|
|
| Re: LIRR East Side Access (256237) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 8 of 9 |
||
|
| (256991) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 12:22:29 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:45:28 2006. East River movements are even more complicated than just x number of trains per track.Certain platforms can only be accessed by certain tunnel tracks. To use the lower numbered platforms (12 and 13) LIRR must use the southern tunnel. AMTK and NJT usually cannot use the northern tunnel. So just because there is a slot in this tunnel does not help a particular train if it needs a platform accessable from only the other tunnel. ROAR |
|
|
| (256993) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 12:25:29 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 01:43:53 2006. "Even if it was, LIRR could work out a solution to have some Amtrak trains make it to the station a little earlier"CANT DO THAT! NJT HASN'T CLEARED THAT PLATFORM YET! "or even having some wait time at the West Side Railyard. " CANT DO THAT! It would need ANOTHER crew and MORE platform time! Sheesh... This boy needs to learn some basic railroading. ROAR |
|
|
| (256997) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 23 12:28:17 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by JRice on Tue May 23 12:05:32 2006. If you are trying to catch up, I would suggest reading the most recent posts first, and then going back to everything else if you should so choose. In that way you might avoid responding to points that have already been settled. The "View Flat" feature is good for quickly skimming through all of the old posts in the thread. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (256999) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 12:31:01 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 12:25:29 2006. CANT DO THAT! NJT HASN'T CLEARED THAT PLATFORM YET!Certainly, it could be worked out somehow. CANT DO THAT! It would need ANOTHER crew and MORE platform time! What I'm suggesting is that if a train needs to deadhead into NYP at a peak time, send it through earlier, have it rest a bit at West Side railyards, and then bring it into NYP when it's needed. The same amount of platform time is needed (remember, it's getting to West Side railyard at a time of lower train traffic, so it should be able to pass through NYP the first time pretty easily). Yes, it would require some extra crew time. What's the problem with that? Sheesh... This boy needs to learn some basic railroading. The whole purpose of your series of posts in this thread seems to be to put me down. I think I'm done here. |
|
|
| (257000) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 12:31:06 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by JRice on Tue May 23 12:21:52 2006. Yes, in order to reach the needed capacity, I was just speaking on a technical standpoint. |
|
|
| (257002) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 23 12:33:30 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 11:54:56 2006. Forgive him, he's old and needs lots of sleep, he wasn't able to follow the discussion into the wee hours this morning so he's making up for lost time... :)However, his point is wholly correct. Just about every southbound Amtrak train which heads under the Hudson started out in Sunnyside and deadheaded through the East River tubes. |
|
|
| (257004) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 12:35:47 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Tue May 23 12:33:30 2006. However, his point is wholly correct. Just about every southbound Amtrak train which heads under the Hudson started out in Sunnyside and deadheaded through the East River tubes.Reading my posts would show that I understand that, and was trying to propose alternatives. |
|
|
| (257011) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 12:44:04 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 11:29:59 2006. Please stop digging through the older posts.I don't dig through old posts. I was sleeping all night. I got up a few hours ago and turned my computer on. I start at the bottom and work my way up. ROAR |
|
|
| (257013) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 23 12:46:12 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 12:35:47 2006. Yes, unfortunately you're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, or if you prefer robbing Peter to pay Paul. It'd seem you've accepted that tunnel capacity is finite and nearly full, but why should Amtrak rearrange their operations to suit the LIRR? The real problem is a lack of capacity under the rivers and while it's unfortunate the solution to that problem is quite expensive. Not every Amtrak train originates or terminates in NYP so if you wanted to reduce Amtrak's effect on NJT and LIRR's peak hour loads you'd inevitably have to go to them hat in hand and beg them to cut or move trains during the peak period. It's entirely possible that they'd laugh you out of the office, because after all, they run NYP and have control over it's operations. |
|
|
| (257022) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 12:59:17 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 12:31:01 2006. The whole purpose of your series of posts in this thread seems to be to put me down.No. I do not want to put you down. Basic railroading concepts allow a faster throughput for trains that do not reverse directions. If you pull a train into the empty West Side yard at say 0500 hours, it would need a second crew to bring it into the platform at say 0830. Moving a train *backwards* through the NYP interlocking is not a trivial matter, and then once at the platform, all of the brake tests must be repeated (for the third time!) Admittedly the time for this last brake test is trivial since the dwell time for a long distance train is greater than that. But here is another consideration. Do AMTK platforms even access the West Side Yards. This I do not know. Obviously the Empire Builder uses it, but maybe it really curtails which platforms may be used for that train. ROAR |
|
|
| (257025) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 23 13:02:08 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by mambomta on Tue May 23 11:49:07 2006. 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.And on a slight tangent, the same is largely true of the GCT Loop plan for ESA failed, it'd completely disrupt MN's operations. |
|
|
| (257027) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 23 13:03:58 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 12:44:04 2006. I start at the bottom and work my way up.That causes problems, as you now see. Good netiquette suggests reading the entire thread before replying. This ensures that you are aware of the latest developments before possibly rehashing old arguments that are long settled. |
|
|
| (257028) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Tue May 23 13:04:41 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 12:59:17 2006. Obviously the Empire Builder uses it, but maybe it really curtails which platforms may be used for that train.Actually, only LIRR uses the WSY. The Empire connection passes under the WSY connection. IIRC, Jersey Mike has a picture of the portal. |
|
|
| (257029) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Tue May 23 13:06:55 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Tue May 23 13:02:08 2006. And on a slight tangent, the same is largely true of the GCT Loop plan for ESA failed, it'd completely disrupt MN's operations.Which the Loop plan advocates completely disregard and dispute (since they would obviously not be affected) |
|
|
| (257045) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 13:30:26 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Tue May 23 13:02:08 2006. And on a slight tangent, the same is largely true of the GCT Loop plan for ESA failed, it'd completely disrupt MN's operations.Doesn't seem to stop these people: Fight The MTA |
|
|
| (257046) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Tue May 23 13:33:23 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 13:30:26 2006. Doesn't seem to stop these people:That's because it's not in their interest. |
|
|
| (257047) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 13:34:16 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by mambomta on Tue May 23 13:33:23 2006. Engineering realities are not in their interest? |
|
|
| (257055) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 23 13:45:30 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 11:53:10 2006. You are refering to the Upper Level Loop Alternative. It was fairly soundly ruled out in the ULLA Analysis on the ESA FEIS. They go through a variety of reasons which disqualify that alternative. You don't have to take our word for it, the MTA looked at that idea and ruled it out. |
|
|
| (257057) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 13:48:39 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Tue May 23 13:45:30 2006. No, actually I'm not. |
|
|
| (257058) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue May 23 13:51:34 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 13:48:39 2006. You want the LIRR to take over some of MN's lower level station platforms rather than dig their own caverns, right? How is that not the upper level loop alternative? |
|
|
| (257060) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Tue May 23 13:53:28 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 13:34:16 2006. Engineering realities are not in their interest?They don't want east side access. They know that the Loop Alternative is a bad idea. They are just NIMBY's who don't want to be categorized as such. |
|
|
| (257062) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue May 23 13:55:05 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Tue May 23 13:51:34 2006. You want the LIRR to take over some of MN's lower level station platforms rather than dig their own caverns, right?No. In addition to building their own cavern. Forget it anyway. It's a moot point. |
|
|
| (257064) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Tue May 23 13:55:45 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by WillD on Tue May 23 13:51:34 2006. You want the LIRR to take over some of MN's lower level station platforms rather than dig their own caverns, right? How is that not the upper level loop alternative?The upper level loop alternative takes over some of MNR's upper level platforms and significantly reduces access to the lower level. |
|
|
| (257076) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by bill west on Tue May 23 14:08:14 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Brighton Private on Tue May 23 08:33:56 2006. I've noticed that too, I think you have the point about MU. Electrics have so much more HP available per unit that rarely is MU needed. Over here they are almost always on passenger and in Europe the frieghts are short enough. Quick turn arounds are also more likely on passenger.Diesel frieghts here on the other hand used to always be 2-5 units and are still 1-3, a trailing unit oriented for the return trip is easy. And from after the SD40 they have needed the whole chasssis to mount the huge radiators and now the huge electrical compartment, there is no room left for a second cab. Bill |
|
|
| (257086) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 14:23:36 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 23 13:03:58 2006. I click on the bottom unread post, I then read all of that sub string before replying.Then I go up to the next unread post, and read all that sub string. Etc. |
|
|
| (257095) | |
Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue May 23 14:42:19 2006, in response to Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA), posted by Fytton on Tue May 23 10:46:47 2006. And Southern EMUs are always at least two cars (married pairs in NYC parlance) and more commonly 3,4,5 or 6 cars.And often 8 (especially on the Western Section), or 10 or 12 on a few lines. Electric loco-hauled passenger trains on the Southern Electric system were always pretty rare - mostly only Dover boat trains that I can think of. Gatwick Express until recently. Class 73 (with a spare diesel engine particularly useful for the crossovers north of Gatwick Airport) + a bunch of MkII stock + a MkI luggage van (which also had shoes). 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! But there are baffles to stop you walking onto the track. |
|
|
| (257104) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by bill west on Tue May 23 15:07:49 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 10:47:25 2006. PRR bought stock control of LIRR in 1900.In 1901 PRR inspected the new succesful Paris electric railroad tunnel project that had opened in 1900. PRR then started preliminary engineering on the NYP project in 1901 and appointed a full Board of Engineers in 1902. PRR created 2 companies for the 2 rivers and applied to City, the 2 states and the Federal Gov't for the various approvals needed. The only involvement of the Rapid Transit Commision would have been to ensure no route conflicts. PRR combined the subsidiaries into Pennsylvania Tunnel & Terminal Railroad Co early on in the project. This is what Amtrak inherited with the PRR NEC. Bill |
|
|
| (257105) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by JRice on Tue May 23 15:22:48 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Tue May 23 12:31:06 2006. Let's hope the money for the GCT fleet is there when (and if) ESA completes the tunnels and facilities. |
|
|
| (257109) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue May 23 15:27:30 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 14:23:36 2006. Well that didn't work! |
|
|
| (257110) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 15:29:09 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by bill west on Tue May 23 15:07:49 2006. This may all be so. But LIRR had the franchise for this tunnel before this date. Obviously they could not build it on their own, so the marraige with PRR was a win-win situation.ROAR |
|
|
| (257112) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue May 23 15:38:07 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 15:29:09 2006. Couldn't be the case today..as the MTA planned to build this tunnel and new station since the Metropolitan Commuter Railroad Authority days. |
|
|
| (257113) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by mtl on Tue May 23 15:39:24 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 22:09:52 2006. What happened at the vent building hearing? |
|
|
| (257149) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Tue May 23 16:28:17 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Edwards! on Tue May 23 15:38:07 2006. You're mixing up 63rd with 33rd. |
|
|
| (257154) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 16:30:37 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by mtl on Tue May 23 15:39:24 2006. ??? |
|
|
| (257162) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue May 23 16:35:11 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 16:30:37 2006. He's referring to MTA's plan to put in a ventilation building at 50th Street rather than Grand Central. Some residents went apeshit. Basically they are looking for handouts - the usual NIMBY "put the green in my hand" strategy. |
|
|
| (257192) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Tue May 23 17:25:40 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 15:29:09 2006. I checked William D Middleton's "Manhattan Gateway" as I wrote that post. No mention is made of prior franchises for the tunnel project.PRRTHS/Hagley do mention various LIRR franchises for getting a terminal in Manhattan, I am not quickly sure which ones were from the East and which were from the South nor which ones were incorporated but had no permits. LIRR also looked at Jersey City to the Battery to Flatbush. But Hagley does mention that at the time of the LIRR takeover the PRR board did not know that PRR president Cassatt was again wondering about a Manhattan entry solution and we know he hadn't yet found that electrification was going to make a tunnel possible. Cassatt was probably looking in all directions, ruses are mentioned. But even if LIRR had paper for a 33/34th street crossing it would not have been important to the PRR, they could have obtained the necessary approvals for any project worthwhile to them. If anything Cassatt might have wanted to prevent LIRR from building competing tunnels or take over the profits resulting from LIRR getting into a tunnel. PRR had by far the greater financial and political resources. Bill |
|
|
| (257195) | |
Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA) |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue May 23 17:38:32 2006, in response to Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA), posted by Fytton on Tue May 23 10:46:47 2006. IIRC, older Southern locos had a flywheel-generator system to keep the motors rolling for a while.As James mentions, the Gatwick Express was loco hauled but I've never seen it using the diesel part of Class 73 on my few rides on it. The Met of course used loco hauled trains too. |
|
|
| (257218) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue May 23 18:33:08 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Tue May 23 16:28:17 2006. No..Im not.The MTA planned the line for the LIRR under Third ave since the early 60's... Ronan and the Governor at that time figured they could kill MANY BIRDS with one stone..by forming the MTA... Out of that..the 1968 MTA Plan For Action was formed. As we well know...that "PLAN" went bust... |
|
|
| (257219) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue May 23 18:39:05 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Bill West on Tue May 23 17:25:40 2006. My source was the recent Trains article on the LIRR. I forgot what issue it was.ROAR |
|
|
| (257238) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue May 23 19:14:05 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 22 10:18:33 2006. I think its time came ages ago |
|
|
| (257242) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue May 23 19:23:57 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by JRice on Tue May 23 11:24:54 2006. Why is that? |
|
|
| (257279) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue May 23 21:04:51 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by JRice on Tue May 23 11:24:54 2006. Why? It's the cheapest part of the project. |
|
|
| (257327) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access --- MNRR can go to Penn Station, using only pantographs |
|
|
Posted by tramrunner on Tue May 23 22:36:17 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by Nilet on Mon May 22 01:08:08 2006. just make Metro-North follow Amtrak trajectory from New Rochele to Penn Station.... If you want MNRR at Penn station. There will be no need to switch over from 3td rail to catenery |
|
|
| (257344) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access --- MNRR can go to Penn Station, using only pantographs |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Tue May 23 22:59:33 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access --- MNRR can go to Penn Station, using only pantographs, posted by tramrunner on Tue May 23 22:36:17 2006. just make Metro-North follow Amtrak trajectory from New Rochele to Penn Station.... If you want MNRR at Penn station. There will be no need to switch over from 3td rail to cateneryMNR cars have fixed-position 3rd-rail shoes, even on the Cosmopolitan cars. Plus, the current fleet cannot run to Penn due to not having the required on-the-fly voltage-switching equipment. |
|
|
| (257348) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access --- MNRR can go to Penn Station, using only pantographs |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue May 23 23:10:56 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access --- MNRR can go to Penn Station, using only pantographs, posted by mambomta on Tue May 23 22:59:33 2006. voltage switching is not neccesary to run m-2/4/6 on 11kv 25 hz the cars were built for it.mncr went to 12.5 kv 60 hz and no switchover is neccesarry. the fixed third rail shoes are propblem however cause moment they sense third rail power the antographs drop. fra will not allow to connect to two power sources. |
|
|
| (257382) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed May 24 01:44:52 2006, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access, posted by JRice on Tue May 23 11:24:54 2006. It's part of the east side access plan. If east side access happens, then so does Sunnyside station. If east side access doesn't happen, then neither does Sunnyside station. And if that were the case, the whole Hunterspoint Ave station survival conversdation is moot anyway, as without East Side Access, Hunterspoint Ave is necessary... |
|
|
| (257400) | |
Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA) |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed May 24 04:25:39 2006, in response to Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA), posted by Rail Blue on Tue May 23 14:42:19 2006. Me: "And Southern EMUs are always at least two cars (married pairs in NYC parlance) and more commonly 3,4,5 or 6 cars."Rail Blue: "And often 8 (especially on the Western Section), or 10 or 12 on a few lines." I meant the lengths of the permanently-coupled multiple units. Of course, two or more of these can then be coupled together to make a longer train. As far as I recall, the longest actual coupled units were the old six-car units (6-PUL and 6-PAN units) on the Brighton line - the Brighton expresses usually consisted of one of each of these to make a 12-car train. |
|
|
| (257417) | |
Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA) |
|
|
Posted by wzlirr on Wed May 24 05:32:46 2006, in response to Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA), posted by Fytton on Wed May 24 04:25:39 2006. I wasn't aware that an M9 was even contemplated. Unless there is a break with tradition, an odd numbered MU would have to operate on the LIRR/MNCRR Hudson/Harlem. It wouldn't be a pantograph equipped railcar -thus, the whole moveable third rail shoe issue is moot as are the voltage/transformer issues. All of these suppositions should be centered around the M8 if it ever sees light of day. Actually - the whole thing is kinda stupid considering the New Haven ran EP's 1-5 into Penn and Grand Central. Overhead in Penn and third rail GCT. there's no point in running a commuter service up the west side from Penn since there are, 1] no stations between Penn and Riverdale 2] time - running a train up from Penn will add at least 40 minutes to commute [as compared with the same trip from GCT]. 3] there's no layover space. Sunnyside is already packed with Jersey Transit equipment, and the Westside Yard is already loaded with LIRR trainsets. As for the eastside access - It's a waste of time and money - most LIRR commuters need to head into lower Manhattan. people get on the subway and head downtown. |
|
|
| (257418) | |
Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA) |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed May 24 05:52:29 2006, in response to Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA), posted by wzlirr on Wed May 24 05:32:46 2006. "most LIRR commuters need to head into lower Manhattan. people get on the subway and head downtown"Have you any evidence for that? The long-term trend has been for employment numbers in downtown gradually to drop off relative to midtown, and this trend was accelerated by 9/11. |
|
|
| (257428) | |
Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA) |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed May 24 07:43:23 2006, in response to Re: what do you mean by Underruning 3rd rail? (was LIRR ESA), posted by wzlirr on Wed May 24 05:32:46 2006. 2] time - running a train up from Penn will add at least 40 minutes to commute [as compared with the same trip from GCT].Why? That seems an extreme difference. |
|
|
|
Page 8 of 9 |
||
