|
|
| Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) (313363) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 7 of 9 |
||
|
| (315471) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 18:02:52 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 18:00:45 2006. I like that proposal. Talk to your legislators about it."this proposal doesn't count, because I'm a "railbuff". I should "stop foaming" and "go to bed." You're too wimpy to propose it. Now prove me wrong. |
|
|
| (315472) | |
Re: R-2560 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 18:03:42 2006, in response to Re: R-1280 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 18:01:35 2006. Was it exactly the same consist? |
|
|
| (315473) | |
Re: R-5160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 18:04:33 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:55:52 2006. Which subject? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (315474) | |
Re: R-320 Update |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Mon Sep 25 18:05:04 2006, in response to Re: R-320 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 18:00:35 2006. 'Where are seated people supposed to hold onto?' sides of the seat, their wallets, someone else, certain body parts, your tongue, certain sudden releases of air(farts, burps, etc) |
|
|
| (315475) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 18:05:42 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:59:29 2006. Wrong stripmap? That happened on the R62s all da time. |
|
|
| (315476) | |
Re: R-320 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 18:06:39 2006, in response to Re: R-320 Update, posted by monorail on Mon Sep 25 18:05:04 2006. If it's a crowded train, grab the crotch of the guy standing in front of you. I'm sure he won't mind. |
|
|
| (315477) | |
Re: R-5160 Update |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Mon Sep 25 18:07:09 2006, in response to Re: R-5160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 18:04:33 2006. 'Which subject?' whichever one the king says.... |
|
|
| (315478) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 18:07:12 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 18:02:52 2006. LOL. For the Record, who should I write to? |
|
|
| (315479) | |
Re: R-320 Update |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Mon Sep 25 18:07:54 2006, in response to Re: R-320 Update, posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 18:06:39 2006. 'If it's a crowded train, grab the crotch of the guy standing in front of you. I'm sure he won't mind' unless he has a hernia |
|
|
| (315480) | |
Re: R-10320 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 18:12:06 2006, in response to Re: R-5160 Update, posted by monorail on Mon Sep 25 18:07:09 2006. Just checking... |
|
|
| (315481) | |
Re: R-2560 Update |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 18:13:16 2006, in response to Re: R-2560 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 18:03:42 2006. No. |
|
|
| (315482) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 18:13:23 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 18:07:12 2006. MTA Public affairs347 Madison Av NY NY 10017 Copy to your state assembly and senate members and city council member, copy to your member of Congress. |
|
|
| (315483) | |
Re: R-22000Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 18:13:59 2006, in response to Re: R-2560 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 18:13:16 2006. OK, thanks. |
|
|
| (315484) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 18:14:18 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 18:05:42 2006. True, but the Stripmaps arent the primary interior signage on the R62s. |
|
|
| (315486) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Sep 25 18:31:16 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 18:05:42 2006. Do people even pay attention to those? |
|
|
| (315491) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by tydev417 on Mon Sep 25 18:42:47 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:39:45 2006. hmmm...talk about exaggerations.. an R142 you to the ground? It was probably nothing more than the typical braking nudge when the train slows down and starts up. I would say the worst is an R38 or R32 from Fulton-Nassau to Euclid Avenue on the (A), talk about being thrown to the floor.. |
|
|
| (315493) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 18:50:18 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by tydev417 on Mon Sep 25 18:42:47 2006. The only thing worse than that was the Budd M3 "Almond Joy" on the Market-Frankford line. They are gone now... |
|
|
| (315494) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by stephenk on Mon Sep 25 18:51:34 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Sep 25 08:30:24 2006. Moscow uses a simple clock at each station and operates at 43 tph.It now "only" runs 1min35sec headways (approx 38tph). Which is still very impressive! I'd be interested to know if Sao Paulo Line 3 uses any form of regulation system, as it runs 101sec headways (approx 36tph). I happen to be passing through the city in a few months, hmmm..... |
|
|
| (315499) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Sep 25 19:22:50 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:34:56 2006. the eventuality of CBTC is to have ATO as well.If the goal is to have ATO, then CBTC is proving to be a very expensive way to achieve it. Also, if the ATO as practiced by CBTC adds 30 seconds (as reported by one contributer) to the braking time at an intermediate station, then it's also useless. But of even greater issue here is human control...sit outside the station until the train ahead is fully outside of the station ...approaching stations that are occupied often slow down much too often, especially when they approach a station with a train that is already pulling out... CBTC will eliminate First off, there's a lot of variability for trains leaving stations as well as entering them. However, that's ATO not CBTC. Ignore the padded schedule. If 5 trains are backed up behind one leader, then its obvious that the error here is on the leader being too slow. That depends on the level of padding and the headways. Suppose the leader is following the schedule and the followers are not. Then with 2 minute headways and 10 minutes padded into the schedule, you can expect 5 backups. If every train has the same acceleration/top speed characteristics, They don't. They don't have closed loop control on acceleration. Burned out motors are not sufficient cause for sending a car to the shop. NYCT is addressing the supervision issue. Lets see how well they do it with their new scheme. They were supposed to couple ATS time to next train signs in the stations. They were supposed to be operational last year. I still have not seen any. the merge point where 18 of those trains merge with 10 of them experiences delays. Small wonder. Balanced merges are needed to avoid delays. The alternative is non-uniform intervals between trains. That opens up a whole new can of worms for maintaining schedules. |
|
|
| (315500) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 19:24:24 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by tydev417 on Mon Sep 25 18:42:47 2006. i said threw out of my seat. I either ended up standing up or in another seat each time. |
|
|
| (315506) | |
Re: The White Zone is for loading and unloading only; no parking |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 19:45:31 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 19:24:24 2006. Was your new seat selection predictable or random? |
|
|
| (315508) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 19:51:47 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Sep 25 19:22:50 2006. If the goal is to have ATO, then CBTC is proving to be a very expensive way to achieve it. Also, if the ATO as practiced by CBTC adds 30 seconds (as reported by one contributer) to the braking time at an intermediate station, then it's also useless.We've yet to see full operated ATO coupled with CBTC. We can't make assumptions about it. What we can say is that ATO connected with CBTC will feature blocks that move as opposed to stationary ones. Is there any benefit to that? I can't say that with certainty, but it seems as though there is. They don't. They don't have closed loop control on acceleration. Burned out motors are not sufficient cause for sending a car to the shop MOST trainsets have near identical acceleration. Small wonder. Balanced merges are needed to avoid delays. The alternative is non-uniform intervals between trains. That opens up a whole new can of worms for maintaining schedules. You should look at the schedule for the A train. Interesting reading. |
|
|
| (315518) | |
mountain certainly |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Sep 25 20:36:12 2006, in response to Re: The White Zone is for loading and unloading only; no parking, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 19:45:31 2006.  'She was,' continued the housekeeper. 'Her affection for him was still the chief sentiment in her heart; and he spoke without anger: he spoke in the deep tenderness of one about to leave his treasure amid perils and foes, where his remembered words would be the only aid that he could bequeath to guide her. He said to me, a few days afterwards, "I wish my nephew would write, Ellen, or call. Tell me, sincerely, what you think of him: is he changed for the better, or is there a prospect of improvement, as he grows a man?" '"He's very delicate, sir," I replied; "and scarcely likely to reach manhood: but this I can say, he does not resemble his father; and if Miss Catherine had the misfortune to marry him, he would not be beyond her control: unless she were extremely and foolishly indulgent. However, master, you'll have plenty of time to get acquainted with him and see whether he would suit her: it wants four years and more to his being of age."' Edgar sighed; and, walking to the window, looked out towards |
|
|
| (315519) | |
Re: The White Zone is for loading and unloading only; no parking |
|
|
Posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 20:43:07 2006, in response to Re: The White Zone is for loading and unloading only; no parking, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 19:45:31 2006. Surely you can't be serious... |
|
|
| (315521) | |
Re: mountain certainly |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Mon Sep 25 20:48:57 2006, in response to mountain certainly, posted by Nilet on Mon Sep 25 20:36:12 2006. So exactly how am I supposed to buy my ROleXes? |
|
|
| (315525) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 20:59:13 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:47:33 2006. Very nice!Id like to see the LIRR give up the Atlantic Branch for subway service also..like they were SUPPOSE to do during the Archer Avenue subway construction. The LIRR will do it..and make fares comparable to the SUBWAY..due to the fact that it will be a SUBWAY LIKE SERVICE. More people are riding the rails today than before..since WW2.. That is more than enough incentive! Hey wait and see what happeneds...or better yet,give them a chance to make your ride better. |
|
|
| (315528) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 21:01:16 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 16:34:03 2006. True,but SOMETHING is better than what going on over there NOW. |
|
|
| (315529) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 21:02:38 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 18:00:45 2006. Transit lines in the middle of expressways are often relatively ineffective due to their being removed from the centers of neighborhoods. |
|
|
| (315530) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 21:04:29 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 23:01:57 2006. Cargo and freight businesses don't utilize the subway. |
|
|
| (315531) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 21:05:19 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 22:50:52 2006. None, because cargo businesses don't use the subway. |
|
|
| (315532) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 21:07:14 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 18:00:45 2006. The LIE route is a damn good idea...and I wish they would revive it.This is another line that has been talked ,planned..funded and DEFERRED..Over and over again. Even its shortened version along Jewel Avenue was deep sixed when the 1971 bond issue failed. An AIRTRAIN like elevated over the expressway would save money in the long run with contstruction cost...serve a large number of riders..and pull some of those cars off the road. |
|
|
| (315533) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 21:09:15 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 21:02:38 2006. In OTHER CITIES,perhaps..but dealing with NYC..its a TOTALLY different animal.If there a subway nearby..then people WILL use it. |
|
|
| (315536) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 21:13:14 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 21:09:15 2006. Since there's no empirical evidence that a transit line in the center of an expressway wouldn't work well in NYC, I'm forced to use examples from other cities.Look at the CTA Blue Line (Northwest branch.) It's in the middle of a highway. Granted, it does see high ridership, but it would see even higher ridership if the line were built only a few blocks farther into the neighborhoods that the line was meant to serve. Rather than an LIE line, I'd rather see Northern Boulevard and Union Turnpike subways complemented by a few north-south lines (such as Main Street and/or Francis Lewis Boulevard.) |
|
|
| (315538) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 21:14:35 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 21:13:14 2006. There is no way the are going to tear up Northern Blvd. |
|
|
| (315539) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 21:16:53 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 21:14:35 2006. Build an el, then. |
|
|
| (315545) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Subterranean Railway on Mon Sep 25 21:41:39 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 21:16:53 2006. Or use a TBM. |
|
|
| (315549) | |
Re: Space Mountain High |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 21:48:37 2006, in response to mountain certainly, posted by Nilet on Mon Sep 25 20:36:12 2006. LOL! That's great |
|
|
| (315550) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 21:50:15 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 20:59:13 2006. Maybe they were supposed to - but they didn't want to and the MTA chair did not dictate it to them. |
|
|
| (315551) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 21:50:36 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 21:04:29 2006. Their workers do. |
|
|
| (315552) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 21:51:22 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 21:05:19 2006. Their workers need it, and there are tens of thousands of them. |
|
|
| (315553) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 21:54:43 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 21:02:38 2006. "Transit lines in the middle of expressways are often relatively ineffective due to their being removed from the centers of neighborhoods."Which ones? The Chicago Transit Authority operates two of them that have good ridership and part of the Market Frankford Line is in an expressway median and that line is also well utilized. LAMTA operates the Green Line along the Century Freeway. It has pretty decent ridership. |
|
|
| (315555) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 21:56:45 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 21:14:35 2006. They don't need to. Subways have been built under Northern Blvd without disrupting traffic. The western stretch of Northern Blvd has multiple lines underneath it plus the LIRR 63rd St tunnel. |
|
|
| (315557) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 21:59:34 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Subterranean Railway on Mon Sep 25 21:41:39 2006. Did you know that MBT is TBM spelled backward?MBT = Main Battle Tank. |
|
|
| (315564) | |
gertrude shaft |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Sep 25 22:18:48 2006, in response to Re: Space Mountain High, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 21:48:37 2006. :D Thanks.Incidentally, the text at the bottom is from Wuthering Heights. |
|
|
| (315565) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 22:19:04 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 21:02:38 2006. As mentioned by others, NYC is a different animal. Numerous major arteries cross the Horace Harding Expwy, and buses will funnel riders into the elevated line. Additionally, as you yourself mentioned, the Blue line gets good ridership! NYC commuters use mass transit out of necessity, and this would open up new opportunity for rail development.This isn't the ideal alignment: I realize that. But it does solve 2 issues the MTA has to deal with: Cost, and NIMBY. |
|
|
| (315567) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 22:21:10 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 22:19:04 2006. You're making a lot of sense here. We can utilize the capacity of the 63rd St tunnel and build a branch of it along your suggested route. |
|
|
| (315570) | |
Re: gertrude shaft |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 22:25:11 2006, in response to gertrude shaft, posted by Nilet on Mon Sep 25 22:18:48 2006. I figured that.. |
|
|
| (315574) | |
Re: MTA INTERCOMPANY COMMUNICATION (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 22:29:15 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 21:50:15 2006. YES..This seems to be a problem with them..no co-operation or very little at that time... The LIRR was gaining little from the deal..so they posed a question.."why should we give up one of our routes"?... Can ANYBODY answer? |
|
|
| (315575) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 22:33:56 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 21:54:43 2006. Number one: both of the CTA's lines are extremely inconvenient for pedestrians from the surrounding areas to use. I've used both of them.Number two: most people drive or take a bus to the LACMTA Green Line, so its placement is irrelevant. |
|
|
| (315576) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 22:37:16 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 22:21:10 2006. A quick look at the possible routings into manhattan actually suggested turning it onto the LIRR ROW where it crosses 495, and then building the previouisly suggested super express route to 63rd street upper level. Naturally, there would be no stops, maybe at Sunnyside.Maybe, with the crowding removed from Queens Blvd, you could return the F to 53rd, and operate 2 new services (one Broadway, one 6th avenue) on this branch. I've got lots of wacky, economical ideas for increasing service in Queens. Like building a 4th track on the Flushing line... |
|
|
|
Page 7 of 9 |
||
