|
|
| Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) (313363) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 9 |
||
|
| (314701) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 23:17:21 2006, in response to R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sat Sep 23 22:39:27 2006. I'll give it a shot. Most of the "ATO" technology was removed before 1985, when I began to work with them. The cars were built to run on the 2nd Ave subway and as such, had a balancing speed of 70 MPH IIRC. There was a mode-selector switch on the console what had several operating modes. I only remember "Wayside Manual & Wayside Regulated".I do know that in full field shunting they could achieve 60 MPH before GOH ,however, I don't recall a collision with R-46s other than the one at 179th St where cars 1054 and 941 were lost. The R-46s were relegated to 40 MPH along with the rest of the fleet after the Williamsburg Bridge incident. At that time, the last 3 steps of field shunting were blocked. Hope that at least partially answers your questions |
|
|
| (314702) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 23:19:35 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Westinghouse XCB248S on Sat Sep 23 22:51:35 2006. 4 cars, 2500 through 2503 had CBTC equipment installed to determine if it was compatible with E-Cam equipment. The test was conducted at Coney Island and on the F Line. After the test, the CBTC equipment was removed and the cars were returned to the Concourse Fleet. |
|
|
| (314704) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Sep 23 23:21:38 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 23:19:35 2006. Was it successful? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (314707) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sat Sep 23 23:29:56 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 23:17:21 2006. The cars were built to run on the 2nd Ave subway and as such, had a balancing speed of 70 MPH IIRC. There was a mode-selector switch on the console what had several operating modes. I only remember "Wayside Manual & Wayside Regulated".I never knew that they had a mode selector switch. Interesting info. As for the balancing speed of 70 on the SAS, I'd heard of this, but realistically, was this even possible on the SAS, which lacked express tracks? Another thing that bugged me: Why did the R46 come delivered with ATO capability? Sure, the R44 was delivered with it for the SAS. But the R46 was a much larger order, and I doubt that any of them would have ever seen service on SAS (or, at least, only a handful). Were there plans to expand ATO to other parts of the system? I do know that in full field shunting they could achieve 60 MPH before GOH ,however, I don't recall a collision with R-46s other than the one at 179th St where cars 1054 and 941 were lost. That's pretty fast. Still, what was the diff between full-field shunting and Whatever mode allowed 70mph? Matter of fact, do you know the motor specs for the R46s before their castration? I'm sure they had more than the standard 4(?) 125hp motors per truck (again, ?). Hope that at least partially answers your questions Yeah, in part, although it doesn't answer whether or not this Selective Speed service thing actually existed. Allegedly, it was used along with standard wayside protection, but was discontinued early on, due to the alleged rear-ending. The report doesn't say that it was a major rear ending incident, so it could've been a slight tap, after which the MTA put the clamps on the R46s. Of course, I haven't been able to verify any of this. |
|
|
| (314714) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 23:46:46 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Sat Sep 23 23:21:38 2006. In that the E-Cam interfaced with the CBTC, yes. The cars performed as intended. |
|
|
| (314718) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 23:54:46 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sat Sep 23 23:29:56 2006. When the R-46 was originally conceived, I imagine that the 2nd Ave subway was envisioned to permit 70 MPH operation in spots. The R-46s actually did run in ATO mode. I heard stories of them dropping unexpectedly into 37N operation and they would not go faster than 10 MPH. They had to run light back to the yard to be re-set. This may be somewhat subway lore but I'm sure it had some basis in fact. Interestingly enough, according to my documentation does not list the Traction motors or gearing for the rockwell trucks. |
|
|
| (314721) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 00:05:34 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 23:54:46 2006. The R-46s actually did run in ATO mode. I heard stories of them dropping unexpectedly into 37N operation and they would not go faster than 10 MPH.Makes you wonder what the computer was reading.... |
|
|
| (314724) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Sun Sep 24 00:29:15 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 09:16:19 2006. There is only ONE set of R42s running on the Larry. Just an "add-on" info. |
|
|
| (314727) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by R32 - Sea Beach Express on Sun Sep 24 00:34:50 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 12:46:46 2006. You call BIE's every other day due to signal malfunctions and CBTC errors well? |
|
|
| (314743) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Sep 24 03:05:37 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Olney Terminal on Sat Sep 23 21:17:07 2006. the 6 has local and express service, so cars with electronic signs are more needed there.In this case, the local and express trains have different north terminals, and DON'T get sent to a different terminal. So when the train is put into service from the yard with proper signage, it stays that way. It's completely different from the (7) line, where digital signage IS needed. But personally, I agree that the (4) should give its trains to the (7). But only because they're from the "newer" batch and are in better shape. |
|
|
| (314744) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Sep 24 03:09:18 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Pelham Bay Dave on Sat Sep 23 15:42:00 2006. Disssssssssss. |
|
|
| (314750) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Jeff H. on Sun Sep 24 03:51:39 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 23:17:21 2006. IIRC and this was over 20 years ago, there were two extra fieldshunting steps in the SCM box which would only come in with Wayside Regulated mode enabled. I recall (and this was all in the pre-castration days) that there were still some cars around in the mid-80s where you could move the switch to Wayside Regulated and the entire train would be noticeably faster. In Wayside Regulated mode, IIRC, a different set of trainlines was in use above and beyond the usual GS, 1-8. |
|
|
| (314752) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Future Motorman on Sun Sep 24 03:59:00 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Sep 23 07:54:22 2006. True. But at the end of the line, at the terminals, with so many trains so close, wouldn't that mean a bunching of trains waiting to make their final drop. They have to drop off the passengers, the crew has to change positions, then head back out in the opposite direction. CBTC may reduce station time, but it can increase the time it takes to get into the terminal. All those trains running so close together got to end somewhere. Most terminals do not have a loop, which would help out alot with so many trains running so close. No changing of crews. Drop and go. There is always bad with the good. Always a negative with something positive. |
|
|
| (314754) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Future Motorman on Sun Sep 24 04:00:32 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Future Motorman on Sun Sep 24 03:59:00 2006. I meant no changing positions for the crew. |
|
|
| (314763) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Sep 24 06:22:17 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Future Motorman on Sun Sep 24 03:59:00 2006. But at the end of the line, at the terminals, with so many trains so close, wouldn't that mean a bunching of trains waiting to make their final drop.Most NYCT reversing terminals cannot handle 40 tph. They don't have to because there are usually multiple branches or stations where trains can be short turned. The exceptions being Times Sq on the Flushing Line, which uses tail tracks and has a capacity of 40 tph, and the IRT local downtown terminals, which use loop terminals. The capacity of stub terminals is 24+ tph. Two such branch terminals and 40 tph is still viable at the intermediate stations. The BOT had no problems operating stub terminals in excess of 20 tph. Their documented record was 25 tph at E 241st St between the Lex Ave express and the Third Ave Thru Express. The Queens Blvd line has 5 reversing terminals, making both the local and express tracks capable of 40 tph operation. There's another reason for the bunching at terminals. The schedule has been padded to make on time performance better. Case in point - the Broadway local. Current scheduled running times are between 52 and 59 minutes between 242nd and South Ferry. The running time used to be 49 minutes back in the 1970's and earlier. Most runs do not need the extra 3 to 10 minutes. Most arriving trains appear to arrive early, with no pockets available. Departures go according to schedules based on the padded running time. The result is a long line of trains waiting for the terminal to clear. Another problem is NYCT's insistence to schedule all the recovery time at the terminals. Recovery time should be divided into the dwell time at each intermediate station. |
|
|
| (314785) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sun Sep 24 08:39:22 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 23:19:35 2006. Was this back in 04'?
|
|
|
| (314787) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sun Sep 24 08:40:53 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 23:54:46 2006. I thought the cars were originally planned for the LIRR? |
|
|
| (314797) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 09:27:31 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Train Dude on Sat Sep 23 23:54:46 2006. Yes..They did so on the Queens Blvd Express..."regulated mode"..at a speed of 65 mph... It was discontinued due to a rear ender at 53rdst/5th Avenue... |
|
|
| (314815) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 10:30:39 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sun Sep 24 08:40:53 2006. Planned for the LIRR?No..planned for the new B Division lines outlined in the 1968 MTA Plan For Action.. The MTA planned on purchasing new car along the lines of the R46 every 4 years untill all the older rolling stock were replaced. It's not totally clear what was going to replace the Eastern Division stock..but at the time it was thought the lines would be "modified" to be able to use the new longer cars. |
|
|
| (314817) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sun Sep 24 10:32:18 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 10:30:39 2006. But I meant to say it was intended for the LIRR, but I guess they used them to replace the R1/R9 cars. |
|
|
| (314820) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 10:39:53 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sat Sep 23 23:29:56 2006. Well..the plan for the SAS had the line opening by the Midd 80's...with the whole line completed[Bronx portions] by the Late 80's, early 90's.The R44/46 cars were would have been all in service...IF the order was on time[both contracts]... As we all know,the 46 cars were YEARS late..just like the 44's..[ordered during the 60's,first 20 cars arrived in 1970 only to be rejected due to framing flaws].. Maybe you can call it bad luck..or problem that were put on the back burner that finally caught up ...but the WHOLE 1968 plan..PLUS new car purchase was troubleprone. I could go on and on..but Why? |
|
|
| (314821) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Westcode44 on Sun Sep 24 10:51:20 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Jeff H. on Sun Sep 24 03:51:39 2006. JFK EXPRESS= WAYSIDE REGULATED....! |
|
|
| (314822) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 10:56:39 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Sun Sep 24 10:32:18 2006. Actually,they were intended to fill out the SAS line and it branches FIRST,then spread to the mainlines..meaning the F would have been the line to get them[like today]as it would have used to the 63RD street tunnel and the Queens Super Express to the Archer Ave Subway.The R1/9 would have been replaced by them and other new cars eventually.. |
|
|
| (314840) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Sun Sep 24 13:10:30 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Sun Sep 24 00:29:15 2006. The CBTC is only on a small portion of the L line and it now, and when it was on the whole line it worked badly, and by the way there are 4 sets of R42 on the L line this week, they swap with the J/M line from ENY Yard. |
|
|
| (314854) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 14:05:00 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Sun Sep 24 13:10:30 2006. Wrong..The WHOLE LINE is wired now..with SECTION in operation[shadow mode like ATC].. ENY to Canarsie...8th avenue to 1st avenue... The section between Bedford and Bushwick avenue SHOULD be next..IF it not broken up into zones... |
|
|
| (314861) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 14:16:22 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 10:39:53 2006. The Board of Estimate came out with plans for 11 new subway lines at a time when the system was suffering from deferred maintenance. It took another five years before the consequences of this neglect put a stain on the whole subway system.In 1982, wit the start of the Capital Plans, MTA made a commitment to always put State of Good Repair first in priority above all else. It has largely kept its promises about that. |
|
|
| (314867) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 14:30:58 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 14:16:22 2006. True indeed..and I completely agree.Keeping the PRESENT system up and running makes more sense than building totally new lines ,while leting the rest go to pot. Besides..the 63rd street and Archer avenue lines are being used TODAY..not as invisioned..but being USED, never the less. Now that the system is looking GOOD again..and they[the MTA] have begun to expand the system..they should take a look at the old plan..and finish what they started...more so the "outter boro" lines that were promised for 60 years and NEVER delievered. Utica Ave comes to mind...with Nostrand/Flatbush a close second! |
|
|
| (314869) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Channel 7 Eyewitness News on Sun Sep 24 14:34:18 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by G1Ravage on Sat Sep 23 03:42:38 2006. Wouldn't it be weird though? When was the last time a line was "demoted" in type of cars they use? The B and W trains come to my mind but thats different as they served different people when their lines changed. What I would like to know is how the AVERAGE rider would feel. They may not care but some would. |
|
|
| (314870) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 14:35:08 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 14:30:58 2006. I'll be grateful for whatever we can get. |
|
|
| (314873) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 14:41:32 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 14:35:08 2006. Well...I can agree persay...but still..I say that there are areas in the city that need rail service JUST as bad as AIRPORT travelers...or Second Avenue.Investment in new rail lines to distant neighborhoods will HELP the city ecconomy just as much...also making travel easier..therefore giving people choices to LEAVE the car at home than drive in. Whatever we get from them is COOL,mind you...but we could be much more if its planned right. |
|
|
| (314875) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Future Motorman on Sun Sep 24 14:43:02 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Sep 24 06:22:17 2006. If they are short turned, then it will help. But if not then while the stations are served better than before with more trains (since with CBTC trains can operate closer), the terminals will be the problem point, like the L line (do they not only have two tracks at the terminal in Manhattan?). Then that is a chain reaction. All those extra trains waiting, cannot go back until their final drop. Someone already wrote with CBTC instead of 40thp, now its 33tph. On some lines it will work without a problem. On others it will do the opposite, unless there are other places to send the trains, or they make stub terminals. |
|
|
| (314876) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 14:45:58 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Channel 7 Eyewitness News on Sun Sep 24 14:34:18 2006. There is nothing wrong with the R62 cars....It looks more like a hyped up R42 than anything..whaile the NTT cars look like an updated version of the R33/36 Worlds Fair cars. I don't believe riders along the eastside would have a problem getting the 62A cars back after having them for years. Besides...the 7 was SUPPOSE to get the NTT cars from jump street. |
|
|
| (314877) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 14:47:10 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Future Motorman on Sun Sep 24 14:43:02 2006. Maybe some L trains can short turn at 6th avenue vis the turnback. |
|
|
| (314878) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 14:47:51 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 14:41:32 2006. Agreed! |
|
|
| (314893) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Sun Sep 24 15:32:43 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 14:45:58 2006. Well since the 7 lines tracks and signal system was not up to par yet they couldnt get the techs, so they went to lines that was ready like the 2,4,5 and 6 Lines. |
|
|
| (314905) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by stephenk on Sun Sep 24 16:18:37 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Sep 24 06:22:17 2006. The exceptions being Times Sq on the Flushing Line, which uses tail tracks and has a capacity of 40 tphI think 40tph would be pushing it! The highest tph that have been scheduled for Times Sq on the 7, is 36tph, which is still very impressive for a scissors crossover/reverse in 2 platforms terminus. |
|
|
| (314916) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 16:50:38 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 14:30:58 2006. First, in regard to a post you made earlier:The R44/46 was a car order that when combined featured about 1000 75' cars. That's 125 trains, far more than the SAS would ever need. My question is: why order so many cars with ATO capability? Keeping the PRESENT system up and running makes more sense than building totally new lines ,while leting the rest go to pot. Heh, but back then, they didn't expand the system, AND they let it go to pot. Now that the system is looking GOOD again..and they[the MTA] have begun to expand the system..they should take a look at the old plan..and finish what they started That will never happen. Every plan that potentially could have opened up service in the outer boros where there was none was either shot down (Astoria to LGA), or built in such a way that it doesn't help the locals (Airtrain). Sadly, there seems to be little incentive to invest in new construction in the outer boros. |
|
|
| (314917) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 16:52:16 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 09:27:31 2006. Ok, that's the rear-ender I've heard of. Do you have any further info on this? |
|
|
| (314919) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Sep 24 16:59:52 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by R32 - Sea Beach Express on Sun Sep 24 00:34:50 2006. No! and I don't consider BIE's due to flashing signals or BIEs due to wheel detectors, "Well" either. I suspect that many of those BIE CBTC incidents are due to T/Os not responding to the alerter. |
|
|
| (314921) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 17:02:27 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Sep 24 06:22:17 2006. There's another reason for the bunching at terminals. The schedule has been padded to make on time performance better. Case in point - the Broadway local. Current scheduled running times are between 52 and 59 minutes between 242nd and South Ferry. The running time used to be 49 minutes back in the 1970's and earlier.Trains SHOULD take longer to reach their terminii; the MTA has designed the cars as such. |
|
|
| (314932) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 17:14:11 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 16:50:38 2006. "The R44/46 was a car order that when combined featured about 1000 75' cars. That's 125 trains, far more than the SAS would ever need. My question is: why order so many cars with ATO capability?"Because the R44/46 wasn't just for the SAS. It was for the SAS Plus the 63rd Street Line as originally envisioned in the 1960s (which would have been of substantial length). That's two new major subway lines; three services if you count the extension of the Q train. 125 trainsets is not too many trains for three lines. "Every plan that potentially could have opened up service in the outer boros where there was none was either shot down (Astoria to LGA)" Astoria to LGA is a poor example. It would help the local folks get to the airport, but it would not have covered enough ground to do much else (I think the project is worthwhile, by the way). A better example is one of the projects Edwards! talked about, or the completion of the Archer av line as originally envisioned. " or built in such a way that it doesn't help the locals (Airtrain)." False statement, since a) airTrain was a PA project, not an MTA project and b) AirTrain is a shining example of just how a project can help the entire city and every neighborhoods served by subway or commuter rail. Its associated improvements to Jamaica Station have directly helped not only all subway riders but the Jamaica community specifically. |
|
|
| (314937) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 17:19:34 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Railman718 on Sun Sep 24 15:32:43 2006. What is the problem with signals and the NTTs?Train Dude mentioned that some NTTs have problems with older trackage. What problems? |
|
|
| (314943) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 17:28:45 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 17:14:11 2006. Astoria to LGA is a poor example. It would help the local folks get to the airport, but it would not have covered enough ground to do much else (I think the project is worthwhile, by the way). A better example is one of the projects Edwards! talked about, or the completion of the Archer av line as originally envisioned.It would have provided rail service to East Elmhurst, an area served by many buses that feed into overcrowded lines. Getting these people onto the Astoria line instead of the QB/Flushing line would have been great. The projects Edwards! refered to are off the table, and have been the entire length of my life. I'm talking about any plan to expand rail service in the outerboroughs that was considered recently. False statement, since a) airTrain was a PA project, not an MTA project and b) AirTrain is a shining example of just how a project can help the entire city and every neighborhoods served by subway or commuter rail. Its associated improvements to Jamaica Station have directly helped not only all subway riders but the Jamaica community specifically. You're thinking just like these planners who refuse to work together. I don't care if Airtrain was built by the PA or by NYDOC, if people had decided to work together on this project, they could have opened up new service to areas that don't have it. What does the present Airtrain offer to the average commuter? Nothing, and if you don't live in Jamaica, then it offers you less than nothing. On top of that, thanks to the premium fare, it really is useless to anyone not going to the airport. |
|
|
| (314945) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 17:36:14 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 17:14:11 2006. Not only 63rd st..but a slew of others[LIE..DYRE..PELHAM and the AVENUE C CUPHANDLE]..Plus the planned rebuild of the Eastern Divison lines[including platform extentions...structural modications..Canarsie relocation to Flatbush/City Line]..and more. The UTICA and Nostrand lines were A Division lines..but still in all the new cars would have been all over the place and definetly NOT enough to keep up with service demands.. LGA was POORLY planned..as the MTA continued to pursue a routing the neighborhood clearly didn't want...the second choice was much better..but would have cost much more...as it would have been a SUBWAY not an elevated line. Not every plan was shot down...look at what happening today in downtown Brooklyn..where a Airtrain station is being planned near MetroTECH...along with a extention into Brooklyn for the SAS subway. I DO have a few misgivings ...a proposed reroute of the Brighton Local to the Smith Street subway..and a Rutgers to Dekalb connection should have been built! Jamica line riders..have fought the addition of an express track above Jamaica avenue for ages...due to the negative reactions from a "few" NIMBYS...the same in regards to the reactivation of the ROCKAWAY BRANCH to Whitepot and Queens Blvd subway. These few holdout are a prime example of what happens when a few loudmouths get together for no good reason other than "selfish" reasons. Never the less..if the needs of the people come FIRST,Then a way WILL be found to push needed rapid transit to deserving neoghborhoods. Hey..it works. If you need proff..look to the Eastside sometime later this year. |
|
|
| (314947) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 17:40:30 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 17:28:45 2006. Utica Avenue has been placed on the back burner..not off the table.I wrote the TA sometime ago concerning it..and THAT was the answer I received.As to what station were planned for the LGA line outside of the Airport proper? |
|
|
| (314963) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 18:22:29 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 17:28:45 2006. "It would have provided rail service to East Elmhurst, an area served by many buses that feed into overcrowded lines. Getting these people onto the Astoria line instead of the QB/Flushing line would have been great. "Judging by this map, Link here http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=East+Elmhurst+,+Queens,+NY&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=12 You are right, but the La Guardia station would be the only stop in the neighborhood. We've discussed fantasy variants on Subchat that would cover more, but of course they exist only on Subchat (or the Subtalk archives etc.) But I see your point. OK, cool. I agree with you. "The projects Edwards! refered to are off the table, and have been the entire length of my life. I'm talking about any plan to expand rail service in the outerboroughs that was considered recently." So the 63rd st. alignment with archer was considered and shot down, which would fit your definition. I see what you're saying. "You're thinking just like these planners who refuse to work together." No, the "planners" (if you can call George Haikalis a "planner") who refused to work together were the ones who couldn't get anything done. The PA got Airtrain done and then worked with MTA as the latter improved Howard Beach and Jamaica passenger facilities. "What does the present Airtrain offer to the average commuter?" Access to the airport from anywhere in the city or Long Island. Which is exactly what it is supposed to do. |
|
|
| (314969) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Sun Sep 24 18:46:10 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 14:05:00 2006. If it's wired or not CBTC SUCKS!!!The old way is the best way. |
|
|
| (314970) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 18:46:50 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Sun Sep 24 18:46:10 2006. CBTC is far better than anything the "old way" did. Get over it! |
|
|
| (314973) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 18:55:39 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Sep 23 10:49:48 2006. "Besides I still say they should just give the 7 brand new trains rather than hand me downs. "The "hand-me downs" are far better than the Redbirds they replaced. I think the 7 line is a first-class operation. |
|
|
| (314986) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Sep 24 19:34:56 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by stephenk on Sun Sep 24 16:18:37 2006. I think 40tph would be pushing it!The IRT reported the following headways in 1914: 2nd Ave El - 2 min; 3rd Ave El - 45 seconds (exp & local); 6th Ave El - 1 min 12 sec; 9th Ave El - 1 min 30 sec; Lenox Ave Branch - 1 min 30 sec; Broadway Branch - 2 min 15 sec. The BOT reported that reverse flow on the 3rd Ave El was 42 tph in 1949. The BRT operated 66 tph on the Brooklyn Bridge when it was the only rail transit between Brooklyn and Manhattan. Its predecessor operated 90 tph peak and averaged 40 tph over 24 hours in the cable car days. The highest tph that have been scheduled for Times Sq on the 7, is 36tph I agree that operating at 90% of nominal capacity is more impressive than today's 60%. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 9 |
||
