|
|
| Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island (559236) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 7 |
||
|
| (560553) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 18:36:48 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 28 18:34:09 2008. To do that would mean having to extend all SIRT stations to accomodate an 8-car train plus you would need to have heet/turnstiles at all stations so riders won't get a 'free ride' all the way from SI to Brooklyn to Manhattan.A one seat ride to Manhattan would result in a dramatic increase in ridership. Sounds like a bargain. |
|
|
| (560559) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 28 18:46:23 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 18:31:03 2008. By the time such a line is built, the signal system should be far more capable.The signal system should be far more capable of what? |
|
|
| (560563) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 28 18:54:22 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 28 18:32:26 2008. They couldn't extend the F past Church Ave because the F was running 11 car trains. It had to be the D.That was a question here a while back - why the D went via the Culver Line to Coney Island; thanks for answering that one. What caused the end of the 11-car trains? The idea that 10 11-car trains cut back by one car each could make up 11 10-car trains if you strung together the cutbacks? More frequency won out over longer trains? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (560574) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 19:07:24 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 28 12:59:52 2008. On "Most" equipment( all equipment with a removable brake handle) one must place the train into emergency before the brake handle can be removed from the brake valve (under proper operating procedures). This does not hold true for equipment with "single Handle" controllers. There, depending on the car contract, one might not have to place the train into emergency in order to remove his/her key. |
|
|
| (560576) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 19:11:48 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 28 11:47:48 2008. "I thought the object was to get more tph not less."Yon make many assumptions that are not necessarilly so. This is just one of them. |
|
|
| (560587) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 28 19:36:58 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 19:07:24 2008. Thanks for the reply. I imagine that not having put the train into emergency helps out on those car classes where it's available, especially when relaying. Watching some relay operations with "most" equipment, recharging seems to take up precious seconds, especially at a terminal like Broad St, where the J/Z train is going into the relay, charging up, and holding up the M train behind it. |
|
|
| (560597) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 19:44:23 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 28 18:46:23 2008. CBTC and ATO should (fingers crossed) be able to balance out the trains to minimize merge conflicts. |
|
|
| (560599) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Mon Jan 28 19:45:13 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 28 18:34:09 2008. I've been saying that time and time again. The SIR is going to have to stay separate in any matter. It would simply cost far, far, far too much money to tack on a mass-reconstruction of the SIR Mainline on top of an extension from a subway line. |
|
|
| (560600) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 19:46:36 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 28 18:54:22 2008. I'm not sure what cause the end of 11 car trains, but it has been posted here that any train longer than 600' needs two conductors. That requirement for additional labor is probably a huge disincentive to bringing it back. |
|
|
| (560602) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 19:48:39 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 19:11:48 2008. What would the primary consideration of such a route change be? |
|
|
| (560611) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 19:55:27 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Mon Jan 28 19:45:13 2008. I would cost a lot less to rebuild the SIR than to build an island length subway. |
|
|
| (560613) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av. |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 28 19:56:55 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av., posted by R-1-9 on Mon Jan 28 16:58:09 2008. Not enough cars...?With R143's in to cover the L..the in coming 160's..WHY aren't there enough cars to make service? Instead of retiring so many rail cars..why not keep them around..at least untill there are "enough" replacement cars available? |
|
|
| (560623) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 28 20:06:12 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 19:44:23 2008. CBTC doesn't have cognitive ability to draw up a timetable, does it? It could be programmed in an advanced model perhaps to keep trains as best possible to a timetable, but the generation of this timetable is not something I daresay CBTC could do on its own, no? And at a certain point, one simply runs into physical constraints - the speed at which a train can safely clear a slow interlocking.But anyway, let's see CBTC/ATO work some miracles on the L route first before we look for it to turn water into wine. |
|
|
| (560624) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 28 20:06:58 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 28 20:06:12 2008. Water into Swine,you say? |
|
|
| (560632) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 20:13:38 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 28 20:06:12 2008. That's true that if you start with a poor timetable, the system is fighting an uphill battle all the way. Garbage in, garbage out. That said, this needs to be worked out by the MTA. This is the system that we have, and we have to make the best of it. It can't be the RER. |
|
|
| (560645) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 20:29:53 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 19:48:39 2008. The original speculation was purely hypothetical. However, I was looking at the change from the technicalities of the maintenance standpoint. Currently, scheduled maintenance is driven either by time or mileage. At Pitkin Shop, maintenance is driven by mileage. However, if a dedicated fleet for the (V) line were based at Pitkin Shop, the annual mileage would require scheuling thse cars by time and not miles. This would complicate the schedule matrix. I was mearly musing about the benifits of adding service to the Fulton St. Line while boosting the mileage - and improving efficiency and flexibility. |
|
|
| (560651) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av. |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 20:34:44 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av., posted by R-1-9 on Mon Jan 28 16:58:09 2008. Certainly, this is not the case today. With 320 R-160s now in revenue service and less than 1/2 of that number of R-42 now in storage, the fleet is certainly large enough to support that service. I simply don't see the cost effectiveness of that move. The G will be running to Church Ave makes more sense. |
|
|
| (560653) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av. |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Mon Jan 28 20:35:57 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av., posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 20:34:44 2008. I agree. And when the (G) goes to Church avenue, will that mean that the (F) will run express on the express tracks? |
|
|
| (560654) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Mon Jan 28 20:36:21 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 16:54:22 2008. So what about the E? |
|
|
| (560667) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 28 20:51:56 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 20:29:53 2008. Wow...and look at the thoughtful responses you received. |
|
|
| (560669) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 20:56:07 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 20:29:53 2008. Thanks, very interesting. To what degree do maintenance operations drive route changes? |
|
|
| (560676) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 28 21:01:10 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 20:56:07 2008. I imagine that sending the R/RR route to Forest Hills from Astoria in terms of northern terminals was one such move. |
|
|
| (560677) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 28 21:01:20 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 20:56:07 2008. I imagine that sending the R/RR route to Forest Hills from Astoria in terms of northern terminals was one such move. |
|
|
| (560686) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av. |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 28 21:06:32 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av., posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Mon Jan 28 20:35:57 2008. There's viaduct work going on, so at least not over that portion of the line, we can safely say. |
|
|
| (560702) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 21:14:13 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by error46146 on Mon Jan 28 20:36:21 2008. So what about the E?Local to Whitehall. |
|
|
| (560721) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 21:33:02 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 20:56:07 2008. I would imagine that it's very limited. Usually, it's the other way around. I'm, perhaps, looking to wag the dog. |
|
|
| (560722) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 21:34:24 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 28 20:51:56 2008. Which is exactly what I was hoping for. |
|
|
| (560723) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Mon Jan 28 21:36:03 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 28 07:14:18 2008. So one waits for the other. The E and V are on separate levels at West 4th St. |
|
|
| (560746) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 28 21:57:57 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 19:44:23 2008. The issue is not the scheduling. It is the operation. The fact that there are merges at all is the issue.New Yorkers really must ditch that Local and Express mentality. You have trains going to Fr. Hamilton that make these stops and you have trains going to Coney Island via both the West End and the Sea Beach routings. Pretend they are two different railroads running on different roadbeds laid on different ROWs. You do not cross one in front of the other. They are KEPT SEPARATE. Some trains ride on these tracks, some trains ride on those tracks. This train makes these stops but not those stops. End of Story. Besides Ft. Ham to SI by Subway is a STOOPIT idea whose time expired along when the war washed away all of that Second System foam. ROAR |
|
|
| (560755) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 28 22:02:26 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 21:33:02 2008. If you grab hold of the tail, you can wag the dog.But this usually upsets the dog, and he will try to bite you. You *can* wag a dog, but I'd not want to try to wag a LION. ROAR |
|
|
| (560757) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 22:03:52 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 28 22:02:26 2008. Learned a long time ago that it's OK to pull the lion's tail. Just have a plan for when he turns around.. |
|
|
| (560802) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 28 22:33:53 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 21:34:24 2008. Good for You..I'm hoping to see more,if possible,without back bitting from Elmo. |
|
|
| (560804) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 28 22:34:39 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 21:34:24 2008. Good for You..I'm hoping to see more,if possible,without back bitting from the DARTH VADAR of SubChat. |
|
|
| (560828) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Mon Jan 28 22:48:42 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 28 22:33:53 2008.  |
|
|
| (560862) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Mon Jan 28 23:23:58 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 21:34:24 2008. So this was a troll post. |
|
|
| (560901) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 01:13:21 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 28 17:15:46 2008. That makes sense. |
|
|
| (560919) | |
Re: New Transit Museum Facility |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 03:05:47 2008, in response to Re: New Transit Museum Facility, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jan 28 11:59:22 2008. Agreed. That's why for all the fantasy plans about the (V), running it to Bklyn Bway or the Culver would be the least disruptive. |
|
|
| (560930) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 03:44:25 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 19:55:27 2008. IAWTP |
|
|
| (560946) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 29 05:58:47 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 26 16:54:22 2008. Does it really matter where the merge occurs since there will be one anyway? It will either be the (C) at 50th, the (E) at 50th or the (C) at Canal. They would all eventually go to the Express tracks to Cranberry. The current service gives the most trains to 23rd and Spring St and is the best scenario. |
|
|
| (561013) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 29 07:59:34 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jan 28 20:29:53 2008. The original speculation was purely hypothetical. However, I was looking at the change from the technicalities of the maintenance standpoint. Currently, scheduled maintenance is driven either by time or mileage. At Pitkin Shop, maintenance is driven by mileage. However, if a dedicated fleet for the (V) line were based at Pitkin Shop, the annual mileage would require scheuling thse cars by time and not miles. This would complicate the schedule matrix.Did you ever estimate the extra cost of operating the V to Euclid? |
|
|
| (561033) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Tue Jan 29 09:15:14 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 19:55:27 2008. By rebuilding the SIR your doing exactly that only difference is the ROW is already there. |
|
|
| (561049) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jan 29 09:50:15 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 29 07:59:34 2008. Did you ever estimate the extra cost of operating the V to Euclid?That would depend on which of a dozen plus scenarios he considered. If it's just switching the V and C without changing anything else, the operational incremental cost would be about zero. If also the C is merged with the M, the incremental cost could be negative. |
|
|
| (561273) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Tue Jan 29 18:13:25 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Tue Jan 29 09:15:14 2008. By rebuilding the SIR your doing exactly thatBuilding an above ground line is NOT the same thing as building a subway. The most important difference is cost. Subways cost considerably more. only difference is the ROW is already there. That's the point. The MTA would not need to acquire a lot of property for a ROW that it already has. |
|
|
| (561332) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Jan 29 21:00:53 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Mon Jan 28 19:45:13 2008. No. It would be incredibly cheap.Converting the entire line to subway standards would likely be a fraction of the cost of one SAS station. |
|
|
| (561333) | |
Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Jan 29 21:02:19 2008, in response to Re: SAS to Brooklyn/Staten Island, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 28 18:25:22 2008. IMHO A separate SAS would work fine for SI connection.no need to tie it into the already limited 4th ave line. |
|
|
| (561353) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Jan 29 21:49:53 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 29 07:59:34 2008. No! My concern is maintenance. Cost and utility are the responsibility of Operations Planning. |
|
|
| (561359) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av. |
|
|
Posted by jimmymc25 on Tue Jan 29 22:03:37 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, incorrect, make it Church Av., posted by Edwards! on Mon Jan 28 19:56:55 2008. I agree with you there...for sure!!!Jimmymc25 |
|
|
| (561376) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 29 23:30:16 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Tue Jan 29 21:49:53 2008. Cost and utility are the responsibility of Operations Planning.Glad somebody has that responsibility. A quick guesstimate. Route miles = 9.88 # trips/day = 225 cost/vehicle-revenue-mile = $7.47 (2004 figures) days/year = 250 # cars per train = 8 yearly cost = 9.88 x 225 x 7.47 x 250 x 8 total yearly cost > $33 million |
|
|
| (561385) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Jan 30 00:06:34 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jan 29 23:30:16 2008. Interesting, correct or not. It's a shame that you reduce everything to numbers, though. Even if you are correct, there are other factors involved in such a decision. |
|
|
| (561390) | |
Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Wed Jan 30 00:40:24 2008, in response to Re: ''V'' to Euclid Ave, posted by Train Dude on Tue Jan 29 21:49:53 2008. Yaaay! GO OPS PLANNING!! |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 7 |
||
