|
|
| Re: LIRR East Side Access (256929) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 10:50:45 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 02:39:09 2006. You didn't give an example.Even though I clearly did post 2 seperate times with an analysis of timetables I could find, here's the final one: I did an analysis of service arriving into NYP between the hours of 7 and 8am and also between 8 and 9 am, since that was the busiest hour I found before. The following lists how many trains per line get into NYP at this time: Babylon: 8 trains, 10 trains Far Rock: 3, 4 Hempstead: 2, 3 Long Beach: 2, 3 Montauk: 0, 1 Oyster Bay: 1, 1 Port Jefferson: 7, 7 Port Washington: 6, 6 Ronkonkoma: 4, 6 West Hempstead: 0, 1 Alright. So, for 7-8am, there are 33 trains. From 8-9am, there are actually 42 trains! So, I am in fact wrong. There really isn't room in the east river tubes for too much more service. But, according to this, without the Port Washington trains, space west of Jamaica has very little room as well. How are they going to add more trains without diverting some away from Penn? As I see it, without the Port Washingto trains, LIRR is running 27 and 36 trains from Jamaica to (Harold?) the interlocking where Port Washington meets up. I'm assuming that the turnout to Port Washington will not have port washington trains to NYP crossing the tracks of Jamaica trains to GCT. It doesn't seem that there is much room for additional service here, and it Port Wash trains have to mingle with Jamaica trains headed to GCT first, there's basically no room. In addition to the topic at hand here, I'd really appreciate it if you guys stop saying that I should have just accepted your word. When you go to school and learn, the teacher doesn't tell you that something is "just because", they take the time to explain the facts, whether it's going through lengthy mathematical proofs, or demonstrating the physical evidence of such. However, saying: "well, the earth is round because we said so, and we're experts!" doesn't quite dispell doubt. I was not being argumentative for the sake of beign argumentative, I merely hoped to get facts from you guys, which apparently don't matter much on this board. In addition to that, Olog-hai, I really don't appreciate the comments you're so fond of making, ready to put anyone down at a moment's notice. I asked for evidence and since none of you could provide concrete evidence, I'm not just going to accept your word that it's true. That doesn't make me 'argumentative', and it certainly doesn't mean you guys "p3wned" me when you can't produce real evidence. And when you say things like that, it doesn't contribute anything relevant to the discussion at hand, it just attempts to get people's anger to flare up. |
|
|
|