|
|
| Re: LIRR East Side Access (256237) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 7 of 9 |
||
|
| (256883) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue May 23 07:44:03 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 23:17:12 2006. Running locomotives around consist would realy plug up Penn station, plus the it would take over half hour on platform to do that with all HEP jupmers com jumpers etc. |
|
|
| (256893) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Brighton Private on Tue May 23 08:33:56 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Tue May 23 02:21:36 2006. Why is it that eletric locomotives typically are double ended while diesel engines (with the exception of side-cab hood units that can be run in either direction) almost never are? I've always wondered about that.Is it a mechanical thing? Operational? Is it that diesels are more often run in MU than electrics? |
|
|
| (256896) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue May 23 08:55:12 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Mon May 22 20:39:43 2006. Or bring some Eurostar train sets modified for LIRR... |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (256898) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue May 23 09:24:40 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue May 23 08:55:12 2006. this side tread is now going into stupid mode. |
|
|
| (256910) | |
Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA) |
|
|
Posted by Deaks on Tue May 23 09:59:53 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.The class 504 EMUs that operated the Manchester-Bury line in the UK were side-contact units. They are long gone - replaced by Metrolink trams - but you can make out the side-collection apparatus if you click on this photo to enlarge it to 100%: |
|
|
| (256913) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 10:16:01 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Mon May 22 23:44:32 2006. The platforms have not moved a single inch. So how can it be "Further from the Subway"All that is being built is a new waiting room (and vast retail space) which is just exactly across the street (less than 100 feet as the mole digs) from their existing digs. ROAR |
|
|
| (256914) | |
Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA) |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue May 23 10:16:58 2006, in response to Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA), posted by WillD on Mon May 22 23:16:40 2006. It also helps that their ATO system allows manually driven trains in regular service and they kept wayside signals as well. Here's a museum train in 2000.
|
|
|
| (256915) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 10:20:25 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:48:53 2006.  What does this have to do with an expansion? What do you suppose should happen if you decide to expand your neighbor's house? 
|
|
|
| (256916) | |
Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA) |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue May 23 10:20:50 2006, in response to Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA), posted by Fytton on Tue May 23 05:37:36 2006. LIRR could learn a bit from the former Southern on how its locos dealt with third rail gaps. |
|
|
| (256917) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 10:24:00 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Mon May 22 23:57:18 2006. No it would NOT be cheaper. You would have to build new tunnels: The *do* need more tunnel capacity, you know. You would have to build a new station, perhaps under 34th Street.Hey, guess what: The 63rd Street tunnel is *already built*. Hey, guess what: The lenghth of tracks that they are building in Manhattan to a new complex at GCT is shorter (cheaper) than building the same sort of facility at NYP. Besides, lets save any ideas of a new station under 34th Street for NJT since *they* need more capacity too. Seems to me that this is something that they got right for once. So where does that leave you? ROAR |
|
|
| (256918) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 10:26:13 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:23:41 2006. Hell, LIRR is not going to curtail its own operations for something like that either. Besides, it is as we have said: That tunnel capacity is maxed out.ROARING (In case you didn't hear it the first time) |
|
|
| (256919) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 23 10:26:58 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 10:16:01 2006. The platforms have not moved a single inch. So how can it be "Further from the Subway"He means that the new platform staircases and waiting rooms will be further from the subway, so the people who like to minimize their walking will still exit their trains at the east end, thereby not making use of the new infrastructure. Likewise, people going TO their trains will most certainly not use the new infrastructure because there is no reason they would pass by a perfectly good entrance to Penn Station to go to one a block further away, especially when they are cutting it close. |
|
|
| (256920) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue May 23 10:27:09 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue May 23 09:24:40 2006. I agree... |
|
|
| (256921) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 10:28:05 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:46:33 2006. I say disband AMTK, but that is another thread entirely. |
|
|
| (256922) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 10:33:14 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by RonInBayside on Tue May 23 00:39:13 2006. With all due respect to the Lion, LIRR is responding to customer demands for an East Side connection. Yes, this is true, but not that true. LIRR would not give a rip where the trains were to come in, since most people will need to transfer to a subway anyway. If the tunnel were at 14th Street, they would gobble that up, and then find themselves some people that are happy with that choice, so that their PR peeps can say that they are responding to customer demand. Hell, if the *were* responding to the *best* interests of their customers they would be building a new service via Lower Montauk, Avenue D and WTC in cooperation with NJT.
|
|
|
| (256923) | |
Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 10:36:37 2006, in response to Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Mon May 22 23:50:21 2006. Nah... they use one locomotive on their empire trains, and they are more than six cars. Still, two engines on big trains is a good idea.I was responding to the concept of the gapping problems, perhaps on shorter trains. ROAR |
|
|
| (256925) | |
Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 10:40:00 2006, in response to Re: NYP GAPS (Was: Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Nilet on Tue May 23 00:25:31 2006. Gaps in NYP are from 200' to 600 feet long. A married pair could gap out in any of them. But since the rest of the train has power it can still move.A two car (heck even a six car) MU train *could* gap out in NYP. The engineer must take care where he is and stops so as to not gap out his train. ROAR |
|
|
| (256926) | |
Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA) |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue May 23 10:46:47 2006, in response to Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA), posted by Wado MP73 on Tue May 23 10:20:50 2006. "LIRR could learn a bit from the former Southern on how its locos dealt with third rail gaps."The gaps are much shorter than those reported in NYC in this thread. And Southern EMUs are always at least two cars (married pairs in NYC parlance) and more commonly 3,4,5 or 6 cars. Electric loco-hauled passenger trains on the Southern Electric system were always pretty rare - mostly only Dover boat trains that I can think of. The Sothern Region only had a few locos, mostly for freight, and some of those were electro-diesels (dual-modes in your terms). Incidentally the Southern system has an uncovered third rail with level crossings (grade crossings), and the third rail gaps are not even all that long even there! |
|
|
| (256927) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 10:47:25 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:14:50 2006. Correct.The history is: 1) The franchise to build East River tunnels is awarded to the LIRR 2) PRR *buys* the LIRR in order to acquire those rights. 3) PRR retains those rights when it spins of the LIRR. 4) AMTK inherits PRR rights. 5) Any future changes to the structure of AMTK an NYS ought to reclaim those rights. ROAR |
|
|
| (256928) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 10:49:06 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 00:52:40 2006. And 3) the 63rd Street Tunnel is already there.GO ROAR |
|
|
| (256929) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 10:50:45 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 example.Even though I clearly did post 2 seperate times with an analysis of timetables I could find, here's the final one: I did an analysis of service arriving into NYP between the hours of 7 and 8am and also between 8 and 9 am, since that was the busiest hour I found before. The following lists how many trains per line get into NYP at this time: Babylon: 8 trains, 10 trains Far Rock: 3, 4 Hempstead: 2, 3 Long Beach: 2, 3 Montauk: 0, 1 Oyster Bay: 1, 1 Port Jefferson: 7, 7 Port Washington: 6, 6 Ronkonkoma: 4, 6 West Hempstead: 0, 1 Alright. So, for 7-8am, there are 33 trains. From 8-9am, there are actually 42 trains! So, I am in fact wrong. There really isn't room in the east river tubes for too much more service. But, according to this, without the Port Washington trains, space west of Jamaica has very little room as well. How are they going to add more trains without diverting some away from Penn? As I see it, without the Port Washingto trains, LIRR is running 27 and 36 trains from Jamaica to (Harold?) the interlocking where Port Washington meets up. I'm assuming that the turnout to Port Washington will not have port washington trains to NYP crossing the tracks of Jamaica trains to GCT. It doesn't seem that there is much room for additional service here, and it Port Wash trains have to mingle with Jamaica trains headed to GCT first, there's basically no room. In addition to the topic at hand here, I'd really appreciate it if you guys stop saying that I should have just accepted your word. When you go to school and learn, the teacher doesn't tell you that something is "just because", they take the time to explain the facts, whether it's going through lengthy mathematical proofs, or demonstrating the physical evidence of such. However, saying: "well, the earth is round because we said so, and we're experts!" doesn't quite dispell doubt. I was not being argumentative for the sake of beign argumentative, I merely hoped to get facts from you guys, which apparently don't matter much on this board. In addition to that, Olog-hai, I really don't appreciate the comments you're so fond of making, ready to put anyone down at a moment's notice. I asked for evidence and since none of you could provide concrete evidence, I'm not just going to accept your word that it's true. That doesn't make me 'argumentative', and it certainly doesn't mean you guys "p3wned" me when you can't produce real evidence. And when you say things like that, it doesn't contribute anything relevant to the discussion at hand, it just attempts to get people's anger to flare up. |
|
|
| (256930) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 10:52:55 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:15:59 2006. No that is entirely acceptable.That money does not vanish. It is paid to workers who in turn spend that money to feed their familys and to purchase products that other folks make. Here is one *good* job that *cannot* be exported to China or India, and YOU say it is to expensive. HEY DUDE: Money *has NO VALUE* unless you spend it. ROAR |
|
|
| (256931) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 10:53:48 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 01:24:19 2006. AND THE 63rd Street Tunnel already exists.Why do you keep forgetting this? ROAR |
|
|
| (256933) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 10:56:13 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 10:24:00 2006. No it would NOT be cheaper. You would have to build new tunnels: The *do* need more tunnel capacity, you know. You would have to build a new station, perhaps under 34th Street.on the segment of LIRR between Jamaica and Harold interlocking (assuming this is where Port Wash trains join in the fray) how many tracks operate in peak direction? 2 or 3? If it's 2, they have a problem. |
|
|
| (256934) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 10:57:29 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 10:52:55 2006. Here is one *good* job that *cannot* be exported to China or India, and YOU say it is to expensive.HEY DUDE: Money *has NO VALUE* unless you spend it. The issue is spending it wisely. |
|
|
| (256938) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 11:09:07 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:15:59 2006. You wanna spend more billions to get more LIRR and Metro-North into NYP. Don't tell me that ain't more wasteful than ESA, kiddo. |
|
|
| (256939) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 11:09:53 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:31:57 2006. For enough money, AMTK (and the Federal Government) would roll over and play dead. They can always screw you later.Apparently, and despite what you say, *they* have decided that it was cheaper and/or more cost effective to go to GCT then to NYP with new tracks. After all, cooperation between AMTK and MTA is possible, and does happen, as witness the construction of the West Side Yard and its associated interlocking plant to move trains in and out of the station. This *was* a boon to AMTK as it did not interfere with its own operations and freed up space in the East River Tunnels. What you are suggesting does NOT free up space in East River Tunnels, and could slow them down for many many years. ROAR |
|
|
| (256944) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 11:15:47 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.  You argument spreads bull shit, because a tunnel boaring machine would be needed to add any platforms to NYP, for it matters not if you build below or along side of the existing structure: You still have to build tunnels. Hello? Anybody home. The day of building an open cut railroad station in midtown Manhattan is long long past. It *could* be done at WTC complimets of some terrorist idiots in aeroplanes, but NOT IN MIDTOWN. |
|
|
| (256949) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 11:21:56 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 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. You are treated as your arguments deserve. *I* do not have the facts on dollar for dollar costs of your concept vs construction to GCT. The mere *fact* that the MTA chose GCT should be prima facia evidence that that routing was indeed the more cost effective. COMPARE: Both plans require construction in the Sunnyside Yards (PUSH) Both plans require the construction of some sort of 8 track station. (PUSH) Both plans require some construction of tunnels in Manhattan. (PUSH) The GCT Plan uses the existing 63rd Street Tunnel. (No Cost) The NYP Plan requires the construction of a new East River Tunnel. (HUGE COST) ROAR
|
|
|
| (256950) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by JRice on Tue May 23 11:24:54 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon May 22 20:14:08 2006. I wouldn't put too much stock in Sunnyside Station actually happening. |
|
|
| (256951) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 11:25:31 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 02:27:10 2006. Execs have a way of saying things to meet their agendas So *now* you are an executive?
|
|
|
| (256953) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 11:29:59 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 11:15:47 2006. You argument spreads bull shit, because a tunnel boaring machine would be needed to add any platforms to NYP, for it matters not if you build below or along side of the existing structure: You still have to build tunnels.Allright, this is getting out of hand. ESA requires digging a new, long tunnel to GCT, and then digging out the underground caverns. I'm proposing eliminating the tunnel to the caverns, and just digging new caverns, which is what I believed could be done at Penn. But, In my most recent post on the topic, I conceeded that the Penn/east River tubes are at capacity, thanks to schedule analysis that I made. Please stop digging through the older posts. |
|
|
| (256955) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 11:31:39 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 10:50:45 2006. Nice research.It does not include LIRR deadheads, It does not include AMTK movements It does not include NJT movements. Methinks, if you *must* know: go and sit outside of the tunnel with a note pad and count them. (Do NOT blame me if the fuzz take you in as a terror suspect!) ROARING |
|
|
| (256957) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by JRice on Tue May 23 11:33:37 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Olog-hai on Tue May 23 02:42:48 2006. "Inspiration" is a polite way of stating it. Also, ask anyone on the Second Ave design why their tunnel diameter is 19'-6". |
|
|
| (256958) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 11:34:15 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 11:21:56 2006. You are treated as your arguments deserve.It's clear that you didn't understand what was being said on my part. So, I'll give you a pass on calling me an idiot. Both plans require construction in the Sunnyside Yards (PUSH) Both plans require the construction of some sort of 8 track station. (PUSH) Both plans require some construction of tunnels in Manhattan. (PUSH) The GCT Plan uses the existing 63rd Street Tunnel. (No Cost) The NYP Plan requires the construction of a new East River Tunnel. (HUGE COST) What I was saying was that no one had provided proof that NYP east river tunnels were at capacity (which they hadn't) and that extra service could be operated through those tunnels to new platform space at NYP. The savings cost would be the fact that you would not have needed to dig new tunnel in Queens or as much new tunnel in manhattan. Both plans would require new stations, so the cost would've likely been equal. |
|
|
| (256959) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Tue May 23 11:36:45 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 23 06:43:22 2006. I believe MNCR runs some 12-car MU trains.I've seen 12-car Cosmopolitans in service. |
|
|
| (256960) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by JRice on Tue May 23 11:37:04 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:10:30 2006. The existing tunnels are at capacity. With the Steinway and Midtown tunnels in the area, you are going to have to thread a roller coaster ride of a tunnel through there. |
|
|
| (256963) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by JRice on Tue May 23 11:41:59 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:14:23 2006. Luckily, planning is done beyond railfan level. The trend for office use in Manhattan is toward the east side within WALKING distance of GCT. Why would people go to GCT and crowd on the LEX instead of going to Penn as before with all of the subway options available? |
|
|
| (256965) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Tue May 23 11:43:39 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 11:34:15 2006. The savings cost would be the fact that you would not have needed to dig new tunnel in Queens or as much new tunnel in manhattan. Both plans would require new stations, so the cost would've likely been equal.It is cheaper to build where there is no service than where there is. |
|
|
| (256966) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 23 11:44:41 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 11:29:59 2006. Sorry, but I think it might take Broadway Lion and JRice a little while longer to they realize you already conceded the point about the East River tunnel. |
|
|
| (256967) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 11:45:19 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by mambomta on Tue May 23 11:43:39 2006. Both plans would require new stations, so the cost would've likely been equal.With far less tunneling necessary at the NYP alternative. Either way, the point is moot, since I now know that NYP east River Tunnels don't have much room. |
|
|
| (256968) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 11:45:59 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by KLCS on Tue May 23 02:28:02 2006. You can install high speed turnouts, but it's tight down in those old tunnels. They would need structural modifications. You cannot install "high spped" turnouts. All a high speed turnout is, is a higher frog number, with a longer length switch. Try building it on your model railroad. I did. I could not use No. 6 switches in my terminals because the terminal would then be longer than my table. I had to settle for No. 4 switches in the terminals. ERGO slower trains. NYP has an incredibly complex interlocking system with train running across many switch point between the platform and the tunnel. The train must be clear of the entire route before the interlocking plant will allow the realignment of switches for the next train. After all that *is* what an interlocking plant is, and why they call it thus. RORA
|
|
|
| (256970) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Tue May 23 11:49:07 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 11:45:19 2006. With far less tunneling necessary at the NYP alternative. Either way, the point is moot, since I now know that NYP east River Tunnels don't have much room.Nope. It would still cost more to expand NYP. Like I said, due to the fact that NYP is active, you would have to schedule construction for low use times, even then you would still have serious disruptions. Adding the LIRR level to GCT would have almost no disruption and you can also get it done faster as your schedule is far more flexible. |
|
|
| (256971) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 11:49:42 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 00:36:51 2006. LIRR is not going to use ANY MNRR berths. The third rails are not compatable. They are building their own complex that will connect via passageways for passengers, but will have no track interactions whatsoever.It is a DONE deal costs notwithstanding. |
|
|
| (256974) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 11:53:10 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 11:49:42 2006. LIRR is not going to use ANY MNRR berths. The third rails are not compatable. They are building their own complex that will connect via passageways for passengers, but will have no track interactions whatsoever.I'm aware of that. I was talking about completely taking over some rail berths. |
|
|
| (256975) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 11:53:37 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:14:23 2006. "The schedule I found lists only these 2 trains heading southbound into Penn at peak time." Wrong. EVERY AMTK train that leave NYP westbound or northbound *MUST* come through the East River Tunnels from Sunnyside yards.
|
|
|
| (256977) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 11:54:56 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 11:53:37 2006. Wrong.You're just going to keep digging through the old posts to really keep zinging me, eh? |
|
|
| (256983) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by JRice on Tue May 23 12:05:32 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 23 11:44:41 2006. This string is too fast for a person checking in once a day. I may have just replied to the same issue three times already. |
|
|
| (256984) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Tue May 23 12:06:03 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 11:45:59 2006. Here are some articles for those who want to know too much about high speed turnouts:http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rrd_72.pdf http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rrd_15.pdf http://www.trainscan.com/news/scan/s0212/index.html YUMMY http://www.edmonton.ca/RoadsTraffic/designguidelines/Chapter_5_Trackwork.pdf |
|
|
| (256990) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by JRice on Tue May 23 12:21:52 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Mon May 22 01:50:08 2006. Actually, the plan is to increase the M7 fleet to account for the additional runs. |
|
|
|
Page 7 of 9 |
||
