|
|
| Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity]) (451845) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
|
| (452299) | |
Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity]) |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 26 21:18:15 2007, in response to Moreiran Logic (Was: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity]), posted by R30A on Tue Jun 26 18:36:22 2007. Uh, the R160Bs are KAWASAKI cars. |
|
|
| (452307) | |
Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity]) |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Jun 26 21:37:58 2007, in response to Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity]), posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 26 21:18:15 2007. I was referring to the R160As. |
|
|
| (452340) | |
Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity] |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Tue Jun 26 22:34:10 2007, in response to Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity], posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jun 26 13:11:13 2007. LOL! |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (452356) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by CurAke79 on Tue Jun 26 23:01:01 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 26 11:40:22 2007. So they trying 2 say the 7th Avenue and Lexington Avenues Lines report was a lie? |
|
|
| (452370) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Jun 26 23:36:44 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by shadyelstation on Tue Jun 26 12:07:21 2007. Your plan is a good one provided the whole "Jamaica shortcut" thing is cleared up. It is what makes this realistic idea become a fantasy map. However, rehabilitating the el to the extent that it would be able to provide some sort of an express service beyond skip/stop could be a help to get some of the crowd off the E and should really be considered. |
|
|
| (452385) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by shadyelstation on Wed Jun 27 01:00:45 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Jun 26 23:36:44 2007. Your plan is a good one provided the whole "Jamaica shortcut" thing is cleared up. It is what makes this realistic idea become a fantasy map.I illustrated the Jamaica Shortcut below using Google Earth:  The BROWN line is the current (J)/(Z) alignment; the GREEN line is the Jamaica Ave Shortcut. The idea is for the middle track of the Jamaica El to rise east of Cypress Hills, travel over the existing el, and run nonstop via Jamaica Ave before connecting once more to the center track at Broadway Junction (using remnant of structure known as the "Alabama Ave Launchpad"). Such an alignment, as opposed to building the center track over the current alignment at Fulton St, would result in faster express service, making the (J)/(Z) a more realistic option over the (E). Of course, due to problems such as NIMBYs, it may not go over too well... However, rehabilitating the el to the extent that it would be able to provide some sort of an express service beyond skip/stop could be a help to get some of the crowd off the E and should really be considered. ...I agree. One hour of skip-stop service in each direction just doesn't cut it IMO. |
|
|
| (452402) | |
Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity] |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jun 27 03:02:17 2007, in response to Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity], posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 26 10:12:46 2007. as you correctly calculated according to the MTA figures 100% capacity on the (L) would mean just 21 or so TPH. The question is why would the (L) have so much less track capacity then the (7) which is similar to the (L) in so many ways. Money problems can explain the shortage of trains but not the maximum capacity. Is it the terminals? |
|
|
| (452405) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jun 27 03:25:00 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jun 26 11:18:00 2007. Split the (T) in two services:northbound (T): 12 TPH to Bway/125th St northbound (U): 9 TPH to Moshulu/Grand Concourse/Jerome Av intersection via 3rd Av/Fordham/Webster Av/Moshulu Pkwy. (or to Bedford Park Blvd/Jerome Av using essentially the same route except for the Moshulu part.) northbound (Q): 12 TPH : separates from (U) at 3rd Av/Boston Road. Then follow Boston Road to either: a. Tremont Av and then onto Amtrak ROW (seperate tracks) to Co-Op City or b. Takes over the express tracks to Dyre Av. [or the (5) can be express and the (Q) the local] Result: SAS above 63rd at 100% capacity with 33 TPH and millions of happy NYers everywhere. |
|
|
| (452415) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jun 27 03:48:55 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 26 08:24:55 2007. If he had proposed this after taking office he would have not still be in office |
|
|
| (452418) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jun 27 04:00:13 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 26 08:52:54 2007. Build the Super-Express on top of the Queens part of ESA and then run it down the Old Rock. This would be the Queens SAS line. I know...the NIMBYs! Screw 'em!! NYC needs more subway capacity and something has got to give. Especially if a perfectly good connection from Queens to the SAS below 63rd goes unused. |
|
|
| (452427) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jun 27 04:55:22 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by shadyelstation on Wed Jun 27 01:00:45 2007. while its a nice plan, it would be impossible to justify its cost for limited benefit and huge political fallout when building a third track on the current el is realtively easy. Building that just to avoid a sharp curve isn't justifiable. I would have to side with the NIMBYs on something like that. A cheaper way to do it would be to rebuild the Jamaica Center switches to increase capacity to 20 TPH. Then run 9 or 10 (J) + 9 or 10 (V) with the (J) being the express on a new center track. The (Z) would be discarded. You plan to only run 6 TPH at all the local stations forgetting that these trains would get twice the riders because of the elimination of skip-stop. They would need at least 9-10 TPH. |
|
|
| (452430) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jun 27 05:24:30 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Alargule on Tue Jun 26 15:20:10 2007. Any ideas for relieving the E?After Sunnyside Station is built, swap the (E) and (F) terminals in Queens. LIRR riders can then switch to the (E) at NYP if they are going to 53rd St. This might overcrowd the (F) more than it already is of course. That will make more people take the (V) at 71st and Roosevelt. I mentioned Sunnyside because some LIRR may want to access the Queens Plaza area. (where they can also switch to the E). |
|
|
| (452441) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Jun 27 06:08:35 2007, in response to Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Hoghead on Tue Jun 26 00:49:01 2007. 'If congestion pricing becomes a reality, planners will have to rely on additional bus service as a way to increase the transit system’s capacity.'Which is exactly what Ken Livingstone did in London, and for the same reason - adding new rail capacity is a long-term solution when a short-term one is needed. And congestion charging makes more room for buses on the streets. In NYCT's case, however, at least the Stubway isn't too many years away (fingers crossed) and it will relieve the worst-crowded line. Lengthening platforms may be an o.k. solution for surface railways, but is very expensive in tunnels. In NYC's case I'd hazard a guess that it would be harder for the express stations (where island platforms would need extending, necessitating slewing the tracks across) than for local stations, where you would just have to squeeze in extensions at tht ends of side platforms. |
|
|
| (452444) | |
Re: SAS extensions to the Bronx/Concourse line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jun 27 06:19:40 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 26 11:26:21 2007. If that can be done, it would be an excellent idea:I also still like what I said earlier concerning the SAS in having it extended across 125th street to St. Nicholas Avenue and at that point have it join the 8th avenue line there. This also gives the option of extending the line to extreme upper Manhattan as well as having it go to The Bronx, plus allow when needed the option to have 8th avenue trains access the SAS between 125 and 63rd street before heading back to the west side via the 6th avenue line. |
|
|
| (452445) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jun 27 06:22:08 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by CurAke79 on Tue Jun 26 23:01:01 2007. huh? |
|
|
| (452448) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by stephenk on Wed Jun 27 06:29:18 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by SMAZ on Wed Jun 27 04:55:22 2007. "A cheaper way to do it would be to rebuild the Jamaica Center switches to increase capacity to 20 TPH."Switches closer to the platform (but not too close!), and switches rated for a higher speed would be useful. However, as I've mentioned a few times before, the terminus probably needs to be operated better as well (i.e. trains arriving on time at regular intervals, and departing as soon as possible after the green light). |
|
|
| (452452) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jun 27 06:46:52 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jun 26 09:59:04 2007. Even without those figures, the SAS is sorely needed.As one who grew up where the first stretch of it is going to be built, I can tell you it really will help relieve the overcrowding on the Lexington Avenue line, at least with those who either go to lower Manhattan or to the west side. |
|
|
| (452453) | |
Re: LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Jun 27 07:01:03 2007, in response to LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jun 26 12:22:03 2007. 'LION would suggest larger multi-unit buses on Broadway and on 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Avenues. ..... Further these buses should not collect fares in the CBD, this permits faster boarding at all doorways.'Agian, copying Mayor Ken in London! The extra buses provided in the congestion-charge zone are bendibuses with multiple doors and no fare collection on board. Most Londoners (>90% at last count) now travel with Oyster cards; others have human-readable Travelcards. For the occasional single-journey rider, you have ticket machines at bus stops. Occasional spot checks are made (which would be difficult in NYC since Metrocards are not human-readable, and do not retain a machine-readable record of swipes on the card). Incidentally (though this is really for BusChat) faster loading and unloading through multiple doors is the main argument for bendibuses versus the traditional double-deckers in London. It doesn't help that the bendibuses sometimes catch fire, though (8-) ! |
|
|
| (452464) | |
The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed Jun 27 08:16:36 2007, in response to Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Hoghead on Tue Jun 26 00:49:01 2007. The article says that the 7 is part of the B division.I thought all IRT lines including the 7 are A division. Is this so? |
|
|
| (452465) | |
Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jun 27 08:18:00 2007, in response to The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Jun 27 08:16:36 2007. Yep ... and so is the Dyre Avenue line ... :) |
|
|
| (452475) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Jun 27 09:07:52 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jun 26 09:59:04 2007. They are to be believed - except by you, of course. You are forbidden from believing them! |
|
|
| (452478) | |
Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jun 27 09:16:58 2007, in response to The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Jun 27 08:16:36 2007. The 7 east of Queensboro Plaza is built to B division standards...or was. |
|
|
| (452479) | |
Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jun 27 09:19:12 2007, in response to Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jun 27 09:16:58 2007. And even ran BMT Q cars until the R12's arrived ... |
|
|
| (452482) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jun 27 09:31:26 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Fytton on Wed Jun 27 06:08:35 2007. However, now you set off even more issues with putting more buses where asthma rates have been shown to be higher...and the garage the MTA could have used to store most of these extra buses for service increases---was sold from under them to the New York Post to keep the printing plant in the city. |
|
|
| (452492) | |
Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Jun 27 09:54:32 2007, in response to Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jun 27 09:16:58 2007. Daily News take on the overcrowding. Nothing new here:Link here |
|
|
| (452494) | |
Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jun 27 10:01:33 2007, in response to Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Jun 27 09:54:32 2007. 114 passengers per car is NOTHING...considering that these subway cars (B division now) are designed for at least 30-60 more, depending on length. |
|
|
| (452512) | |
Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Wed Jun 27 11:13:56 2007, in response to Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Jun 27 08:18:00 2007. The 7 is only B Div. on the radio frequency. That is because in The Control Center wall track maps, it is grouped with the B Div. lines, because that is all it connects to. If it were considered B Div otherwise, I wouldn't be just now qualifying there this week and next.Dyre was originally staffed with IND personnel, and surveyed like the B Div. (Y2 ### instead of ###2 Y). But when it was joined to the IRT, it became completely A Div. It is now the last section to have the old IRT signals. Now a real flub occurred in the Metro the same day, when they did an article on Coney Island, and said it was a section of Queens! |
|
|
| (452544) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by shadyelstation on Wed Jun 27 12:19:35 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by SMAZ on Wed Jun 27 04:55:22 2007. Point taken, but the limiting factor isn't so much the Jamaica Center terminal (though I agree that better switch placement and operation could increase capacity there). There is the at-grade crossing at Myrtle, and then there's the Williamsburg Bridge. If the local and express each operated 9-10 TPH, congestion issues at Myrtle and capacity issues over the bridge may arise.I admit, however, that the Jamaica Ave Shortcut is a radical idea and it would probably be better to build the center track over the current alignment on Fulton to avoid the NIMBY issue and circumvent the limited benefit issue. You plan to only run 6 TPH at all the local stations forgetting that these trains would get twice the riders because of the elimination of skip-stop. They would need at least 9-10 TPH. Keep in mind that, except for the stations served by both (J) and (Z) trains, the skip-stop stations get service every 10 minutes. So a local that ran every 10 min actually wouldn't make much of a difference as far as service levels go. Under my plan, with express service starting at Woodhaven Blvd, the only station that would lose service is Crescent St (and that can be solved by making it an express stop; build an upper level platform on either side of the elevated center track.) To further my point, the(J)/(Z) timetable shows that (J) trains run every 8-10 minutes when skip-stop isn't running. (Now, this isn't to say that TPH could be bumped up a bit...) I also notice you wanna send the (V) to Jamaica Center. So under your plan, the (M) would remain the Nassau/4th Ave Local? |
|
|
| (452548) | |
Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by shadyelstation on Wed Jun 27 12:33:48 2007, in response to Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jun 27 10:01:33 2007. The article DID say that those 114 pax/car represents 80% capacity. Thus, 100% capacity represents roughly 143 pax/car. |
|
|
| (452552) | |
Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Wed Jun 27 12:49:49 2007, in response to Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by shadyelstation on Wed Jun 27 12:33:48 2007. The true maximum capacity of a car is the crush load. This is 240 pax on 60' cars and 180 on IRT cars but this is based on weight and not on floor space (of which there will be very little per passenger). |
|
|
| (452555) | |
Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by shadyelstation on Wed Jun 27 12:55:41 2007, in response to Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Jace on Wed Jun 27 12:49:49 2007. I can imagine. Would there even be room to MOVE under such loads?!Also, is the figure different if crush-loads were measured based on floor space as opposed to weight? |
|
|
| (452578) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Jun 27 13:35:33 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by R68A - 5200 on Tue Jun 26 19:19:32 2007. True, but once the R-1/9s got going, watch out. They could haul (howl) ass. |
|
|
| (452632) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by avid reader on Wed Jun 27 16:03:05 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by SMAZ on Wed Jun 27 05:24:30 2007. ELEVENTH CAR, 660 FT TRAIN SET!avid |
|
|
| (452633) | |
Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Wed Jun 27 16:05:14 2007, in response to The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Jun 27 08:16:36 2007. The (7) uses A Division equipment, and therefore A Division personnel. But the rest of the aspects of the line conform to B Division specs. The line north of Queensboro Plaza was originally built to B Division specifications, we operate on the B Division radio frequency, and the Flushing Line's track numbers are B Division-style, except that we call our middle track Track M, rather than Tracks 3-4.The (7) is a part of the B Division in many ways, but I don't know if the higher-ups classify it in that way. The (7) will never be a part of the A Division's ATS project, and it doesn't connect to the A Division in any way. It's an A Division line living in a B Division world. |
|
|
| (452661) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 27 17:10:40 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by shadyelstation on Wed Jun 27 01:00:45 2007. Of course, due to problems such as NIMBYs, it may not go over too well...There is an alternative: build the shortcut underground, from the existing subway at Sutphin to ENY Yard. |
|
|
| (452663) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 27 17:21:41 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by avid reader on Wed Jun 27 16:03:05 2007. IAWTP |
|
|
| (452664) | |
Re: LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Jun 27 17:24:12 2007, in response to Re: LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Fytton on Wed Jun 27 07:01:03 2007. Incidentally (though this is really for BusChat) faster loading and unloading through multiple doors is the main argument for bendibuses versus the traditional double-deckers in London.Of course, that argument doesn't work as well in London, because the buses replaced had open platforms, so there was no delay as the bus came to a complete stop and the driver deigned to open the doors. |
|
|
| (452666) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Alargule on Wed Jun 27 17:26:47 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by avid reader on Wed Jun 27 16:03:05 2007. Better idea: just build super fast conveyor belts in the track beds of the busiest lines. No more waiting for trains - just hop on any time you like! But be prepared for a rough exit at your destination platform...;-) |
|
|
| (452718) | |
Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Wed Jun 27 19:32:16 2007, in response to Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by G1Ravage on Wed Jun 27 16:05:14 2007. The Flushing Line's track numbers are like B div. in the northbound local being 2 instead of 4, but otherwise, it is A Div. style: #### C rather than C1 ###.It originally connected to the rest of the A Div. by the Queensboro Bridge and Second Ave el. The Astoria line was also originally IRT (chain "A") only for the first couple of years, until the dual BMT service bean, but with IRT sized cars. All of the outer lines outside the Contract 1 and 2 (242 and E180-Atlantic via Bway/42nd/Park Av. S. and Joralemon) and the Steinway tube were built to B Div. specs, so the 7 is not unique in that respect. (and it includes south of QBP, excluding the tunnel). This is called "dual Contracts", as it was joint between the IRT and BMT. This appears to even include the infamous "jughandle". It does not even seem as tight as BMT City Hall. The clearance problem there would begin as you merge and enter the 149th St. station. |
|
|
| (452732) | |
Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Wed Jun 27 20:04:48 2007, in response to Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by shadyelstation on Wed Jun 27 12:33:48 2007. For a 60 foot car, it would be. A 75 foot car can handle 175 per car. |
|
|
| (452735) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Wed Jun 27 20:05:23 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 26 13:50:17 2007. SRO at best on the 5 at the UES, you can barely get in on the first 5 that pulls in at 86th. I usually can get on the 2nd 5 or the 3rd express train. |
|
|
| (452736) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Wed Jun 27 20:06:22 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by mambomta on Tue Jun 26 18:16:49 2007. 8-) |
|
|
| (452786) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jun 27 21:38:31 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Alargule on Wed Jun 27 17:26:47 2007. That's what they should do with one trackway of the 42 St Shuttle. |
|
|
| (452966) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jun 28 04:02:42 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by shadyelstation on Wed Jun 27 12:19:35 2007. also notice you wanna send the (V) to Jamaica Center. So under your plan, the (M) would remain the Nassau/4th Ave Local?If a center track were built after Bway Jct and the Jamaica terminal fixed (or the line extended to a better terminal), I would leave the (M) as is. |
|
|
| (452993) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jun 28 07:04:57 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by shadyelstation on Wed Jun 27 12:19:35 2007. There is the at-grade crossing at MyrtleGrade crossings such as those at Bway-Myrtle and at Lenox-143rd do not limit capacity. One simply schedules diverging (and straight through) trains in both directions to enter the crossing at the same time. The Third Ave El operated at 42 tph with grade crossings. then there's the Williamsburg Bridge. Slow speeds do not limit capacity per se. Capacity limitations are caused by actual stopping (dwell) time inside stations. One exception is when the slow speed is at the entrance or exit of a station. However, that generally brings service levels from near 40 down to the low to mid 30's. Back in 1949, they operated 27 tph over the WB, rating its capacity at 32 tph. The Myrtle and Canarsie ran 8 tph each and Jamaica ran 11 tph. |
|
|
| (453018) | |
Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Thu Jun 28 08:43:05 2007, in response to Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by shadyelstation on Wed Jun 27 12:55:41 2007. I'm sure it would be, but you have to define how much floor space is needed per person. The number used in this study was I believe 20" square per person. Crush is probably on the order of 12" square! |
|
|
| (453047) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by shadyelstation on Thu Jun 28 09:51:43 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jun 28 07:04:57 2007. Thanks for the figures.So it's more a manner of operation then... |
|
|
| (453068) | |
Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Jun 28 12:21:02 2007, in response to Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Eric B on Wed Jun 27 19:32:16 2007. IRT on 3 tracks is like the 7 IIRC.1 M 2 BMTIND numbering for such would be 1 3-4 2 |
|
|
| (453082) | |
Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Alex L. on Thu Jun 28 13:14:04 2007, in response to Re: The 7 is B Division? Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by R30A on Thu Jun 28 12:21:02 2007. IRT 3 track areas are numbered 1 M 4 or 2 M 3, depending on where you are. |
|
|
| (455108) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Jul 3 00:19:41 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jun 26 10:16:14 2007. From left to right. Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya.I like the illustrations. If the average of the most crowded sections of lines has become significantly less crowded over the 30 year period, I suppose that was the result of new lines being built at a faster rate than ridership increased. Here's some figures by sections, badly translated by Google. In spite of the translation, I was able (with difficulty) to identify all the places mentioned in the Tokyo area. The most crowded sections are the JR Keihin-Tohoku line from Ueno to Okachimachi (214%), the JR Chuo rapid line from Nakano to Shinjuku (211%), and the JR Sobu rapid line from Shin-Koiwa to Kinsicho (207%). I found no data for the JR Yamanote line. Curiously, nowhere on the JR Chuo local line is more than 89% crowded! |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
