|
|
| Re: LIRR East Side Access (256237) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 9 |
||
|
| (256582) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 19:00:34 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 15:50:50 2006. Correct. No new tracks. |
|
|
| (256584) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 19:04:07 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 10:55:02 2006. Since the lines were NEVER designed to be joined, who cares what power types are usedThey care because they're dreaming about them being joined now, of course. But that's all it is; a wailfan dweam . . .  |
|
|
| (256585) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 19:06:03 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Mon May 22 16:16:55 2006. You need two DM engines to get one train into NYPIf they properly negotiated the third-rail gaps, you'd only need one engine. Amtrak would be using one engine to get to Sunnyside . . . |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (256591) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 19:29:49 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 19:06:03 2006. Amtrak's loco is always on the front. That's the diff. |
|
|
| (256592) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 22 19:31:09 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 18:57:26 2006. All current work by the ARC folks indicates we'll get "ARC Alternative P2" which calls for the new two track tunnel under the Hudson, the 8 track, two cavern terminal under 34th St, and also a connection between the new Hudson tubes and the existing NYP platforms. You can see this below: The ARC tunnels would not merely serve the 8 terminal tracks, but would, with the connection to NYP, allow better utilization of NYP tracks 1-10 or so by NJT trains. During peak hours those tracks, especially the stub ended 1-4 can create delays and are largely underutilized by NJT. This is of course bad news for folks who want to see MN into NYP, since when ARC is completed they'll pretty much be wringing as much capacity from NYP as possible at that point. |
|
|
| (256593) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 19:35:30 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Mon May 22 19:31:09 2006. I don't see why anyone wants to see Metro-North in NYP. Like I said in another post on here, MNCW has sixty-seven tracks all to themselves, none of which will be lost to LIRR's ESA. |
|
|
| (256601) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon May 22 19:56:54 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 22 12:05:03 2006. Interesting point by you.What about LIC itself as a destination? There are businesses there and development is continuing. Perhaps the diesels could be marketed and retimed to deliver passengers for that reason, then go out of service. The best situation is where a train or bus going out of service anyway can still carry a few passengers to a station. Making a few bucks of a few passengers is better than deadheading if the train is going to be running on that track. |
|
|
| (256604) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Mon May 22 20:05:58 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Mon May 22 16:16:55 2006. Then the DEs should be relegated to trains on the Port Jeff and Greenport shuttles, as well as trains that end at Jamaica. There'd be enough DMs to increase diesel service to Penn. |
|
|
| (256605) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 22 20:08:09 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.The BiLevel diesel equipment can't fin into the 63rd St tunnel. |
|
|
| (256606) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 22 20:10:09 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Mon May 22 16:10:21 2006. Yes, probably. They may close Hunterspoint Ave station, and perhaps some of the Hunterspoint runs that don't end at Jamaica in the future (for passengers), may run to LIC. |
|
|
| (256608) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 22 20:10:53 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Mon May 22 16:18:27 2006. A lot of trains already deadhead down that line. It's not like all of the former Hunterspoint Ave trains would go that way anyway. |
|
|
| (256610) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 22 20:14:08 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by RonInBayside on Mon May 22 19:56:54 2006. I would assume that they may divert some of the former Hunterspoint Ave station runs to LIC instead (when the reason for being for the Hunterspoint Ave station ends with the dawn of Grand Central access). They will probably close the Hunterspoint Ave station (remember that a new Sunnyside station is also opening with the dawn of ESA).Some former Hunterspoint diesel runs may terminate at Jamaica for passengers (with a deadhead to LIC yard), others may be diverted to Long Island City station instead. There is no need for them to operate both the Hunterspoint Ave station and the Long Island City station once Grand Central service begins, and Sunnyside station opens. |
|
|
| (256614) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 22 20:26:53 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 19:35:30 2006. Probably a diversity of terminals. After all, why not just have NJT construct a massive 30 track terminal and accompanying six track tunnel around NYP to eliminate Hoboken and consolidate operations there? Why would we want NJT to have a Lower Manhattan or Grand Central area terminal? There's probably more than a few folks who work around Penn Station but schlep over to GCT every day because their homes happen to be in Westchester and they're unwilling to move the family onto LI or into NJ so they can have a commute into NYP. Rather than move themselves to the mountain they'd much rather the mountain come to them in the form of Metro North service to Penn Station. Sure it's somewhat illogical from a technical standpoint, but what's the point of state control of all these transit agencies if they're going to retain the same provincial outlook on commuter service as their competing ancestors?And GCT doesn't quite have the capacity most folks make it out to have. They're running the four tracks asymetrically during rush hour, and the only way they can maintain that kind of operation is to store many trains on the platforms at GCT. The ESA Upper Level Loop Analysis makes it clear that any reduction of MN's platform space at GCT would have deleterious effects on their rush hour capacity. LIRR has 28 or so tracks in the West Side yard, and NJT shares more than thirty tracks at Sunnyside with Amtrak, and outside of tracks 1 to 4 in NYP no train has to reverse off it's track inside NYP. Despite having fewer platforms it likely has higher throughput thanks to those yards. |
|
|
| (256618) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 22 20:39:43 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 12:51:20 2006. Dual Mode high voltage AC/diesel locomotives = DIAFShould have electrified all the diesel branches with 25kv and purchased tri voltage dual source third rail/catenary electric engines. Perhaps something like this:  |
|
|
| (256622) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Mon May 22 20:56:02 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by The Port of Authority on Mon May 22 20:05:58 2006. There'd be enough DMs to increase diesel service to Penn.The dual mode trains require a dual-mode locomotive at each end of the train due to third rail gaps. |
|
|
| (256625) | |
ALP48 locomotive.... seriously? |
|
|
Posted by tramrunner on Mon May 22 21:04:28 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Mon May 22 20:39:43 2006. Hard to believe, it will happen. |
|
|
| (256627) | |
Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA) |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon May 22 21:05:34 2006, in response to Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA), posted by WillD on Mon May 22 16:34:56 2006. 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.Rubber-tyred lines of Paris, Lyon, Montréal, Santiago and others that use the RATP rubber-tyre system. In case of Paris, steel-wheeled stock can run on rubber-tyred lines when fitted with side contact shoes. Even the museum Spargue stock can do that. BTW until the seventies, most of the Western suburbs of Paris used third rail, mostly underrunning but overrunning with cover in older sections. The shoes were double sided therefore compatible with both. |
|
|
| (256631) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 21:18:07 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 15:14:31 2006. 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." I wasn't really referring to you, but to AlstomR160A 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. I'm talking about no new construction. I don't know much about dwell times at Penn, but it seems that with a through running service, trains could have very short dwell times, particularly LIRR and NJT, since their trains run to yards beyond the terminal. I think that it would be possible to squeeze in a couple of trains through the West Side corridor during rush hours, but thats not an informed opinion. Still any project to bring MNRR to Penn would be just as beneficial as bringing LIRR to GCT, but for a fraction of the cost, even if new Penn construction is required. |
|
|
| (256633) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 21:20:52 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 21:18:07 2006. any project to bring MNRR to Penn would be just as beneficial as bringing LIRR to GCTWhy? |
|
|
| (256634) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon May 22 21:26:21 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 room.Not true at all. ESA will increase service. The same number of trains will be going into Penn Station. In addition, Metro-North has no chance of receiving Penn Station slots. The only reason LIRR gets them is due to the formerly Pennsy-owned LIRR having slots...kind of a grandfathered sort of thing. |
|
|
| (256637) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 21:35:28 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Mon May 22 20:26:53 2006. Probably a diversity of terminalsHeh . . . that would grate on the minds of everyone who wants one giant terminal in Manhattan. GCT's as giant as it gets for the whole world—ain't no bigger on the entire planet. There's probably more than a few folks who work around Penn Station but schlep over to GCT every day because their homes happen to be in Westchester and they're unwilling to move the family onto LI or into NJ so they can have a commute into NYP. Rather than move themselves to the mountain they'd much rather the mountain come to them in the form of Metro North service to Penn Station What big wussies. 34th Street is eight blocks south of GCT, a little longer than a half-mile. Hardly a mountain; not even a molehill. Let those big spenders ride Amtrak then, since that can get 'em right into Penn from all but the Harlem Line . . .  or lobby to get the old New York & Harlem's Park Avenue Tunnel converted back into commuter rail . . .And GCT doesn't quite have the capacity most folks make it out to have. They're running the four tracks asymetrically during rush hour, and the only way they can maintain that kind of operation is to store many trains on the platforms at GCT That's funny; neither the NY Central nor the New Haven had to do that, and that was a busier era than nowadays . . . plus there were a lot of LD trains in and out of the station. Howzabout they actually use them loop tracks, too? (But of course, now they're giving up a few yard tracks in GCT to LIRR; what a smart move . . .) After all, why not just have NJT construct a massive 30 track terminal and accompanying six track tunnel around NYP to eliminate Hoboken and consolidate operations there? Why around NYP? Lotsa Manhattan to go around. And why does it have to be all-NJT? If you stick it downtown, then it can meet LIRR's Atlantic Avenue Branch. Once NJT got a terminal in downtown Manhattan that's mostly its own, they don't have to worry about the NYP pressures so much, that's why; and they could even divert NEC trains in there . . . and guess what, even Amtrak would be tempted to put trains to DC in a downtown terminal, since they can attract financial types better with a closer terminal to 'em . . . |
|
|
| (256640) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by D to E To Jamaica on Mon May 22 21:38:41 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Mon May 22 16:19:47 2006. <It was 30 years between locomotive purchases for the LIRR and the DM's had alot of bugs in them. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the next order. |
|
|
| (256641) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by D to E To Jamaica on Mon May 22 21:39:26 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Mon May 22 16:19:47 2006. Hopefully they're not that stupid. Or they'll at least order a different kind of dual-mode (Genesis?)It was 30 years between locomotive purchases for the LIRR and the DM's had alot of bugs in them. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the next order. |
|
|
| (256643) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon May 22 21:46:23 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Mon May 22 20:56:02 2006. There are ways to avoid the problem but none was used for the LIRR DMs and I wonder why. |
|
|
| (256646) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon May 22 21:54:22 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 10:58:40 2006. Different rules(Norac) Different signals. |
|
|
| (256647) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by The Maven on Mon May 22 21:55:54 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Mon May 22 20:39:43 2006. Wishful Thinking! |
|
|
| (256648) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 21:56:28 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 15:05:19 2006.  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? Silly Goose. The *EXISTING* platforms are already under the Farley Building. And what isn't platforms is the switching throat. The New NJT tunnel will NOT arrive in the existing NYP complex. I suppose they *could* do something ala LIRR at GCT, but then their tracks would be under 34th Street, and the escalators might rise to the south so to have access to the NYP concourese. 
|
|
|
| (256650) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Mon May 22 21:58:02 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Mon May 22 20:56:02 2006. I know that! I was stating ways to increase the number of available DMs by not running them on shuttles. |
|
|
| (256651) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon May 22 21:58:39 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon May 22 13:32:53 2006. http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix_frameset.html |
|
|
| (256652) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 21:58:45 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 21:56:28 2006. Oh well . . . the new North River Tunnel ain't even funded yet. Why count chickens before the eggs are even laid . . . |
|
|
| (256653) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Mon May 22 21:58:57 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Mon May 22 20:39:43 2006. Nice. Although I'd prefer single-ended locomotives... |
|
|
| (256659) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 22:09:52 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 14:06:04 2006. GCT has underused tracks. Penn is getting an expansion. We *are* Talking about New York City? The one on planet Earth? Well GCT is a *Terminal* which means inefficency, it means that trains must be *stored* there all day, until it is time for the evening rush. The *Might* be under used, in as much as they do not carry the load that LIRR platforms do at NYP, but by golly, there is a train parked on every one of them. That is why the LIRR *is* building new tracks on a new deeper third level under GCT. OTOH: There *IS NO* new construction at NYP. None. Nada. Zip. They are building a *station* house NOT a track plant. Not an inch of new track, not an inch of new platform. Just some new stairways and a new waiting room. That is all. Maybe they will be able to use Platform A for passengers, but that is the extent of it. (That's the old diagonal mail platform that the post office used to use when they still used trains.) Go down the subway steps at 33rd and 8th Ave on the south west corner. Find steps on the West side of the avenue that go *UP* to the "LIRR" platforms. You will find yourself up on a bridge, with steps down to the LIRR platforms (but not to the AMTK or NJT platforms. Look to the west and tell me what you see. You will see existing AMTK and NJT platforms, and beyond that the interlocking plant. You may even see the tunnel mouth (maybe not, I'm not sure where that is), but there IS NO ROOM FOR EXPANSION.
|
|
|
| (256661) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon May 22 22:13:08 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Mon May 22 16:51:53 2006. The FRA does not aprove of track brakes except for emergency brakes so it would be iffy at best if M-8's would get that.The proposal by CDOT is a lot of dreams and does not correspond with specifications send to manufacturers Its all politicians vs techichians, well see in June when winner is anounced. The Commuter council has all these dreams for energy conservation but also wants redundancy inpropulsion so trains with dead cars have enough power. The issue with 11 Kv 25Hz vs 12.5 Kv 60Hz vs 25 Kv 60 hz will all boil down on what could transformer weigh, same with adjustable third rail shoes, all fluf the politicians want but that will not be realized unless the cars come in severely overweight. |
|
|
| (256664) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 22:18:17 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon May 22 22:13:08 2006. Severely overweight . . . ? They still make heavyweight trucks, don't they . . . ? |
|
|
| (256667) | |
Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA) |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 22:27:29 2006, in response to Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA), posted by WillD on Mon May 22 16:34:56 2006. I saw some pictures recently of side running third rail. I do not know where I saw it. Seems to me like many of these airport shuttles may use it.ROAR |
|
|
| (256668) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 22:31:55 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Mon May 22 20:56:02 2006. The dual mode trains require a dual-mode locomotive at each end of the train due to third rail gaps. Not So! AMTK has no trouble, because it's engine is always in the front. Guess What?! The Jackshafts never had any trouble either. But those were never run Push-Pull... The lead the train into NYP, went around their train, and then lead it back out again. That's another FU with the new engines: They *could* have been double ended, and they could have despensed with the cab cars altogether.
|
|
|
| (256669) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 22:32:13 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by The Port of Authority on Mon May 22 21:58:02 2006. From what has been posted on this and other boards, and of course it isn't necessarily fact, I think that the LIRR might already be running the maximum number of DM's in dual-mode operation that they are comfortable guaranteeing will be available every day. |
|
|
| (256670) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 22:33:08 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Mon May 22 16:18:27 2006. Let them piss. There is no third rail there to hurt them anyway.ROARING |
|
|
| (256671) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 22:34:47 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Mon May 22 20:39:43 2006. Please get rid of the stainless steel fluted sides. |
|
|
| (256672) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 22:35:50 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Mon May 22 16:19:47 2006. Genesis will not help. Sure AMTK uses them no problem. The problem is not with the engines. The problem is with Push-Pull operation.So the LION, always looking for a good solution would buy a set of pilot locomotives. Let them even run off of the cat. Let them lead the DMs out of NYP, then uncouple, maybe even on the fly, and then return for the next train. ROARING |
|
|
| (256673) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 22:36:14 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 21:20:52 2006. Why not? |
|
|
| (256677) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 22 22:43:31 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 21:35:28 2006. Heh . . . that would grate on the minds of everyone who wants one giant terminal in Manhattan. GCT's as giant as it gets for the whole world—ain't no bigger on the entire planet.Of course. And there's something to be said for distributing riders around NYC rather than letting the rather overburdened subway network do it for you. Why around NYP? Lotsa Manhattan to go around. And why does it have to be all-NJT? If you stick it downtown, then it can meet LIRR's Atlantic Avenue Branch. Once NJT got a terminal in downtown Manhattan that's mostly its own, they don't have to worry about the NYP pressures so much, that's why; and they could even divert NEC trains in there . . . and guess what, even Amtrak would be tempted to put trains to DC in a downtown terminal, since they can attract financial types better with a closer terminal to 'em . . . Yes, that'd be a very good answer to the rhetorical question I asked. If everyone wants to go to GCT why not send all NJT trains to a massive NYP? And yes, a downtown transit terminal would be a very good idea. What big wussies. 34th Street is eight blocks south of GCT, a little longer than a half-mile. Hardly a mountain; not even a molehill. Let those big spenders ride Amtrak then, since that can get 'em right into Penn from all but the Harlem Line . . . or lobby to get the old New York & Harlem's Park Avenue Tunnel converted back into commuter rail . . . Don't gotta tell me, I ran 20 blocks in around 12 minutes this weekend. However, when it's cold or rainy those 8 blocks can feel closer to 16, and there's no real easy connection between the stations via the subway. Instead of boring through Manhattan, which the SAS is proving is extremely expensive the trains can largely be run around the fringes of the city. By modifying Broadway Lion's WTC transit center plan you could get NJT, LIRR and MN all into the same terminal. The Empire Corridor could be extended to Lower Manhattan under the West Side Highway. The Harlem and New Haven lines could run over the Hell Gate and through an Avenue D/Sunnyside tunnel into the Lower Manhattan transit terminal and the LIRR across the East River via a tunnel from Flatbush. The Harlem and New Haven lines would come into Manhattan via tracks NJT would likely already need if they were to keep Sunnyside as a base, and thus it can be done largely without expensive boring under Manhattan (outside the West Side highway stuff, which could easily be omitted). That's funny; neither the NY Central nor the New Haven had to do that, and that was a busier era than nowadays . . . plus there were a lot of LD trains in and out of the station. Howzabout they actually use them loop tracks, too? (But of course, now they're giving up a few yard tracks in GCT to LIRR; what a smart move . . .) Actually according to 'When the Steam Railroads Electrified' by William D. Middleton the largest number of people carried by the NYC Central in one day back then was 240,000 people on Thanksgiving Day 1945 and the average pre-war day seeing 134,000 passengers. Today MN carries 250,000 people every day, such that every day the MTA is carrying what was a record load for the Central. And unlike the LD traffic which the NYC carried which had less of a peak hour push MN is almost entirely a peak hour operation. This is why they're forced to run the Park Ave tunnel in an asymetric fashion and use the terminal as a yard. |
|
|
| (256681) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 22:48:51 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 21:18:07 2006. I think that it would be possible to squeeze in a couple of trains through the West Side corridor during rush hours, but thats not an informed opinion.If they could "squeeze" a few more trains in during the rush hour, NJT would already be doing it. I guess we just have to take NJT's word that it can't be done. Still any project to bring MNRR to Penn would be just as beneficial as bringing LIRR to GCT, but for a fraction of the cost, even if new Penn construction is required. IMHO, no, it would not be "just as beneficial." ESA serves two purposes: primarily to bring in more people from LI (since Penn is full) and secondarily to bring people closer to their jobs on the East Side. MNCR to Penn only serves one purpose: to bring people closer to their job on the West Side. While I personally would love that, I think it is clear that it is nowhere near as important as being able to bring more people into Manhattan. |
|
|
| (256683) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Mon May 22 22:52:30 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Mon May 22 22:43:31 2006. Don't gotta tell me, I ran 20 blocks in around 12 minutes this weekend. However, when it's cold or rainy those 8 blocks can feel closer to 16, and there's no real easy connection between the stations via the subway.TSQ Shuttle to 7th Ave IRT is relatively easy. |
|
|
| (256684) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 22:53:21 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 22:35:50 2006. Genesis WILL help in the respect that the DE/DM30s are awful. |
|
|
| (256686) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 22:56:02 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by mambomta on Mon May 22 22:52:30 2006. The TSQ shuttle is awful. I hate it. Replace one of the trackways with two double-wide, high speed, multi-stage moving sidewalks please. |
|
|
| (256688) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon May 22 22:56:28 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 22:36:14 2006. You said it will be just as beneficial. Bringing LIRR into Grand Central expands the capacity of LIRR in Manhattan. Penn Station's slots are all filled and putting some trains into GCT expands their capacity into Manhattan. Bringing MNRR into Penn doesn't expand capacity. It is an expensive proposition that would save travelers half a mile of walking (oh my!) or a (GASP) short subway ride. You come to New York City to work, then you're a New Yorker here...learn to walk a little or take the subway. |
|
|
| (256690) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Mon May 22 22:59:02 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 22:56:02 2006. Replace one of the trackways with two double-wide, high speed, multi-stage moving sidewalks please.I'm like a kid on those. Whenever I am at Jamaica Station, I have to resist the urge to play on them. |
|
|
| (256691) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon May 22 22:59:30 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 22:56:02 2006. Similar idea proposed in the 70's...and we all know what happened the last time a bunch of big projects were announced... |
|
|
| (256692) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon May 22 23:00:13 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by mambomta on Mon May 22 22:59:02 2006. They have those there!??!?I better be paying a visit to Jamaica soon. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 9 |
||
