|
|
| Re: Other subway access / Roosevelt Island F Station (505994) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
|
| (555828) | |
Re: Other subway access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Fri Jan 18 14:52:39 2008, in response to Re: Other subway access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by avid reader on Fri Jan 18 13:36:06 2008. Thank you. |
|
|
| (555844) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Fri Jan 18 15:35:06 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Oct 23 15:28:53 2007. There are very few train routes that are completely "switch-less", and even some of the routes that seem to "naturally" to go somewhere involve switch points where a completely different can actually be had. For example, at the DeKalb avenue station there are six tracks that enter the station, and eight tracks that leave the station. On those tracks any and every route design can be supported, which has nothing to do with the terminals of those routes. An another example is the 145th Street station on St. Nicholas Avenue - a number of different routes can be created. At the 125th Street Lexington Avenue station - there is no law that says the Woodlawn/White Plains or Pelham Bay/Parchester trains have to be local or express - a variety of designs are capable, and none of that says anything about their terminals. There are several places where different decisions could be made, and yes there are some places where it is "better" to perform a certain pattern of train direction - but there is a lot more flexibility than too often noted.Please remember that in "designing train routes" one should understand that certain stations offer connections and transfers to other lines that are very important. Mike |
|
|
| (556062) | |
Re: Other subway access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sat Jan 19 00:44:28 2008, in response to Re: Other subway access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Jan 18 11:00:50 2008. Indeeed. The Renwick Ruin. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (556150) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sat Jan 19 09:12:40 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by TunnelRat on Tue Oct 23 10:36:20 2007. Upper level of Nostrand Avenue on the IND Fulton Ave Line.Lower level of 42nd of 8th Ave. avid |
|
|
| (556171) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by metropod on Sat Jan 19 10:42:23 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by avid reader on Fri Jan 18 10:06:04 2008. Will you shut up already! they are not going to be making B div 11 car trains any more! |
|
|
| (556182) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Brighton Private on Sat Jan 19 11:18:23 2008, in response to LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Roosevelt island 360 on Mon Oct 22 13:17:23 2007. Since we're already in the realm of things that probably won't happen........What about a light-rail service, using mostly off-the-shelf equipment, that would connect the residential areas on the RI, cross a LR-only (with footpath) drawbridge and continue far enough across Manhattan (on a to-be-determined route) to make connections at least with the 2d Ave and Lex Ave subways? This would probably be no more expensive than the tunneling, and would add a crosstown service to people living on the far East Side, possibly as a substitute for an existing crosstown bus line. There really isn't that much major shipping on the East River that would require too many drawbridge openings. IIRC correctly, it's mostly barge traffic. I look forward to being told why this is a crazy idea. |
|
|
| (556421) | |
Re: Other subway access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Jan 19 20:13:25 2008, in response to Re: Other subway access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by R160 8818 on Thu Jan 17 15:48:02 2008. Even if there are no inclines right under the island, the way the tunnel was built on both sides of the island may prevent that, as the island itself may not be wide enough at that point to hold ten-car platforms.Two thirds of the height of the tubes were above the original riverbed and covered up with construction materials, raising the riverbed. Not so different from what was done with the BART tubes across the SF bay in the seventies. |
|
|
| (556533) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sun Jan 20 01:10:56 2008, in response to LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Roosevelt island 360 on Mon Oct 22 13:17:23 2007. NO!1. You screw ESA capacity 2. LIRR trains are PACKED by the time they get to Queens |
|
|
| (556579) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 20 05:24:37 2008, in response to LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Roosevelt island 360 on Mon Oct 22 13:17:23 2007. My thought:Perhaps as part of Phase 3 of the SAS, a two-track terminal station could be built on the northern part of Roosevelt Island with a new tunnel that would connect to the SAS at 72nd Street, with the tunnel perhaps built at 73rd that would also have such a branch stop at 73rd street and York-1st Avenues before joining the SAS at the 72nd/2nd and then either continuing on the SAS or going with the Q to Broadway. That stop would be very attractive for those who live on York Avenue and/or next to the FDR Drive (which has a greatly increasing number of people living that far east on the UES) that even with the SAS still will have a considerable walk to get to those stops. |
|
|
| (556887) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 20 19:20:27 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by straphanger9 on Fri Jan 18 13:32:48 2008. yep can't run 3 locals..Yes you can. |
|
|
| (556897) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 20 19:36:42 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by error46146 on Thu Jan 17 21:18:13 2008. What about the E? |
|
|
| (556898) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 20 19:38:46 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 20 19:36:42 2008. nm. |
|
|
| (557043) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by straphanger9 on Mon Jan 21 02:44:29 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 20 19:20:27 2008. except that would cause too many delays, particularly around Continental and near Queens Plaza.EV use middle track at Queens Plaza, V needs to switch local. R also uses that local track. If an R has to wait for a V to switch, that means two tracks are held as the homeballs approaching the switch clear (and an E makes the stop at Queens Plaza. F via 63rd is fine, but put the Q there, and it has to switch local before 36th...with the V and R already local. If either service has a train in the station, the Q has to wait to go local, thus delaying not only itself but the F as well (which has to switch onto the express and deals with the same thing, to a lesser degree with the E)...meanwhile al of this is going on, more V and R trains are on their way Peak tph is somewhere around 30, it'd be really difficult to handle the R, V, AND Q all running local. Plus the R and V relaying at CTL while the Q continues on (since they have to make sure there are no passengers on the trains relaying - it's non revenue track). It's just too many trains crossing paths and using the same track. |
|
|
| (557045) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 02:52:52 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Russ on Sun Jan 20 19:20:27 2008. No, you really can't. You can make a mess, but you don't serve passengers that way. |
|
|
| (557063) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 05:16:19 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by straphanger9 on Mon Jan 21 02:44:29 2008. If an SAS line entered the QB local tracks via 63rd St., the issue at Queens Plaza is avoided.Peak TPH is probably more like 40tph provided that all three lines are not terminating at the same place. If a station was built by Jamaica Yard that uses the loop (someone else's idea,) this would be possible. |
|
|
| (557065) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 06:14:49 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 02:52:52 2008. Sure you can. The MTA does it all the time with the N,R and W trains in Manhattan. |
|
|
| (557076) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by straphanger9 on Mon Jan 21 07:34:29 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 05:16:19 2008. True, that would avoid Queens Plaza, but you'd still have problems at 36th St. The (express) and the  (local) would both be switching onto Queens Boulevard from the same origin track (the one from 21/Queensbridge). Therefore if EITHER an (waiting for  to clear express track) or (waiting for  or  to clear 36 St. station) were stuck on that approach track, both the and would be delayed. Furthermore, while the enters 36 St., and service is delayed.Put this in rush hour with one of those "sick passenger" conditions, and because of the Queens Plaza issue between the and (with the local stopping on the express track) that exists independent of any changes to the , and you now have delays on every single Queens Blvd. line. Only way around those kinds of delays is to run everything express around the incident train, but then you'd have as many as 5 services using the express track and everything committed to the express until Roosevelt Ave. Operationally it just leaves no room for error.Optimum TPH IS probably around 40tph - if the platforms are empty save for a handful of intelligent and alert passengers, no one holds the doors, and all equipment is in perfect order. However, this is never the case. There has to be a bit of room for error such that delays can be filtered out, not go on forever or extend down multiple lines. And that's why 30tph is about as reasonable a standard as possible on those local tracks. Furthermore, in response to what you said to RonInBayside, the  // are able to "pull it off" (ie run three trains on one track) because of the headways built into the scheduling. For comparison...During rush hours: service is 7-8 minutes (rush hour), and 10 minutes (midday). service is 6 minutes (rush hour), and 10 minutes (midday). service is 10 minutes (rush hour and midday)There are fewer trains. In a typical rush HOUR, that means there'd be 6 's, 10 's, and 7-8 's...that's 23-24 tph on those tracks. And none terminate on the shared trackage (60th St. tunnels - TSQ before the goes express). Lower Manhattan never sees 3 services on the same track because when the is running, the is via Bridge. And with the terminating at Whitehall, that makes a lot of sense. To prove this, even with the ending at Whitehall, delays at Rector can be common...waiting for that middle track to clear at Whitehall.Meanwhile, on Queens Boulevard: service is 4 minutes (rush hour), and 7.5 minutes (midday) service is 4 minutes (rush hour), and 7.5 minutes (midday) service, as above is 6 minutes (rush hour), and 10 minutes (midday) service is 6 minutes (rush hour), and 10 minutes (midday)Peak, that's 30 tph on the express (just about capacity - Chris R16/R2730, you were right) and 20 tph on the local. Which means that the (which like the and runs 6:00/10:00), would put the line to EXACTLY, capacity.But then you factor in 2 trains turning at CTL, and the complications of the interlockings before 36 St., as well as the trickle down of delays to Queens Plaza, and the necessary slowdown in operation resulting from all this, and you're over capacity. To put it simply, 2 of every 3 trains has exactly 120 seconds to pull into CTL, discharge passengers, announce last stop, pick up a switchman, make sure no geese on the train, close down, punch for the relay, get the lineup, and move out...and those signals into CTL have to clear to restart the clock on the next train coming in. So combine that issue with the issue of both tracks at / slightly beyond capacity, if there's any service disruption - if a local needs to skip a few stops, or an express needs to scrape the wall, then that will lead to major delays along the entire line, and probably one of Railman's "mushroom cloud" posts. :P |
|
|
| (557095) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Mon Jan 21 08:16:52 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 23 18:09:46 2007. 'what are the 2 IND stations that were put in AFTER the ind was built?''Do you mean before municipal takeover (1940)?' Huh? Wasn't the IND always municipal? That was the whole point of it - Mayor Hylan wanted to have a city-owned subway to compete with 'the interests' (the IRT and BMT). That's why the IND lines were built in competition with IRT/BMT lines, rather than filling in the gaps to places not served by the IRT or BMT. |
|
|
| (557128) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by Roosevelt Island 360 on Mon Jan 21 10:36:38 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 20 05:24:37 2008. I am doubting that the Northern part of Roosevelt island would ever see a new station as that woudl be total new construction. Opening up a new station to either the 59th Street (N,R) or 53rd Stret Tunnels (E,V) stands a better chance.I still think access to the LIRR tracks beneath the existing F train is the best shot at greater mass transit access. If you would create a new Northern tunnel are you suggesting turning the F Train North to that tunnel and not going through to Lex / 63rd ? |
|
|
| (557135) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 10:52:10 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by Roosevelt Island 360 on Mon Jan 21 10:36:38 2008. I still think access to the LIRR tracks beneath the existing F train is the best shot at greater mass transit access.Unless Roosevelt Island grows a lot in landmass - as in being joined to Manhattan - I can't see LIRR locating a station at Roosevelt Island. |
|
|
| (557140) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 10:57:20 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 10:52:10 2008. I think Roosevelt Island is administrsatively part of Manhattan, though it's pretty comical because you can only drive or walk onto Roosevelt Island from Queens. The only connection to Manhattan prior to 1976 was a trolley; then came the Sky Tram, then the subway i 1989. |
|
|
| (557153) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 11:17:10 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 10:57:20 2008. I can really see New York landmass expanding someday, the tidal estuary harnessed, millions of people living in what used to be the middle of the East River, etc.Hey, I didn't say WHEN I see that happening.... |
|
|
| (557180) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Mon Jan 21 12:23:44 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by G1Ravage on Fri Jan 18 06:10:04 2008. the R/V trains switches track while the Q goes straight on |
|
|
| (557182) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Mon Jan 21 12:29:05 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Jan 20 19:36:42 2008. The E would remain untouched, the same thing of course. |
|
|
| (557183) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Mon Jan 21 12:30:36 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by error46146 on Mon Jan 21 12:29:05 2008. What if it did get touched? |
|
|
| (557220) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 21 13:33:48 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by Roosevelt Island 360 on Mon Jan 21 10:36:38 2008. Why would you want a station on the 53rd St. line? It is quite far from the residential area and the E train is more crowded than the F and even the V is crowded at that point. |
|
|
| (557257) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 14:45:14 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by straphanger9 on Mon Jan 21 07:34:29 2008. The lines can handle 40tph if everyone behaves, so 30tph are scheduled. If there is a hickup, there is some cushion to get things back on schedule. What happens if the local gets jacked up? When it starts running again the front train runs express on the local tracks. I see this happen on the 6 on a regular basis. Yes, running the SAS onto the QB local tracks is one more merge, but that's life. If this is what serves passengers the best, then that's what the MTA should do. Severe line congestion? If Nyquil does not work, try a reroute. It happens all of the time. Running an SAS line this way at 10tph would have the local tracks operating at 30tph.While I don't know what the QB's routes will be like in 15 years, I do know this. Part of the SAS plans include a connector to allow QB trains to access Second Avenue, south of 63rd Street, via the 63rd St tunnel. The MTA has also explicitly stated that there are no plans to use this for revenue service. If the capability is there, a cost benefit analysis will be conducted. One of the most intriguing potential benefits of an SAS/QB route is that it could relieve the 53rd/Lex station, as well as the E line and 6 line. It won't be a panacea, but it could help significantly. If I had to bet, I'd say that the F and an SAS/QB route will share 63rd St., and this will help Roosevelt Island residents. I also believe that R will continue to run local so that QB riders continue to have access to 59/Lex. This is very important because if you take direct access to 59/Lex away from QB riders, demand to ride the E to 53/Lex will increase, and that is not a good thing at all. So, what happens to the V? Hopefully it gets merged with the M and that it continues to operate at 10tph. If extra merges prove to be a minor issue, there is still one major problem with running 30tph on the local tracks. Where do you turn 30tph? That's where a new local station immediately NE of Jamaica Yard would help (again, not my idea, but I think that it is great.) The station would lie in, or near the loop, and have three tracks with two island platforms. I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that this can turn 30tph. The bottom line is that you don't permanently degrade a system to accommodate occasional problems. Problems are meant to be solved, not worshipped. |
|
|
| (557263) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 14:52:43 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by Roosevelt Island 360 on Mon Jan 21 10:36:38 2008. I still think access to the LIRR tracks beneath the existing F train is the best shot at greater mass transit access.I disagree on three points. The first is that this is a fight that can not be won on the merits of a cost/benefit analysis. The second is that the only chance to win it is politically, and LIRR riders collectively have far more political pull than Roosevelt Island residents. The final reason why I disagree with you is that part of the SAS will include a connection to the 63rd St tunnel. I believe that is far more likely that Roosevelt Island riders will get F and SAS service than an LURR station. Yes, you'll have to wait many years for this, but that's life. |
|
|
| (557279) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Mon Jan 21 15:46:23 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by South Brooklyn Railway on Mon Jan 21 12:30:36 2008. Then that would be very awkward... |
|
|
| (557283) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 16:00:05 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 14:45:14 2008. "The lines can handle 40tph if everyone behaves, so 30tph are scheduled"According to Russ, of course. It's sort of like consulting the Bible. You're supposed to believe it because it's the Bible. So when Russ says "40 tph" that's gospel. "The bottom line is that you don't permanently degrade a system to accommodate occasional problems." Ptroblems come i several varieties. When each of several varieties produces an occasional problem, you add them up and get a daily logjam. Allowing that to occur is the mark of an amateur. The million people who board Queens Blvd and RoooseveltAv trains don't need amateurs phucking up their train service. |
|
|
| (557284) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 16:00:19 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 14:45:14 2008. "The lines can handle 40tph if everyone behaves, so 30tph are scheduled"According to Russ, of course. It's sort of like consulting the Bible. You're supposed to believe it because it's the Bible. So when Russ says "40 tph" that's gospel. "The bottom line is that you don't permanently degrade a system to accommodate occasional problems." Ptroblems come in several varieties. When each of several varieties produces an occasional problem, you add them up and get a daily logjam. Allowing that to occur is the mark of an amateur. The million people who board Queens Blvd and RoooseveltAv trains don't need amateurs phucking up their train service. |
|
|
| (557285) | |
Re: Jamaica Yard station |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 16:02:32 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 14:45:14 2008. Yes, and I would think residents near the Jamaica Yard would relish having a terminal station at Jamaica Yards for the R/V lines. Such a station would accomplish allowing more trains overall on QB, which is likely to become necessary as the population continues to increase in New York in general. |
|
|
| (557286) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 16:05:03 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 06:14:49 2008. As long as you don't exceed a track's capacity, you can designate as many locals as you want. I can take the existing E service along 8th Av in Manhattan, and designate alternating arrivals E1,E2,E3 and E4. Combined with the C, I now have 5 locals running on 8th Av. |
|
|
| (557294) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 16:39:25 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 16:00:05 2008. The 30 tph figure he uses - as opposed to the 40 tph that I think he was trying to note is theoretically possible - is more realistic given what happens on the Queens Blvd Line's express tracks. If the local tracks didn't have the terminal capacity problem at Forest Hills, there's little reason why they couldn't run 30 tph. (Since the express tracks already do that; if anything, the local tracks with their shorter signal blocks might actually do better on certain stretches, but let's not speculate). But then the problem to solve becomes one of trying to add northern terminal capacity on to the local tracks, and then of waiting for the SAS south of 63rd St to be built.But the future is a long way off still.... |
|
|
| (557295) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 16:43:29 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 16:39:25 2008. OK.I agree that the 63rd St tunnel itself has excess capacity. That's why I hope that in future MTA takes advantage of it to hang another line into Queens off of it. |
|
|
| (557296) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 16:44:32 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 16:05:03 2008. It's not just track capacity one has to be concerned with, though. There's also, e.g., terminal capacity to consider, and dwell time, etc.You also have to take into account scheduling the merges between trains; ratios like 3.46475: 1.247583 don't work out too well, etc. |
|
|
| (557302) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 16:50:32 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 16:44:32 2008. Correct. Thank you. Ishould have mentioned those elements as well. |
|
|
| (557303) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 16:51:21 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 16:43:29 2008. Right. There would be capacity in 63rd St Tunnel, on the Queens Blvd local tracks, but not at a northern terminal. Without that terminal capacity, all the rest of the capacity is useless, however, and the route could only operate at whatever frequency the northern terminal governed things at after divvying it up three ways. |
|
|
| (557310) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 16:58:13 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 16:39:25 2008. Yup, that's what I was trying to say. |
|
|
| (557311) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 16:59:40 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 16:44:32 2008. You also have to take into account scheduling the merges between trains; ratios like 3.46475: 1.247583 don't work out too well, etc.Hopefully CBTC will help with this. |
|
|
| (557315) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 17:07:31 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 16:58:13 2008. Thank you. I hereby amend my earlier comments. |
|
|
| (557316) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 17:07:49 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 16:59:40 2008. It should. |
|
|
| (557320) | |
Re: Jamaica Yard station |
|
|
Posted by TunnelRat on Mon Jan 21 17:12:37 2008, in response to Re: Jamaica Yard station, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 16:02:32 2008. if your`re talking about the yard that paralells 94ave,its official name is johnson ave.yard. |
|
|
| (557325) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 17:18:54 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 16:00:05 2008. According to Russ, of course. It's sort of like consulting the Bible. You're supposed to believe it because it's the Bible. So when Russ says "40 tph" that's gospel.Actually, it is from the Five Books of Russ: I) Genesis - A Lamb Lies Down on Broadway II) Exodus - The Departure of the Remote Controls (or I looked under the couch cushions and I still can't find them) III) Green Eggs & Lox - Because ham ain't kosher IV) Numbers - Mastering Tel Aviv Holdem' V) Dummies for Dummies - Working with mannequins made easy Ptroblems come i several varieties. When each of several varieties produces an occasional problem, you add them up and get a daily logjam. Allowing that to occur is the mark of an amateur. The million people who board Queens Blvd and RoooseveltAv trains don't need amateurs phucking up their train service. Fair enough. Working around problems may be necessary in the short run, but in the long run, that's just not good enough. I think that CBTC is evidence that the MTA is willing to live with these problems today, but that they don't find this to be an acceptable future for riders. |
|
|
| (557332) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 21 17:31:07 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 14:45:14 2008. Yes, running the SAS onto the QB local tracks is one more merge, but that's life....If extra merges prove to be a minor issue,That extra merge is not a trivial matter. The TA's routing of multiple merges/diverges from terminal-to-terminal leads to scheduled merging delays. Here's why. The simple system is two single services depart from terminals A1 and A2 merge at point B. They then proceed together along the trunk line to point C where they diverge as single services to terminals D1 and D2. The departures from A1 and A2 can be scheduled so that not only will there be no merging conflict when the trains arrive at merge point B but the joint service along the trunk will have uniform headways. Such scheduling is possible at any service level up to the capacity of the joint service along the trunk from B to C. Consider the case with multiple merges/diverges. Two services again start at terminals A1 and A2, merge at point B and diverge at point C. However both services merge again at point E, with one service passing by point D1 while the other service pass by point D2. The two services continue along a trunk until point F, where they permanently diverge into single services. Again departures from A1 and A2 can be scheduled to avoid any merging conflicts at point B and uniform headways along the trunk between B and C. What about the merge at point E? The problem is that the travel times between C and E differ depending on the routing via points D1 and D2. There will be no merging problem, if the individual service headways and the difference in travel times are an odd multiple of the other. However, service headways are adjusted to suit demand but travel time differences are set in concrete. Thus, if either the headway or travel time difference is an even multiple of the other, then a merging conflict at point E is guaranteed. The TA is guilty of many such multiple merge routes. Most are slightly more complicated, in that the same two services don't do multiple merges. There are still multiple merges but second merge is with a service that was linked to one of the services at the first merge. There are two examples of a double merge with the same services, that come to mind. During the morning rush hour on the White Plains Road Line, 2 and 5 trains merge at 238th. They then diverge at E 180th, with the 5 running express while the 2 runs local. They then merge again at 3rd Ave. Another example is the northbound B and D during the morning rush hour. The B and D merge at 36th St in Brooklyn, diverge at 59th-Columbus Circle and merge again at 145th St. It's not always the tower operators. Sometimes the schedule makers are to blame. |
|
|
| (557334) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 17:32:47 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 17:18:54 2008. CBTC isn't yet the messiah; it still has to work effectively on the L route to enable more trains to be run than conventional NYCT signal systems do. Thus far, it's elegant, but it's promise is unfulfilled, and it took a lot of hardship and money to get it installed. |
|
|
| (557336) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 21 17:35:35 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 17:07:49 2008. In theory and in other cities but New York is sooooo special it won't work. :p |
|
|
| (557339) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 17:39:39 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 21 17:31:07 2008. Very good analysis, but:Another example is the northbound B and D during the morning rush hour. The B and D merge at 36th St in Brooklyn, diverge at 59th-Columbus Circle and merge again at 145th St. B trains are on the Brighton Line nowadays. |
|
|
| (557340) | |
Re: Merges |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 17:40:25 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 21 17:31:07 2008. Great explanation. Is there an available way for schedule makers to model the outcomes of their schedules before they are implemented? Also, what is the potential ability of CBTC to rebalance the system when service patterns deviate? |
|
|
| (557341) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 17:42:04 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 17:32:47 2008. CBTC isn't yet the messiah; it still has to work effectively on the L route to enable more trains to be run than conventional NYCT signal systems do. Thus far, it's elegant, but it's promise is unfulfilled, and it took a lot of hardship and money to get it installed.I'm confident that it will be fully debugged and functional in time for the subway's bicentennial. You can quote me on that. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 4 |
||
