|
|
| Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station (505994) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 4 |
||
|
| (557343) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 21 17:44:41 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 17:18:54 2008. Five Books of Russ:III) Green Eggs & Lox - Because ham ain't kosher You made me decide what to have for lunch tomorrow... :) |
|
|
| (557344) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 17:45:40 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 17:42:04 2008. You know that quote by Keynes, right?"In the long run, we are all dead." |
|
|
| (557346) | |
Re: Jamaica Yard station |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Jan 21 17:51:32 2008, in response to Re: Jamaica Yard station, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 16:02:32 2008. They already have a station. It's called "Union Turnpike Kew Gardens". And that station is served by trains that most of the time run express in Queens west of 71st Ave. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (557347) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 17:51:33 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 17:18:54 2008. LOL! OK. cool. |
|
|
| (557350) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 17:55:26 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 17:45:40 2008. Yup. It may be the only thing from him about which he was clearly correct. |
|
|
| (557351) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 17:58:01 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 17:55:26 2008. He didn't say "Dead and buried." Must have been hedging his bets. 8-) |
|
|
| (557352) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 17:59:24 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 17:39:39 2008. Stephen is still back in 1957. 8-) |
|
|
| (557375) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 19:09:43 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. Actually:I was thinking more of having the N terminate at a new northern terminal on Roosevelt Island, then operate to Manhattan via a new tunnel on 73rd, make a stop at 73rd/York-1st Avenues before then joining with the Q at 72nd/2nd and then going with the Q via 63rd to the Broadway line, landing with the Q on the express track. If that happened, the W can then proceed at all times, except overnights to Bay Parkway, with overnight runnings between Astoria-Whitehall Street while the R runs full-time to 95th from 71st-Continental. As for the LIRR, I can't see a station being done there, east side access or not. |
|
|
| (557380) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Mon Jan 21 19:23:24 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 20 05:24:37 2008. Instead of creating a terminal, build a normal station and then either connect it to the Queens Blvd IND or just build a whole new tunnel route that would connect to the abandoned Rockaway ROW. |
|
|
| (557381) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Mon Jan 21 19:23:27 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 20 05:24:37 2008. Instead of creating a terminal, build a normal station and then either connect it to the Queens Blvd IND or just build a whole new tunnel route that would connect to the abandoned Rockaway ROW. |
|
|
| (557383) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 19:24:18 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 19:09:43 2008. I was thinking more of having the N terminate at a new northern terminal on Roosevelt Island, then operate to Manhattan via a new tunnel on 73rd, make a stop at 73rd/York-1st Avenues before then joining with the Q at 72nd/2nd and then going with the Q via 63rd to the Broadway line, landing with the Q on the express track.Among the problems with this proposal beside lack of funding for an expensive river tunnel and extension to a relative backwater: how do you propose that trains execute a 90 degree turn over less than one short block? |
|
|
| (557389) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 19:40:59 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 19:24:18 2008. Actually:I just threw 73rd street there, though I forgot about how sharp a curve that would be. I would not necessairly have to be 73rd street, such a line could actually run to for instance 76th street (no, not that 76th street), with a stop at 76th and York-1st Avenues before going to 72nd/2nd and then with the Q as noted. That also could for instance be 79th street doing the same thing, though I believe you have less of an incline at 76th between York Avenue and the FDR Drive than you do at 79th and York/East End Avenues and the FDR Drive, which also would be a consideration here. As for the river tunnel, this would be a relatively short river tunnel since it would be from Roosevelt Island as opposed to running to Queens, so it would not be as expensive. The main purpose would be to solve a serious problem of overcrowding on the F line and give people who live on Roosevelt Island, as well as on the upper east side an option for a half-empty train to the west side that also solves a problem with the current situation on the west side with the N/R/W all going local between 57th and Times Square, since in this format the N and Q trains would both go via 63rd to the Broadway Line express tracks at 57th/7th. There also is nothing that says that later on, such a tunnel to Roosevelt Island can't be further extended northbound to The Bronx for instance (with perhaps that being a way to build a 3rd Avenue Subway in The Bronx under what used to be the old 3rd Avenue El route?) or perhaps as part of a new route to LaGuardia. |
|
|
| (557391) | |
Re: Merges |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Jan 21 19:50:10 2008, in response to Re: Merges, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 17:40:25 2008. Is there an available way for schedule makers to model the outcomes of their schedules before they are implemented?There are many simulators available for the trade. These are high priced, so the average hobbyist won't be running this on his home PC. However, it's fairly easy to write a spreadsheet to accomplish the same thing at zero cost. However, simulators are not really required to figure out merging conflicts. The merge points are known. Just look at them. The TA's schedule makers know this. They hide the merging conflicts. A few years ago, I discovered that an R and an N, leaving Queens and Queensboro Plazas respectively, were scheduled to meet at the 11th St switch at the same time. Lo, one train was scheduled to take 2 minutes longer reaching Lex Ave. what is the potential ability of CBTC to rebalance the system when service patterns deviate? CBTC avoids collisions, not merging conflicts. You probably mean ATS. No system can help a schedule that has built in merging conflicts. The trick to maintaining realizable schedules is to correct small deviations before they become big ones. This isn't a problem when service levels approach theoretical capacity. The signal system takes care of it. When service levels are less than theoretical capacity, then an independent ATS is required. This ATS does not require a central computer and megabucks to be effective. Both Moscow and Paris use simple clocks to provide feedback to the operating crew. |
|
|
| (557392) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 19:50:19 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 19:40:59 2008. You're not solving overcrowding on the Queens Blvd Line by adding a new branch off SAS to northern Roosevelt Island, though.....As for giving SAS more capacity, running more trains on SAS is a much cheaper solution. As for having more trains serve Roosevelt Island, well, they'll have to wait for more traffic to use the 63rd St Tunnel. In a real world of limited resources available for transit, there are a number of ways we can rank priorities. By any measure, giving people at Roosevelt Island seats on the train isn't one of them. More trains will serve the Roosevelt Island station once there's SAS running for a decent stretch south of 63rd St. part of effective planning entails coming up with the right set of priorities and focusing on them until the job's done on time and on budget before turning to the next. |
|
|
| (557399) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Jan 21 20:14:17 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 17:39:39 2008. Somehow its being Gold St rather than Murphy doesn't exactly fill one with reassurance. |
|
|
| (557401) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Jan 21 20:14:52 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 17:59:24 2008. Stephen is still back in 1957. 8-)Neither the B train nor the D train operated via 36/4 in 1957. ;-) |
|
|
| (557403) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 20:18:23 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Jan 21 20:14:52 2008. LOL... |
|
|
| (557409) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 20:22:34 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Jan 21 20:14:17 2008. It rather drains one of reassurance, actually.Although seeing Mr. Bauman's noting that some conflicts are ignored in the schedules may lead me to re-evaluate just simply blaming the towers. |
|
|
| (557514) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 22 01:20:27 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 19:40:59 2008. Considering the cost of a subway tunnel underwater, the length of time and engineering to build it - it is highly unlikely that Roosevelt Island will ever get a subway tunnel for its own exclusive use - nope, its not gonna happen.Considering that the 63rd Street tunnel is the new first East River crossing since the 1930's, remember its history - it was once called the "tunnel to nowhere". What's the chance that new tunnel would be built anytime soon? What are the chances of the Boston Red Sox winning not only the World Series, but during the same season/year the Super-Bowl? There really is not a "problem" with the merging of the N-train with the Q-train along the Broadway line. A couple of guys on the forum decided to think about a possible arrangement of train routes that removed such a merger as much as possible - a thought experiment. How that idea turned into a "problem" is anybody's guess. When ever the Q-train is routed uptown along the Second Avenue line (stubway or full-length), the TA could simply decide to merge the Q and N trains at the 57th Street station - there are switches for this both north and south of the station. The "problem" is solved. Mike |
|
|
| (557524) | |
Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 22 01:49:02 2008, in response to Re: LIRR East Side Access / Roosevelt Island F Station, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 14:45:14 2008. They should complete the tunnels off of the 63rd Dr local tracks that were meant to go down the Old Rockaway Line. They could then terminate and relay trains there. It would be a good terminal for the SAS or the (V). They can even send the (G) there until the SAS below 63rd St is built. |
|
|
| (557527) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Solving Queens Boulevard Problem |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 22 01:54:23 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by Michael549 on Tue Jan 22 01:20:27 2008. Actually:Given the issues on Queens Boulevard, it's something that does need to be explored. Yes, I did originally mention this as a terminal idea for Roosevelt Island, but this is also something that could be done to create some sort of a "Super Express" to Roosevelt Avenue, terminating at the built-but-never-used upper level platform there. Such a line could perhaps make one other stop in Queens (perhaps under the Astoria Line with a transfer to/from trains at one stop there) before then stopping at a northern Roosevelt Island station, then as noted a York-1st Avenue stop in Manhattan (76th or 79th Street) before briefly joining the SAS to stop at 72nd/2nd and then going with the Q to the west side (in this scenario most likely the N train would be such a line, with the W becoming the full-time Astoria line and the N and Q not having to cross tracks at all, speeding up service on the Broadway Line all over the place). Something is going to have to be done on Queens Blvd. at some point, and perhaps this is a potential solution to that problem. |
|
|
| (557530) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Solving Queens Boulevard Problem |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jan 22 01:58:15 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Solving Queens Boulevard Problem, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 22 01:54:23 2008. Look for the TA to begin a Queens Blvd capacity study this year. |
|
|
| (557548) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 22 03:47:39 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by FarRock on Mon Jan 21 19:23:24 2008. Yes indeed. The Queens SAS route should be built in conjuction with ESA on the Queens side by double-stacking the tunnels under Sunnyside Yards in order for the SAS to merge into the 63rd St tunnel with the (F) on the west end (the current hole) and to the the route of the Old Rock (the trackways are there) on the east end and curve south at Whitepot onto the old ROW. It would replace the (A) to Far Rock. Some or all of these (A) trains would be diverted unto AirTrain via a new connection from the "express tracks" before Howard Beach to the current AirTrain tracks. I give you the (A)irtrain and the SAS (Y) train. |
|
|
| (557552) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 22 04:25:40 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 22 03:47:39 2008. Very interesting:The question is, would there be enough capacity at 63rd Street for this new branch of the SAS, and doing so without interfering with the current F route on 63rd? If that can be done, then it is worth exploring. There is one major issue with this line replacing the A to Far Rockaway, and I assume during rush hours, Rockaway Park as well: Would this train or the A stop at Aqueduct Racetrack, Aqueduct-North Conduit and/or Howard Beach? I'm sure a lot of people would want to know that. It does sound like it would be a VERY good option to have if nothing else. |
|
|
| (557559) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 22 05:14:23 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 22 04:25:40 2008. The question is, would there be enough capacity at 63rd Street for this new branch of the SAS, and doing so without interfering with the current F route on 63rd? If that can be done, then it is worth exploring.Yes! The 63rd St tunnel was built for a 6th Av service (the F) and a 2nd Av service. It has plenty of spare capacity. Right now it only run 15 TPH versus the 25 to 53rd St (E/V) and the 25 or so to 60th St (N/R/W). There is one major issue with this line replacing the A to Far Rockaway, and I assume during rush hours, Rockaway Park as well: Would this train or the A stop at Aqueduct Racetrack, Aqueduct-North Conduit and/or Howard Beach? I'm sure a lot of people would want to know that. I have to give the track map a better look but in general terms, the trains to Rock Park and the (Y) would stop at all the current stations from the Rockaways to Aqueduct. No change there except that the (Y) would run a couple of more TPH then the current Far Rock (A). After Aqueduct the (Y) would continue on the Rock to Ozone Park and beyond. The (A)irTrain would be using the express tracks and make its first stop after Rockaway Blvd/Liberty Av at the Long-Term Parking Station at JFK. This (A)irTrain would be a normal NYCT service from Inwood to JFK. This would require a lot of track rearrangements on the ROW south of Rockaway Blvd. |
|
|
| (557620) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Tue Jan 22 10:21:06 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 22 03:47:39 2008. I wouldn't replace the (A) to Far Rock. Even with a new route added the (A) to Far Rock will still be very vital to the system. This new route can run to Rock Park and can probably eliminate the Rock Park Shuttle. |
|
|
| (557632) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Tue Jan 22 10:30:13 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 22 05:14:23 2008. Like I said before I don't think there's anyway the TA would replace the current Far Rock (A). A lot of people need direct service to Brooklyn. Remember the new route would run in Queens and wont hit Brooklyn. The new route could replace the Rock Park shuttle because people along that route already have to transfer, why complain?Switches will have to be added south of Rockaway Blvd so trains can switch over to the abandoned ROW tracks. SB tracks from the ROW would have to cross in front of the NB tracks to Liberty Av but I don't think it would cause any traffic if the schedules are timed out right. |
|
|
| (557939) | |
Re: New Rockaway Branch |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 23 01:15:46 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by FarRock on Tue Jan 22 10:30:13 2008. I like that idea better for the new line:The A should continue to Far Rockaway, while a new line could run to Rockaway Park, which would basically replace the need for the shuttle. If you need more A trains because of that, perhaps ALL A trains could go to Far Rockaway and the C train could become 24/7 and be extended to Lefferts. |
|
|
| (557961) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jan 23 03:51:30 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by FarRock on Tue Jan 22 10:30:13 2008. Yeah you are right. That's probably a better idea. The (Y) train: Rockaway Park to Hanover Square. The (A) trains now scheduled to Rock Park would be diverted into JFK. |
|
|
| (557989) | |
Re: New Rockaway Branch |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Wed Jan 23 07:33:30 2008, in response to Re: New Rockaway Branch, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 23 01:15:46 2008. The (C) to lefferts probably wont happen since somebody's gonna complain about direct express service from east of Rockaway Blvd. |
|
|
| (557990) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Wed Jan 23 07:35:05 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by SMAZ on Wed Jan 23 03:51:30 2008. Those Rock Park (A)'s can stay the same as it is now. They're needed during rush hours. |
|
|
| (557992) | |
Re: New Rockaway Branch |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 23 07:39:17 2008, in response to Re: New Rockaway Branch, posted by FarRock on Wed Jan 23 07:33:30 2008. Only until they realize such passengers can make a same platform transfer anywhere between Rockaway Parkway and Grant Avenue, or a cross-platform transfer at Euclid Avenue. |
|
|
| (557994) | |
Re: New Rockaway Branch |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Jan 23 07:49:31 2008, in response to Re: New Rockaway Branch, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 23 07:39:17 2008. 'The (C) to Lefferts probably wont happen since somebody's gonna complain about direct express service from east of Rockaway Blvd.''Only until they realize such passengers can make a same platform transfer anywhere between Rockaway Parkway and Grant Avenue, or a cross-platform transfer at Euclid Avenue.' This has been discussed here before. The consensus seems to be that the Lefferts riders are so besotted with their infrequent express one-seat ride to Manhattan that they will fight tooth and nail to prevent it from being replaced by a more frequent local service that would require a transfer - albeit a very easy transfer - to get them on to an express. The switch suggested here is really a no-brainer. Lefferts would get more trains, Howard Beach JFK would get more trains (pretty important), and Rockaway Park would get all-day direct service to Manhattan. Costs would rise, though, as all the C trains and half of the A trains would go longer distances than now, requiring more trains and more crews to provide the same frequencies, and the dropping of the Rockaway Park S train would only partly counterbalance this. |
|
|
| (558000) | |
Re: New Rockaway Branch |
|
|
Posted by FarRock on Wed Jan 23 08:03:30 2008, in response to Re: New Rockaway Branch, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 23 07:39:17 2008. Somebodies still gonna put up a fight saying its an incovenience. Sometimes I take the Lefferts (A) to Rockaway Blvd and transfer for the Far Rock (A). It's no problem for me. |
|
|
| (558020) | |
Re: New Rockaway Branch |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jan 23 10:23:45 2008, in response to Re: New Rockaway Branch, posted by Fytton on Wed Jan 23 07:49:31 2008. Not only that, but peak C service isn't that much greater as peak Lefferts Blvd. A service. 7TPH to 6, IIRC. |
|
|
| (558167) | |
Re: New Rockaway Branch |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jan 23 17:40:46 2008, in response to Re: New Rockaway Branch, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Jan 23 10:23:45 2008. Not only that, but the time it takes crews on the C to clean out the train at Euclid, and relay, is the same about time it would take to operate in service to Lefferts.So the TA might be able to run C service to Lefferts, without much of an increase in payroll. But I don't see this happening. Lefferts via local service or a transfer at Rockaway Blvd is too much to ask of Ozone Park residents. |
|
|
| (558364) | |
Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 24 01:38:51 2008, in response to Re: Second Roosevelt Island Station/Branch of SAS, posted by FarRock on Wed Jan 23 07:35:05 2008. This (Y) train from Rock Park would run many more trains from Rock Park then the (A) does today and it would do so 24/7. Not having it as an (A) terminal would also allow for NYCT trains to run into JFK via the AirTrain tracks. |
|
|
| (558404) | |
Re: New Rockaway Branch |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 24 05:48:17 2008, in response to Re: New Rockaway Branch, posted by FarRock on Wed Jan 23 08:03:30 2008. Until they realize it would not be THAT big of a deal:Such a move would also end the pain that is having the split destinations on the A train (excluding the handful that might go to Rockaway Park). The C can also become a 24/7 line this way, eliminating the need to switch to/from the current shuttle to/from the A at Euclid during overnight hours. There also will be those who have to current switch from the C to a Lefferts-bound A as it is who will realize they no longer have to do that, which to me would MORE than offset those who would be upset about having to switch from the C to the A if coming from Lefferts. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 4 |
||
