|
|
| Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) (313363) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 8 of 9 |
||
|
| (315577) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 22:38:20 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 22:19:04 2006. Numerous arteries cross the Stevenson (?) and Dan Ryan expressways in Chicago as well. It doesn't make them any more convenient for prospective passengers in the immediate surrounding neighborhoods.Granted, bus lines do help, but those are most effective when people must travel a moderate distance in order to reach the subway (and if that's the case, the placement is irrelevant.) I don't see how building an elevated line over an expressway would be any cheaper than building an elevated line over, say, Northern Boulevard. Of course, you'd have more room to use with the expressway option, but you'd also have to build numerous overpasses and stairways as well as actually making stations larger than they'd need to if they were built over a regular street. And none of these proposals has even the remotest (is that even a word) chance of being built, so I think it's a safe assumption to completely disregard the NIMBY aspect. |
|
|
| (315578) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 22:40:24 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 18:13:23 2006. Why would my state assembly/city council members care about this? It's not in their district. Maybe the Congressional Senators would at least take the time to have an aide dismiss my suggestion. |
|
|
| (315579) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 22:43:02 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 22:38:20 2006. I don't see how building an elevated line over an expressway would be any cheaper than building an elevated line over, say, Northern Boulevard. Of course, you'd have more room to use with the expressway option, but you'd also have to build numerous overpasses and stairways as well as actually making stations larger than they'd need to if they were built over a regular street.This doesn't apply to the LIE. And none of these proposals has even the remotest (is that even a word) chance of being built, so I think it's a safe assumption to completely disregard the NIMBY aspect. The whole point is I'm trying to propose something that WOULD get past NIMBY opposition. I'm trying to consider a proposal that would work in the real world. If I want to live in fantasy, why would cost matter either? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (315581) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 22:45:55 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 22:43:02 2006. I don't see how building an elevated line over an expressway would be any cheaper than building an elevated line over, say, Northern Boulevard. Of course, you'd have more room to use with the expressway option, but you'd also have to build numerous overpasses and stairways as well as actually making stations larger than they'd need to if they were built over a regular street.This doesn't apply to the LIE. Why not? The LIE is an expressway, and it's much wider than Northern Boulevard. Therefore a LIE transit line would be subject to the problems stated above. And none of these proposals has even the remotest (is that even a word) chance of being built, so I think it's a safe assumption to completely disregard the NIMBY aspect. The whole point is I'm trying to propose something that WOULD get past NIMBY opposition. I'm trying to consider a proposal that would work in the real world. If I want to live in fantasy, why would cost matter either? Fair enough, but just remember the problems with the AirTrain Van Wyck branch -- the NIMBYs will protest anything, no matter where you build it. |
|
|
| (315583) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 22:55:07 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by This is Grand on Mon Sep 25 22:45:55 2006. Why not? The LIE is an expressway, and it's much wider than Northern Boulevard. Therefore a LIE transit line would be subject to the problems stated above.You're right, there would need to be pedestrian passages to reach the streets. At the places where the streets cross though, they wouldn't need to be ridiculously long. I'm sure that El over highway would be a tad bit cheaper than el over street, just because placing the column footings would be easier. NIMBY will protest anything they can, the key is to limit those protests. |
|
|
| (315586) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 23:08:59 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 22:37:16 2006. If the Flushing Line got a fourth track (and you rebuilt it so Grand Central's Flushing Line terminal had four tracks) you could extend the Flushing Line closer to the city limit without worrying as much about the sardine factor (it would still be there, but a combination of 48 tph on two tracks would help a lot). |
|
|
| (315587) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 23:09:26 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 23:08:59 2006. 48 tph in one direction, that is. |
|
|
| (315588) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 23:12:52 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 22:55:07 2006. The PA did a good job buying them off. I volunteered time and my pen to portray the NIMBYs in public as being out of touch with their neighbors (which they were - all 24 of the NIMBYS).It worked. |
|
|
| (315589) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 23:32:28 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Mon Sep 25 22:40:24 2006. "Why would my state assembly/city council members care about this? It's not in their district."No, but they might be willing to cooperate with the folks who represent the district in question. One contributor (among several factors) to AirTrain getting done and the SAS coming this far is the political support it got from legislators outside the immediate district where construction wa going to happen. If you want to have that ass-backwards attitude of yours so you can feel sorry all the time, hey that's cool, but don't complain afterward. I participate fully in the process and have seen things get done. |
|
|
| (315593) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Sep 26 00:17:36 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 23:08:59 2006. I don't want to add extra tracks to the Flushing line in manhattan... That would cost a lot of money. |
|
|
| (315603) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Tue Sep 26 01:19:27 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Edwards! on Sun Sep 24 14:05:00 2006. The section from Canarsie to north of Livonia Ave is in CBTC mode rigth now. But you are mostly right on the wired sections. |
|
|
| (315604) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Tue Sep 26 01:20:12 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Sun Sep 24 13:10:30 2006. Up to four sets now? Ill find out for sure tomorrow........ |
|
|
| (315607) | |
To Traindude - retirement question (wasRe: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by R32 - Sea Beach Express on Tue Sep 26 02:03:51 2006, in response to R-160 Update, posted by Train Dude on Wed Sep 20 22:48:06 2006. Figured you were the most qualified person to ask, I'm curious as to how much longer the R40M/40S's and 42's will be around before they are replaced by the 160's? |
|
|
| (315637) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by This is Grand on Tue Sep 26 08:15:48 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 21:50:36 2006. No, they can use the existing bus lines because the ridership generated wouldn't call for a subway station. |
|
|
| (315646) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Sep 26 08:55:29 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Tue Sep 26 00:17:36 2006. Without it there's no point to running 4 tracks in Queens. |
|
|
| (315648) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Sep 26 09:02:45 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by This is Grand on Tue Sep 26 08:15:48 2006. False statement. Open a subway line there and the trains would be crushloaded at rush hour and times when shifts change. You probably wouldn't have huge crowds in the middle of the day, but since cargo is a 24-hour operation, you'd have a lot of night workers using the trains.You have no idea what goes on over there. I recommend you do some reading about Kennedy's cargo business. |
|
|
| (315671) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Tue Sep 26 10:50:47 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Thu Sep 21 23:58:13 2006. Does anybody know the schedule of the R160s on the A? I'm thinking of catching it for a few photos in Queens. |
|
|
| (315682) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Sep 26 11:07:37 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Tue Sep 26 10:50:47 2006. Here is the schedule as was posted here previously. But it was said that it could change as of this week. And in my experience, the schedule doesn't hold up.The schedule for the R160Bs are as follows: Please note: (L) means the train will terminate at Lefferts Blvd. NOT Far Rockaway. Weekdays: Leave Euclid Ave for Far Rockaway: 6:17am Leaves Far Rockaway: 7:03am; 11:05am; 2:50pm; 6:32pm Leaves 207th St to Far Rockaway: 9:05am; 12:53pm; 4:37pm; 8:17pm(L) Saturdays: Leaves Euclid Ave for Lefferts Blvd: 6:37pm Leaves Lefferts Blvd. for 207th St: 7:10am Leaves Far Rockaway for 207th St: 10:25am; 2:09pm; 5:57pm Leaves 207th st for Far Rockaway: 8:32am; 12:08pm; 3:52pm; 7:53pm(L) Sundays: Leaves Euclid Ave for Lefferts Blvd: 7:45am Leaves Lefferts Blvd. for 207th St: 8:15am Leaves Far Rockaway for 207th St: 11:44am; 3:21pm; 7:09pm Leaves 207th St for Far Rockaway: 9:41am; 1:26pm; 5:03pm; 9:06pm(L) |
|
|
| (315725) | |
Re: To Traindude - retirement question (wasRe: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Sep 26 14:05:26 2006, in response to To Traindude - retirement question (wasRe: R-160 Update), posted by R32 - Sea Beach Express on Tue Sep 26 02:03:51 2006. Do you mean when will they be replaced relative to all of the cars being replaced by the time all of the R-160 cars are in service? |
|
|
| (315778) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by This is Grand on Tue Sep 26 16:21:42 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Sep 26 09:02:45 2006. I'd like to see your ridership calculations. |
|
|
| (315779) | |
Re: AirTrain and underserved areas |
|
|
Posted by This is Grand on Tue Sep 26 16:24:02 2006, in response to Re: AirTrain and underserved areas, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Sep 25 21:51:22 2006. Let them use the existing buses, which seem to work just fine as we haven't heard any complaints about them. Somehow I highly doubt that the cargo area needs a subway station as much as you seem to think. |
|
|
| (315781) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by This is Grand on Tue Sep 26 16:25:47 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:22:54 2006. I see no problem with a Brighton-Smith connection, given that Smith is connected on the northern end to a future Second Avenue line to relieve bottlenecks at the Bergen interlocking. |
|
|
| (315786) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Sep 26 16:30:15 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:53:18 2006. You forgot to complain about sunny days! |
|
|
| (315923) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Sep 26 20:35:43 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by RonInBayside on Tue Sep 26 08:55:29 2006. I should elaborate:I want to build a connector from the express tracks, so that they connect to 63rd st! |
|
|
| (315928) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Sep 26 20:41:12 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Sep 26 11:07:37 2006. It held up the one time I tried it. But it doesn't seem to be on that schedule this week. |
|
|
| (315931) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Sep 26 20:47:10 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Tue Sep 26 20:41:12 2006. The one time I tried to ride it wasn't on schedule. And several other people have posted here incidents of it being off-schedule. |
|
|
| (315932) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Sep 26 20:52:45 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by This is Grand on Tue Sep 26 16:25:47 2006. I see no problem with a Brighton-Smith connectionI see a problem with building up subway service at large cost in areas where extensive service already exists. given that Smith is connected on the northern end to a future Second Avenue line to relieve bottlenecks at the Bergen interlocking. Build a junction at Grand for Brighton/2nd ave service. IF a new East River tunnel were built for the SAS, I'd like to see it hooked into Bergen too (as well at Court St. IND). Then, I'd like to see a tunnel from Church yard's 2 outer tracks to the Bay Ridge ROW, and have the line Run east along that ROW to Utica Avenue. Run Service like this: (F)-Queens to CI, via present Route, Express on Smith St IND (C)-Local 168th to W4. then via Rutgers/Smith St IND to Church (V)-Via 63rd to 2nd av subway, then through new tunnel to Smith St. IND, running out to Utica, as described. Express on Crosstown (G)-to Church (T)-extended via new tunnel to Euclid. |
|
|
| (315933) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Sep 26 20:55:10 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Sep 26 20:47:10 2006. It's the A. EVERY train is off-schedule! |
|
|
| (315958) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Tue Sep 26 21:29:06 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Sep 26 11:07:37 2006. |
|
|
| (315998) | |
Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Sep 26 22:08:47 2006, in response to Re: R46 Technology (was: Re: R-160 Update), posted by J trainloco on Tue Sep 26 20:35:43 2006. OK! |
|
|
| (316057) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Tue Sep 26 23:55:55 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by SubBus aka ENY Local on Tue Sep 26 01:20:12 2006. There are currently TWO sets of R42s on the L line. They were four sets, but its now back down to two. |
|
|
| (316072) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Sep 27 00:26:05 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Sun Sep 24 18:46:10 2006. Is that right?How exactly would you KNOW that? |
|
|
| (316079) | |
Re: To Traindude - retirement question (wasRe: R-160 Update) |
|
|
Posted by R32 - Sea Beach Express on Wed Sep 27 01:18:02 2006, in response to Re: To Traindude - retirement question (wasRe: R-160 Update), posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Sep 26 14:05:26 2006. Yup. |
|
|
| (316136) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Sep 27 08:51:38 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Sun Sep 24 20:28:04 2006. Or just the horse! |
|
|
| (316485) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Sep 28 00:14:12 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Olney Terminal on Sat Sep 23 21:17:07 2006. But it is more ideal to give the 7 one type of train types and likely being the R142A's so that's why it has to be the 6 since it has more R142A's to spare. And those could be used for the express.- Again only if the MTA is thinking of this car swap w/the 7 line. |
|
|
| (316490) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Sep 28 00:16:26 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sat Sep 23 21:14:26 2006. :) Perhaps. But really the 2/5 swaps cars often especially during the rush hours like today a 2 pulled in and left as a 5 and a 5 pulled in and left as a 2. It is better for the R142's to stay on the 2/5 for flexibility.The 6 well will be back to the same mess as b4 w/the express and local signs like the 7 deals w/now. |
|
|
| (316492) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Sep 28 00:18:22 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Sep 24 18:55:39 2006. Of course stainless steel cars 20yrs old vs. rusting carbon steel at 40yrs is a big difference.I'm also saying is there's no hurry to put the R142A's on the 7 yet. |
|
|
| (316494) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Sep 28 00:21:25 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by Grand Concourse on Thu Sep 28 00:18:22 2006. OK. |
|
|
| (316504) | |
Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Railman718 on Thu Sep 28 00:47:07 2006, in response to Re: R62'son the 7Re: R-160 Update, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Sep 24 03:09:18 2006. I dont think you get it G1..Its a private Joke bet me and Dave... One day grasshopper if you are "ready" i will enligthen you... |
|
|
| (316640) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Thu Sep 28 15:11:30 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Sep 26 11:07:37 2006. So far, it began everyday this week on time 7:03am. However I have noticed that as the day progresses, the train is off schedule. Maybe there was some hold-up in service somewhere along the line-not having nothing to do with the R160s performance.That happened to me on this past Saturday. First there was a "C" train that was having mechanical problems that delayed the R160s. Then factor in that the TA had TWO GOs-northbound, the "A" made all stops from Canal St to 59th St; southbound, the "A" made all stops from 59th St to Utica Ave. That really put the R160s behind schedule. By the time I got off the train, it was 53 minutes behind schedule. |
|
|
| (316660) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Thu Sep 28 15:27:32 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Thu Sep 28 15:11:30 2006. I doubt that schedule applies when a supplement schedule is in effect -- e.g., when the A runs local during the day. |
|
|
| (316672) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Thu Sep 28 15:55:28 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Sep 28 15:27:32 2006. Someone told me that the next line the R160 will be testing on is the D. Is this true? |
|
|
| (316703) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Sep 28 17:30:01 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Thu Sep 28 15:55:28 2006. Does anyone know if the cars ran into any problems while in A service? |
|
|
| (316717) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Thu Sep 28 17:57:54 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Edwards! on Thu Sep 28 17:30:01 2006. So far, no. But they had a shit load of problems on the Nancy. |
|
|
| (316734) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Thu Sep 28 18:20:42 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by TheCanarsieConnection on Thu Sep 28 15:55:28 2006. No, because if they did not have the problems in that part of the system (Manh. Br-CI), then they would not have been pulled off of, or would return to CI and the N/Q. |
|
|
| (317543) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Sep 30 22:58:35 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Sep 28 15:27:32 2006. On that day, that schedule did apply. It just wasn't able to stick to it. They had some employees from Alsthom that was complaining about the "sick" "C" train and the GOs that day. |
|
|
| (317588) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Oct 1 00:11:31 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Tue Sep 26 20:55:10 2006. Yup..It's the "We'll see you when WE SEE YOU line.." |
|
|
| (317871) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Olney Terminal on Sun Oct 1 17:41:28 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Thu Sep 28 15:11:30 2006. I caught it once at Hoyt going in the opposite direction of where the schedule placed it. |
|
|
| (317929) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Oct 1 20:45:10 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by Far Rockaway A Train on Sat Sep 30 22:58:35 2006. Since you need the vendors to ride the train at all times, if the train arrives at the terminal late I think you would really want to have the opportunity to get off and take a leak and get something to eat and/or drink at certain points of their workday. After all, the R160 is a machine, yet the working-human-support-staff who are riding are not machines. Same goes for the train operators who are not regular A line crews since they are not qualified on the equipment. |
|
|
| (325535) | |
Re: R-160 Update |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Wed Oct 18 15:59:59 2006, in response to Re: R-160 Update, posted by J trainloco on Thu Sep 21 01:26:42 2006. Not the (F). |
|
|
|
Page 8 of 9 |
||
