|
|
| Re: LIRR East Side Access (256237) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 9 |
||
|
| (256693) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Mon May 22 23:01:23 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon May 22 23:00:13 2006. They have those there!??!?I better be paying a visit to Jamaica soon. They have a pair in the overpass. |
|
|
| (256694) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 23:05:27 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon May 22 22:56:28 2006. And so few of the MN passengers who want the west side actually want the west side AT 34th STREET. They would have to take a subway or a bus from there anyway. |
|
|
| (256695) | |
Re: ALP48 locomotive.... seriously? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 22 23:06:30 2006, in response to ALP48 locomotive.... seriously?, posted by tramrunner on Mon May 22 21:04:28 2006. It most likely won't happen. It'd be a good idea, but such is life. But hell, here's a few more:   |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (256696) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 23:08:27 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon May 22 21:26:21 2006. The only reason why PRR bought LIRR was to acquire the LIRR rights to build those tunnels. LIRR's Rights are superior to PRR's rights. That's *why* they got bought out!ROARING |
|
|
| (256698) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 22 23:11:22 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 22:48:51 2006. 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.NJT has a little tunnel problem which may prevent them from fully utilizing all their platforms at NYP. What the exact situation is I don't know, but I believe it's quite unlikely that NJT and Amtrak use all their platforms during rush hour and it's entirely possible that MN could sneak into NYP before ARC is built. And yes, it'd provide a way to bring more trains into Manhattan, since GCT is quite questionable. |
|
|
| (256699) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 23:12:05 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 22 20:08:09 2006. Correct, but I was speaking of using them into NYP.Cats of any sort (other than to catch mice) would be useless in GCT. ROAR |
|
|
| (256700) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 22 23:12:11 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by The Port of Authority on Mon May 22 21:58:57 2006. Why, what single ended electric locomotives have ever run on the NEC? |
|
|
| (256702) | |
Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 22 23:16:40 2006, in response to Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA), posted by Wado MP73 on Mon May 22 21:05:34 2006. That's very cool. I always assumed the Paris rubber tire metros were totally incompatible with the steel wheel metros. I guess I should give them more credit for including a way to make them compatible. |
|
|
| (256703) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 23:17:12 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by The Port of Authority on Mon May 22 21:58:57 2006. A single ended locomotive is useless in NYP for LIRR push-pull service.A dual end locomotive could run around it's consist to take it back out again. With the locomotive in the lead, the gaps can be avoided. Some body is going to have to get a sketch of the NYP track layout and sketch in the Third Rails and the Gaps. Perhaps there *are* platforms that a single DM could use with out much risk of gapping out. ROAR |
|
|
| (256705) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon May 22 23:17:45 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Mon May 22 20:39:43 2006. Trry not to get too silly. It detracts from your other points. |
|
|
| (256707) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:19:31 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 18:55:59 2006. Why do any Metro-North trips need to get out of GCT?!?Why do any LIRR trips need to go to GCT?!? |
|
|
| (256709) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 23:20:44 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon May 22 21:54:22 2006. Are AMTK employees so much *smarter* that they can learn them and MNRR cannot? If they can learn those rules, you can learn those rules.Rules RULE! ROAR |
|
|
| (256710) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 23:24:54 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 22:53:21 2006. Be that as it may (And I thing Gensis is UGLY--Not that LIRR can win any beauty contests) the problem in NYP is one of GAPS not of engines.ROAR |
|
|
| (256711) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 22 23:27:12 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 21:56:28 2006. The New NJT tunnel will NOT arrive in the existing NYP complex.False. Alternative P2 will bring NJT trains (and potentially Amtrak trains as well) through the new tunnel into the existing NYP as well as the new 34th St Terminal. |
|
|
| (256712) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:31:20 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 22:48:51 2006. 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.As WillD pointed out: I thought NJT capacity was limited by its Hudson River tunnels? 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. Bringing more trains into manhattan could be done for far cheaper on the LIRR by building more capacity at NYP. Heck, MNRR is running three or four tracks in peak direction, meaning that they are sort of bursting at the seams. Platform space could be opened up by Sending trains to across the Hell Gate bridge and the underused West Side tracks so that the Park Avenue tracks are an even 2/2 split. Maybe that would free up more platforms at GCT that could be converted for LIRR use, and then trains would be diverted from NYP to GCT. |
|
|
| (256713) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 23:32:00 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 18:55:59 2006.  Can you do math? GCT = 67 tracks, NYP = 28 tracks. Why do any Metro-North trips need to get out of GCT?!? Wrong. NYP has 21 tracks. LIRR can use only what 15-21, maybe sharing 12?? 13 and 14 with AMTK and NJT. LIRR needs more capacity, and the 63rd Street Tunnel was already built with that capacity in mind. Now it is being used. True, some people will choose one train over another because it arrrive at GCT instead of NYP, but that is NOT the *reason* for building the tracks. LIRR is in the business of getting commuters into Manhattan. LIRR does not really care *where* in Manhattan. ROAR 
|
|
|
| (256714) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 23:34:10 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:31:20 2006. Forgetaboutit. The contract is already set in stone.This is what they are going to do. EOS |
|
|
| (256715) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:35:32 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon May 22 22:56:28 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.And while we're talking about the huge expense of my proposal to bring MNRR to NYP, the cost of bringing LIRR to GCT is far, far higher than simply expanding NYP would have been. Essentially, MTA is spending billions to bring people to an alternate destination when the could have spent far less to just expand NYP. Personally, I could do without MNRR to NYP, because I feel that ESA is a waste of billions, but if you're going to spend billions to bring LIRR to GCT, then you can spend a couple of millions to bring MNRR to NYP. |
|
|
| (256716) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:37:52 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon May 22 21:26:21 2006. 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.MTA now owns those slots. Meaning that they could put whatever they wanted there. |
|
|
| (256717) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Mon May 22 23:39:16 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 22:18:17 2006. Looks like a diner, therefore heavier and requiring 6 axles per car? |
|
|
| (256718) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 22 23:40:21 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by RonInBayside on Mon May 22 23:17:45 2006. How am I getting silly? The primary drawback of a dual mode catenary/diesel locomotive other than its immense weight and low power would be that it had a time-limited transformer and electric propulsion package. Stop one of these dual modes at the bottom of the East River tubes and you very well could have its traction package cut out from temperature or it would quite literally die in a fire before reaching the far portal. |
|
|
| (256719) | |
NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 23:41:57 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 23:24:54 2006. So your BROADWAY LION has put on his mane thinking cap, and come up with a plan to run LIRR DM locomotives from the cab car without a second engine. The problem is that the back engine gaps out, and the engineer in the cab car up front cannot know where these gaps are. SO TELL HIM! It is SO SIMPLE, it *would* take a LION to figure it out. Install a "FAKE RAIL" that show him where the gaps are, so that he can avoid them. This consists of green and amber lamps placed directly in the road bed. As long as he can see green lamps, his locomotive will be on the third rail. If he sees amber lamps, he knows that he must be able to coast along until he is on the green lamps again. His C3 cars are all 85 feet long, so the lights can be placed for a consist of six cars or whatever it is they are using. Heck the *are* lamps, they can change the aspect of the display to the length of the train that he is running. Now he has the same advantage of an AMTK driver or an old Jackshaft driver. LIONS ARE SMART. I Keep telling you this, but nobody is listening. ROAR
|
|
|
| (256721) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Mon May 22 23:44:32 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 22:09:52 2006. Yes, just the fact that this construction just creates a new concourse make the whole Farley project questionable. It's farther from the subway and offices and only NJT has made some sort of commitment (and they just built the new 7th Av concourse couple years ago). Amtrak dumped this a long time ago. Big waste of money. |
|
|
| (256722) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Mon May 22 23:45:40 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:35:32 2006. Essentially, MTA is spending billions to bring people to an alternate destination when the could have spent far less to just expand NYP.The MTA doesn't own NYP. They do own GCT. |
|
|
| (256724) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:48:10 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 23:34:10 2006. Forgetaboutit. The contract is already set in stone.This is what they are going to do. I was aware of that. That still doesn't make it a good decision. |
|
|
| (256726) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Mon May 22 23:48:14 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 22:35:50 2006. I read somepleace that when Amtrak's P32's were having difficulties on third rail, an AEM-7 would tow the train in and out of Penn through (A Interlocking?) up to the Empire Connection. |
|
|
| (256727) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:48:53 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by mambomta on Mon May 22 23:45:40 2006. The MTA doesn't own NYP. They do own GCT.What does this have to do with an expansion? |
|
|
| (256728) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Mon May 22 23:49:58 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Mon May 22 23:48:14 2006. I read somepleace that when Amtrak's P32's were having difficulties on third rail, an AEM-7 would tow the train in and out of Penn through (A Interlocking?) up to the Empire Connection.IIRC, that is also done if they have to use a P40 or P42 |
|
|
| (256729) | |
Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Mon May 22 23:50:21 2006, in response to NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 23:41:57 2006. Amtrak requires LIRR trains to run with two DM30AC's. Trains are also long, and I think with more than 6 C3's the 2nd engine is needed for HEP. |
|
|
| (256730) | |
Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:51:01 2006, in response to NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 23:41:57 2006. OR, you could have shoes on the unpowered cars that would supply power to the locomotive at all times. |
|
|
| (256731) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon May 22 23:52:02 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 23:17:12 2006. A dual end locomotive could run around it's consist to take it back out again. With the locomotive in the lead, the gaps can be avoided.Good luck running around trains in West Side Yard. Also the whole idea behind going to catenary would be to avoid gapping. Just string some 12.5kv or something through Jamaica to avoid those gaps and everything will work out. |
|
|
| (256732) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Mon May 22 23:52:35 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:48:53 2006. The MTA doesn't own NYP. They do own GCT.What does this have to do with an expansion? They also don't own the tracks or the tunnels. They can't just expand without Amtrak's permission. with GCT, MTA controls everything. With the exception of the terminal building, they can expand it how they want. |
|
|
| (256733) | |
Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Mon May 22 23:53:28 2006, in response to Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:51:01 2006. OR, you could have shoes on the unpowered cars that would supply power to the locomotive at all times.Not allowed for safety reasons. |
|
|
| (256734) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:57:18 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by mambomta on Mon May 22 23:52:35 2006. They also don't own the tracks or the tunnels. They can't just expand without Amtrak's permission. with GCT, MTA controls everything. With the exception of the terminal building, they can expand it how they want.It is certainly possible to make an expansion with permission; or build a terminal under a nearby street. This would be far, far cheaper than ESA. |
|
|
| (256735) | |
Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:57:55 2006, in response to Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by mambomta on Mon May 22 23:53:28 2006. What safety reasons. Are they any more dangerous than electric cars? |
|
|
| (256736) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Mon May 22 23:58:04 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 22 21:35:28 2006. Plus with a downtown terminal, we could have just put it in the bathtub instead of spending possible hundreds of millions to excavate under macy's... |
|
|
| (256737) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 00:00:26 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Mon May 22 23:44:32 2006. only NJT has made some sort of commitment (and they just built the new 7th Av concourse couple years ago)I get the feeling that once Warrington's gone, NJT will try to get out of that "commitment". |
|
|
| (256738) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 00:02:28 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Mon May 22 22:43:31 2006. 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 passengersThat excludes the New Haven. |
|
|
| (256739) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 23 00:03:09 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:57:18 2006. Since the 63rd St tunnel is already there whether that'd be cheaper is quite debatable. To build a new terminal adjacent to NYP you'd still need a new tunnel under the East River, and you'd need to bore across midtown to NYP. With 63rd St LL there you avoid the new east river tunnel and since the costs of boring across midtown are likely quite similar to the costs of boring to GCT it's likely that GCT is cheaper than NYP. Since the GCT is cheaper why not send passengers to a new location? |
|
|
| (256741) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 00:04:54 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Mon May 22 23:58:04 2006. Now yer t'inkin' . . . move THE Tunnel downtown, baby . . . |
|
|
| (256742) | |
Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 23 00:07:49 2006, in response to Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:57:55 2006. It's a bad idea to run a jumper with 600 volts between two cars that can be uncoupled. It's potentially dangerous to any crew that were to separate cars without checking the jumper for power.However, once upon a time the New Haven, Great Northern, Reading, and Virginian all had locomotives and EMUs which could share 11kv 25hz power across a jumper. Apparantly those kind of things are now outlawed by the FRA. |
|
|
| (256743) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:10:30 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Tue May 23 00:03:09 2006. To build a new terminal adjacent to NYP you'd still need a new tunnel under the East River, and you'd need to bore across midtown to NYP.Build a diverge from existing tunnels. You don't need a new east river tunnel. |
|
|
| (256744) | |
Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:11:41 2006, in response to Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Tue May 23 00:07:49 2006. It's a bad idea to run a jumper with 600 volts between two cars that can be uncoupled. It's potentially dangerous to any crew that were to separate cars without checking the jumper for power.Then how is it done with electric equipment like the M3 or M7? |
|
|
| (256746) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:14:50 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 23:08:27 2006. LIRR doesn't have superior rights anymore...Amtrak owns them and leases them out. |
|
|
| (256747) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:16:52 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:19:31 2006. Because LIRR needs to get more trains to Manhattan and there is no room to do so in Penn Station. And while they try to add capacity in Manhattan, they may as well provide convenient access to the east side (Grand Central). |
|
|
| (256748) | |
Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Tue May 23 00:19:35 2006, in response to Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:11:41 2006. M3s and M7s don't share power between married pairs, do they? |
|
|
| (256750) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:20:39 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:31:20 2006. Bringing more trains into manhattan could be done for far cheaper on the LIRR by building more capacity at NYP. Heck, MNRR is running three or four tracks in peak direction, meaning that they are sort of bursting at the seams. Platform space could be opened up by Sending trains to across the Hell Gate bridge and the underused West Side tracks so that the Park Avenue tracks are an even 2/2 split. Maybe that would free up more platforms at GCT that could be converted for LIRR use, and then trains would be diverted from NYP to GCT.Building more capacity at NYP? How would that be far cheaper? First off, Amtrak owns Penn Station so you can't just build on that. They could construct a new adjacent station like NJT is doing for ARC, however, that would continue bringing people on the LIRR to the West Side, and the whole point of ESA is: 1) Add LIRR Capacity in Manhattan 2) Bring LIRR passengers directly to the East Side. |
|
|
| (256751) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:22:05 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:16:52 2006. And while they try to add capacity in Manhattan, they may as well provide convenient access to the east side (Grand Central).At a cost that's billions more than necessary. |
|
|
| (256753) | |
Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:22:57 2006, in response to Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Nilet on Tue May 23 00:19:35 2006. I dunno, but wouldn't that mean that across gaps only a few cars are doing any pulling? |
|
|
| (256754) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:23:41 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:10:30 2006. Build a diverge from existing tunnels. You don't need a new east river tunnel.You can't exactly do that...Amtrak owns those tunnels. They're not going to allow MTA to disrupt their service to build an extension like that when they have a viable alternative such as ESA which doesn't disturb Amtrak operations. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 9 |
||
