|
|
| Re: LIRR East Side Access (256237) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 9 |
||
|
| (256808) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:43:53 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 01:33:04 2006. If you used the city terminal schedule, it does not show express trains that do not stop at Jamaica.How many trains are there doing this between 7 and 8 am? 6? The NJT reverse deadheads are a substantial number. In the reverse direction, which I stated, did not factor into my analysis. Also, I'm not looking at it now, but take a look at the south of New York to Washington Amtrak schedule (may include south long distance trains)and the Empire service. All these trains deadhead too and from Sunnyside. That's not a huge number of trains. Even if it was, LIRR could work out a solution to have some Amtrak trains make it to the station a little earlier, or even having some wait time at the West Side Railyard. Additionally, I used a conservative estimate of 15 tph, per track. I've heard that actual capacity is more like 20 on each track, which would be 40tph. Even if we knock that down a bit, we could still have somewhere in the mid 30's. |
|
|
| (256809) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 01:44:43 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:14:23 2006. From 8 to 9, I count 4 PJ trains that are not on the CT timetable, 4 PW trains, 7 Babylon, 1 Far Rockaway, 2 Long Beach, 2 Hempstead. These trains skip Jamaica.The reverse peak deadheads do matter because (I'm not sure if Peak direction uses 2 or 3 tunnels), it may not allow the third tunnel to be used. Put it this way, just like MN, if there was much more reverse peak service, they would not be able to use the third track for peak direction service. |
|
|
| (256810) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:45:28 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:20:51 2006. With regards to using the money for SAS, that wasn't even considered. There's plenty of money going to SAS.Hahaha. That's funny! Just looking at a recent MNRR Hudson line employee schedule, there are a ton of trains that go into GCT during the day that aren't listed on your normal timetable. How many per hour during the peak? Doubt that happens on LIRR during the peak into Penn, if capacity is as low as suggested. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (256811) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 23 01:45:44 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:22:29 2006. The given in question is that boring tunnel is more expensive than just adding a new terminal space.Trains that occupy terminal space also occupy tunnel space. The tunnels that exist now are packed, so if you're going to add terminal space and use it to it's fullest you need new tunnels. Who said anything about massive delays? The work can be done without massive delays. At the very least you'd need to do switch work, which would involve reroutings and delays for Amtrak and NJT. That would be the bare minimum of delays, and you'd likely have others when you broke into the existing tunnels and such. Capacity can be increased with permission to expand on Amtrak property for far less. Additionally, building a new terminal structure at NYP could increase Capacity for MNRR if MNRR used that new track space (Much as NJT wants to), and this could also be done for a fraction of the cost. Money does not grow on trees. If you need to add capacity, so so with the cheapest possible alternative and then use your savings to contribute toward other necessary projects. First off which MNRR into NYP are you refering to? The Hudson line down the Empire Connection or the New Haven Line through the East River tunnels? If the former then you're fighting it out with NJT and Amtrak for platform space and you'll get maybe a half dozen slots if you're lucky. NJT has not alternate Manhattan terminal at this point, so they need every slot through NYP they can pry from Amtrak. MNRR has it's own massive Manhattan terminal which although running quite full does have some spare capacity, so any access to NYP is merely for the passenger's convenience and adds no new real capacity. If the latter then the same applies but with the LIRR. As with NJT it is their only Manhattan terminal and any NH line service would take spots away from LIRR trains. The real goal of ESA is to get more people into Manhattan, and that can only be done with a new tunnel. The fact that it happens to go to GCT is merely because there already was a tunnel up there and it was cheaper than trying to do something around NYP. The additional of a second terminal is a secondary but beneficial side effect. After ESA and ARC we'll see what happens, NJT is highly unlikely to surrender any slots and may actually send more trains into NYP after they get their new tunnel. The MTA can presumably intervene with the LIRR to force them to sacrifice some slots for NH line service into NYP after ESA is complete, but we'll see what happens. |
|
|
| (256813) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:47:07 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:43:53 2006. That's not a huge number of trains. Even if it was, LIRR could work out a solution to have some Amtrak trains make it to the station a little earlier, or even having some wait time at the West Side Railyard. Ha! You expect Amtrak to cater to LIRR's needs at Penn Station? No way...Amtrak is first priority...they make the LIRR cater their schedules to the time slots they lease out. This isn't some big happy family where everyone just works everything out for the good of everyone. In addition, the slots assume that all trains are pretty much on time, which we know with Amtrak rarely happens. That in turn, with wait times for late trains reduces the tph in the tunnels. |
|
|
| (256814) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:48:00 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:28:07 2006. You still don't get it, the tunnels leading into Penn are already at capacity, so new tunnels will have to be built costing more than boring through an already existing tunnel at 63rd street!No one has provided proof of such, which I have requested, and which you do not have. I'm willing to learn here if I am in fact wrong, but do not treat me like an idiot. If you don't have the requisite information to back up your assertions, then they have no merit. At least I have tried to find what information I could to support my argument. |
|
|
| (256816) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:51:22 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:45:28 2006. How many per hour during the peak? Doubt that happens on LIRR during the peak into Penn, if capacity is as low as suggested.Of course it can't happen at Penn...three railroads are sharing a smaller space than one railroad has (MNRR at Grand Central). Ever notice why at GCT tracks are announced a long time in advance while on LIRR you get track numbers only a few minutes before trains leave? There's no way to get all those deadheads in there. Good thing they have the West Side Yards. |
|
|
| (256817) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:52:24 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:48:00 2006. No one has provided proof of such, which I have requested, and which you do not havePROFF! This was back in 2004, too; scroll down to where it is asked about NJ Transit running trains through the East River tunnels to ease platform capacity at Penn . . . |
|
|
| (256818) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 23 01:54:01 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:24:58 2006. Yeah, I really don't know. I'd be willing to bet they're excluding the WOH runs, but are including things like commuters who get off at White Plains and Stamford. If that's the case and we say that just 75% of those trips are to and from GCT then that's 187,500 passengers per day. While less than the record Thanksgiving Day in 1945, that's about equal to the wartime daily load, and far more than the prewar records. And as I said, unlike the LD traffic which made up a significant minority of the Central's business, and came and went throughout the day, Metro North is only hauling commuters and they do so with extreme peak hour loads. |
|
|
| (256819) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:54:40 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:36:37 2006. Three agencies. Don't forget Amtrak. |
|
|
| (256820) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:55:13 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:48:00 2006. Oh boy now you're getting a little argumentative. I'm not treating you like an idiot at all. Of course I don't have exact proof (which we rarely see here anyway), because the information isn't public. But I think most of us arguing against your points are providing reasonable enough explanations to you. Just go by the tunnels during a peak hour and watch what goes on there. There are a ton of trains going in and out. And even if they weren't at capacity...it still requires you to add to the Amtrak-owned Penn Station, which Amtrak wouldn't want to do as it does not benefit them, and would create delays in the current tunnels due to digging work, switch work, power work, signal work, etc. Quite simply, putting up an adjacent station or adding tracks without new tunnels creates problems in dealing with Amtrak....and these are real problems, despite them being somewhat bureaucratic in nature. |
|
|
| (256821) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:55:43 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:54:40 2006. I think he's referring to Amtrak as a government agency, which it sort of is. |
|
|
| (256822) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:56:35 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by RonInBayside on Mon May 22 23:17:45 2006. And I got laughed at for suggesting the EP-6 . . . heh heh . . . |
|
|
| (256823) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 01:56:41 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:43:53 2006. That's not a huge number of trains. Even if it was, LIRR could work out a solution to have some Amtrak trains make it to the station a little earlier, or even having some wait time at the West Side Railyard.Why would Amtrak concede their revenue making and highly popular Acela service? I don't understand what you mean about holding trains at WSY, but if you mean holding revenue trains in WSY from the Empire or South, that does not help. Not only does it mean keeping passengers waiting for other trains' movements (like on Class 1 trackage) it means more movments through A Interlocking (reverse movements through Penn sta. itself) and congestion. |
|
|
| (256824) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:56:43 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:52:24 2006. Thank you!!!! Very nice find! |
|
|
| (256825) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 01:59:11 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:51:22 2006. Yep, before the West Side Yards were built, LIRR trains had to deadhead to LIC yard. |
|
|
| (256826) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 02:00:28 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 01:59:11 2006. They must've had a hell of a time with the reverse moves. |
|
|
| (256828) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 02:06:20 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Mon May 22 23:12:11 2006. what single ended electric locomotives have ever run on the NEC?Oh, a number of 'em . . . The E2b:  The E3b:  The E3c:  And of course, the E44.  |
|
|
| (256830) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 02:17:30 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:38:43 2006. Look, none of us here can give you concrete evidence that they are at capacity.Ah, so I should just shut up and accept you guys word as correct. But you can pretty much see that with all the Amtrak, LIRR, NJT trains that use the tunnel in passenger service, as well as all the deadheads that need the tunnels, especially during the peak hours, it's pretty damn close to capacity. Ok, since no one else is bothering to do any actual analysis, I'll do it. The greatest number of trains going through the Hudson tubes is between 7 and 8 am. Assuming that there's more than the 20 trains I due to expresses I neglected, let's say there's presently 24 LIRR trains into NYP (probably an overstatement). In addition to trains i mentioned before, the following trains could be possible deadheads: Train # 79 leaves at 715am train # 91 leaves at 1108am (neither of these trains should have deadheads affecting the LIRR's 'crush hour' of between 7 and 8 am) Train # 2107 leaves at 7am Train # 183 at 705am #2109 leaves at 8 am #153 leaves at 810 #141 leaves at 935am #2153 leaves at 10 #95 leaves at 1030am. #69 leaves at 815 #283 leaves 1045 So, at worst, Amtrak is running another 3 deadheads into NYP during the 'crush' period. Now we're at 27trains. The maximum amount of service I've heard can be operated is 40tph (20 on each track). Even if we ratchet that down a bit to 36tph, that's still 9 trains that LIRR can add. If LIRR is deadheading trains into Penn during this period (and I do not believe that is the case) these trains can become in service trains. So, LIRR could add 9 trains through the East River per hour, realistically. That's plenty room. If no one can SHOW me otherwise, then there's no proof it cant be done. And as far as modifying the tunnels, It can be done with no peak time disruption and minimal off-peak disruption. If the agencies cooperate it's a plausible situation. |
|
|
| (256831) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 02:20:04 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:41:21 2006. I'm not saying that at all.Wasn't saying you. As for it being a backwards way of thinking, sorry, but this is America, and in our capitalist democratic nature, you have to think that way. So, everyone's been conditioned that to avoid cross agency squabbling we should throw money out the window. Sad. Also, the modification of the very old Penn Station puts forward many structural risks on someone else's property (that being Amtrak) Risks that are not near insurmountable. |
|
|
| (256832) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 02:20:36 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 02:17:30 2006. Read This PostNJT has pretty much stated that the east river tunnels are already near capacity and that makes it impossible to run more trains through there. So what makes you think that LIRR can increase capacity through there? |
|
|
| (256833) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 02:21:23 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 02:20:04 2006. So, everyone's been conditioned that to avoid cross agency squabbling we should throw money out the window. Sad.Sure, try it, and watch it fail. |
|
|
| (256834) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 23 02:21:36 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 02:06:20 2006. Bah, three experimental units which total just 5 examples between each other and were almost always run in pairs anyway (anyone have a pic of a solo E2b, E3b or E3c?) and a road switcher with a high short hood that ran long-hood forward as often as it did short hood forward! And the E44s had two control stands so in a way did have cabs at both ends. |
|
|
| (256835) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 02:22:16 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 01:44:43 2006. From 8 to 9, I count 4 PJ trains that are not on the CT timetable, 4 PW trains, 7 Babylon, 1 Far Rockaway, 2 Long Beach, 2 Hempstead. These trains skip Jamaica.Finally, we're getting somewhere. Now can you do this for 7-8am? That was 20 trains. That's a lot. |
|
|
| (256836) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 23 02:25:05 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:56:35 2006. Where do you think the idea for the New Haven painted "ALP48s" came from? I just didn't modify the text at the bottom of the the page yet. |
|
|
| (256839) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 02:27:10 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:52:24 2006. That most certainly was proff, not proof. Execs have a way of saying things to meet their agendas.Remember Reuter's first response to extending the M to 9th av during north side manhattan bridge closure: "That line is already at capacity". |
|
|
| (256840) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 02:28:02 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 02:17:30 2006. First of all, I don't have employee timetables, so I don't know what the out of service deadheads are for the three RR's. These timetables have all the scheduled trains, revenue and non-revenue.Second, I said in another post that between 8 and 9 there are 4 PJ trains that are not on the CT timetable, 4 PW trains, 7 Babylon, 1 Far Rockaway, 2 Long Beach, 2 Hempstead. These trains skip Jamaica. You can do the same for 7-8 AM, just look through all the line timetables. There should be over 10. I can also take a gander that Manhattan service uses 2 tunnels. Also, this is not the NYC subway. The RR does not handle 30 tph (don't know exact number) per track. Trains travel at higher speeds, so greater stopping distance is needed. Considerations must also be considered for the interlockings, only so fast you can travel over them. You can install high speed turnouts, but it's tight down in those old tunnels. They would need structural modifications. |
|
|
| (256841) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 02:29:29 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:55:13 2006. But I think most of us arguing against your points are providing reasonable enough explanations to you.No, you arent. If there was proof I'd accept it. Quite simply, putting up an adjacent station or adding tracks without new tunnels creates problems in dealing with Amtrak....and these are real problems, despite them being somewhat bureaucratic in nature. Which doesn't mean it can't be done, as is suggested. |
|
|
| (256842) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 02:31:22 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 01:56:41 2006. Why would Amtrak concede their revenue making and highly popular Acela service?Wasn't suggesting that. I don't understand what you mean about holding trains at WSY, but if you mean holding revenue trains in WSY from the Empire or South, that does not help. No, I mean trains from Sunnyside get there earlier than necessary to hang out and stay out of LIRR's way in the East River tubes. |
|
|
| (256843) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 02:32:26 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 02:27:10 2006. That most certainly was proff, not proofOh, it's proof all right. You just wanna be argumentative for no reason. Forget it; you're down and out. |
|
|
| (256844) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 02:33:51 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:42:24 2006. Thought that LIRR was only getting five tracks; that's where I got the number 72 from. True about inaccessibility, for sure. |
|
|
| (256845) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 02:36:39 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 02:32:26 2006. Oh, it's proof all right.I just gave an example of how it isn't. Real numbers would be better. You just wanna be argumentative for no reason. There's a no win statement! If I disagree, I'm just bolstering your argument, so what the hay, yeah, i am! Forget it; you're down and out. Thanks. When you have numbers instead of put-downs, get back to me. Cheers! |
|
|
| (256846) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 02:37:26 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 02:32:26 2006. Oh, it's proof all right. You just wanna be argumentative for no reason. Forget it; you're down and out.Exactly what I was thinking...look J trainloco, the tunnels are near capacity. Some posters have shown that a lot of trains run through during peak hours and an NJT document has shown that too. I think it's proof enough that it's near capacity. You seem to want official Amtrak documents that state that east river tunnels are near capacity. That's not going to happen, and the NJT document is enough. Stop arguing over something we've given enough evidence towards. |
|
|
| (256847) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 02:39:09 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 02:36:39 2006. You didn't give an example. The NJT document is proof enough that the east river tunnels are near capacity. We're not saying that they're at capacity, but they're damn close. |
|
|
| (256848) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 02:39:27 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 02:33:51 2006. Nah, they're getting eight on four platforms. |
|
|
| (256849) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 02:42:48 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 02:39:27 2006. Sounds like A.R.C. got their inspiration for "34th Street Station" from that layout . . . |
|
|
| (256850) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 02:42:56 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 02:37:26 2006. Stop arguing over something we've given enough evidence towards.You haven't given much evidence of anything. Only KLCS has done that, and even his figures don't answer everything (though, they do give me some perspective that it's a little tighter than I thought). I'm not here to argue, I'm here to learn, and you guys aren't providing any concrete evidence. All I've gotten is: "Well, this guy said so, so it's final. You're a jerk, shut up." And then, I have people acting like I can't understand anything. |
|
|
| (256852) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 02:48:18 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 02:39:09 2006. You didn't give an exampleNo he didn't. I'm still waiting. And his last response to me is proof that he just wants to be argumentative. Just proof that he's . . .  |
|
|
| (256853) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 02:51:53 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 02:42:56 2006. No one called you a jerk. And no one is saying you don't understand anything. What we're saying is that we provided a statement from a high-level NJT official saying that the east river tunnels are near capacity. If you want to find out the real capacity, you would need to get an Amtrak employee timetable that covers Penn. It's not public, but I'm sure someone here has one and can give us an idea. The NJT statement is pretty credible though. |
|
|
| (256854) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 02:56:30 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 02:28:02 2006. OK, I'm really tired now, but you can check the Northeast Corridor Timetables 1 and 2 and Empire Corridor Timetable and it will give you all the outbound trains (to South and Albany). Check it for the time slots you want.And check the LIRR individual route timetable. It is very easy to find the trains that skip Jamaica. They are like super expresses. I was surprised there were so many. |
|
|
| (256855) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 02:59:14 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 02:56:30 2006. Also, just found out that the LIRR has an inbound capacity of 36 trains per hour. I believe that there were 20 going in per hour in service, and there are plenty of deadheads to WSY and straight into Penn. |
|
|
| (256868) | |
Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA) |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue May 23 05:37:36 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. "The London Underground ..... use a simple top contact system without a cover"And so does the very extensive national rail system to the south of London (formerly Southern Railway, then Southern Region of British Rail), though this system doesn't have the fourth rail. The 'DC lines' out of London Euston, including parts of the North London Line, do as well (other parts of the NLL have catenary). The Docklands Light Railway (new since the 1980s) uses under-running third rail, though. |
|
|
| (256873) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by bill west on Tue May 23 06:12:38 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon May 22 01:33:35 2006. 1. Extensive overunning operations were already established before overrunning came along, including PRR/LIRR. They weren't going to change, too costly.2. Wilgus patented underunning. That meant any new operators not only had to think it was better, they had to think it was enough better to justify paying royalties for it. That fairly well ensured that no new operators outside of the NYC family would take it up until the patents expired. IMHO, that was a kiss of death. Bill |
|
|
| (256874) | |
Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 23 06:33:41 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. Power is shared only between cars that are in married pairs or triplets. Cars that can be uncoupled do not share power. If one pair or triplet is in a gap, the surrounding pairs or triplets are not in the gap and the train can still move with one pair/triplet not being powered. |
|
|
| (256876) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 23 06:43:22 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 00:45:20 2006. I believe MNCR runs some 12-car MU trains. |
|
|
| (256877) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 23 06:51:50 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 02:22:16 2006. Finally, we're getting somewhere.Or you could have ended this hours ago by just trusting the 5 or 6 knowledgeable people who were telling you this without having the exact proff at their fingertips... |
|
|
| (256879) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 23 06:52:49 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:36:51 2006. No slots at Penn should or shall be taken away from the LIRR. |
|
|
| (256880) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 23 06:57:01 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 01:27:02 2006. It does. That's why I hate it. And that's why one trackway should be put to better use. |
|
|
| (256881) | |
Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by bill west on Tue May 23 07:01:25 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. If something goes wrong while unplugging a 64v 20amp control jumper, the spark is no big deal. If something goes wrong while unplugging a 750v 5000amp power jumper, the arc vaporizes everything for two feet around. Married pairs that share 750v DC have the power jumpers bolted on in junction boxes. It takes shopmen 20-40 minutes to separate the cars, the power won't still be accidently on.The GN and RDG 11kv AC power jumpers were on the roof. They were sort of miniature horizontal pantographs. No operator action was needed to connect or separate them. The New Haven E-33/EF-4 jumper was bolted up by an electrician while the power was off (pantographs down). Bill |
|
|
| (256882) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue May 23 07:17:56 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon May 22 22:32:13 2006. Yes, that is true. They are however adding another one in the fall, according to President Dermody. It's either going to be on the Oyster Bay Branch or one of the Speonk runs on the Montauk Branch. They haven't decided yet. |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 9 |
||
