|
|
| Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars (1251338) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
|
| (1251710) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 13:00:59 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by grand concourse on Fri Oct 4 11:46:01 2013. Too late for that now. Wouldn't spend a minute thinking about it. |
|
|
| (1251714) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 4 13:18:52 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by grand concourse on Fri Oct 4 12:05:34 2013. funny thing about this..the proposal called for new 75ft cars [R211],for the L line.the R46 were tried there..didnt work..due to the benchwall on turns.. that can be corrected,can it not? |
|
|
| (1251716) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Fri Oct 4 13:34:45 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 11:28:54 2013. Some are, most are not. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1251717) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Fri Oct 4 13:46:07 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Gold_12th on Fri Oct 4 12:22:18 2013. According to the official subway car data sheets posted on nycsubway.org, the R142/142A have a door opening of 4 ft 6 in, while the R143/160A/B have an opening of 4 ft 2 in. |
|
|
| (1251718) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 4 13:49:04 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Gold_12th on Fri Oct 4 12:22:18 2013. 6ft?that cant be right...more like 4'6. |
|
|
| (1251719) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by Gold_12th on Fri Oct 4 13:54:25 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by VictorM on Fri Oct 4 13:46:07 2013. You right, I read it wrong... 6' 3" is the height. |
|
|
| (1251725) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 14:17:50 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 4 13:18:52 2013. How would they get there without risk of sideswipe at Bridge Plaza ?Misroute at ENY - then what ? Derail at Crescnent St ? |
|
|
| (1251733) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Oct 4 14:54:42 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 4 12:58:22 2013. Narrow compared to the R110A doors...those were some really wide doors. But still wider than the cars they replaced. |
|
|
| (1251734) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 15:08:59 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Oct 4 12:19:39 2013. They could still put transverse seats in a 75' car with 5 door sets. The doors would still be as far apart as an R10-R16, though door width may cut one or two of the bench seats on either side from 2 to 1 seat. |
|
|
| (1251735) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Fri Oct 4 15:14:05 2013, in response to MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Gold_12th on Wed Oct 2 21:04:29 2013. Ugh that means more locked car doors |
|
|
| (1251736) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 4 15:22:44 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 14:17:50 2013. late night moves.the reconstruction of the bridge leads widen out the turns,so the chance of a sideswipe is miniscule at best. the cars would obviously head to ENY to be evaluated..no need to go as far as Crescent since they wont be used on the J/Z lines. been riding the eastern division lines since they were number routes,been in the crew room at 168th st PLENTY of times with my pops. saw a few R46's operated from/To ENY..and one test train on the MYRTLE EL in the 80's. no need to be snarky with me,son... |
|
|
| (1251737) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 4 15:23:36 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Oct 4 14:54:42 2013. right. |
|
|
| (1251738) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Fri Oct 4 15:29:09 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 07:26:59 2013. It's not only the trucks (BTW 6 cars would still be 7 trucks). Cost of maintenance is based on fleet miles. An 8 car train of 75 foot cars making a 65 mile round trip to 207th St and back would accumulate 520 miles for the trip while a 10-car train of 6o foot cars would accumulate 650 miles or 25% more mileage for the same 600' train. If your scheduled maintenance is mileage based, then 60' cars become far more expensive to maintain. |
|
|
| (1251748) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 16:06:57 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Train Dude on Fri Oct 4 15:29:09 2013. That sounds like car miles for the set, and obviously 5 cars will hit a threshold before 4 cars would.But it is still a 65 mile round trip. Perhaps the metric used to schedule maintenance should be based on set miles, not aggregate car miles as all the cars travel together, therefore not to discriminate based on # of cars within a set. |
|
|
| (1251749) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 16:09:01 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 4 15:22:44 2013. Not trying to be snarky, just bringing up concerns. Relax.R46's moves were pretty rare. |
|
|
| (1251750) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Oct 4 16:09:47 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 15:08:59 2013. I know that (and am hoping that is what they do). I was just pointing out that even if they didn't do that, there would be a slight seating increase.R10/R16 style seating would be the best. |
|
|
| (1251759) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 16:29:36 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 07:28:27 2013. I've heard that but If the MTA had any guts it would specify that CBTC work with all configurations of cars regardless of the number. I'm not sure of the type of train control or ATO is used by WMATA or other newer systems but thy operate on trains of any consist so the MTA should have done likewise. |
|
|
| (1251762) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 16:32:00 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by Avid Reader on Fri Oct 4 10:02:32 2013. 3 car sets of 67 footers would be fine as long as the truck centers were made identical to the BMT steels which was not the case with the R-110B. Additional sets of 2 car units similar to the BT units could be ordered to allow for 8 car trains on the BMT Eastern as was done post GOH of the steels. |
|
|
| (1251767) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 16:35:23 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Oct 4 10:39:30 2013. That wouldn't be an insurmountable problem since car markers for 75 ft cars were never installed in the first place. M/M had to use the 10 and 6 car markers designed for 60 footers. As for C/R boards separate boards were installed for R-160s and R-42s as well as 600 ft trains of any consist so that wouldn't be a problem. The BMT had various C/R boards for Steels, D Types and Multis. |
|
|
| (1251768) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 16:37:48 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by Edwards! on Fri Oct 4 15:22:44 2013. According to an old trainmaster (remember those?) there is also a problem with getting 75 footers into ENY Yd. |
|
|
| (1251773) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 16:42:37 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 16:37:48 2013. Over the years, they have gone from a few very cautious moves to an outright ban north of Broad Street. I don't see it happening |
|
|
| (1251775) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Oct 4 16:47:18 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 16:42:37 2013. Which is why 67-foot cars to me would be a good compromise from now on.You can have in most of the system nine or 10 such cars and seven or eight such cars in the Eastern Division. As all sets would be three or four cars, they can be more easily moved as needed and over time could replace both the 60 and 75-foot cars. |
|
|
| (1251778) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 16:54:47 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Oct 4 16:47:18 2013. You will still have 3-unit trains to make 600', and that can't be done with NTT.The 67' car left the station 10 years ago. |
|
|
| (1251779) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Oct 4 16:56:24 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by N6 Limited on Fri Oct 4 15:14:05 2013. Considering the $50 fine for crossing between unlocked ones, the distinction is meaningless. To me, this means "yay, two less stations of running around on the platform to get from the last car to the first!" |
|
|
| (1251781) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 16:59:18 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 16:35:23 2013. They want the system dumbed down and not C/R Boards all over the place.Didn't we see them wrongfully slap R32 stickers on the R42 boards on the Jamaica Line this summer ? |
|
|
| (1251782) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 17:08:36 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 16:06:57 2013. Good point! |
|
|
| (1251783) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Oct 4 17:08:51 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 16:29:36 2013. WMATA does not use CBTC, it uses audiofrequency tuned track circuits relaying train control via cab signals. Thus while CBTC has no fixed block length and headway is limited solely by the performance of the rolling stock, WMATA is constrained by fixed block lengths and the time required for a train of a given length to clear the longest block. |
|
|
| (1251785) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Oct 4 17:12:13 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 11:34:05 2013. It's not like they're going to have conductors forever. Maybe it's time to start relocating that equipment to the front end of the platform and, until such time as the C/R can be eliminated, have the C/R operate the doors from the front end of the train. |
|
|
| (1251786) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Oct 4 17:16:04 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 16:54:47 2013. Disclaimer: I don't like the idea of 67' cars.That said, a new equipment order would either not have that limitation, or be designed around that limitation. One possible solution would be to build 3, 4 and 5 car sets with many more 4 car sets than the other sizes. The B2 division would have 4+5 and the B1 would have 4+4 or 4+3. Reasons why that is a bad idea: For B1, 8x67 is only 4 feet shorter than 9x60', so a platform extension project would be necessary anyway. And if they're doing that, they might as well stick with 60' cars. Without a platform extension, using 7x67 means you have shortened the eastern division trains by 11' (and only recovered 5' by the reduction of one between-car area). So there'd be a great amount of effort [stop markers, conductor boards, training] to accommodate an oddball size of equipment and when the dust settles, you have shorter trains... not really worthwhile. |
|
|
| (1251787) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 17:26:08 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by WillD on Fri Oct 4 17:08:51 2013. OK, thanks. I still can't imagine why CBTC can't be developed to allow for multiple train lengths composed of various units. |
|
|
| (1251788) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 17:27:03 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by WillD on Fri Oct 4 17:12:13 2013. From where, the T/O's lap? |
|
|
| (1251790) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 17:29:38 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Oct 4 16:56:24 2013. What about cases of genuine emergency. A potential mugging victim can be sliced diced and/or shot ten times by the time a member of the train crew gets good and ready to unlock the doors to allow inter car passage! |
|
|
| (1251796) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Oct 4 17:40:50 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 17:27:03 2013. The rear of the train would also work. Or give them a seat on the left side of the cab and something akin to a hostler's controls. The C/R can then handle left side doors while the T/O handles the right side doors and the C/R releases the brakes and takes a point of power as the T/O observes the platform. |
|
|
| (1251801) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 17:46:47 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by WillD on Fri Oct 4 17:40:50 2013. How can C/Rs release brakes? They are not qualified to operate. |
|
|
| (1251803) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 17:59:54 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 17:46:47 2013. In Toronto, the TO and C/R are one in the same, one becomes the other at each relay. But they do not share a full-width cab. |
|
|
| (1251804) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Fri Oct 4 18:02:07 2013, in response to MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Gold_12th on Wed Oct 2 21:04:29 2013. No. |
|
|
| (1251806) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 18:02:39 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Oct 4 17:16:04 2013. The R179 order should be 4 and 5 car sets for the L train and run 9 car trains. But now they have the CBTC on the R143 and some R160's that would need to be transplanted, and that is expensive. |
|
|
| (1251809) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Oct 4 18:15:06 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 17:26:08 2013. It depends on the method by which CBTC is being implemented. I believe NYCT's Trainguard MT system from Siemens as installed on the R188s uses an unbraked idler odometer on one or two axles of the train to provide more precise distance within a given track block specified by wayside beacons. Each train of a given length would need to have one axle dedicated to providing odometer data so a married pair would lose one eighth of its power and braking. Clearly it is preferable to increase the length of the fixed trainset so as to have the smallest ratio of unbraked axles to powered and brake equipped axles.Unbraked idler axles are also used by the Seltrac system. BBD's ICTS, like JFK's Airtrain is a notable local example. And somehow Seltrac is related to the Trainguard MT system being used by NYC. But Seltrac uses an inductive loop that is crossed below the train every few hundred feet to provide coarse positioning data that corrects for errors in the fine positioning data from the odometer axle. As I understand it the R143s were equipped with a system which imaged either the wheel tread or railhead to provide that same fine grain distance information without requiring an unbraked idler axle. But from what has been said here the system was not particularly successful. That's unfortunate as it could provide a viable means by which to provide CBTC to a train of an arbitrary length without worrying about train lengths. There are other CBTC systems which manage to operate without either arrangement (I think). SEPTA installed Bombardier's CityFlo 650 CBTC train management and control system on the Subway Surface lines as part of a settlement over the installation of cab signals on the Market Frankford line. It would be quite impossible to provide an odometer axle on a trolley car, so they must be using some other means to provide fine positioning data, but unfortunately I don't know what it is. Really at this point the Europeans are churning ETCS balises or beacons out by the thousands. The marginal cost of even tripling the number of beacons on a project is likely to be relatively small compared to the fixed costs associated with refitting the rolling stock and providing the processing capabilities in the wayside. It might end up being best to just go with a tremendous number of beacons establishing a virtual fixed block network with very small blocks as an alternative to CBTC. That way the on-car equipment need not convert analog measurements into digital data (as with an odometer axle), and yet we can still achieve much closer train spacing than is possible with (fairly expensive) fixed block signalling. |
|
|
| (1251817) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 19:50:03 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 17:59:54 2013. True, but that's not the case in NY right now although I suspect that at some point the MTA will no longer hire C/Rs and hire only T/Os open competitive and qualify all of them OPTO and go to the Canadian system. |
|
|
| (1251823) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri Oct 4 20:51:06 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 17:27:03 2013. From where, the T/O's lap?Absolutely. Make it as uncomfortable as possible to operate a train with both a T/O and a C/R. BTW, that's what they did in Paris. |
|
|
| (1251826) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Fri Oct 4 21:07:29 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 17:29:38 2013. Right, If I was on that F train that got stuck for 2 hours and it was an R160 I would have climbed right out walked to the next station and been home before they were rescued. Aint nobody got time for that! My phone has a bright light and I know not to go near the third rail and the express tracks since the B and D were running. |
|
|
| (1251849) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Oct 4 23:07:45 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 18:02:39 2013. Is the CBTC equipment only in the A cars? If so perhaps they could take B cars from R160 five car sets from elsewhere in the system. As for the R143s... well, the R188 order solved that problem with the R142As, maybe a similar thing could be done to handle this? |
|
|
| (1251850) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Oct 4 23:10:19 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by randyo on Fri Oct 4 17:29:38 2013. You can push out the storm window in a real emergency. If that's not enough, they could install alarmed switches like the R44/46 originally had. |
|
|
| (1251851) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Oct 4 23:14:06 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by WillD on Fri Oct 4 17:12:13 2013. Why can't they do it PATH-style - CR controls at both ends of every car, but not hidden away in a cab so it doesn't take up valuable passenger space? |
|
|
| (1251862) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Oct 5 00:29:06 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 16:09:01 2013. Rare or not..I've seen them over there more than a few times running light.Since the elevated section over Fulton st hasn't been modified for 75ft cars..there would be no reason for those cars to run in J service..no way the MTA is going to chance it. Besides..I'm always relaxed! LOL! |
|
|
| (1251870) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 5 01:19:07 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 16:59:18 2013. It was really weird to see, back in the day on the Jamaica line all the different stop/conductor markings for the R types, A/B types and el cars. |
|
|
| (1251876) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Oct 5 02:49:54 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Joe V on Fri Oct 4 16:06:57 2013. No it shouldn't. When you compute your manpower and material needs, you need to know your fleet mileage and not the per-car mileage. |
|
|
| (1251879) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Sat Oct 5 02:59:48 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Train Dude on Sat Oct 5 02:49:54 2013. I think you mean "not the per-train mileage". |
|
|
| (1251889) | |
Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Oct 5 07:27:22 2013, in response to Re: MTA will still be ordering new 75 foot NYC subway cars, posted by Train Dude on Sat Oct 5 02:49:54 2013. Yes know your miles, but know perfectly well the 4 or 5 car travel together, and multiply.Maintenance-based miles seems to use the same formula as if all the cars were R10-R16's. The metric is flawed in sending train sets to the barn too often as it is biased by cars per set. |
|
|
| (1251890) | |
Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Oct 5 07:30:01 2013, in response to Re: Wouldn't 67-foot cars make more sense?, posted by Edwards! on Sat Oct 5 00:29:06 2013. I didn't say they would go on the J, but dispatching errors do happen, and do note that there is now an outright ban north of Broad Street of them, which was not the case years ago. They would still have an escape back from Chambers or Essex. Once at Alabama Av, there is no turning back without shutting down the line to back it out. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
