Home  Maps  About

Home > SubChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2 3]

< Previous Page  

Page 2 of 3

Next Page >  

(1145325)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 18 20:40:00 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 18 17:27:48 2012.

The Northern Bronx was once rural until the #4 line came. Eastern Queens was once rural until the #7 line and the Queens Blvd line came. Economic expansion follows expansion of mass transit. There is enough of a population shift eastward on Long Island and enough of a reverse commute to Long Island to justify expansion of service, now. Once reliable and meaningful transportation is in place, economic development could be explosive.

Post a New Response

(1145333)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Italianstallion on Sun Mar 18 21:20:21 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 18 20:40:00 2012.

IAWTP

Post a New Response

(1145365)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Mar 19 01:01:40 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Mar 18 20:02:13 2012.

Well, "not much" is quite different from "none(zero)".

And somehow, Train Dude seems to be seeing the way I see it.

Post a New Response

(G00GLE)

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale


(1145381)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Newkirk Images on Mon Mar 19 08:26:31 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 18 20:40:00 2012.

Once reliable and meaningful transportation is in place, economic development could be explosive.

A good example is HBLR.

Bill Newkirk



Post a New Response

(1145383)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Avid Reader on Mon Mar 19 09:38:44 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 18 17:27:02 2012.

Granted, but that leaves the Big Kahuna, Penn Station.

Post a New Response

(1145384)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Avid Reader on Mon Mar 19 09:46:45 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 18 20:06:30 2012.

I didn't exclude third rail!
I made a point of including it.
I think it was an oversight on your part, you missed it's inclusion on the bastard.
That's why I used the M-8 as an example.

Post a New Response

(1145395)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Avid Reader on Mon Mar 19 11:00:43 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 18 20:40:00 2012.

Open Haus, tonight?

Post a New Response

(1145398)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Train Dude on Mon Mar 19 12:37:49 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Avid Reader on Mon Mar 19 09:46:45 2012.

M-8s would be new to the LIRR. Catanary would be new to the LIRR. Neither will fly. It is what it is.

Post a New Response

(1145401)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Charles G on Mon Mar 19 13:40:01 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Mar 19 01:01:40 2012.

Well, "not much" is quite different from "none(zero)".

And somehow, Train Dude seems to be seeing the way I see it.


Meh. That guy doesn't know anything about trains...

More seriously, though, zero is zero.

There is no eastbound service on the Main Line for about 90 minutes during the AM rush. The last eastbound train is the 6:26 AM train from Jamaica to Farmingdale and the next eastbound train is the 8:01 from Jamaica to Ronkonkoma.

The gap on the Huntington/Port Jeff branch is over 2 hours long -- with a 6:12 AM departure followed by a 8:17 AM departure.

Westbound during the PM rush, the break in service is about an hour long.



Post a New Response

(1145402)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Charles G on Mon Mar 19 13:45:22 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 18 14:28:37 2012.

The reason patronage sucks ass is b/c the service sucks ass. Electrify to Riverhead and boost service out there, you'll see the numbers go up

You would see the numbers from Riverhead, Medford and Yaphank go up considerably, and you would see the numbers from Ronkonkoma go down dramatically. Many of the passengers crowding Ronkonkoma now would simply use the newly electrified stations instead.

So you would have to build all kinds of station and parking infrastructure at those stations, while all the investment in Ronkonkoma goes to waste.

And in the end, you get very little actual passenger growth. Just a re-distribution of boarding stations. We're talking about a lot of money just so that some people don't have to drive that far to get to a station.

Post a New Response

(1145407)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 19 14:27:00 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Charles G on Mon Mar 19 13:45:22 2012.

So you would have to build all kinds of station and parking infrastructure at those stations, while all the investment in Ronkonkoma goes to waste

That's baloney. You don't think that there are more people trying to get into Ronkonkoma station from places like Bohemia, Centereach, even Selden? Not having electric service extended further east kinda shuts them out of the absurd "investment" in Ronkonkoma station, and now you're making it sound like the "investment" thereof would have been better spent on electrification further east in the first place.

Post a New Response

(1145417)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Avid Reader on Mon Mar 19 16:33:47 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Mon Mar 19 12:37:49 2012.

Catenary would be a step back in time, I think It was used on the Bay Ridge Branch, freight , but LIRR.

Post a New Response

(1145418)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Avid Reader on Mon Mar 19 16:37:25 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 19 14:27:00 2012.

I think some of the many cars on the L.I.E. might be diverted to the "new" stations.

Post a New Response

(1145424)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 19 17:03:24 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Avid Reader on Mon Mar 19 09:38:44 2012.

Useless, They cycle their equipment all over all day.

Post a New Response

(1145454)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Mar 19 19:52:48 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Charles G on Mon Mar 19 13:40:01 2012.

I see I should have said Farmingdale, not Bethpage. The gap for Ronkonkoma trains is from 5:33 to 8:01 at Jamaica, pretty much avoiding peak hours. That's zero.

There is the jury duty train to Riverhead in between but that starts at Deer Park.

Having commuted in Tokyo, Paris and London, that two and a half hour gap in reverse peak is really unthinkable. I guess I've been rather spoiled.

As I said before, at least having a daytime job in Hicksville seems doable with seven trains arriving between 8:26 and 9:59.

Post a New Response

(1145455)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Mar 19 20:02:19 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Mon Mar 19 17:03:24 2012.

If he's thinking of replacing the diesels with them, that shouldn't be the case.

That said I think it's useless to electrify beyond Speonk or Riverhead. Or you can even make that Patchogue or Yaphank.

Post a New Response

(1145457)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 19 20:04:27 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 18 17:27:02 2012.

ESA is the biggest waste of public funds yet. Should have partnered with NJT to build a Union Station in Lower Manhattan instead, joining the Atlantic Branch to the Hoboken Division. But no . . .

Post a New Response

(1145470)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Avid Reader on Mon Mar 19 20:40:09 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 19 20:04:27 2012.

I agree with you, there is a need in lower Manhattan.

The already built lower level tunnel under the east river was in place.
The streets to bore under near Grand Central terminal have less and will require less building under pinning. Far Less costly.

Upper levels of the terminal already in place, at GCT.

What kind of low profile coaches does NJT have, if trains were to continue to Brooklyn from NJ.

Post a New Response

(1145474)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Train Dude on Mon Mar 19 21:14:35 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Avid Reader on Mon Mar 19 16:33:47 2012.

I think back then the Bay Ridge Branch belonged to the New Haven

Post a New Response

(1145508)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 20 05:30:55 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Mar 19 19:52:48 2012.

I agree that the reverse peak gap is entirely unacceptable. Even Hicksville really isn't reverse commutable because most of the office jobs are far enough away from the station that an 8:26 arrival doesn't put people at their desks comfortably by 9:00. Retail at the nearby mall is probably OK because those stores open at 9:30 or 10.

Post a New Response

(1145514)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by MainR3664 on Tue Mar 20 08:13:34 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Thu Mar 15 18:08:01 2012.

More NIMBYs? Ugh. And these are the same folks who'll complain their service is no good.

Post a New Response

(1145515)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by MainR3664 on Tue Mar 20 08:13:55 2012, in response to Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Gold_12th on Thu Mar 15 17:50:03 2012.

Seems like a great idea to me.

Post a New Response

(1145516)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by MainR3664 on Tue Mar 20 08:18:39 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 18 00:24:45 2012.

I'd agree. If the east end of the line is incorporated into regular service, it's much harder for the MTA to kill it. OTOH, if a small, relatively low patronage line needs special equipment, that make it easy for MTA to say "look, nobody uses it (even though we helped cause that), there's no money, so it has to go".

Example: The Myrtle Avenue El.


Post a New Response

(1145517)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by MainR3664 on Tue Mar 20 08:19:49 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Mar 18 14:28:37 2012.

'zactly. Many low patronage services have been made that way by MTA policy. Inlcudding this.

Post a New Response

(1145519)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Mar 20 08:38:01 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 20 05:30:55 2012.

Most office jobs in Hicksville start at 9:00? I'm asking because most of the midtown Manhattan office jobs (publishing, IT, etc) I had started at 9:30 or 10:00.

Post a New Response

(1145532)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 20 10:17:01 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Mar 20 08:38:01 2012.

Most US east coast office jobs seem to start at 9 or earlier. In NYC, it seems to be only the "creative" jobs that tend to have later starts. There's not a whole lot of creativity going on in Hicksville... (actually most of the office jobs that one would commute to Hicksville for are in Jericho which is essentially law offices, call centers, insurance regional offices and the like)

I actually don't really have any idea what starting times are -- my father worked in an office in Hicksville for 25+ years, and he started at 8:00.

Post a New Response

(1145580)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 20 16:40:32 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Mar 19 20:02:19 2012.

There is too little service to Mastic, but far too much to Speonk.

Post a New Response

(1145581)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 20 16:43:11 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 20 10:17:01 2012.

Don't most people have flex time ? The early AM rush trains are more crowded than 20 - 30 years ago.

Post a New Response

(1145603)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Mar 20 19:57:46 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Charles G on Tue Mar 20 05:30:55 2012.

Retail at the nearby mall is probably OK because those stores open at 9:30 or 10.

And do those jobs at the mall pay the employees enough to justify the railroad's high tariffs?

Post a New Response

(1145610)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 20 20:33:34 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Mon Mar 19 21:14:35 2012.

I thought it was joint ownership: NH & LI

Post a New Response

(1145614)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Train Dude on Tue Mar 20 21:03:04 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 20 20:33:34 2012.

It might have been but it was the NH that ran under wire. I don't recall LIRR doing so

Post a New Response

(1145640)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Mar 21 00:36:25 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Charles G on Mon Mar 19 13:45:22 2012.

Another problem with the Greenport line is that it is too slow. Trains only top out at 45mph west of Riverhead and 40mph on the North Fork despite the relative straightness of the tracks. The line badly needs to be upgraded at least to 65mph and should be electrified at least to Yaphank. They still use stick rail out on the North Fork, this might be the reason for the slow speeds.

Post a New Response

(1145689)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Avid Reader on Wed Mar 21 09:39:42 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Train Dude on Tue Mar 20 21:03:04 2012.

I now believe TRAINDUDE is correct, and I was wrong.
I had in mind, the D-D and B-B electric units.
They , however, had third rail pick-up shoes.
I could not find any photos of either rail road with electric locos on that branch, yet.
I'll keep looking.

Post a New Response

(1146078)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 23 09:14:19 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Charles G on Mon Mar 19 13:45:22 2012.

Taking more cars off the road east of Ronkonkoma is not a good thing?

Not exactly the same thing but HSR around Tokyo expanded the feasible commuting distance quite a bit.

Post a New Response

(1146081)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 23 09:38:24 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 23 09:14:19 2012.

I'd rather see electrifying to Port Jeff than to Yaphank. Even if they can't shoe-horn all the Port Jeff trains into Manhattan until ESA opens, electric trains ought to be faster then the diesels with the hills and curves. It is just as much about trip time than about 1 seat ride.

I am old enough to remember the huge Hunterspoint - Port Jeff jobs until half of their ridership was siphoned away to the Ronkonkoma line in the few years after electrification. It is probably more important to get rid of the north-south traffic off the local roads than from east of Ronkonkoma.

Post a New Response

(1146101)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Avid Reader on Fri Mar 23 11:52:19 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 23 09:38:24 2012.

Treat the Island as ONE.

Electrify to Port Jeff.

Electrify and double track to Patchogue.

Double track to Ronkonkoma and electrify to Yaphank.

Post a New Response

(1146106)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 23 13:33:25 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 23 09:38:24 2012.

I'd rather see electrifying to Port Jeff than to Yaphank.

Well, Yaphank is already on the list while Port Jeff isn't anymore.
In any case, track upgrade has to be done at the same time of electrification or you won't see much time savings.

If you you want to get rid of north-south traffic, not only the Port Jeff line but the Montauk line's service should also be improved. But I have a feeling electrification to Riverhead would come first.

Post a New Response

(1146107)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 23 13:34:25 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 23 09:14:19 2012.

Sounds like you want Acela to Montauk.

Post a New Response

(1146108)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 23 13:43:24 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Mar 15 18:47:28 2012.

That makes me wonder: why so many airports in the part of Suffolk County just east of Ronkonkoma? You got Brookhaven Airport (right by Yaphank), Spadaro, Gabreski, even Calverton.

Post a New Response

(1146110)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by N6 Limited on Fri Mar 23 13:46:50 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by grand concourse on Thu Mar 15 19:30:45 2012.

+2

Post a New Response

(1146124)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Avid Reader on Fri Mar 23 14:36:47 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 23 13:43:24 2012.

Spadaro is a very, very limited air FIELD.
I'm not sure if Brookhaven has an active control tower yet.

Gabreski, the former West Hampton Air Force station is an Airport.
Calverton, I believe , is hoped to be developed for non-air related industries.

Post a New Response

(1146125)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Avid Reader on Fri Mar 23 14:39:18 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 23 13:43:24 2012.

They go back to WW II.

Post a New Response

(1146137)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 23 16:49:19 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Mar 23 13:33:25 2012.

South Shore is dicey. The commuter rail market really ends in Mastic, but there is only room for small yard in Sayville, where the NIMBY's I am sure would go nuts, or to Speonk, which is a long ways for little return.

Post a New Response

(1146141)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 23 16:59:31 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 23 13:43:24 2012.

Pine Barrons along the LIRR were never heavily populated.

Post a New Response

(1146370)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 24 18:47:26 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 23 13:34:25 2012.

Close. I wanted to see the Turboliners go there. All because of Claytor mentioning the possibility of an Empire Corridor - Hamptons service in the 1991 Amtrak 20th anniversary interview.

Post a New Response

(1146372)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 24 19:08:12 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Tue Mar 20 16:40:32 2012.

I've always assumed trains go to Speonk because it has a yard.

Post a New Response

(1146378)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 24 19:31:22 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Mar 20 19:57:46 2012.

One of the things I miss by not being in Japan is that it's normally the employers who pay the employees commute expenses.

Post a New Response

(1146379)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 24 19:33:18 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Joe V on Fri Mar 23 16:49:19 2012.

Like I said earlier, it's not that I think it would happen. Mastic people would just drive to Yaphank once electrified.

Post a New Response

(1146382)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Mar 24 19:46:58 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 24 19:31:22 2012.

Damned socialists! :)

Post a New Response

(1146389)

view threaded

Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale

Posted by Joe V on Sat Mar 24 20:05:08 2012, in response to Re: Schumer Backs Second LIRR Track in Farmingdale, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 24 19:33:18 2012.

Then what's the point ?
(Tell people to drive farther and take a different train farther away because the ends justifies the means)

Post a New Response

[1 2 3]

< Previous Page  

Page 2 of 3

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]