|
|
| Re: LIRR East Side Access (256237) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 9 |
||
|
| (256417) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 10:23:01 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon May 22 08:13:43 2006. Indeed! When NYP was built it was LIRR and not PRR that held the rights to build tunnels under the East River. That is why PRR *bought* the LIRR: To have access to those rights. Worked out for LIRR too, because rights or not they had not the resources to build tunnels.In those days it was simple: If you worked on the west side you bought a home on Long Island. If you worked on the east side you bought a home in Westchester. If you worked downtown, you'd change to the IRT from NYP, GCT or Brooklyn. ROAR |
|
|
| (256418) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 10:34:57 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 01:33:07 2006.  We're likely 10 years away from ESA. Between now and then, MTA could make any number of decisions about MNRR service into Penn. You are making it seem like it is impossible under any circumstances. Correct. In those ten years LIRR business will also increase, and they will still require every slot they can get in NYP. NJT wants more slots too. Maybe AMTK will wither and die in those ten years, in which case NJT will take over most of those slots. Conceiveably, if AMTK went belly (or other parts) up, then MNRR may assume those assets and routes, and bring Empire Service into NYP. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that. FACE IT: Both NYP and GCT are *FULL*. That is why LIRR is building new platforms (which happen to be at GCT). That is why NJT wants to build new tunnels (and platforms) in Manhattan. And GUESS WHAT: IT DOESN't MATTER to LIRR, NJT or MNRR *where* in Manhattan they discharge their customers: Most of them will need to connect with a subway to their final destination anyway. So foget about a one seat ride from your home to your job. THAT does not happen in the real world. Oh sure, of course when I worked on 31st street, I was right across from NYP, but really, how many people can actually work right on 31st Street? ROARING! 
|
|
|
| (256419) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Mon May 22 10:37:49 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 10:34:57 2006. I work on W34th Street. My commute is a dream. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (256420) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 10:39:12 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Rail Blue on Mon May 22 03:36:32 2006. What they could not buy or rent at any price is platform time slots in NYP. Sorry. All Sold Out.Now then... Maybe they *could* use those tracks, building a new terminal under 34ths Street ala what LIRR has done at GCT, but IIRC *that* is where NJT wants to go with its new tunnels. ROAR |
|
|
| (256422) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 10:55:02 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon May 22 01:41:10 2006. Okay, but we're talking about the LIRR and MNRR regions... No. You are NOT. The lines in question were built at a time when railroads and not airplanes were the dominant mode of transport, and they *did* compete with each other. What do you think those water troughs were all about upstate? Since the lines were NEVER designed to be joined, who cares what power types are used.
|
|
|
| (256423) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 10:58:40 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon May 22 08:07:40 2006. How hard can it be to train somebody to run on a new piece of track.Sheesh! Railroads do *that* all the time. ROAR |
|
|
| (256431) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Mon May 22 11:43:35 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon May 22 08:13:43 2006. ESA will more or less cut down on trains to Long Island City.How so? Diesels can't go anywhere else. |
|
|
| (256435) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 11:46:57 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Edwards! on Mon May 22 00:58:45 2006. Yeah, current railfan plans. There ain't no MTA plans. |
|
|
| (256439) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by JRice on Mon May 22 11:59:07 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon May 22 08:13:43 2006. You read my post incorrectly. ESA makes more room for LIRR at the NEW GCT. I said nothing about opening slots in Penn.Diesels will still have to go somewhere, so LIC will not be affected. |
|
|
| (256440) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 22 12:05:03 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by JRice on Mon May 22 11:59:07 2006. Diesels will still have to go somewhere, so LIC will not be affected.True, but that doesn't mean they have to run with passengers. Hunterspoint Ave will be a ghost town once the new GCT opens. It's reason for being for passengers will be gone. Diesel trains will still have to go somewhere, however they would be able to deadhead them, as opposed to all of them running with passengers to Hunterspoint Ave. More than likely in revenue service many will terminate at Jamaica for passengers, and then run deadhead to LIC yard, perhaps via the Montauk line. |
|
|
| (256447) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 12:32:41 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Mon May 22 11:43:35 2006. Dual Modes can.But can the dual modes and the C-3s fit in the new tunnels? And here the dual modes *could* operate single ended with a cab car because it will be new third rail and in a simpler station configuration would not need 600' gaps. ROAR |
|
|
| (256450) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 12:41:28 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 12:32:41 2006. can the dual modes and the C-3s fit in the new tunnels?If by "new tunnels" you mean the 63rd Street Tunnel, the answer is no. |
|
|
| (256453) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 12:51:20 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 12:41:28 2006. So some M-7s will go to GCT (gotta-right?)and maybe some more dual modes will go to NYP. Shoulda built those DMs to run on cats instead of on rails. ROAR |
|
|
| (256454) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Mon May 22 12:56:40 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 12:51:20 2006. Shoulda built those DMs to run on cats instead of on rails.But then PETA and the ASPCA will go after them :) |
|
|
| (256455) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by TeaBiscuit18thAveDude on Mon May 22 12:57:27 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by mambomta on Mon May 22 12:56:40 2006. REOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!*BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ* Christmas tree = GONE. ;) |
|
|
| (256456) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Mon May 22 12:59:07 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by JRice on Mon May 22 11:59:07 2006. Diesels will still have to go somewhere, so LIC will not be affected.More dual-mode consists will be able to go into Penn. So LIC and Hunterspoint might be affected somewhat. |
|
|
| (256461) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon May 22 13:32:53 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon May 22 08:37:04 2006. Any pics of the two systems available? |
|
|
| (256469) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 14:01:21 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon May 22 01:50:08 2006. ESA doesn't require purchasing new locomotives/equipment or doing anything to Amtrak-owned lines.But it does require a far more expensive investment in tunneling, signal equipment and new station construction. Speding a couple of million for a few new locomotives is far cheaper than building new tunnel. |
|
|
| (256471) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 14:03:07 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by mambomta on Mon May 22 12:59:07 2006. But the LIRR might already be running into NYP the maximum number of dual-mode consists that it can reliably muster on a daily basis. |
|
|
| (256474) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 14:06:04 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 10:34:57 2006. FACE IT: Both NYP and GCT are *FULL*. That is why LIRR is building new platforms (which happen to be at GCT). That is why NJT wants to build new tunnels (and platforms) in Manhattan.GCT has underused tracks. Penn is getting an expansion. And GUESS WHAT: IT DOESN't MATTER to LIRR, NJT or MNRR *where* in Manhattan they discharge their customers: Most of them will need to connect with a subway to their final destination anyway. And yet MTA is spending billions to do exactly the opposite of what you are saying. MNRR could do the same for FAR cheaper. |
|
|
| (256475) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 14:07:17 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 14:01:21 2006. The point is moot assuming that what they say is true - NYP is full and could not accommodate any MNCR trains. |
|
|
| (256477) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 22 14:09:45 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 14:03:07 2006. Presumably sometime in the next eight to ten years they'd order some more dual mode locos to supplant some of the DE30ACs and pull their C3s into NYP. |
|
|
| (256479) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 14:10:15 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 14:07:17 2006. 1. Are they not expanding NYP?2. Contrary to what everybody says, the opening of LIRR into GCT would have to result in some trains currently going into Penn or Brooklyn to go to GCT. There will be room. The question is: do they want to make any? |
|
|
| (256484) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 14:12:09 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 14:06:04 2006. Penn is getting an expansion.The "expansion" that you speak of only affects pedestrian access to the platforms. Besides lengthening I believe one platform, and making a few stub end tracks through tracks, nothing will be done to increase the throughput of the station. As such, NYP will likely be able to accommodate approximately the same number of trains per hour before and after the "expansion," leaving no new room for MNCR trains. |
|
|
| (256485) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 14:13:08 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Mon May 22 14:09:45 2006. That's certainly a possibility. |
|
|
| (256489) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 14:19:01 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 14:10:15 2006. 1. see my recent post2. Contrary to what everybody says, the opening of LIRR into GCT would have to result in some trains currently going into Penn or Brooklyn to go to GCT. There will be room. How do you know this? From what I have read here and in the ESA documents, I don't recall anything ever being said that the LIRR was going to decrease the number of trains into NYP or Flatbush Av. Without them saying that, they are under no obligation to do so, and the logical conclusion is that they will keep and use all slots they currently have into NYP. It makes no sense for them not to. Their mission is to serve their passengers, and running as many trains as they can into NYP serves their passengers the best, regardless of how many they send to GCT. |
|
|
| (256493) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by JRice on Mon May 22 14:29:34 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 14:19:01 2006. Correct. There is capacity between Jamaica and Harold to accomodate new trains to GCT while maintaining the existing trains to NYP and Atlantic Ave. |
|
|
| (256501) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 15:05:19 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 14:19:01 2006. How do you know this? From what I have read here and in the ESA documents, I don't recall anything ever being said that the LIRR was going to decrease the number of trains into NYP or Flatbush Av.You know what: I don't know this. But LIRR is presently not suffering from severe overcrowding. How many extra trains could they add? And would this be cost effective? The funniest thing about all of this, is that while everybody is saying that no current MNRR equipment is capable of running to NYP (and thus we need new equipment, which 'cannot' happen), If LIRR doesn't divert any trains from NYP, they too will need new equipment. As far as what you said on Penn: I thought that there was a new expansion planned for NYP with platforms under Farley. Forgive me for my misstatements. But, if there is going to be a new NJT tunnel under the Hudson (what's it called, ARC?) then where will these trains be berthing at NYP? It IS possible to make space at NYP if you really want MNRR to go there. |
|
|
| (256503) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by TeaBiscuit18thAveDude on Mon May 22 15:10:55 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 15:05:19 2006. The station under the Jacob A. Farley/Main Post Office on 8th and 33rd is being rebuilt/renovated into Moynahan Station. |
|
|
| (256506) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 15:14:31 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 15:05:19 2006. But LIRR is presently not suffering from severe overcrowding. How many extra trains could they add? And would this be cost effective?It is my impression, based on what I have heard, that peak hour LIRR trains are very crowded. The funniest thing about all of this, is that while everybody is saying that no current MNRR equipment is capable of running to NYP (and thus we need new equipment, which 'cannot' happen) I don't think "it couldn't happen." If LIRR doesn't divert any trains from NYP, they too will need new equipment That most certainly may be true. As far as what you said on Penn: I thought that there was a new expansion planned for NYP with platforms under Farley. Forgive me for my misstatements. Yeah, no new platforms. The platforms are already there and are already being used. But, if there is going to be a new NJT tunnel under the Hudson (what's it called, ARC?) then where will these trains be berthing at NYP? The additional NJT trains to NYP though the new set of tunnels would end up at a new 8 track station parallel to NYP under 34 St or somewhere near there. It IS possible to make space at NYP if you really want MNRR to go there. Using your above example of the new tunnels to NYP and the resulting new station needed, yes, you can make space for MNCR trains *near* NYP, but it would involve building a new station. |
|
|
| (256507) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 15:15:34 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by TeaBiscuit18thAveDude on Mon May 22 15:10:55 2006. Huh? The "station under the Jacob A. Farley/Main Post Office on 8th and 33rd" is PENN STATION. And the renovation involves getting people down to track level. |
|
|
| (256509) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by TeaBiscuit18thAveDude on Mon May 22 15:25:13 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 15:15:34 2006. Then what the fuck is going on with this Moynahan Station that is "supposed" to be built at that site? |
|
|
| (256510) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Mon May 22 15:34:05 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon May 22 08:32:38 2006. Also believe Detroit-windsor electrification by NYC used underrunning. |
|
|
| (256512) | |
Underrunning Third Rail systems (was:Re: LIRR East Side Access) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 22 15:37:17 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon May 22 08:32:38 2006. Outside of NYC, Philadelphia, Rotterdam, and Amsterdam these cities use an underrunning third rail system on their subway or commuter rail. As you can see it's quite popular in Europe.Berlin S-bahn Berlin U-bahn, new, wide profile lines, Nuremburg's U-bahn Munich's U-bahn Hamburg's S-bahn Hamburg's U-bahn Oslo's T-bane Prague Metro Brussels Metro Sophia Metro Vienna Metro Copenhagen Metro Barcelona Metro Helsinki Metro Stockholm T-bana Warsaw Metro Bucharest Metro Minsk Metro Moscow Metro St Petersburg Metro Kazan Metro? Kiev Metro Kharkov Metro? Tashkent Metro? Baku Metro? Tblisi Metro? Dnepropetrovsk Metro? Samara Metro? I'm fairly certain I missed more than a few, and that's just in Europe and Russia. Most of the former Soviet systems have few pictures, but they usually did things on a standardized basis, so I included them with question marks. Looks like the Cairo Metro oddly enough uses underrunning third rail, as does the Sao Paulo Metro. |
|
|
| (256516) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 15:50:50 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by TeaBiscuit18thAveDude on Mon May 22 15:25:13 2006. "Moynihan Station" is a new concourse/mezzanine area leading down to existing tracks and platforms. It may also provide additional waiting room space, retail space, ticket selling space, customer service space, etc., all on a concourse/mezzanine level. |
|
|
| (256521) | |
what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? |
|
|
Posted by tramrunner on Mon May 22 16:07:43 2006, in response to Underrunning Third Rail systems (was:Re: LIRR East Side Access), posted by WillD on Mon May 22 15:37:17 2006. sorry, I cant understand... I guess you simply mean "using 3rd rail"SO... many transit stymes do it. BTW visiting Prague, I mentioned that all subway tunnels have some catenary over tracks, but this catenary is never used. Prague Metro uses mostly Mytischi-made subway cars, some of them are modernized. Yet line C uses the Siement M1 cars. If I saw them in NYC Subway, in addition to R160ies - would be very interesting. But for Prague - they are too new! You interest in Russian cities is appreciated! I never knew that SAMARA has Metro.! BTW I have a very good e-friend in Samara, he is a transit fan and very interested in America. |
|
|
| (256522) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Mon May 22 16:10:21 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 22 12:05:03 2006. Will the LIC station still be used when the ESA opens? |
|
|
| (256524) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Mon May 22 16:16:55 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 12:51:20 2006. You need two DM engines to get one train into NYP, and the DEs can't go there at all. |
|
|
| (256526) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Mon May 22 16:18:27 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 22 12:05:03 2006. Methinks Lower Montauk residents might get kinda pissed off at having a big increase in train frequency while having no actual service. |
|
|
| (256527) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Mon May 22 16:19:47 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Mon May 22 14:09:45 2006. Hopefully they're not that stupid. Or they'll at least order a different kind of dual-mode (Genesis?) |
|
|
| (256528) | |
Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? |
|
|
Posted by TeaBiscuit18thAveDude on Mon May 22 16:21:39 2006, in response to what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail?, posted by tramrunner on Mon May 22 16:07:43 2006. An under running 3rd rail means the shoe contacts the rail on the TOP, as the rail is on top of the shoe vs. the "standard" shoe on top of rail (which is OVER running).Someone else posted else where that the benefit that the NYC thought to using this was, for one, a matter of safety and protection from the elements. |
|
|
| (256537) | |
Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 22 16:34:56 2006, in response to what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail?, posted by tramrunner on Mon May 22 16:07:43 2006. No, underrunning third rail is a specific type of third rail. In the US third rail comes in two varieties, over and under running. With an underrunning third rail the shoe sits under the rail and you can see this in NYC on the Metro North, in Philadelphia on the Market Frankford Line, and in all those cities I listed in the previous post. Overrunning third rail places the shoe over the rail (obviously enough) and while it's far more common in the North America and Asia it's somewhat less common in the rest of the world. The LIRR and NYC subway are the two most notable users of overrunning third rail. There's also a side-running third rail system, but it's not overly common in the US at all. You can see the different types of third rail on this illustration: Which was pulled from this page: http://www.railway-technical.com/etracp.html#Third-Rail The London Underground, Chicago 'L', some of Boston's subways, some of the Paris Metro, and the early small profile Berlin U-bahn lines (amongst others) use a simple top contact system without a cover (yes, London adds a fourth rail, but that's just another simple top contact third rail between the rails). NYC's Subway, the LIRR, BART, MARTA, PATCO, WMATA, Toronto's Subway, and many other North American systems, as well as at least the Athens, Tokyo, and Bucharest Metros, use a top contact third rail system with a cover. I honestly don't know of any side-contact third rail systems, so if anyone knows of an example I'd be happy to hear about it. Given the similarity in design of side and underrunning third rail systems it could be that I confused a few of them in my list in the last post. And of course the bottom contact, 'underrunning' third rail would include the systems I named in that last post. |
|
|
| (256543) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 22 16:51:53 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon May 22 08:02:26 2006. Alright, maybe I'm confused on that subject. I could have sworn it was you who said they wouldn't have dynamics in third rail, back in the thread relating to the design of the M8s, but I can't find the thread. It'd help if the MTA would actually post the specifications, but I guess that'd be too much trouble. Whatever the Connecticut Commuter Council has on their site seems to be the fluff stuff on how it should be formatted and such.However, why are they considering track brakes on the M8s? Can this be something other than the electromagnetic bars of metal with graphite shoes on the bottom which trolleys and CTA L cars use? Why would they want track brakes on a commuter railroad EMU? It's listed as Alternative 14 on page 15 of the M8 "specifications" the CCC posted, below stuff like auto-dimming and occupancy sensing interior lights and HVAC units (actually probably a good idea...), and above 'Operation west of NYC' with the 12kv 25hz compatibility specified (and with no mention of two transformers) and reads as follows: Alternate #14 –Articulated Track Brakes for M-8:Is this just something if the builder eliminates the 'cheek' brakes and goes with an all-tread based braking system? Or would this have something to do with the dynamic braking system or lack thereof? |
|
|
| (256546) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon May 22 17:04:41 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Mon May 22 16:10:21 2006. Yes. |
|
|
| (256547) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon May 22 17:06:32 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 10:39:12 2006. I don't believe that ARC for NJT will actually open up NYP platform time slots. All it would do is add tunnel capacity. |
|
|
| (256549) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 22 17:08:10 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Rail Blue on Mon May 22 03:36:32 2006. They wouldn't even need to buy new locos. Just set aside a few existing Genesis II units and have them shopped to provide the same third rail shoe arrangement as Amtrak's. No need for some complex retraction mechanism which aligns to both heights, just install an already designed piece of equipment for running into NYP and provide a way for that system to be locked down and have underrunning third rail shoes attached to it in the shop. Hell, modify the whole Genesis fleet to give a rotating pool of NYP-capable P32AC-DMs. That way they could be pulled from service, replaced with a former GCT service Genny that had its shoes changed from over to underrunning at the regular inspection. Then when our original unit goes back out, it does so with underrunning third rail shoes for GCT service. From a maitenance and operations standpoint it may be best to stick with a fixed pool consisting of a certain block of the fleet, but a rotating pool is certainly possible. |
|
|
| (256577) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 18:55:59 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Edwards! on Mon May 22 01:35:42 2006. What do you mean "if they chose to"?? There's no room in Penn.Can you do math? GCT = 67 tracks, NYP = 28 tracks. Why do any Metro-North trips need to get out of GCT?!? |
|
|
| (256579) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 18:57:26 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon May 22 17:06:32 2006. Correct. Access to the Restricted Conundrum proposes adding a mere eight new tracks with adjacent platforms . . . eventually. |
|
|
| (256580) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 18:58:54 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 14:10:15 2006. Are they not expanding NYP?No, they're not. |
|
|
| (256581) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 18:59:36 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 14:10:15 2006. Contrary to what everybody says, the opening of LIRR into GCT would have to result in some trains currently going into Penn or Brooklyn to go to GCT. There will be roomFalse. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 9 |
||
