|
|
| Re: The F report (842381) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 6 |
||
|
| (842614) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Oct 10 19:29:35 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Oct 10 17:33:49 2009. Since 1967 F line crews did the whole trip the entire way from 179 to STL. The overwelming number of jobs did and still do 2 round trips. Many weekday jobs have a put in or lay up in there too. In this era of increased productivity and cab time, there is no way NYCT will have the crews relieved mid-trip. Even if they did, what happens if there is a no show on a job at Second Ave. when there is a crew to be relieved? What happens to the train? IF you do make a relief mid-trip for the F, what about the A? What about the D? What about the #2? |
|
|
| (842625) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Oct 10 19:48:02 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by G1Ravage on Sat Oct 10 02:41:32 2009. No, I totally agree, either keep service as is or do a total switch having the E/C repalce the F/V respectively. imo. |
|
|
| (842660) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 21:51:44 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 19:26:06 2009. NOPE, nonsense, nada.There is no point at all in having an express train make extra stops. There will be adequate service at Bergen Street for (GG) passengers to Queens, and (C) or (V) passengers to Manhattan. If a (GG) passenger wanted to go to Manhattan, they would not have gotten on a (GG) train in the first place. When the only LOCAL (upstairs) train was the GG, then lower Bergen was necessary to give pax access to 6th ave. With both Queens and Manhattan trains stopping at Bergen upper, there is no need for an EXPRESS train to stop there also. So, no stops at Lower Bergen. End of Story. ROAR |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (842661) | |||
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|||
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 21:55:40 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Oct 10 17:37:40 2009.
|
|||
|
| (842673) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 22:21:11 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 21:51:44 2009. Why do you think they are proposing bringing in the (V) to Brooklyn? Yes, (F) riders want Brooklyn express service, but at the same time Park Slope residents want their one-seat ride to Manhattan. The (V) would solve this problem greatly. Not using Bergen's LL will be a real stupid thing to do. End of story. |
|
|
| (842680) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Oct 10 22:31:59 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 22:21:11 2009. Absolutely:The (C) also would solve this problem as well, especially since having it and the (V) switch off at West 4th also would have several side benefits: 1. Giving riders on BOTH the Culver and Fulton Street lines the option (from Church Avenue northward on the Culver Line and from Euclid Avenue northward on the Fulton Street Line) of either a 6th or 8th avenue train at express stops, and at worst either a cross or same platform transfer between the 6th and 8th avenue lines along the way. That would I think offset any objections from Park Slope residents that would still have their one-seat ride into Manhattan, albeit via the 8th avenue line. 2. Giving midtown riders a new option: A one-seat ride on the 6th Avenue line (V) to the finacial district without having to change trains at West 4th. That would be welcome by many, especially at 53rd/Lex who may be going to the WTC area that want to take the E/V there, since both would now go to that area as opposed to only the E at present. The only significant changes are the C would become a 24/7 line, which would have the side benefit of the A being express in Manhattan at all times, while the V would become a 19/7 line, only not operating during overnights (the A would still be local in Brooklyn during overnights). |
|
|
| (842705) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 00:34:34 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Oct 10 12:26:50 2009. Now that there are hundreds of R160's in Jamaica, it's time to assign them to the G. |
|
|
| (842707) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Oct 11 00:41:18 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Oct 10 15:14:53 2009. It's all right. He's never worked at West 4th Street Tower during the rush hour. What a hellish place.... |
|
|
| (842708) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Oct 11 00:44:22 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Oct 10 17:17:59 2009. No. The lower level will never be used again because storage facilities and junk were built on the platforms. The 25-page report mentions this.While the report doesn't say it's IMPOSSIBLE for the lower level to reopen, nor does it say that it will NEVER happen, it does make clear that reopening it would take a lot of work and a lot of money. And it would still have the same short comings that closed it in the first place. |
|
|
| (842713) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Oct 11 00:52:41 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Oct 11 00:41:18 2009. Saw it in person back in 2006. Heh. But seriously, IND has a railroad to run. Compare to Murphy. :) |
|
|
| (842714) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Oct 11 00:54:36 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Oct 11 00:52:41 2009. Well, Murphy is Murphy. The line-up will come in sooner or later. |
|
|
| (842718) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Oct 11 00:58:52 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Oct 11 00:54:36 2009. Uh-huh. :)
|
|
|
| (842719) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Oct 11 01:12:24 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Oct 10 04:28:02 2009. If it doesn't cause C, E, F and V trains to back up south of West 4th Street, then I'm in favor of this plan. |
|
|
| (842723) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 01:26:22 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Oct 11 00:44:22 2009. Stuff can be moved, and as noted previously the platforms may need to be worked on anyway, so if and when that were to happen it could be done where the lower level of Bergen Street could be reworked to reopen to passengers in what would be a completely different scenario from what caused it to close years ago.Yes, it would require capital to improve those platforms, but to me it would be well worth it, especially since we are dealing with much different circumstances than 35-40 years ago with technology making it possible to note when an F train would arrive at Bergen Lower that was not around when the F was express previously. Also, as I would do it, the C train would ALSO be operating with the G train as a local to Church Avenue at all times (with the C also operating express in the peak direction to/from Kings Highway in rush hours), while the F would be an express train at all times. Unlike 35-40 years ago, this would make a big difference since it would give those at Bergen Street waiting for the F to Manhattan the option to take a C train to anywhere between Jay Street and Broadway-Lafayette and switch to the F (or V at Jay Street that would be replacing the C to Euclid) or at B'way-Lafayette the B or D. Going towards CI, you would have two local trains going to Church Avenue, which would severely reduce the need for people to wait in the stairwells at Bergen to see if the F comes first on the lower level. The side benefits of this arrangement are these: Riders on both the Culver and Fulton lines would now have both 6th and 8th avenue trains running on their lines (as the V would now replace the C south of West 4th in Manhattan) with either a one-seat ride or at worst a two-seat ride with a cross or same platform transfer in most cases in Brooklyn, while in Midtown Manhattan those on the 6th Avenue line would no longer have to switch at West 4th if they are going to the WTC area, which would be especially beneficial to those at Lex/53rd as it would likely reduce overcrowding in that station. |
|
|
| (842724) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Oct 11 01:30:35 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 21:55:40 2009. cute but no cigar |
|
|
| (842725) | |
Re: Culver Line (clarifying) |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 01:32:00 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 01:26:22 2009. And to clarify:The peak direction express on the C as I would do it would ONLY be between Church and Kings Highway. |
|
|
| (842736) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 07:50:54 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 01:26:22 2009. The (V) would become a LOCAL to CHAMBERS WTC. It would NOT go to Fulton.The LIONs whole idea is to eliminate switching at Canal Street. The (E) becomes an 8th Avenue Express (as it was in years of yore. Eighth Avenue Express trains would head out to Fulton via Cranberry. The Fulton line only feeds through Cranberry. How would a train get to 6th Avenue. It cannot. At least not without crossing flat switches at JAY, which is ok for a weakend GO, but not for real service. The 8th Avenue LOCAL train (the (C)) would go via Rutgers to Church on the Culver Local. As we have previously examined, On Sixth Avenue we have two services, the BRONX service runs on what some people insist on calling the "express" tracks via the bridge to South Brooklyn; and the QUEENS service which runs via what some people are calling the "local" tracks. Of these the physical layout allows service either to Rutgers or to the 8th Avenue Local (to Chambers WTC) If we slice off the (V) to Chambers WTC, then send the (F) train to Coney Island via a notional Smith Street Express you could have the (C) and the (F) serving Culver, but you cannot get a Sixth Avenue service onto Fulton Street. As for Fulton Street, I would have an (A) train and an (E) train on there. Clearly one would be an express, probably the (A) and the other would be a local (well that leaves the (E), doesn't it?), but where shall terminate the (E). Ought it go to Euclid and call it a day, or should it go to Lefferts with all of the (A)s headed out to the Rocks. LION would send the (E) to Lefferts 24/7: A Jamaica to Jamaica service, and then would send the (A) train alternately to Far Rock and to Rock Park thus eliminating the (H) shuttle. That is what a LION would do if he ran the zoo. ROAR |
|
|
| (842738) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 07:55:34 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 07:50:54 2009. Looks like you're going to make a very bad zookeeper then. Tame yourself before you make any more comments, and then I'll think about letting you speak. |
|
|
| (842739) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 07:56:28 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Oct 11 01:12:24 2009. The (C) would be the exclusive 8th Avenue Local north of W4, so no merge there. The (E) would already be on the Express tracks having come from the Cranberry, so no merge there.The (F) and the (V) are the only merge, and since the (V) is originating at Chambers only a few inches south of W4, its departures are easily timed to mesh with the (F) trains coming in off the Rutgers. So the LION seas noe problem there. ROAR |
|
|
| (842740) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 08:00:51 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 07:56:28 2009. Why in the world do you want to make the (E)'s route longer than it has to be? Obviously you're making the least of sense. Your logic skills are dead, my friend. |
|
|
| (842741) | |||
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|||
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 08:00:51 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Oct 11 01:30:35 2009.
|
|||
|
| (842742) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 08:01:55 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 08:00:51 2009. OMG PLEASESHUTUP!!! :-( |
|
|
| (842743) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 08:02:27 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Oct 11 01:30:35 2009. IAWTP. |
|
|
| (842744) | |||
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|||
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 08:04:39 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 07:55:34 2009. My Associate will now have a few words with you.
|
|||
|
| (842745) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 08:05:49 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Oct 10 22:31:59 2009. I have some concerns with this, I'm afraid. Why would you want the (C) to go via Culver? Those tracks at West Fourth and Jay Streets are for the sole purposes of G.O.'s, and I think it's best to keep it that way. Let the blue lines stay blue, and the orange lines stay orange. I really think it's best that way, best to avoid bottlenecking at those junctions. |
|
|
| (842746) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 08:07:09 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 08:04:39 2009. You think I care? Nope, not at all. |
|
|
| (842748) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 08:14:58 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 22:21:11 2009. Yes, (F) riders want Brooklyn express serviceThen they should ride the B train. Isn't the Culver the 3rd or 4th busiest of the lines to CI anyway? |
|
|
| (842749) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 08:16:35 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 08:00:51 2009. No. The issue is where shall you turn services, and where shall you have merges and complicated interlockings.Presently the (C) is an 8th Avenue Local train, and it must merge with the (A) service at Canal Street in order to access the Cranberry tunnel. It has come to the ears of this LION that this merge can be a source of delays on both services especially during pms. If the (C) goes to Rutgers and the (E) runs on the express tracks from 50th street, then the pm merge is moved north to 50th street, where each service has its own platform so that one (the (E)) can wait patiently for the other for a clean merge. This is an advantage since the trains are more lightly loaded at 50th street than they are at Canal street, thus mitigating the loading delays incurred enroute. Ergo a cleaner merge and quicker service leaving Manhattan at the other end. As for the length of the (E): who cares! What we as railfans (and/or employees)look at as one service the passenger sees as two different trains. When you stand on a platform in Manhattan you can take an (E) to Queens via the Boulevard, or an (E) to Queens via Fulton. Because almost all services must pass through Manhattan, this creates double length routes. But trains must be turned *somewhere* and turn abouts in Manhattan are rare enough, and particularly rare in the IND which was not designed to turn express trains in Manhattan. It is the design of the Railroad. Might the LION have designed it differently? Perhaps, but most likely not. There was then and is now no reason to do so. ROAR |
|
|
| (842750) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 08:20:12 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 07:55:34 2009. No, he's right. It's how Paris, Moscow, and Madrid manage to run frequent services. And it's why TfL are forever trying to get permission to rebuild Camden Town station so that the passengers, rather than the trains, can interchange. |
|
|
| (842751) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 08:34:49 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 08:14:58 2009. They also want local service too, so the MTA really has to satisfy both worlds here. |
|
|
| (842754) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 08:48:54 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 08:16:35 2009. How dare you say "who cares?" The crew cares. You just proved that you're selfish and just want to change service to benefit you. |
|
|
| (842769) | |||
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|||
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 10:01:15 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 08:07:09 2009.
|
|||
|
| (842771) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 10:03:50 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 08:05:49 2009. You are incorrect on this.The tracks at Jay street are for GOs, but the local tracks at West 4th have flying crossovers and are perfectly capable of handling rush hour trains. As for why? The main reason is to give Sixth Avenue riders a one-seat ride to the financial district. ROAR |
|
|
| (842772) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 10:07:24 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 08:14:58 2009. The Culver line is well served by a local (F), and as you pointed out, needs no more service. The SMITH STREET LINE *could* use better service, but these are LOCAL STOPS, thus if the (F) served Culver and then went express to bypass the SMITH STREET LINE, then a new local (call it the (C) or the (V) it matters not on Smith Street) would give these riders an empty train to ride with greater comfort more than making up for the loss of the (F) and its headways, such as they are.ROAR |
|
|
| (842775) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 10:14:26 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 10:01:15 2009. Ahh shut the fuck up already and go suck a lion's cock or something.You must be one of those R160 foamers...except you got bit by a lion and now you're totally clueless about jack squat. |
|
|
| (842777) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 10:15:07 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 08:48:54 2009. I just said the crew cares. But not all that much, especially on an extended (E), and if the Liberty Line were to be extended to the north on Supthin, (as is the LION's plan) then a one-way run is quite fezible since you will return to within a few stops of where you started anyway.But more than the length of the run, the crew cares about MONEY (as well it should) and work rules. A longer more reliable layover at each end would do much to mitigate the longer run. The LION thinks that all crews should have by contract a MINIMUM of a 20 minute turn around at the distal end of their run (make that 30 minutes for runs greater than 60 minutes) and a 30 minute turn around at the home end of the run, and should by contract have a 60 minute lunch break in the middle of their hours of service. I am certain that THESE THINGS would be far more important to a crew than how long any particular run it. Or maybe they are unaware of how long runs are out here on the BNSF. ROAR |
|
|
| (842778) | |||
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|||
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 10:20:44 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 10:14:26 2009.
|
|||
|
| (842779) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 10:23:52 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 10:20:44 2009. Outcast. |
|
|
| (842780) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Oct 11 10:27:58 2009, in response to The F report, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Oct 9 23:19:16 2009. A car-by-car analysis of the F line at the peak load points showed that southbound trains at Roosevelt Island tend to be more heavily loaded at the south (front) end of the train – that is, the front 2 cars are twice as likely to exceed guideline loads compared with the rest of the train.OK, next time they complain that they couldn't get on the train, we can tell them to move to the rear of the train. |
|
|
| (842781) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 10:28:53 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 10:15:07 2009. This goes to show that you don't have a damn clue about what you're saying. The reason why the (C) stopped running to the Rockaways in the '90s is because the crew was overworked. The reason why the (E) stopped running to the Rockaways in the '70s is because the crew was overworked. The reason why the (R) stopped running to Jamaica-179th Street is because the crew was overworked. If you were a RTO, I would stay the hell away from the MTA becuase you would turn it upside-down.BTW, your so-called LION plan sucks! |
|
|
| (842782) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 10:30:18 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Oct 11 10:27:58 2009. This is a problem at Franklin Avenue on the (C), especially on the southbound platform. The train will stay held up for over a minute because passengers from the Shuttle cram onto the (C) in the front. |
|
|
| (842783) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 10:32:45 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 10:07:24 2009. That's an argument for two locals. Flatbush Avenue Subway branching off after 7th Av, anyone? |
|
|
| (842784) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 10:33:34 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 08:48:54 2009. The subway is not run as a conductor's benefit, whatever TWU Local 100 thinks. |
|
|
| (842785) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Oct 11 10:34:47 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 00:34:34 2009. The E/F will have priority, and then I assume the R/V next, to replace the R32/40/42 with digital signage. If that happens, that would put some R160s on the G, since last that I heard, the G and V share some trainsets.Longer term, though, maybe CI takes charge of the G fleet? |
|
|
| (842788) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 10:35:58 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 10:33:34 2009. This is why I despise NYCT. They treat their crew like shit to the point that I'm surprised that no one has walked out on them. If you were working for Metro-North, it would be a whole different story as they actually care for their crew. |
|
|
| (842790) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 10:40:22 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 10:35:58 2009. And how are Metro North's profits? |
|
|
| (842791) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Oct 11 10:45:13 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 08:16:35 2009. An A/E merge at 50 St is not a good prescription. |
|
|
| (842793) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Sun Oct 11 10:52:53 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Oct 10 19:22:32 2009. I know that the transit industry uses MDBF as an important indicator, but MDBF can be deceptive. It is affected by the amount of money spent on scheduled maintenance. With the Brightliners and the rest of the first generation stainless steel cars being retired, I would think that the TA has curtailed much of the scheduled maintenance on them, driving up the MDBF. Perhaps, cost per revenue mile or passenger mile would be better indicators. |
|
|
| (842794) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Sun Oct 11 11:02:43 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 19:24:46 2009. I think he meant that opening the lower level will allow G passengers transfer access to whatever is running express through the lower level. |
|
|
| (842799) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sun Oct 11 11:21:05 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Oct 11 00:58:52 2009. The blackout? I was on an R-44 and the scene looked just like that. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 6 |
||
