|
|
| Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle (428152) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 16 |
||
|
| (428296) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 17:01:20 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 17:00:08 2007. How do you know they can't handle 12? |
|
|
| (428298) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri May 11 17:07:21 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 17:00:36 2007. well, they DID plan to run service like that. It just didnt work out well in the later modification of that plan.(and while 179 IS a VERY capable terminal, I suspect problems may creep up with 45 TPH turning there.) To clarify my point-- Archer is useless for capacity-- 71 and 179 can handle anything that can fit down the QB line, and Jamaica Center doesnt have the capacity of 168. I never said it wasnt useful for passengers(Certainly is very useful for me... ) |
|
|
| (428299) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri May 11 17:07:53 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 17:01:20 2007. Trains back up to behind sutphin |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (428314) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 17:33:06 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:53:42 2007. No ron, it isnt. 63rd did not change queens boulevard capacity whatsoever.Yes it did. Previously, you couldn't operate the full # of trains on QB because the local tracks had to share space with trains from Astoria. Unless you wanted to send more trains down the crosstown branch.... |
|
|
| (428319) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri May 11 17:47:58 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 17:33:06 2007. Unless you wanted to send more trains down the crosstown branch....Precisely! The 63rd line added no capacity. It just made the capacity more useful! |
|
|
| (428322) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by E Line Fan on Fri May 11 17:53:29 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 17:47:58 2007. After its' closure, didn't teh el structure actually stay until 1990 IIRC? |
|
|
| (428328) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri May 11 18:05:13 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 15:19:44 2007. It would make sense to keep the El running until the Archer Av line was complete, and then shut it down and demolish it.Of course that would have meant that Archer would have opened for the IND a few months before the BMT. But that probably wouldn't have mattered. |
|
|
| (428331) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Fri May 11 18:11:39 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:32:40 2007. It also has under a third of the ridership. |
|
|
| (428333) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Fri May 11 18:15:11 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:20:28 2007. No, he means a yard. Without a yard, every train that comes into the terminal has to go back out -- on the single track available in that direction -- to make room for subsequent trains. The bottleneck is the single track heading away from the terminal.In some cases, an extra track might have benefits. For instance, if dwell times at a particular station are very high, a second track would permit two trains to be in the station at once. But isolated situations like that don't need an extra track along the entire line. |
|
|
| (428335) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Fri May 11 18:16:10 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:39:26 2007. He's cited as many TA sources as you have.He also rides the line and has commented on his observations. |
|
|
| (428351) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Fri May 11 18:33:37 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 17:47:58 2007. The 63rd line added no capacity. It just made the capacity more useful!To be a total pedant, it added a lot of capacity, but not all of it can be used. Two extra express tracks as far as Continental would allow full use to be made of the capacity created by the 63rd St tunnel. |
|
|
| (428355) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Fri May 11 18:37:30 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:07:00 2007. The dumbest thing that they did with the new stations is to put up that acoustic ceiling, with those little holes that trap trackdust and is impossible to clean (look what happened when they tried to clean it at Jamaica-Van Wyck - all that insulation inside fell apart and is hanging down over the tracks!). Then there's a matter of The Leak - so impossible to fix that they gave up and put a tray beneath, with a pipe leading to the trackbed for drainage - the lazy man's way out! All they had to do was to get at the source of the problem - a joint in a water main beneath Archer Avenue - but would they approach the city about fixing this little problem? Nooooooooo!-w- |
|
|
| (428356) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Fri May 11 18:39:43 2007, in response to May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri May 11 11:56:12 2007. put it backREBUILD !!! |
|
|
| (428364) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri May 11 18:47:03 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Fri May 11 18:16:10 2007. You Both suck...and whining over the J wont change a thing about HOW much you guys suck. |
|
|
| (428367) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri May 11 18:49:52 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by mr_brian on Fri May 11 16:14:21 2007. Especially the lower level of Jamaica center. It looks pretty much like a cave down there. They should use some of those lights used on the R142-R160 and light up that section. |
|
|
| (428368) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri May 11 18:51:26 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 16:07:00 2007. And when did You start Using it? |
|
|
| (428369) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri May 11 18:53:15 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Fri May 11 18:16:10 2007. But that's not going to change his 'supreme knowledge' compared to us who actually rides the trains. |
|
|
| (428370) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri May 11 18:54:35 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Fri May 11 15:06:09 2007. It's a little worn..the "newness" is all gone...but its fine as wine.Rabid Rail fans are the sickness, not the system. |
|
|
| (428371) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri May 11 18:55:18 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Grand concourse on Fri May 11 18:53:15 2007. ZING! |
|
|
| (428372) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri May 11 18:55:23 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:56:57 2007. You have how many years working at the TA? |
|
|
| (428378) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Fri May 11 19:12:44 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:43:08 2007. It would be nice if more people rode it. I'd be in favor of extending it, rebuilding the El to add a third track and reopening the idled tracks in Manhattan if that would help.It would be nice, but the main reason not enough ride it is because a lot of people can't take the every stop. Even though it really isn't that long a trip to Manhattan, I think psychologically, making every stop as opposed to the E flying by everything on Queens Blvd is a big deterrent. Do you think skip-stop in both directions would be of help if a third track isn't built? |
|
|
| (428381) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Fri May 11 19:19:58 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Grand concourse on Fri May 11 18:55:23 2007. Excellent question. |
|
|
| (428382) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Fri May 11 19:20:34 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Fri May 11 18:47:03 2007. Good to see you sticking to the issues as usual! |
|
|
| (428383) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri May 11 19:23:13 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 16:39:26 2007. Why don't YOU cite a source? |
|
|
| (428388) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri May 11 19:40:55 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Fri May 11 19:20:34 2007. It's a NON issue.What really matters is HOW TO FIX THE PROBLEM... 1]Is the MTA willing to look into the "problem"..or better yet..are they willing to admit there IS a Problem? Hell..are they even will to admit there is a need for rail service TO South Jamaica? It took a hell of a fight just to get them to make needed repairs to the Jamaica Center escalator bank at Parsons...! So all the crap whining about the TPH is meaningless if a solution hasn't been found to fix it. |
|
|
| (428394) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri May 11 20:06:20 2007, in response to May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Fri May 11 11:56:12 2007. Well:At that time, given the budget problems New York had, they could not justify running that line given it was really not economically feasible. If I remember correctly, that line's structure stayed up until around 1983 or so when it was torn down. Perhaps that could now be rebuilt as a single track line. Walt |
|
|
| (428398) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri May 11 20:17:55 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Fri May 11 18:51:26 2007. about 1995-6 |
|
|
| (428404) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri May 11 20:25:07 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 20:17:55 2007. That not very long ago.You are right about One thing,though. The double crossover is too far away from the station..and should be moved closer IF the MTA refuses to extend the line. |
|
|
| (428417) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 21:12:57 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 17:07:21 2007. I agree with you there.If we put the neighborhood redevelopment aside for a moment (very important, though), then Archer allows branching or redirection of service, new transfer to other service and to LIRR/AirTrain. If it were up to me, the Jamaica Line would extend much deeper, would be four tracks wherever it was possible, and would have local and express service, and passengers could transfer to go to downtown Brooklyn. But that's just fantasy on my part. Ah well, I'll start a charity to collect money for the subway. In about 30 years, my charity will have enough money to buy most of one escalator. 8-) |
|
|
| (428418) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 21:14:40 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Fri May 11 20:25:07 2007. I'd like MTA's reasoning for putting it there before I'd make any changes. Whether or not I'd agree with it, I'd still like to hear it explained. |
|
|
| (428420) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 21:17:06 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Fri May 11 18:16:10 2007. He cites no sources at all. He claims a tph without evidence.Anecdotal observations are meaningless. He doesn't know what the TA would do if more tph were needed. I'll give him this much: He posted more rationally than you would. You often post for its own sake. |
|
|
| (428431) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri May 11 21:41:57 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 21:14:40 2007. MTAs reasoning for putting it there was to have a crossover. |
|
|
| (428442) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 22:20:15 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Edwards! on Fri May 11 19:40:55 2007. Hell..are they even will to admit there is a need for rail service TO South Jamaica?I'm sure that they do. Question is: Do they have the money? |
|
|
| (428443) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 22:23:58 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 21:14:40 2007. they put it there because they wanted to have a crossover to turn trains at Sutphin if the need arose on a line that was to extend BEYOND Parsons. That said, the line never got beyond Parsons. |
|
|
| (428444) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 11 22:25:37 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 17:00:36 2007. Incidentally, there IS a way you can increase capacity east of 71 St.1) Run a LOCAL train to Archer Av branch at 12 tph. 2) Run other Locals to 179 St 3) Run express to 179 st on the express track. You get the credit for this because you made me think of it. 179th was a relay terminal, the last time I checked. Incoming trains must be fumigated before entering the tunnel east of 179th. That limits each incoming track to 15 tph. Just how do you propose to handle 12 tph for the "other local" and the two express services, each at 15 tph? |
|
|
| (428447) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 11 22:31:03 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by David of Broadway on Fri May 11 18:15:11 2007. In some cases, an extra track might have benefits. For instance, if dwell times at a particular station are very high, a second track would permit two trains to be in the station at once. But isolated situations like that don't need an extra track along the entire line.Dwell time is artificially high because of the need to discharge and recharge the brakes. That brings minimum dwell time to 60 seconds. The time to empty and refill a train with passengers seldom exceeds 30 seconds. |
|
|
| (428448) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 22:32:39 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by R30A on Fri May 11 21:41:57 2007. That's not what I asked. I want to know why MTA placed it at a given distance to the station. Was it noise reduction for people at the platform? Was it another reason? I want to hear MTA's explanation. |
|
|
| (428450) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 22:34:27 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 11 22:25:37 2007. First off, the incoming limit of 15 tph is according to Stephen Baumann, not the TA. So you can assume 15, but I do not. |
|
|
| (428453) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri May 11 22:36:04 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 22:32:39 2007. Why don't you e-mail them then? |
|
|
| (428456) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 22:37:42 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Grand concourse on Fri May 11 22:36:04 2007. I might do that. |
|
|
| (428457) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 11 22:37:46 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 15:19:44 2007. However, the merchants along Jamaica Av contributed to this situation by pressing for the El to come down.The "merchants along Jamaica Av" who were pressing for the El to come down was Macy's. They abandoned Jamaica two weeks after El service stopped. The small merchants along Jamaica Ave knew many of their customers used the El and wanted it to stay. |
|
|
| (428459) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 11 22:43:40 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 22:34:27 2007. It takes 4 minutes to fumigate a train. One train every 4 minutes is 15 tph.If you want to eliminate fumigation to operate more than 15 tph on a single track on the QB line, then I suggest you start with the Forest Hills terminal. |
|
|
| (428461) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 22:45:56 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 11 22:43:40 2007. It takes 4 minutes to fumigate a train. One train every 4 minutes is 15 tph.Please explain what happens every evening rush hour at 71st Continental. |
|
|
| (428462) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by Ian Lennon on Fri May 11 22:46:34 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 22:45:56 2007. Conga, conga, conga. |
|
|
| (428463) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 22:47:05 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 11 22:31:03 2007. When do trains discharge and recharge their brakes at stations, aside from the terminal? David is refering to stations along the line. |
|
|
| (428464) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 22:50:41 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 11 22:37:46 2007. Illogical and implausible. Macy's alone asking for it would not have caused the TA to carry it out. Of course the smaller merchants will not want to admit their culpability. If you want to rewrite your own version of history that's your prerogative, but that's what it is.What is plausible is that there was some dissention to this position but it was overcome. |
|
|
| (428465) | |
Re: Increasing QB capacity |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 22:51:54 2007, in response to Re: Increasing QB capacity, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 11 22:43:40 2007. "It takes 4 minutes to fumigate a train."According to whom? I've seen it done in less time. I don't knbow what the average time is, but I suspect you don't either. |
|
|
| (428466) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 11 22:52:27 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 22:47:05 2007. David is refering to stations along the line.I think that is open to interpretation. David refers to "coming into a terminal", "going back" etc. I take that to mean a terminal and not an intermediate station. An extra track at intermediate stations can be used to increase capacity beyond the theoretical 40 tph limit. However, NYCT currently operates far below that limit. |
|
|
| (428471) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Fri May 11 22:58:32 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by RonInBayside on Fri May 11 22:37:42 2007. That would be best. |
|
|
| (428472) | |
Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Fri May 11 23:02:31 2007, in response to Re: May 11, 1975. . .End of the Culver shuttle, posted by Stephen Bauman on Fri May 11 22:52:27 2007. David refers to "coming into a terminal", "going back" etc. I take that to mean a terminal and not an intermediate station.David Wrote: "In some cases, an extra track might have benefits. For instance, if dwell times at a particular station are very high, a second track would permit two trains to be in the station at once. But isolated situations like that don't need an extra track along the entire line." A terminal station doesn't need a 3rd track to allow 2 trains in it. He also refers to an extra track along an entire line, meaning we're going beyond the terminal. An extra track at intermediate stations can be used to increase capacity beyond the theoretical 40 tph limit. However, NYCT currently operates far below that limit. The reason that NYCT operates below that limit is because of the same issues that a 3rd track within a station would resolve. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 16 |
||
