|
|
| Re: R-160 Update (313363) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 6 of 9 |
||
|
| (315349) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 13:23:21 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by mambomta on Mon Sep 25 12:48:34 2006. Do you feel better now? :0) |
|
|
| (315356) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Mon Sep 25 13:48:22 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 13:23:21 2006. Do you feel better now? :0)Avoiding the subject again I see. It seems I struck a nerve. |
|
|
| (315359) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 14:15:54 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 10:37:39 2006. "The trains of yesteryear injured passengers a lot more frequently than they do today."They did? Show proof before you make such statements. The best riding fleet in the system is 35 years old now. That is not exactly new. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (315365) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 14:52:48 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 14:15:54 2006. "The best riding fleet in the system is 35 years old now"The best riding fleet in the system is less than 5 years old and still under warranty. And the trains and procures which were associated with those accidents are retired and gone. |
|
|
| (315369) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 15:11:43 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 14:15:54 2006. And what fleet would that be pray tell?The R 44?..46? |
|
|
| (315374) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 15:37:29 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:27:21 2006. You never did answer my question concerning the "stations" for the LGA line.... |
|
|
| (315376) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 15:47:49 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 21:05:57 2006. It's okay,really..The situation over there is bad now..and will get WORSE as time goes by,as more people move to the "suburban like" outlands of Brooklyn.. The bus lines out of Flatbush depot CANNOT handle the growing ridership..[the TA KNOWS THIS]..which is why they have looked at a stop gap measure called BRT...UNTIL funding is available for the UTICA AVENUE SUBWAY... Even South Jamaica is getting SOMETHING out of the AIRTRAIN deal..with its expaned commuter service via the LIRR,running subway like service levels from Valley Stream,Hollis and Queens Villiage to AND thur lower Manhattan! Demand is there..and when money is available,so will the new service. |
|
|
| (315379) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 15:51:00 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 15:11:43 2006. R44 |
|
|
| (315381) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 15:55:24 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 14:52:48 2006. Obviously you dont ride the R142s daily. The R44s, although hated by railfans are loved by most people and provide a ride quality better then any other car in the system, and arguably better then most commuter rail cars. Come to new york and ride them! They are quite nice, although they appear to be falling apart.Again, cite specific incidents where people have been hurt due to old trains. (and already you have shown your statements irrellevancy to current situations claiming these cars have been retired.) Answer: When, Where, Which cars. |
|
|
| (315389) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 16:34:03 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 15:47:49 2006. A reasonable stop-gap might be BRT used with articulated buses. In the end, though, nothing will address the problem like a new subway. |
|
|
| (315390) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 16:35:53 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 15:51:00 2006. They ride nicely, but the R46,68 and all the new technology trains ride better. The new tech trains are safer. |
|
|
| (315392) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 16:38:41 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 15:55:24 2006. "Obviously you dont ride the R142s daily."Actually, I have and I don't agree at all with your opinion of them. Moreover, the R143, their equivalent in the B Division, is even better. As for your question, look at the inventory of active cars as of the 1950s and you'll see. www.nycsubway.org is the place to look... |
|
|
| (315398) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 16:54:49 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 16:38:41 2006. You Cannot possibly have ridden them as long as I have, So, myself, and many other people on this board are significantly better judges.() I know what cars were active in the 1950s. You have not cited any specific incidents. Again, Where When What car? Statements of the past are meaningless without evidence to back them up. |
|
|
| (315404) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:06:05 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 00:01:21 2006. When I ride Ct. Square, I do it frequently for a few months. Lots of observations have not indicated poor dispatching is to blame. The issue is that few trains are scheduled. |
|
|
| (315406) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:07:02 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 00:09:42 2006. When you get some perspective on our situation, come talk to me. |
|
|
| (315407) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:08:47 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 23:57:21 2006. The 54 comes better than every 10 minutes today, But I'd KILL to have a Myrtle el. |
|
|
| (315414) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:13:46 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Railman718 on Mon Sep 25 00:41:04 2006. Any idea what causes that? Seems pretty serious! |
|
|
| (315415) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:14:56 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 16:54:49 2006. "You Cannot possibly have ridden them as long as I have,"Since I am at least double your age that statement is inherently false. I rode the R40 when it was first introduced to the subway; you had not yet been born. |
|
|
| (315416) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:15:39 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:07:02 2006. I already do. And Iam rtalking - but you are not listening. |
|
|
| (315418) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:16:39 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:08:47 2006. Or perhsaps a Myrtle subway? Even if all it did was terminate at Metrotech and let you transfer inside fare control to another subway line, that would be a plus. |
|
|
| (315419) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:17:30 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:14:56 2006. That was in reference to the R142, for which the statement holds true. |
|
|
| (315423) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:19:27 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Sep 25 11:21:48 2006. Regenerative braking didn't work? |
|
|
| (315425) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:21:09 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 16:35:53 2006. Really? How are they safer? |
|
|
| (315429) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:22:54 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:17:30 2006. No statement of yours holds true. You are contradicting RonInKC, so you are definitely wrong. Go to bed.Hahaha. |
|
|
| (315433) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:26:05 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:21:09 2006. Higher MDBF results in lower likelihood of failure during operation; lower probability of being caught and dragged by a passenger door; visual and aural announcements improve safety for visually impaired and hearing-impaired individuals. Removing the temptation to make snap decisions about where to get off (by reducing confusion) helps people ride more safely.Those are just the ones I thought of now. |
|
|
| (315436) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:28:17 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:17:30 2006. I've ridden the R142 long enough to know how it behaves. I like it a lot. |
|
|
| (315438) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:29:18 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:26:05 2006. Higher MDBF has nothing to do with safety. All current cars have doorsensors which will not allow for people to get dragged, and although good in theory, the execution of the automated announcement systems have been pretty miserable(until the R160, where they finally seem to have gotten them right.) |
|
|
| (315439) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:29:43 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:28:17 2006. You like getting thrown out of your seat? |
|
|
| (315442) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:33:27 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:29:18 2006. "Higher MDBF has nothing to do with safety."False statement. It is central to safety. "All current cars have doorsensors which will not allow for people to get dragged," In theory yes. However, the R142's safety interlocks are much better than the R32s. "the execution of the automated announcement systems have been pretty miserable(until the R160, where they finally seem to have gotten them right.)" I rode the system for several months and found the announcement system to be generally excellent in all respects. |
|
|
| (315443) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:34:56 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Sep 25 08:30:24 2006. You're confusing ATO with CBTC. It's possible to have ATO without CBTC. One example was the 42nd St Shuttle back in the 1960's.Yes, and its possible to have CBTC w/o ATO, as is the case on Canarsie. However, the eventuality of CBTC is to have ATO as well. CBTC cannot permit a follower to proceed until it can detect the leader's movements to a degree greater than its systemic accuracy. One factor is communications delay. The CBTC system permits a 2 second delay to/from each train. Thus, CBTC must factor in a worst case 4 second delay to the follower. 4 seconds at 40 mph translates into a 240 feet. This 240 foot distance, plus a safety margin for the brakes, is the minimum gap between leader and follower before the follower will start moving. N.B. I have not even considered errors in determining a train's position. That's all well and great, but when trains move out of stations, they're accelerating from 0mph. This means that if your 4 second figure is correct, the following train is beginning to proceed into the station with far less than 240'. But of even greater issue here is human control. Far to often, I've seen T/O's sit outside the station until the train ahead is fully outside of the station, and station time has automatically cleared. Additionally, Trains approaching stations that are occupied often slow down much too often, especially when they approach a station with a train that is already pulling out. CBTC will eliminate a lot of that unnecessary slowdown which will allow trailing trains to get into stations faster. More research is needed to determine why a follower catches up to its leader. There are two possibilities: the leader is going to slow or the follower is going too fast, relative to the schedule. Schedule padding makes the former possibility very unlikely. The cure for the latter possibility is not to try to make the follower even earlier by keying by. Ignore the padded schedule. If 5 trains are backed up behind one leader, then its obvious that the error here is on the leader being too slow. If every train has the same acceleration/top speed characteristics, then there's no reason for the leader to be so slow relative to the followers, even if the schedule dictates it. If the excuse is that supervision is holding the leader, then in reality the followers should all be getting held as well. What is needed is train supervision. CBTC is not required for train supervision. Moscow uses a simple clock at each station and operates at 43 tph. Paris uses a slightly more complicated clock at each station and operates at 36 tph. New York has virtually no train supervision and operates at 25 tph. NYCT is addressing the supervision issue. Lets see how well they do it with their new scheme. I ride trains on a track every morning that is able to process 28 tph. Generally, they do it without delays. Sometimes, the merge point where 18 of those trains merge with 10 of them experiences delays. Those occasions are not the norm. I would say that NYCT can operate up to 30tph on one track. |
|
|
| (315446) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:36:41 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:29:43 2006. That's only happened to me on an R32 and a Redbird. Never happened on any other car. |
|
|
| (315449) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:39:45 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:36:41 2006. Happenned to me on an R33, R38, R62, R142. With the exception of the R142, all of those trains were in emergency |
|
|
| (315450) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:47:33 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by Edwards! on Mon Sep 25 15:47:49 2006. I know how bad Utica is. I ride the 46 a lot.Even South Jamaica is getting SOMETHING out of the AIRTRAIN deal..with its expaned commuter service via the LIRR,running subway like service levels from Valley Stream,Hollis and Queens Villiage to AND thur lower Manhattan! At what price? Who's going to want to pay those prices from those neighborhoods? And, when did it say that LIRR was going to increase service to those neighborhoods? In regard to WHERE stations along Airtrain could be placed: I don't know. But I do know that there are neighborhoods in that area, and there isn't any subway service. If you must have locations, how about LINDEN and another one at Rockaway Blvd? You know what I'd like to see done? Extend the J via AIRTRAIN, making local stops at new stations between Jamaica and JFK. Simultaneously, have the E take over the branch of the LIRR that stops at Locust Manor and Laurelton. If there's not enough room to shift all the service from this branch to the one with a stop at St. Albans (if you know the names of these lines, correct me), do as was planned back in the 70s, and add a 3rd track. Add stops accordingly. I've just offered a cost-effective manner of adding service to Far eastern Queens. And, it limits NIMBYS. |
|
|
| (315452) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:49:04 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:15:39 2006. No, you don't have perspective on the situation. And I know you're talking, I'm telling you to stop until you get some perspective. |
|
|
| (315454) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:51:54 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:33:27 2006. I rode the system for several months and found the announcement system to be generally excellent in all respects.It's better than your average, garbled announcement, but Good C/Rs make better announcements than the NTTs. |
|
|
| (315455) | |
Re: R-320 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:53:39 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:39:45 2006. You must be a real lightweight... |
|
|
| (315456) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:54:59 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:39:45 2006. How'd you get thrown from your seat when BIE happened on those cars? I could see the R44/46/68, but not those.The only place I ever have problems with unexpected seat expellings is on the 2/3, between Park Pl and Fulton. I like the way the NTTs ride. They away a bit more, but have a lot less of the harsh bumps of other cars. I thought about it, and I agree with your assessment of the R44. I really does ride pretty nicely. I wonder why that is? |
|
|
| (315457) | |
Re: R-320 Update |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:55:25 2006, in response to Re: R-320 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:53:39 2006. Although I no longer am, I was over 200 lbs for all of those incidents.Do you not understand momentum? The forces on larger people are greater... |
|
|
| (315458) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:55:52 2006, in response to Re: R-320 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:53:39 2006. Stop changing the subject. And stop changing the subject. |
|
|
| (315459) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:56:29 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:47:33 2006. "And, when did it say that LIRR was going to increase service to those neighborhoods?"LIRR should increase service to those neighborhoods on the grounds they need more rail service in general. Also, I'd like to see physical improvements to some of those stops. Queens Village sucks in winter when there's ice on the stairs and on the sidewalk leading up to the Q27 bus stop. Your expansio proposals are very creative. |
|
|
| (315461) | |
Re: R-320 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:56:58 2006, in response to Re: R-320 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:55:25 2006. Do you not understand momentum? The forces on larger people are greater...Of course he does! You don't, because you're a foamer. |
|
|
| (315462) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:57:39 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:54:59 2006. Going thru 59th on the 2. Depending on speed, you can get thrown.Not saying the new cars are worse, theyre just not any better. Except for some reason, the R44... No idea why, but those cars ride wonderfully. |
|
|
| (315463) | |
Re: R-640 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:57:40 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 17:51:54 2006. True, but OPTO is coming, so the C/R isn't going to be there in the years to come. |
|
|
| (315464) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:59:29 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:33:27 2006. The announcement system is good in the quality of the announcements, sure, BUThowever the quality is, a WRONG announcement is worse then none at all, much like a WRONG stripmap is worse then none at all. |
|
|
| (315465) | |
Re: R-320 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:59:51 2006, in response to Re: R-320 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:55:25 2006. "The forces on larger people are greater... "Especially when they don't know how to hold on... |
|
|
| (315466) | |
Re: R-1280 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 18:00:33 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 17:59:29 2006. I've seen that happen a couple of times out of 100 rides. |
|
|
| (315467) | |
Re: R-320 Update |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 18:00:35 2006, in response to Re: R-320 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:59:51 2006. Where are seated people supposed to hold onto? |
|
|
| (315468) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 18:00:45 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 17:56:29 2006. There are plenty of creative proposals, using existing ROWs. How about building the once proposed Horace HardingOf course, this proposal doesn't count, because I'm a "railbuff". I should "stop foaming" and "go to bed." |
|
|
| (315469) | |
Re: R-320 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 18:01:19 2006, in response to Re: R-320 Update, posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 18:00:35 2006. I was poking fun at you.Maybe not all BIEs are equal. |
|
|
| (315470) | |
Re: R-1280 Update |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Sep 25 18:01:35 2006, in response to Re: R-1280 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 18:00:33 2006. I had that happen practically every single morning on the 6, from 2001 to 2006 as well as on the 2 from 2001-2003 |
|
|
|
Page 6 of 9 |
||
