|
|
| (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? (937056) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (937060) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Tue May 25 14:22:26 2010, in response to (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by GOLD_12th on Tue May 25 14:02:45 2010. I looked up online to see if they're any G.Os for the Christie Street Cut and I see none as of this moment, perhaps in the future, but the track is not used in Revenue Service so if they needed to do a G.O. to chip out the track and install new tracks and pour concrete they can do it now unimpeded. |
|
|
| (937061) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by MattW@15st_prospect_park on Tue May 25 14:25:47 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by ClearAspect on Tue May 25 14:22:26 2010. For the past month they have been doing a chip out during all 3 shifts which has slowed down north bound D service in the area. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (937067) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Tue May 25 14:32:04 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by MattW@15st_prospect_park on Tue May 25 14:25:47 2010. I guess they're chipping out the entire cut, excellent, might as well get the entire thing done, |
|
|
| (937079) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue May 25 14:55:44 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by ClearAspect on Tue May 25 14:32:04 2010. Considering how much time and money are spent on chip outs, I always wonder if using ballast isn't better in most cases. |
|
|
| (937082) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue May 25 14:57:26 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by ClearAspect on Tue May 25 14:32:04 2010. Are they replacing the switches as well? |
|
|
| (937089) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by Randyo on Tue May 25 15:08:10 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by trainsarefun on Tue May 25 14:55:44 2010. In many cases, concrete roadbed will hold up. I just seems that the all concrete or type VIII roadbed which was originally installed in Chrystie and the 6 Av express tracks was not as successful here in NY as it has been on other properties. Type II both regular and modified with short wooden ties in concrete seems to do better on the NYCTS which is why many of the as built type VIII installations have been or are being replaced with type II. |
|
|
| (937093) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue May 25 15:13:31 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by Randyo on Tue May 25 15:08:10 2010. My concern is that the chip outs drag on for weeks or months, affect service at all times including peak hours, and it's not obvious based on the replacement cycles that the concrete roadbed is longer lasting.A pedagogical aside: what's the difference between the types, especially between the two kinds of type IIs? |
|
|
| (937094) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Tue May 25 15:16:21 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue May 25 14:57:26 2010. Ill find out |
|
|
| (937098) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by Randyo on Tue May 25 15:38:27 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by trainsarefun on Tue May 25 15:13:31 2010. Type VIII is an all concrete roadbed with the rails bolted to the ties over padded tie plates. Type II consists of short wooden ties imbedded in concrete. In both types, there is usually a trough cast into the concrete primarily to allow for drainage of water and for debris and refuse to go well below the rails. In stations the trough has an additional purpose of providing a place for a passenger to seek refuge in the event he/she falls off the platform so that the train may pass over without inflicting serious if any harm. The original type II which is found on many of the IRT and BMT dual contract lines was only installed in station areas and in addition to being cemented in, the ties were also bolted to the concrete. Newer portions of the 14 St Line and the entire IND were originally built with type II roadbed but it was found by that time, that the bolts were not needed except on sharp or high speed curves. On some especially heavy curves, every 5th tie (usually the 3rd rail tie) extended completely across the trough to maintain the track gauge. This has become known as the "modified" type II and has often been used in newer installations on the IRT and BMT where ballasted roadbed is being replaced by concrete. In some cases the modified type II has even been used to replace the original type II in some of the IRT and BMT stations and has made an occasional appearance on the IND. The latest type II installations now have short sections of rebar through the ties to provide additional stabilization after the concrete is poured. Although that would seem to eliminate the need to have the 5th ties going completely across, and allow the installations to be unmodified type II, NYCT MOW continues to install the modified type II anyhow. As to chipping out taking a long time, in 1958, the entire Bway IRT from 145 St to Dyckman which was type I (ballasted), was replaced by new ballasted type I roadbed and the removal of the old roadbed didn't seem that much faster than chipping out and with modern machines such as the Pettibone Speedswing, chipping out shouldn't be all that time consuming at all. |
|
|
| (937107) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue May 25 16:03:14 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue May 25 14:57:26 2010. I wonder. But wouldn't those switches have been changed anyway when they did normal maintenance and replacement on the track on the rest of the Nassau line and 6th Ave local respectively anyway? |
|
|
| (937108) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue May 25 16:04:04 2010, in response to (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by GOLD_12th on Tue May 25 14:02:45 2010. Good news?"Good News" would be if it proceeds as planned.... |
|
|
| (937131) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by Alex L. on Tue May 25 16:34:36 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by ClearAspect on Tue May 25 14:22:26 2010. Look again - there's one that runs until 6/7. |
|
|
| (937144) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue May 25 18:29:23 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue May 25 16:03:14 2010. Depends. It was a non-revenue switch and I doubt it was high on the list for replacement. |
|
|
| (937145) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 25 18:37:02 2010, in response to (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by GOLD_12th on Tue May 25 14:02:45 2010. No deal for the LION, he will not be able to go into the city that day.LION will probably be in NYC on days between 6/14 and 6/20. LION will be in PA 6/9 to 6/28 with 6/8 and 6/29 travel days. ROAR |
|
|
| (937163) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Tue May 25 20:39:47 2010, in response to (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by GOLD_12th on Tue May 25 14:02:45 2010. GOOD! The longer-the better. IMO, it shouldn't be done at all. |
|
|
| (937236) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue May 25 23:16:37 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue May 25 14:57:26 2010. I remember they changed the crossover at Second Av when the V was introduced but can't remember if they also changed the switches to the outer tracks. |
|
|
| (937238) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Tue May 25 23:29:29 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue May 25 16:04:04 2010. "Good News" would be if it proceeds as planned....Considering that there are already C/R boards clearly marked for 8-car R160 (M) trains (I spotted such a board at 23/Ely today), I'd say it's definitely proceeding as planned... my blog |
|
|
| (937240) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Tue May 25 23:32:33 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by Concourse Express on Tue May 25 23:29:29 2010. Considering that there are already C/R boards clearly marked for 8-car R160 (M) trains (I spotted such a board at 23/Ely today), I'd say it's definitely proceeding as planned...Not if track has anything to say about it. They can put up all the signs they want. |
|
|
| (937241) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Tue May 25 23:39:02 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by Railman718 on Tue May 25 23:32:33 2010. I see.Intriguing thing though (to me, anyway) is the explicit mention of 8-car R160's; guess the new (M) will be 100% R160 (unless that's also subject to change)... my blog |
|
|
| (937242) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Tue May 25 23:40:09 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by Concourse Express on Tue May 25 23:39:02 2010. Its supposed to be 8 car R160's...Lets see what happens in a few... |
|
|
| (937245) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Tue May 25 23:48:38 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by Concourse Express on Tue May 25 23:39:02 2010. The R160s are the only equipment able to properly display the right terminals. Theoretically, you can say the R143s do also, but that has to stay on the L. |
|
|
| (937246) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by MattW@15st_prospect_park on Tue May 25 23:48:58 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue May 25 16:03:14 2010. There not working on the switches right now, just a chip out of the roadbed. |
|
|
| (937281) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Wed May 26 03:58:19 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Tue May 25 20:39:47 2010. What?! Someone agrees with 33rd Street?PREPOSTEROUS!! |
|
|
| (937288) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 26 06:37:17 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue May 25 18:29:23 2010. Yes, but the Nassau or 6th Ave trains still had to traverse those switches with every train too. A switch works two ways, and it's a part of the Nassau line and the 6th Ave line too, as well as the cut.It's the same thing as a switch for a siding that's rarely used. It still is a part of the main route too. |
|
|
| (937364) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Wed May 26 12:23:41 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by G1Ravage on Wed May 26 03:58:19 2010. LOL! |
|
|
| (937374) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Wed May 26 13:19:56 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by Randyo on Tue May 25 15:38:27 2010. Very informative! I've always wondered about the different types of roadbeds I've seen around. |
|
|
| (937390) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Wed May 26 14:07:18 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by Alex L. on Tue May 25 16:34:36 2010. Ah found it! But it says only BJ2 track, are they only doing 1 track? |
|
|
| (937393) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by ClearAspect on Wed May 26 14:11:06 2010, in response to (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by GOLD_12th on Tue May 25 14:02:45 2010. Even if the concrete wasn't poured by the debut of the new line as long as they have skeletonized track that's ready for use they'll operate a supplement schedule and during the overnight and weekends they'll just pour the concrete. This was more of a scare tactic to get people from picking the M line imo. They have a month to go and if they're working on it 24/7 they'll do it. I've seen them chip out and replace track and pour concrete on 600 feet of track in roughly 5-6 days. So if they really got to work within 30 days they can do about 1/2 mile of chip out and concrete pour, and they've been working at this since April 30th. So they could do a mile's worth of chip out, track replacement and concrete pours. |
|
|
| (937449) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by Alex L. on Wed May 26 15:55:48 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by arnine on Tue May 25 23:48:38 2010. Guess again, oh wise one. |
|
|
| (937646) | |
Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed? |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed May 26 22:23:16 2010, in response to Re: (M) via Chrystie Street Cut delayed?, posted by ClearAspect on Wed May 26 14:07:18 2010. If they did both directions at the same time, they may have to shut down the F in both directions. So they will do it one direction at the time, no? Just a guess. |
|
|
