|
|
| Some questions about the L (853217) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (853217) | |
Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 14:53:34 2009 for the past couple of weeks I've had the chance to ride the L from Bedford into manhattan - It is pretty exciting for me as I never get to ride the L. I have a couple of questions...1. is the only visible difference btw the r143 and r160 the digital display inside the car where the posters are on the r160? anything else i should look for? 2. is the L 8 cars or 10 cars? I assumed 10 (even though the j/m is 8 cars all being eastern div?) but the board over the conductors spot said 8. What made this weird is that the board at the 49th st broadway stop had the same signs and those are 10 cars . I thought maybe it was for a short train but I didn't see another board. 3. Why does the L go so much faster through the tunnel than the 7 does? :) thank you |
|
|
| (853220) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Fri Nov 6 15:17:39 2009, in response to Some questions about the L, posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 14:53:34 2009. Here let me help the flags on the north and south motors are in different spots the R143's the flag is closer to the bottom of the front of the train while the flag with the R160 is closer to the top.The L like the J and M trains run 8 cars. The reason the L runs faster in the tubes sometimes is due to CBTC. |
|
|
| (853221) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Nov 6 15:20:22 2009, in response to Some questions about the L, posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 14:53:34 2009. 1) There are many difectest inside both classes. The main one the the FIND system in the R160's over the Strip Map in the R143's.2) No the L is also 8 cars trains, it is part of the Eastern section of the North. 3) if you on a R143 then more then likely it's running in CBTC and/or ATO mode and can to 55MPH thought the Tube. Were is if your on the R160 or a R143 in Bypass mode then the most you can get is 40 maybe 45MPH if the T/O chances the timers. Soon the R160's will run on the L in CBTC/ATO modes once testing is competed. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (853223) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 6 15:56:54 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Nov 6 15:20:22 2009. And to think ... the Canarsie used to hit 60 in the hands of motorpeople back before the flashing green because they knew how to shoot timers they could trust ... if the motors were all there. And if you were short a few motors, you'd go for ramming speed when you hit the bottom, hoping to make 20 when you got to First Ave. :) |
|
|
| (853224) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Nov 6 16:28:59 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 6 15:56:54 2009. I don't think even in the hands of the best BMT M/M, the steels could have achieved 60 MPH and I doubt even the multis could have done it. I once clocked a train of R-16s on the Jamaica Exp manhattan bound between E/Pky and Bway/Myrt at 60 MPH but that was the only time I ever observed an NYCT train going that fast on the NYCTS. Generally 55 MPH was considered the maximum attainable speed on most NYCTA equipment and I don't recall even seeing the R-44s or 46s going any faster even though they were supposed to have that capability. |
|
|
| (853225) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by rtype3995 on Fri Nov 6 16:29:08 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 6 15:56:54 2009. Lol....... |
|
|
| (853228) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Fri Nov 6 16:36:54 2009, in response to Some questions about the L, posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 14:53:34 2009. 1. As was said before, the position of the flag in relation to the MTA logo is another sign.2. Eight cars. 3. Because the line was operated by the BMT, whose predecessor was the BRT, which of course, stands for "Build Rapid Tunnels." :-) Actually, the Steinway Tunnels have a narrower loading gauge, which does not allow for safe operation at higher speeds. Remember, these tunnels were completed in 1907 for use as a trolley line, but wasn't used by IRT subway cars until 1915. |
|
|
| (853231) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 16:45:09 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by Railman718 on Fri Nov 6 15:17:39 2009. aah so i was right - they all are eastern division so 8 cars - must make for more packing but at least unlike my lovely 7 they are the bigger cars :)thank you btw - this morning i swear the trains were so close - i JUST missed the train - and i tell ya about 30 secs later another one came in and moved through the tunnel at full speed - the 7 is close too but always moves through the tunnel slow when that happens. |
|
|
| (853232) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 16:46:48 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Nov 6 15:20:22 2009. oh yea - the r143 i was on today had more strip maps than the r160 hasthanks for the info |
|
|
| (853233) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 16:47:54 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by R36 #9346 on Fri Nov 6 16:36:54 2009. wow pretty interesting info - thanksi sure hope they expand the steinway tunnels to accept the wider trains someday - i know its a dream that will never happen but hey i gotta dream. |
|
|
| (853234) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by rtype3995 on Fri Nov 6 16:51:06 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 16:47:54 2009. Aren't the tail lights on one of those car classes l.e.d? |
|
|
| (853237) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 6 17:07:22 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by randyo on Fri Nov 6 16:28:59 2009. I was having fun with words ... radar gun technology was too heavy to carry back in MY day. :)But I will say this much ... real motormen weren't afraid of the timers in those tubes ... they actually WORKED. (grin) |
|
|
| (853242) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Fri Nov 6 17:30:51 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by rtype3995 on Fri Nov 6 16:51:06 2009. The R160 tail lights are LED. |
|
|
| (853243) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Fri Nov 6 17:32:28 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by R36 #9346 on Fri Nov 6 16:36:54 2009. Oh yeah, the R160s have the FINDs. The R143s have strip maps. |
|
|
| (853245) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Fri Nov 6 17:38:06 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 16:45:09 2009. Another difference is the FIND. On the R143 it is fixed route FIND like the R142 while R160's is LED/LCD (not sure which is the right term) that moves so route changes can be done on the fly |
|
|
| (853247) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 17:48:44 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by arnine on Fri Nov 6 17:38:06 2009. oh yea! that's a good one - the r143 did look just like the R142 that half of the time says "this map not correct now" lol |
|
|
| (853248) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by sitechboy on Fri Nov 6 17:48:57 2009, in response to Some questions about the L, posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 14:53:34 2009. the headways they run in CBTC/ATO frighten me on occasion.Last week we were being held at Bway Junction. I'm in the last car looking back along the curve to Atlantic Ave. Our follower came flying up the curve at full speed. I was contemplating jumping out, but it came to a stop just outside the station. |
|
|
| (853256) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Nov 6 19:02:40 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 16:47:54 2009. The current tunnels can't be expanded. For the 7 to run 'wider trains', they would have to build entirely new tunnels under the river. |
|
|
| (853262) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Fri Nov 6 19:57:58 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by arnine on Fri Nov 6 17:38:06 2009. LED, R44/46 have LCDs |
|
|
| (853264) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Nov 6 19:59:27 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 17:48:44 2009. That's because the R142's have lit up strip maps for a specific line. Because of common terminals, 2 cars sometimes run on the 5 and vice versa. |
|
|
| (853266) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Nov 6 20:01:19 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by randyo on Fri Nov 6 16:28:59 2009. An R16 going 60?That must have been something. I don't think I ever got one over 30! |
|
|
| (853267) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Nov 6 20:01:57 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 16:46:48 2009. R160's have no strip maps! |
|
|
| (853299) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by rtype3995 on Fri Nov 6 21:40:24 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by sitechboy on Fri Nov 6 17:48:57 2009. It seems like they hold every s/b L train at bwy junction.....I can't understand it...... |
|
|
| (853324) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by North-Easten T/O on Fri Nov 6 22:36:25 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by rtype3995 on Fri Nov 6 21:40:24 2009. CBTC/ATO makes the train run faster and they can run ahead of the schudels. ENY has to hold trains to keep head ways. |
|
|
| (853326) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Fri Nov 6 22:39:24 2009, in response to Some questions about the L, posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 14:53:34 2009. I never rode the (7) often enough to compare different rides. All the times with the exception of one trip to Flushing has the (7) crawled through the Steinway tube. Only once that I recall did the (7) go fast enough in the Steinway tube to compare with another line and that was in 1996. The (L) goes fast on the R143 with CBTC usually after rush hours. The R40/R42 never had any problems attaining top speed in the 14st tube if they could. Till this day the fastest ride I ever experienced on that run was on an R40 on a Sunday in the Summer of 2001.One thing I am interested in though about the Canarsie run through the tube is that when I was a kid and into the early 90s it always went so slow, I never recall any speed in that tunnel during those years. Then around 1995 that all changed. Was there a reason behind that? |
|
|
| (853340) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Sat Nov 7 00:22:41 2009, in response to Some questions about the L, posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 14:53:34 2009. 3. Why does the L go so much faster through the tunnel than the 7 does? :)The Steinway Tunnel has an interlocking at the very bottom. There are timers in both directions to limit the train's speed so it doesn't ram through the switch 500 times a day. |
|
|
| (853341) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Nov 7 00:44:29 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by G1Ravage on Sat Nov 7 00:22:41 2009. There's also that little jog down there from when the two tunnel digging parties MISSED the meet. :) |
|
|
| (853350) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by gbs on Sat Nov 7 02:13:04 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Fri Nov 6 22:39:24 2009. There was a time (early '90s?) when the Canarsie-line underwater tunnels were considered unsafe because of lack of fire-extinguishing capabilities, and two trains could not be in the tubes at the same time, so, for example, a Manhattan-bound train had to wait at Bedford Avenue until its leader arrived at First Avenue.The tubes were upgraded, fire pipes installed, new signals installed, and suddenly the trains were flying through at 50+ mph, way before CBTC and R143s. Alas, the poor #7 riders, stuck with tubes that have 20 mph speed limits. Most other under-river tubes have standard 35 mph speeds. |
|
|
| (853353) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by insidetransitcom on Sat Nov 7 03:14:45 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Nov 7 00:44:29 2009. i love that little jog as you call it - i wait for it each time on the return - people who aren't holding on go for a bit of a move - it's fun :)and i know its 70 seconds from the jog to the station hehe at least if the crap 62 is moving. |
|
|
| (853359) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Nov 7 04:25:34 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by insidetransitcom on Sat Nov 7 03:14:45 2009. Misaligned tunnel ... they never fixed it. :) |
|
|
| (853385) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Nov 7 10:26:26 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Nov 7 04:25:34 2009. How can you fix it?and is that where the interlocking is? ROAR |
|
|
| (853387) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Nov 7 10:43:48 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Nov 7 10:26:26 2009. How can you fix it?It's much smoother than it used to be, so I think that it was addressed, perhaps insofar as possible without cost-prohibitive redo of the work. and is that where the interlocking is? No; the jog is on the southern tracks that Queens-bound trains use and it's on the upgrade to Vernon-Jackson Avs. Perhaps, though, the interlocking could be eliminated once the line is extended to Javits Ctr, since there would be a high speed intermediate crossover just RR-north of Times Sq (what they use now at that terminal), and switching over in the tunnel is a hideously slow move anyway, with another interlocking just RR-north of Hunterspoint Av. |
|
|
| (853389) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Nov 7 10:47:14 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Nov 7 04:25:34 2009. Oops! |
|
|
| (853391) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by daDouce Man on Sat Nov 7 10:48:26 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Nov 7 10:26:26 2009. How can you fix it?Probably couldn't so a permanent slow speed order there. and is that where the interlocking is? I've heard in the past under E42 Street/1 Avenue. |
|
|
| (853394) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Nov 7 10:52:47 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 6 15:56:54 2009. That's the way it used to be with the BMT standards. The motorman would apply power before bottoming out in order to have a full head of steam going uphill. Then the gear pitch would slowly drop as the train labored up the incline. Sometimes the pitch would drop as low as B below middle C before we'd reach Beford Ave. or First Ave. |
|
|
| (853395) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Nov 7 10:53:22 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Nov 6 20:01:19 2009. There had to be a tail wind.:) |
|
|
| (853450) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by f179dj on Sat Nov 7 14:50:30 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by G1Ravage on Sat Nov 7 00:22:41 2009. Funny story, in a way.The Speed Policy Task Force (on which I represented RTO) was doing field testing in the early '90's to see where the speed limits in the under-river tubes could be increased from the then 35 mph limit. This entailed hooking down the timers and running full tilt through the tube in both directions (under a G.O. and we had the tube to ourselves, natch). Talk about ramming through the switch. We hit First Avenue Interlocking southbound at full speed. This was our first, and only, as it turned out, run of the night. The train went into emergency and slid close to 1,000 feet (we were clear of the home ball for the reverse move when we finally stopped). The RCI on board went back to check and found the blocks in the switch points shattered (switch had been blocked and clamped for another reason, not our test). Apparently we had derailed, landed on the blocks, and rerailed. The train proceeded to Grand Central, the Committee caucused in the last car and unanimously agreed not to do anymore speed testing in the Steinway tube. Hence the slow speed (35mph) remains, unlike in 60th Street or 53rd Street tubes, to mention a couple. |
|
|
| (853456) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Nov 7 15:04:27 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Nov 7 10:26:26 2009. I imagine with a lot of money, they could straighten it out a bit way down there. But it'd be BORING ... Heh. |
|
|
| (853466) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Nov 7 15:38:31 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Nov 7 10:53:22 2009. This was in 1960. |
|
|
| (853467) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Nov 7 15:40:48 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Nov 6 17:07:22 2009. Not only that but even if s train were to be tripped, due to the type of electrically resettable from the cab tripcocks, really good M/M who got tripped could have thee brakes released before the train even came to a stop. |
|
|
| (853468) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Nov 7 15:53:43 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Nov 7 10:43:48 2009. It wouldn't be prudent to remove 1 Av interlocking since it is necessary for single tracking through the Steinway tube. |
|
|
| (853473) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Nov 7 16:36:11 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by randyo on Sat Nov 7 15:40:48 2009. I'd heard about that ... and sure could have used such on the arnines. Heh. Fortunately, never hit a trip although as you recall the shape of the roadbeds back in my day, Thunderbird bottles and other debris did manage to dump me every now and then. "Son? Where did you lose your time?" only to be followed by "somewhere around 62nd street." "There ain't no stop at 62nd street." "There was today." :)But any time I rode the front of an LL, those bad boys were still red when they disappeared out of the foamer glass and dropped in the cab windshield. Them guys was SERIOUS! |
|
|
| (853504) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Nov 7 18:02:16 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by insidetransitcom on Fri Nov 6 16:45:09 2009. But you wrote "I assumed 10"... |
|
|
| (853507) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Nov 7 18:08:11 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Nov 6 20:01:57 2009. LOL |
|
|
| (853509) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Nov 7 18:10:00 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by arnine on Fri Nov 6 17:38:06 2009. that moves so route changes can be done on the flyJust to be clear: I think that swaps can be done on the fly on the R143, but the strip map won't reflect it, whereas on the R160s, they, of course, will. |
|
|
| (853510) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Nov 7 18:10:48 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Fri Nov 6 20:01:57 2009. R160's have no strip maps!Those thingies on the side that scroll then! |
|
|
| (853543) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sat Nov 7 19:26:20 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by f179dj on Sat Nov 7 14:50:30 2009. Interesting.. |
|
|
| (853578) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Nov 7 20:42:39 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Nov 7 15:04:27 2009. They may as well save the money to build a new set of tunnels that can fit a wider train. |
|
|
| (853582) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Nov 7 20:46:00 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by gbs on Sat Nov 7 02:13:04 2009. How much do you believe a new set of river tunnels might cost?I mean how much longer are they going to restrict the type of trains that runs on the 7 due to the Steinway tubes? |
|
|
| (853588) | |
Re: Some questions about the L |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Nov 7 21:02:21 2009, in response to Re: Some questions about the L, posted by Grand Concourse on Sat Nov 7 20:46:00 2009. I mean how much longer are they going to restrict the type of trains that runs on the 7 due to the Steinway tubes?It's not necessary at this point, by far. The Flushing Line is not operated at capacity, and it's a lot cheaper to run a few more trains or go to 12-car trains, instead of building new river tunnels. Were the line run at capacity, the real problem would be northern terminals; Flushing is 3-track stub-end, and given the need to clear trains neither 111 St nor Willets Pt is ideal. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
