grade crossing near Princeton and maybe electronic enforcement against cars and trucks. Oh yeah, and maybe some lights. No signals, no overhead power lines, no FRA requirements. Your US1 example is a completely different animal, because that's squeezing an existing roadway. |
|
|
| (1536581) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Jan 24 23:32:37 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 24 17:42:52 2020. If you believe the PTC excuse, you're nuts. It was engineer shortages. They are now crewing it with Raritan Line extra board on weekends.Oh, so they didn't install PTC? Care to prove that? |
|
|
| (1536589) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 25 07:14:26 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by 3-9 on Fri Jan 24 23:30:08 2020. REPEAT: NJT DOES NOT NEED ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES. They need diesels, which are the half the cost.Ridesrhip is 900 each way per day. That still does not justify bus service and the cost of conversion. There would be no savings in buying buses over several rail cars, but far more maintenance Bus way solves nothing except to drive people into cars because they won't ride a bus and they are not reliable. Campus buses are 30' little buses, which is not what the Busway would be equipped with. Face it: you are simply an armchair bus foamer with ZERO knowledge of not only this, but NOTHING of NJT in general. |
|
|
| (1536590) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 25 07:14:26 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by 3-9 on Fri Jan 24 23:30:08 2020. REPEAT: NJT DOES NOT NEED ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES. They need diesels, which are the half the cost.Ridesrhip is 900 each way per day. That still does not justify bus service and the cost of conversion. There would be no savings in buying buses over several rail cars, but far more maintenance Bus way solves nothing except to drive people into cars because they won't ride a bus and they are not reliable. Campus buses are 30' little buses, which is not what the Busway would be equipped with. Face it: you are simply an armchair bus foamer with ZERO knowledge of not only this, but NOTHING of NJT in general. |
|
|
| (1536591) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 25 07:16:17 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by 3-9 on Fri Jan 24 23:32:37 2020. REPEAT: The PRINCETON BRANCH IS PTC EXEMPT. NO, THEY DID NOT INSTALL PTC as is the LIRR east of Ronkonkoma.Now you are really grasping straws. |
|
|
| (1536593) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 25 07:37:30 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by 3-9 on Fri Jan 24 23:30:08 2020. US1 was not to all about an existing roadway, but assumed Dinky replacement with busway as well. Again, you know nothing about the topic. |
|
|
| (1536599) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Jan 25 09:36:37 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by 3-9 on Fri Jan 24 23:32:37 2020. The Dinky is exempt from PTC because only one train at a time runs there. |
|
|
| (1536600) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 25 09:39:46 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Jan 25 09:36:37 2020. Correct. One track, no sidings. Pretty hard to have a train crash.But then so is Ronkonkoma - Greenport exempt, which occasionally has 2 trains, plus whatever NY&A freight. |
|
|
| (1536601) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Jan 25 09:54:38 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 25 09:39:46 2020. I'm actually surprised SEPTA didn't get an exemption for the Bala branch for this reason. It only sees three or four trains a day, often with just a single car. |
|
|
| (1536602) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 25 09:58:51 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by JayZeeBMT on Sat Jan 25 09:54:38 2020. 8 Amtrak routes also have exemptions.Anderson tried to weaponize PTC on the exempt portion of the SW Chief route as an attempt to bus bridge the service and failed. He did not try that shit on the Zephyr between Grand Junction and Helper, on the Vermonter route, or anything to Canada, which has no PTC to begin with. |
|
|
| (1536604) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jan 25 10:30:36 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 25 09:58:51 2020. He did not try that shit on the Zephyr between Grand Junction and HelperSurely that section of track has plenty of freight trains. |
|
|
| (1536606) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 25 10:32:40 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by AlM on Sat Jan 25 10:30:36 2020. No it does not. Perhaps one a day, if that. There are federal laws about what constitutes need for PTC. |
|
|
| (1536614) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 25 13:18:37 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 24 17:42:52 2020. Are they actually buying new ALP-45DPs? AMT/RMT/EXO/whatever they're calling themselves now is going to be getting rid of theirs in short order, and the list of railroads that could possibly use them can be counted on a drunk carpenter's hand: NJT, *maybe* SEPTA, and as a distant third Metro-North (perhaps for NYP to Danbury runs). With such a puny 2ndhand market, those units would probably cost less than a new straight diesel. |
|
|
| (1536615) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 25 13:22:56 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 25 13:18:37 2020. Yes, NJT is buying 17 more, and EXO plans to dump their's as they will no longer need their AC apparatus, are fuel guzzlers, and high maintenance. |
|
|
| (1536629) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jan 25 17:07:04 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 25 13:18:37 2020. LOL, you still think that Metro-North's going to NYP. |
|
|
| (1536631) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Jan 25 17:46:55 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 23 08:55:38 2020. Then explain to me why people would rather trudge through the campus to get to the Dinky to take it 1 stop, as opposed to taking a bus which can circulate around the campus before going on a dedicated busway, which would be way more convenient. And please don't tell me it's because it's the "charm" of the Dinky, which are old railcars that only rail fans find "charming".Excellent point that may fall on death ears. As much as the railfan in me hates to say it, I think that mixed-use public transit right-of-ways similar to what Downtown Seattle has is the future of transportation because of predicaments like that one that the Princeton Branch is currently in. So many prematurely abandoned rail lines that would be useful today could have been saved if they were converted to busways instead of being outright abandoned. The North Shore Line in Staten Island or the Rockaway Beach Branch in Queens are two that come to mind. |
|
|
| (1536633) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 25 19:05:54 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Jan 25 17:46:55 2020. Ridiculous analogies and absolutely stupid to think one can merge campus circulators into a Dinky route. This is armchair planning by bus foamers.The Princeton Branch is in that predicament because they have not bought MU cars in 42 years, buying inappropriate loco-hauled equipment for the whims of a lazy and unproductive MMC shops, just as they are to but 17 more ALP45DP locos that they don't need. The Gladstone Branch is still on buses on weekends. This is new JERSEY Transit, not Manhattan West Commuter Railroad. There are needs to be served other than running 10 car trains to Manhattan, and should not be relegated to buses. |
|
|
| (1536635) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 25 19:51:02 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jan 25 17:07:04 2020. LOL, you don't. |
|
|
| (1536636) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 25 19:51:51 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jan 25 17:07:04 2020. I don't know why you refuse to believe it will happen. |
|
|
| (1536638) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jan 25 21:58:37 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 25 19:51:02 2020. That’s a guy who thought the AC Line wouldn’t reopen. |
|
|
| (1536640) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Sat Jan 25 23:20:49 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jan 24 11:17:50 2020. You should ask yourself. |
|
|
| (1536641) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 25 23:26:51 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 25 19:51:51 2020. We'll be posting pictures of the new stations with Metro-North red stripe signs and he'll still deny it will happen.Not to mention technically Metro-North has already gone to Penn for a few years what with the "football specials". |
|
|
| (1536643) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jan 26 02:36:28 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jan 25 23:26:51 2020. We'll be posting pictures of the new stations with Metro-North red stripe signsLOL, sure you will. Keep dreaming. Not to mention technically Metro-North has already gone to Penn for a few years what with the "football specials" That's "technically" Amtrak with NJT equipment. |
|
|
| (1536644) | |
Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jan 26 02:36:43 2020, in response to Re: NJT conducting “Princeton Transitway Study” on Dinky ROW, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 25 19:51:51 2020. There's nothing to refuse to believe. No funding commensurate to such an undertaking, no NYP expansion or new tracks/wires on the Hell Gate Line, no trackage rights negotiations and/or significant qualifications training of Metro-North crews, no nothing; just talk, studies and hot air. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
