 | |
| |
If you've read Harry Potter, you know what this is about... :)
BTW there should be a Hogwarts Express fan trip. Does anybody know if they actually have such a thing in the UK?
By the way, does that bus have an elevator?
:-)
G1RD
John
So, as another post said, the Hogwarts fantrip would be quite long and circuitous.
"Hogwarts Castle", the locomotive, is actually a Great Western Railway (GWR) loco, but perversely it is not a GWR Castle class one, but a Hall class. And even worse, the adult edition of the first book shows a photo of an *American* loco on the cover! (Maybe a Subtalker can identify it.) The original children's edition has a drawing rather than a photo, and at least the loco looks English.
Too bad there are no New Zealand trains to be seen in Lord of the Rings (8-) .
Hmmmmm... it would be quite fun...
King's X to Finsbury Park
REVERSE
Finsbury Park to Canonbury
REVERSE
Canonbury to Camden Town
REVERSE
Camden Town to St Pancras
REVERSE
Saint Pancras via Leicester, Alfreton, Sheffield, Pontefract, York, Newcastle Central, Edinburgh Waverley and Glasgow Queen Street LL to Oban
REVERSE
Oban via Glasgow Central LL, Carstairs, Carlisle, Settle and Keighley to Oxenhope
Actually, that would be a great railfan tour. Someone should offer that!
I like the idea for the “Knight Bus” though!
Does anyone know what kind of NYC subway car this is?
This was copied, without permission, from the Railway Technical pages, no photographer was given, and it's available at:
http://www.trainweb.org/railwaytechnical/etracp.html
avid
I suppose I could take Douce Man's advice and just ask if anyone knows the type of truck it is. Anyone know that?
til next time
Completely different, different suspension, different shoe, different side frames. The R142/R143 were about the only ones I had ruled out.
BTW: I never realized that the R142s had psuedo-GM10B sideframes, very cool, I thought those frames died with that monster.
Photo by Steve Kreisler, reproduced without permission, located on the NYCsubway.org R142/142A page
Sorry for the bad news.
Robert
Picture of Unca Selkirk at Atlantic Avenue performing ritual to save Snediker El (212K)
Now since the LAST time I was out that way, got some R143 handle time, be happy to come down and remove the curse so the el can go for a little MORE handle time, or the el can stay. Of course since we can't afford to get down there, some travel allowance might be necessary to make this all possible :)
Chuck Greene
What exactly did you say when you put that curse? "Let it be on your head," or similar?:)
Yeah, it drizzled most of the day, but it DID get a bit windy and a good deal wet, not that you noticed. Heh. And many of the Arnine trips SINCE Unca Selkirk showed up were similar. This year too. Nah, Nancy and I and other subtalkers who shall remain nameless unless they want to come forward and say "Yeah, I was there, and I saw him DO that" (and they're MAJOR names here) can attest that I spotted NYCTA gloves from MY day on that trackway - I brought them with me to Branford when YOU were there - and my little ritual after Nancy got all misty eyed over the Snediker came down, comforted by the same subtalkers, and I said "not going to happen, a POX on anyone who tries to cut this steel." I was only kidding, but the Lord provides I s'pose. We were momentarily relieved of our grief by some handle time on a Brooklyn bound L train ... but on the return trip late that night, as we passed along it, took a few minutes to lean over the edge at Atlantic and SPIT.
And before anyone thinks I'm any crazier than I already AM, I didn't INTEND to put a curse on it, but strange things DO happen. Needless to say, I'm QUITE pleased that the el is as stubborn as I am. :)
It didn't pour all day long last fall, anyway. Yes, 6688 made a token appearance (how could I forget you mooing into the mike?) and was promptly put away. One of my group pics was aboard Stef's baby. You and Nancy are both in it. BTW you told me about the gloves last year, too. Something about two left hand gloves, IIRC?
Now you know why I prefer to play conductor.:)
It looks like the Weather Gods can't make up their minds if they're railfans or not... constant anti-railfan weather get keeping the El in service.
You might as well. At this point, I have had about 5 "last" last rides on the el and through Atlantic. At the rate we're going, I'll probably have a few more.
Bill "Newkirk"
1) Have a picnic/cookout;
2) Wash your car.
Now we can add a third one:
3) Tear down the Snediker el.
Which other piece of demolished rail history would you be glad to see gone, just to ride a new connection?
The most recent work train I saw was back on January 31, at Times Square, uptown express track. The train still had its "Redbird" paint scheme except parts of the front were painted with diagonal black stripes.
Hey Fred, look in the mirror. Your trips were not on public transportation. How many times a week do you take public transportation to go anywhere? You could have caught an East/West bus to Rosemead, where you could have transferred to a 266 south to Florence and caught a 460 right to Disneyland's front entrance, relaxing all the way crowded in with others on the hard narrow seats for the 2 ½ hour journey, but you chose the frustration of driving with just your immediate family in the comfort of your automobile and despite the delays probably arrived in less than 2 ½ hours. As one who has used both public and private transportation in Southern California, it is no mystery to me why so many choose the crowded freeways.
Tom
Rah Rah Rah, at least you have public transportation
Off to NYC this Sunday most likely
Be good to see you in person, hang 10 on what we call the WORLD'S GREATEST SUBWAY LINE.
Give 'em a few weeks and they'll get used to it.
I've lived right next to a major mainline railroad for over ten years now and I don't even notice the trains....or for that matter, the 737's and 757's 600' above my roof going into a regional airport every six or seven minutes!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An alternative might be 24 hour service from 7th St/Metro Center to Willow Station with a timed transfer to either the MTA 60 (does it run 24 hours to downtown Long Beach?) or to new owl service on the Long Beach Transit 5 line.
Give 'em a few weeks and they'll get used to it.
I've lived right next to a major mainline railroad for over ten years now and I don't even notice the trains....or for that matter, the 737's and 757's 600' above my roof going into a regional airport every six or seven minutes!!!
Once in Brooklyn, remember there is no weekend service over the MB. Also there will be no local service in 4th Avenue.
I Wonder if we may get to run the Brighton to CI, or if they will not want us to use the one track available to access CI Yard. They may not want us going down 4th Ave either with only the express track open.
If we get to CI, I hope we get routed by the Culver to the IND, and spend the rest of the trip on the IND.
We won't get to go to the Rockaways, there is a GO there too. Also the inbound local track on the QB line will be closed. Maybe we will get to run the Concourse express.
Just trying to guess. It's been a long time since I have been on a subway fan trip. Let's hope for good weather.
Typically, the single-track Essex-Chambers shuttle has exclusive access to the SB track, terminating on the SB wall track at Chambers.
That means the MOD train will have to load up on the NB wall track and wrong-rail to Broad before continuing to Brooklyn (or, in theory, continuing past Broad and changing ends into Whitehall).
Perhaps the J GO will be modified, and shuttle trains will be using the SB "express" track instead. Then the MOD train can use the SB wall track.
None of this rules out the possibility of going out to Jamaica, although I'll admit it's unlikely. We could run down one of the routes to Coney Island (I don't think 4th Avenue will be a problem, since my hunch is that the N will be cut back to 36th and the W will stop on the express track there, but we might go Brighton anyway), up the Culver into Manhattan, and back south through the Chrystie Street cut to the Williamsburg Bridge.
It had better not rain. Todd, do something!
This is my first trip EVAR! And I'll be traveling over 120 miles in the dead of night on a Grayhound bus in order to get to NYC in time for the 6/8 trip, on which we will ride AMUE cars, but I don't know what AMUE stands for :(
Automatic Motor Universal Electropneumatic
It is the designation for the air brake system used on R1-R9 cars,
also on Low-Vs, ABs, D types, SIRT ME-1s, Broad St cars, and a
whole bunch more.
Webshots photos including the Baldwin and a beautiful caboose, painted "Reading", but caboose red.
The adult appearing in a couple of the photos is the conductor.
BTW, Railpace just happens to have a feature on SMS's Baldwins in the June issue. Nice to see them still alive & well.
The Baldwin at Morrisville is in top condition. I was there when the engine was started up cold a month or two ago, and it started instantly.
I was hoping to run into some SubTalkers at the East Penn trolley meet on April 3 and offer to take them to Morrisville, but my granddaughter was born that morning and my plans for the day were altered.
I also attended the SMS Baldwin Field Day that was written up in Railpace, but I left before lunch.
Speaking of Railpace, I'm impressed each month with Sparky's write-up on the Shore Line Trolley Museum. The first time I read it, went right to the acknowlegements to see whether I knew the author, and lo and behold, Sparky was listed as a contributor.
I've tryed to get them to publish some photos, but they are very fussy about what they use :-( You can see the results of that in the quality of the magazine.
BTW, the back cover has a nice shot of a freight on the Hell Gate Bridge & inside are several photos of the HBLR ext. construction.
The paintings were going to a restorer near Columbus Circle when they were left of the platform. The story says a reward will be offered for the paintings, but doesn't say how much it will be.
Jimmy
A few months ago I saw a large dining room table on a northbound 1 train somewhere north of Dyckman. I hope it was going to 242nd, since the other stations in the 200's only have HEET's and HXT's on the northbound platforms.
I propose this solution (?)
Place the machines ON THE PLATFORM at or about THE C/R POSITION so
that when the train makes a Station stop, the C/R can peer out the
window and glance to see if the MACHINE is WORKING OR NOT..
OTOH, the MNRR C/R tends to step-off the TRAIN to check platform
vacancy.... so then have the ASSISTANT C/R do the machine peeking.
This way they'll KNOW if we're pulling their (prosthetic) leg or not
when we tell them the machine was broken.
Having the machines at the TOP OF A WINDING STAIRCASE is pathethic
(HudsoncoughcoughLine)... to think it were a SR CITIZEN passenger making
the trek down the long stairs.... train wont wait... Billy Blue has
another hour to sit and be late to Bingo!.
Platform the Machine, boiz.
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
I don't know if it's policy at Metro North, but at NJ Transit, seniors and disabled riders are exempt from the on-board surcharge at all times.
MN has the same policy.
>>
You can't always tell by glancing at the machine. You have to try to make a transaction sometimes.
AM extra 2-3 <5> service to South Ferry, interlining with (1) service(possible 1/9 interline to <5> in the AM restoring the off peak <5>)
PM extra 2-3 (1) service from W 238 Street to South Ferry, changes to a <5> to E 238 Street (possible <5> PM interline to South Ferry into 1/9 creating another off peak <5>)
Elias
Can you explain? I don't think you mean that the manned locomotive was stopped while putting chickens on the switch, but that's what you appear to have said.
Due to continuing unhappiness by potential tour attendees over the new NYCT photo policy, the tour is canceled.
Sorry. There will be no more tours..
A fairy tale: there was a poor couple who one day found a goose and wanted to kill it. They were told if they kept the goose (alive) they'd get a golden egg each day. They agreed and sure enough every day they got a golden egg. One day the wife got greedy and persuaded the husband to kill the goose so they'd be rich by getting all the golden eggs. They found all the eggs were ordinary eggs.
The lesson from the story: I tried to salvage the tour but the participants were greedy. I did not make the policy.
Too bad, I enjoyed the tours. Do your own tours and get arrested. At least I keep my job and save my time by not hosting tours for greedy people.
This decision is final.
any mail from subtalkers requesting a change of heart will be rejected as junk e-mail. and a filter written to reject the e-mail. :-(
I feel terrible because I posted a slight joke at the whole photography thing, suggesting that we all go in there armed with several cameras apiece and just snap away. I fall into the category of 'wasn't going to go' and I am truely sorry for being at least a small part of the problem.
The best responce from Peggy is to let the assholes be assholes and if they wanted to take photographs at whatever stations might pose a problem that is their perogitive. However, Peggy is running the tour and where she goes the tour goes, even if it leaves the assholes behind on the platform.
You know, when you announce things on a public forum, even if you are providing the greatest service in the world, you have absolutely no expectation that kindness will be given in return. I am getting sick and tired of people who seem to think the opposite. Assholes are a fact of life, the only thing that we can control is our responce to them and I am disappointed in Peggy for her responce.
As I type this in Oakland Ca I could not have gone, but am sad at the outcome.
--Mark
Um, no it's not.
That is not the same as saying picture taking is not allowed. It means you must reportpicture taking, not demand that it stop and confiscate the camera. Those are different actions.
It's not his place to publish a TA memo on a web site.
-Stef
I believe him. But I'm not gonna acknowledge that a new policy exists until the MTA openly and truthfully tells me about it. Besides, he says he got the memo a week after the first memo, but he never told us about it. Not that he has to, but since he didn't, he nad other MTA employees here can't be mad at us for not knowing about it.
It's not his place to publish a TA memo on a web site.
I didn't say it was. That's why I wrote "you/they" and "telling/showing".
And who got mad at who for not knowing what? I didn't see any hostile words over this memo.
I'll explain why: If the MTA implements a new policy/rule saying No Photography, it is the MTA's responsibility to inform the public, which they haven't yet, to the best of my knowledge. It is not Mark W's responsibility or place to do this on the MTA's behalf. This is why I don't think his word should suffice because it shouldn't have to. This is something the MTA should be doing itself.
-Robert King
But ya'd THINK ... Nah, not in state governance.
If the MTA has a rule, then POST IT ON mta.info! Send an email to the webmaster ... hell, send one to Larry Reuter, if he isn't face down in the curb. One would THINK, given all here honked off, that a MASS CAMPAIGN to the webmeister of the MTA wouldn't GET some "get out of my FACE page" posted toute suite (pardon my french).
In fact there is a memo out saying employees are NOT to do such things as internal memos are just that and such employees will be dealt with.
The HELL with that I AM GOING, SCREW THE MTA AND NYCT.
If they tell you no pictures, take it from there.
I agree with you, it would deinitely be a shame not to be able to take pictures.
Unfortunately I can't go, but depending on my assignment that day I will be at Howard Beach, camera in hand.
If they tell me no pictures I will demand a full refund - Pictures are the MAIN reason I am going on the MOD trips. Unless someone with a permit cares to give me the pictures he/she takes without copyright restrictions - I didn't think so ;-)
Hell - maybe I just have to get me one of these ;-) WristWatch Camera
-Stef
Just look at something and press a button on a pen or something, and no one is the wiser. :-)
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=139575&category=FRONTPG&newsdate=6/3/2003 TimesUnion, no subscription required. Article is entitled, "Not merely a diary, a multimedia event - Pentagon's LifeLog project aims to digitize a person's every experience"
Like I said, no joke ... WOW.
That's up to you. Basically I was saying "Do what you gotta do." Personally I'd do the same.
what I'm saying is, that anyone important enough to tell us everything, knows better than to do so.
See my post 505277 for more details on who you should call at MTA for photography in the subway.
-Stef
-Stef
Any terrorist (foreign or domestic) who wants pictures of the New York Subway system has already taken them, and nobody noticed. The subway system doesn't change every year. The tunnels and station were there five, ten, fifteen, twenty or more years before, in exactly the same place.
It's more "bedsheet/Depends" stuff.
Their motto, "we can't find Osama, we can't find Saddam, therefore we're coming for *YOU*" ... :(
And that's the point of all this foolishness. You can take pictures. What you don't want to do is be beligerant about it. Even before the bastards attacked us you could expect a cop to confront you if your activities had a possiblity of being a "public nuisance". Some people just want to split hairs for dumb reasons. Show a little restraint, show some respect for the surroundings, and you'll be looking at your photographs the same night. Be a knucklehead and get what you deserve.
There is one exception. If someone asks me not to take his picture, I won't. I may still take a picture, but I'll point the camera away from him.
But I don't see anything wrong with standing up for my legal rights.
Which state law? 21 NYCRR 1050? That's not a law. Laws are passed by legislators. NYCRR, New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations, does not include laws.
So what is 21 NYCRR 1050? It's a set of rules. Rules can be written by anyone. In this case, the rules are created by NYCTA. Authority to do so is granted by Public Authorities law. Authority to amend rules is also granted (1204.5-a).
(I am not aware that the rules have been amended at this point, but this minor point is of no significance for the purposes of this discussion. At this point, you can probably tell where I'm heading. Like you said, don't shoot the messenger.)
Now, examine the rules a bit more closely. Yes, they do explicitly grant the right to take photographs on NYCTA property (1050.9(c)). They also state that NYCTA has the authority to "suspend, modify, or revoke the application of any or all of the rules as it deems necessary or desirable" (1050.3(d)). And, as always, you must comply with directives (1050.6(d)).
So, to recap:
It's not a law, it's a rule.The rules can be amended at the discretion of NYCTA.The rules can be quietly changed.
For those interested:
Article 5, Title 9, Public Authorities Law, New York City Transit Authority
21 NYCRR 1050, New York City Transit Authority
Mark
It is not a minor point, it is a major point. There is no doubt that there is a right to amend the rules, but fundamental due process requires that such amendment be published to the public that is expected to follow the rules. There cannot be secret changes which will be used as a "gottcha" against those conducting themselves under the published rules.
I have not bothered to read the specific NY law regarding amendments to the rules, but typically they require at least advance notice of a rules change, and possibly public hearings to give those affected a chance to object to the change. In an emergency there may be a temporary suspension of rules to meet the emergency, but when it is practical to give notice it must be given.
Tom
I have not bothered to read the specific NY law regarding amendments to the rules, but typically they require at least advance notice of a rules change, and possibly public hearings to give those affected a chance to object to the change. In an emergency there may be a temporary suspension of rules to meet the emergency, but when it is practical to give notice it must be given.
The above is all correct. I say that it's a minor point because there seemed to be a general attitude of invincibility, and that the rule as it is thought to exist today is immutable. The point of my post was to correct this notion, and not to give advice on whether or not people may or should take photographs on NYCTA property.
Mark
Then how are we suppsoed to know if the rules change? Shouldn't they tell us somehow? I mean they KNOW where all the railfans hang out. If they change the "rule" they better tell us officially via this board. Although it still doesn't mean anyone will follow the new rule. But at least we'll know it officially exists.
Before any change is made to the rules, a hearing is required if there is any public opposition. At each stage of the game, notice (of proposed rulemaking, of adoption, etc.) is given by publication in the State Register. An exception is granted for rules temporarily adopted on an emergency basis, although notice is still required.
This procedure applies to nearly all state administrative rulemaking.
I mean they KNOW where all the railfans hang out. If they change the "rule" they better tell us officially via this board. Although it still doesn't mean anyone will follow the new rule. But at least we'll know it officially exists.
Delusions of SubTalk grandeur? Sounds like a fantasy world to me.
Like I said, I'm not aware that anyone involved has moved to change the rules, but if and when it happens, don't expect to find out about it from an NYCTA-sponsored posting here.
Remember, you've still got to comply with directives issued by authorized people. And don't run your mouth off about "fundamental rights" or "state laws" or even "the rules" when someone so challenges you. The rules can be changed easily, don't give them a reason to do so.
Mark
When prominent "no photography" signs go up at my local station, I will have received a directive from an official source.
THAT LAW STILL EXISTS!
And good stories can be told ANYWHERE ... even if Ashcroft's listening. We'll whip a blue curtain over the monitor, and nobody'll be any the wiser. :)
Still, it CHEWS that she had to make the choice. November 2004 can't come SOON ENOUGH! :(
The same way that the average person finds out about laws and rules in general: you follow common sense, you do what you're told, and you challenge things that seem inappropriate. "Challenge" includes doing your homework and presenting a case in an appropriate venue that has been provided for this purpose by the law. It does NOT include whining at the officer asking you to put your camera away. It's not personal, don't make it personal, and don't diminish your credibility by carrying on.
There are many railfans out there, and the vast majority probably don't read SubTalk. I know many subfans who have never even clicked on SubTalk. How would they know whether the MTA allows it or not? I think everyone here is making a bigger deal out of this than it really should be. The MTA does not require you to read SubTalk in order for you know what their laws are.
That's right. SubTalk, or any other SubTalk-like forum, is NOT an official venue for you to find out about laws and rules. For all anyone knows, the "rules" that people have posted here might be entirely made-up.
At the same time, the rules that do exist are written and enforced (ideally) in accordance with the law. Ignorance is not a defense. Do you think that the IRS would look the other way if you "didn't know" you owed taxes? Do you think that whether or not they post the Internal Revenue Code on IRSTalk makes a difference?
Finally, a photography restriction would be less motivated by "railfan photography" than many people reading seem to believe. NYCTA rules apply to everyone, not just y'all.
Mark
David-
That's fine, and as I said, I haven't seen any applicable proposed or emergency rules fly by (but that doesn't mean that they didn't while my head was turned). I just wanted to point out that the rules are not immutable, and power to change the rules lies in hands that some may not have expected.
Mark
Right. Anyway, in the general scheme of things, railfans taking pictures will NEVER be any part of any decision-making process regarding the legality of same. Railfans as members of the public CAN input their thoughts in any available public forum concerning those decisions. But they're not a "block" by any means.
It's a transportation system. Not a train set. Current technology can allow someone to get his/her photos without making a big deal out of it. We all know this. And I'm sure most cops know this too. Put yourself in their place. If something goes wrong nobody's gonna come running to YOU (meaning anybody else but the cop) screaming for help. Hell, the cop is the one person who could help you if some knucklehead tries to snatch your fine and fancy camera. Why some guys want to make that job even harder is beyond me.
It's not a law, it's a rule.
The rules can be amended at the discretion of NYCTA.
The rules can be quietly changed."
Violation of any of these "rules" may result in arrest, fine or ejection. Most cases are violations (maximum 15 days) so they ARE LAWS legally speaking. The MTA Board, not NYCT, has final say on any amendment to any of these "rules".
And if they can change ANY LAW, imagine if they made public speaking anywhere a violation (non-transit activity, similar to another activity we are discussing that is a "no-no")? The Supreme Court will be all over this travesty.
One thing has nothing to do with the other. Rules can be authorized by law to carry the force of law. Violations of rules can also be authorized by law to be punishable by fines or imprisonment. ("Violation" is used here in its common meaning and not as it is used in the penal code.)
The MTA Board, not NYCT, has final say on any amendment to any of these "rules".
We're speaking legally, right? NYCTA. It just so happens that the chairman of the MTA is the chairman of NYCTA, and that under the current environment, the latter is increasingly becoming a puppet for the former.
And if they can change ANY LAW, imagine if they made public speaking anywhere a violation (non-transit activity, similar to another activity we are discussing that is a "no-no")? The Supreme Court will be all over this travesty.
Apples. Oranges. I didn't realize that photography was a Constitutionally-protected right. You might be surprised with what the Supreme Court would decide, anyway.
The way it "should be" isn't always the way it is. (Cue SelkirkTMO.)
Mark
David: There is indeed such a law and it pre-dates the current situation by about thirty years. It was published in pamplet form back in the seventies.
It reads as follows.
XVII. CODES, RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK GOVERNING THE NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
CHAPTER XXI METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHROITY
SUBCHAPTER F
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY
PART 1051 PROHIBITED USES
PART 1051.9 EFF SEP 1, 1974
Photographs, peddling, etc. b) No person except members of the working press who hold working press identification cards issued by the New York City Police Department shall take moving pictures or photographs within the limits of the New York City transit system.
This law was never really enforced but to the best of my knowledge it has never been rescinded. Certainly the TA does not prohibit the taking of phots on fantrips.
Many old laws remain on the books when the rationale for their existence has long passed. It is still against the law to herd sheep south of 14 Street in Manhattan and you can't hang a man with a wooden leg in the State of New Jersey.
Best Wishes, Larry, Redbird R33
PS Caps are not mine. They are the way that I copied it from the book.
NYCRR Part 1050.9
Under NYCRR Chapter XXI, Part 1050.9, Restricted Areas and Activities:
(c) Photography. filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not bc used. Members of the press holding valid identification issued by the New York City Police Department are hereby authorized to use necessary ancillary equipment. All photographic activity must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Part...
...Historical Note
Sec. filed May 24, 1985; amds. filed: March 31, 1993: Sept. 26, l994 eff. Oct. 12,1994
...Historical Note
Sec. filed May 24, 1985; amds. filed: March 31, 1993: Sept. 26, l994 eff. Oct. 12,1994
Mike: I see from your post that the law was amended to permit photography. I think the common sense rule applies here. Someone standing on a platfrom can certainly take a picture and should give a couteous answer to a TA employee or policeman if questioned. However someone standing twenty feet inside a tunnel or wandering around on the lower level of City Hall station is clearly out of bounds.
Thanks for the update;
Larry, RedbirdR33
But that's the case whether or not the wanderer is a photographer.
I really do think that if the MTA moved to a no photo policy they would post it like on the MTBA or on the PATH. On every system you ride the rules and regulations are clearly posted. A good example is the DC Metro and its no food policy.
AFAIAC the rule currently in effect is 21NYCRR 1050.9 which specifically allows for non-commercial photography.
Um, I think you missed where Greenberger stepped away from that statement. And if you wanted to be of help, you should have explained why his statement was untrue, like others took the time to do.
The nice lady was willing to go way the hell out of her way to lead a buncha train geeks like ourselves into places we might never get to see. So what happened?
"Whaaaagggggghhhhhh!!! We Wanna Take Pichures!! When We Wanna!! Where We Wanna!! Screw The Rules!!! We Wanna Take Pichures!!!"
So there you are. Happy?
This is a sad turn of events for those new to the hobby because Peggy's tours provided a lot of detail for those who took the time to stop, look & listen. It was my first time on PATH several years ago with her and another railfan, and part time Museum Tour guide, that realy hooked me on the hobby. The TA seems to be on a anti-railfan compain of late, so maybe these organized tours should go into hibernation for a while.
The TERRORISTS who MIGHT blow up or gas the subway some day (and I *pray* that they're "foreigners" that would do it and not a modern Reichstag number, like those ex-Navy pilots who claim that an angled maneuver into tall skyscrapers and STILL flying straight is suspicious - UFO swamp gas theories) have ALREADY GOTTEN THEIR PICTURES of the "infrastructure" and unless they're planning on bombing the new Canarsie alignment, they don't NEED to take any "new" pictures ...
While I'm not one on pictures of the system (I *prefer* my hazy memories, they're PRETTIER) myself, I can't FATHOM the mentality of people who would chase away buffs with cameras ... MANY major police mysteries have been solved over decades by the "errant nut with a camera who captured this crime in progress in the background of their photo" ... any COP will tell ya this happens often. So what do they do? Chase away those who could be a HELP ...
I JUST don't get this policy. Round up the undocumented foreigners on the "DO NOT ADMIT TO THE UNITED STATES" list, and I'd bet we'll never suffer a terrorist incident AGAIN. Nope - THESE morons are hassling YOU AND ME. That's what boild my butt here about all this. How DARE they come after US when we ain't seen Osama's head on a stick yet? :(
Ain't that the truth. I for one don't believe we are getting our moneys worth from the military/CIA/FBI/etc. They certainly don't seem to have the skills you might think from watching movies. Maybe George Lucus ought to teach them a few things ?
"... I JUST don't get this policy ..."
Some suit thinks he ought to be doing SOMETHING.
He's going to be re-elected. Why kill yourself for another 5+ years with this irrational hatred? The terrorists must be laughing at how some Americans have turned their anger on their own president.
I don't agree. Not a bit. In 50 years we should finally have fusion power down pat. Which will lead to the beginning of our settling parts of the Solar System. And make the OPC redundant and about as significant as buggy-whip manufacturers. But that song CAPTAIN AMERICA CALLING keeps coming to mind:
"Well I'm telling all people from all over the world this is Captain America calling (calling)
I picked you up when you were DOWN ON YOUR KNEES won't you help me now I'm falling (falling)"
Guess I'm just a sucker but that song always gets to me.
Actually, the story goes that there are no eggs at all after they kill the goose.
GEEEZUZZ!! Don't you guys ever quit? Why would you say such a rude thing? How many tours have YOU led? Show some dignity....and respect the lady.
She stopped posting after rude behavior toward her by other SubTalkers.
Tom
I feel so bad for Peggy that she even had to EXPLAIN this to anyone. If you WORK for the government, and you're NOT "with the program" then you can go to JAIL ... or worse. THAT'S why Unca Selkirk piped off the good ship Paturkey. Republicans eat their young. :(
Peggy seems to be concerned that posting messages on SubTalk might get her into trouble with her employer. Okay, I can understand that. But having other people post messages on her behalf isn't likely to help her if NYCT management finds out about a posting and is opposed to what's been said. She'd be better off posting directly, or not posting at all on anything controversial if she's worried about job repercussions.
Maybe THAT'S why someone else had to post it as HEARSAY? :(
wayne
WHY are you the messenger, that's the question?
Ummmmm you're a good one!!!!
Way to go, guys.
wayne
Don't worry, I have a feeling that, due to popular demand, the tours will be back, and soon :) Her tours are great and she knows it.
Unfortunately TA employees like Peggy don't.
Wake up, John. She did not give in to anything. She decided she did not want to lead a group which might contain people who were willing to risk her job to prove they had certain rights. I admire those who volunteer to put their own job on the line to stand up for their rights. I do not admire those who volunteer someone else at no risk to themselves.
Tom
I have come to the conclusion it's hard for some children to grow up here. Some of those children are trapped in the bodies of adults.
-Stef
-Stef
No such thing as the pefect society where all people think alike! Let's leave room for dissension.
-Stef
That's right. Stand up for your rights everyone. At least as long as it's good weather.
Thank goodness it was a 72 degrees and sunny when Washington crossed the Delaware...
If Peggy's job was truely in danger we cannot expect her to risk it for a group of railfans. However this does not tie her hands. Peggy has something that as of yet no corporation or government agency can stimie or take away and that is knowledge. While it would not have been the same, peggy could have transcirbed her knowledge to paper (or a Word document) and then sent out a self-guided tour. Taking the complexity up a notch Peggy could have produced an audio tour of the line (which she might have been able to sell in the gift shoppe), its not that hard, I did one when I diagramed the MFL signaling. Either way Peggy could have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat (and at the same time made her knowledge available to a far greater pool of people).
So......send her some flowers. Make a donation for material costs. Offer your own knowledge of how to accomplish those things you mentioned. Make a personal appeal to Transit on her behalf. Buy her a computer. Or give her yours. Walk her dogs. Paint her apartment. ISTM that might be equal to what you're requesting. Otherwise, maybe we should cut the lady some slack. It's not like she HAS to do anything for rail enthusiasts.
However, it's up to Peggy to decide if she wants to go through the trouble.
One cool addition to subway.org would be a set of downloadable walking tour guides to transit systems.
Gee, Mike, I hadn't realized Peggy had a contractual obligation to spend 4-6 hours for the benefit of some group of railfans. I was under the mistaken belief that she guided these tours because she liked interacting with other railfans on a live basis. She has already made significant written contributions to this site. She does not owe us anything. I hope some time in the future when the general atmosphere in the subway improves, along with the maturity of those wishing to take a tour, she will see her way clear to offering another tour.
Tom
Oh boy, you're gonna get it now. I posted a similar statement last week and Peggy just emailed me saying that we SubTalkers "can all go to where the devil is supposed to lvie[sic]." Like you, I was just trying to be optimistic. My question now is if the devil isn't where he is supposed to be, then where is he?
Awwww. Well, at least now I know where I'm gonna go when I go....
The details.
Thank you Big Dig for making me vent in the wrong time. I will snap away and risk myself getting arrested.
But don't blame "Big Dig" ... the childish responses to the issue from MANY here were part of the problem - the OTHEr part of the problem is that if you WORK for the MTA and "enable terrorism by flagrant violation of Mein Kampf" then you not only get FIRED, but could end up with a vacation at a fine Cuban resort because you "aided and abetted" or are "SUSPECTED of being a participant" ...
CIA, FBI and INS let people on the *LIST* of "do not let these criminals into the country" enter the US and fly planes into WTC. Because of republican congress budget cuts, they didn't have the people to interfere with their entry into this country. NOW *WE* HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE ... yep, can't blame the republican congress - that tax cut gonna make us RICH. :(
PEGGY did the right thing though ... :( :( :(
That's too bad, though. I prefer taking pics in groups in tours like these where it looks like a bunch of tourists rather than by myself and take a chance with the cops. I tend to slide a lot on a lot of things and don't want to continue pushing my luck in the midst of the ticketing binge and the debate over whether or not photography is legal and where and how and to what extent or under what circumstances.
Peggy's last tour was great (my first) and I feel sorry for those who missed out on the chance to experience one. I only hope that someone, somewhere, can fill the void now left behind, so there are more such gatherings in the future.
I believe we figured out three things:
1) As indicated in your Eagle article, the term "Trolley Dodgers" was first used in the mid-1890s;
2) There was not a matrix of trolleys very close by Eastern Park, the only really nearby tracks were on the Long Island Rail Road.
3) The term "trolley dodgers" has become a generic term for Brooklynites, and from that origin was applied to the team.
Thanks for posting the reference. Can you describe in what context they use "Trolley Dodgers"?
I continue to find it hard to believe the name was only a general term for Brooklynites. The idea that the team would become the "trolley dodgers" at a park where when there were only freight and passenger trains to dodge is hard to believe.
It's an article about the loss of a game to Boston. The team is referred to as the "Grooms" in the article title. However later on it reads: "...but the lead secured by the Bostons through timely hitting, some costly misplays and a yellow decision by Umpire Sheridan, proved too much for the Trolley Dodgers." [As usual we was robbed]
The service does not have all the bugs out yet. It should permit us to settle a lot of arguments, when it is ready. It features not only a digital search but photo copies of the entire papers - including advertisements. It should be a real treasure when it's fully operational.
The other references were in 1895 but they split the words trolley and dodger. So, 1896 was the earliest to use the term "Trolley Dodgers" in any context.
Amazing. Exhibit A for why the web is great.
The beta version of this program has a few kinks, but what a treasure trove. Looking around a bit, I find that "trolley" first appears in 1889 as a new technology, and is ubiquitous by 1890.
The term "dodger" starts appearing in 1884, naturally enough mostly in reference to various scam artists, from Dickens' Artful Dodger. Maybe this meaning has some import for the team, an early version of "bums."
For sports, the earliest references to "dodger" were actually in regards to crafty running half backs of the game of "foot ball." Here is the first one (3rd paragraph), though there are several others:
http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMailGifMSIE&Type=text/html&Path=BEG/1894/10/02&ID=Ar00501&ChunkNum=0
Later, thre was even a boxer named "Dodger Donohue." Here is the, uh, final clip, of several:
http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMailGifMSIE&Type=text/html&Path=BEG/1896/07/14&ID=Ar00116&ChunkNum=0
(Thus the nickname was freed up the use of the team a month later?)
In most instances, early references to "dodger" meant "handbill." Here is story referring to a "dodger" about trolleys in Flushing (first paragraph):
http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/Repository/getFiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMailGifMSIE&Type=text/html&Path=BEG/1894/03/23&ID=Ar00614&ChunkNum=0
And so it goes. I look forward to what others find. No doubt this new resource will get mined heavily.
Throughout the 1913 season, the Eagle ran a feature in their Sunday edition on how to play the various field position, written (in theory) by the guy who played that spot. The article on how to play centerfield was written by one Charley Stengel (they hadn't gotten around to calling him Casey at that point). The season before, they ran an article about Casey, in which they quoted him on what he had done before he got to the majors. Some of it sounded very familiar, and then it dawned on me--it was some of the lines Casey had used when he was mananging the Mets half a century later. He already had the shtick down pat.
Even better, there were a few ads for vaudeville shows at that point that featured appearances by Victor Moore of 74th Street-Broaway fame.
It now appears to have been during the Eastern Park days afterall, and the nickname referred to the City's residents, not their fans going to games.
----
I have a book called "baseball Uniforms Of The 20th Century" that shows all the Major League uniforms through the years. Here's what it shows:
1937: "Brooklyn" in block letters on both the home and road uniforms.
1938: "Dodgers" in the familiar script, on both the home and road uniforms.
1939-1945: "Dodgers" on home uniform, "Brooklyn" in script on the road uniforms. The 1944 Dodgers also had an alternate uniform, used both at home and on the road strictly for night games: It was made out of shiny, powder-blue satin instead of wool flannel, and had "Brooklyn" across the front.
1946-1957: "Dodgers" on both the home and road uniforms; "Brooklyn" would never appear again on a Dodger uniform.
The 1958 and 1970-1999 Los Angeles Dodgers also used "Dodgers" on both the home and road uniforms; the 1959-69 uniforms and the 2000-2001 uniforms had/have "Los Angeles" in script letters.
The team playing in Los Angeles has no more right to the name Dodgers than it does to the name Lakers. The team is properly referred to as the Los Angels O'Malley's named for the subhuman not content enough to making a mint in Brookyn decided he wanted to make a mint and a half in Tinseltown. At least Art Modell had the decency to leave the name Browns in Cleveland. O'Malley, the creature from hell, should have been forced to do the same.
Ooohh, nice phrasing! Too bad that plan to build a new stadium near the LIRR Flatbush Terminal never came to pass. I imagine the area would look a little different with a major league baseball stadium in the neighborhood. I could just see the Atlantic Avenue trains filled with Long Islanders going to games. Better access than Shea Stadium has, at least by rail. The Atlantic/Pacific cluster f**k would probably have been redone decades ago. And it sure would have made following a Subway Series easier. One seat ride from stadium to stadium.
Ah well.
I came upon this article in the Brooklyn Eagle from 12 Aug 1894, while referencing Eastern Park. It looks like trolleys may have been received a bum rap.
To summarize, it appears that the term did in fact start at a park without trolleys, oddly enough. However, use was sporadic, rotating with a bunch of other nicknames. "Dodgers" actually stuck later, while at Ebbets. If they hadn't gone to a park where real dodging was part of the deal, the nickname that finally attached would have been something else, like the Grooms, Superbas, Robins, or Blue Sox, etc.
Medford's one of the ever-diminishing number of stations where parking's both free and unrestricted. It's super convenient for me, being just a couple of miles from my house, of course it would be even more convenient if the LIRR actually decided to provide a reasonable level of service.
As a general rule, that's certainly true, however it's very unlikely that a paved lot is going to encourage any more people to use Medford. More frequent service is what's needed. As long as the last train connecting to Medford leaves Penn at 5:41, using Medford simply isn't an option for many people. I can use it only because (1) it's almost never necessary for me to stay at work after 5:00, and (2) I'm only a few stops away on the 1/9.
In any event, the old lot was perfectly adequate.
I've been mighty lucky in six years of using the station. Especially since my wife works 3 to 11:30 most evenings and therefore can't pick me up at Ronkonkoma. If I ended up missing the last train, I'd probably hang around the city until about 9 and then get a Pt. Jefferson train to Stony Brook, where my wife works and can pick me up after her shift. Or I'd have to taxi it from Ronkonkoma, which I think is about $20.
I should add that every so often, maybe three or four days a year, I'll know in advance that I might have to work a little late. In those cases, I'll take the train from Ronkokoma, Patchogue or Stony Brook, just to be safe.
There are other ways you pay for "free." There is a huge free parking lot (owned by Suffolk County, IIRC) at new Deer Park station. The police don't have the resources to provide the kind of security such a huge lot requires, and the railroad refuses to police it--it isn't their lot. Plus the "free" makes it so popular that parkers overflow into the local (mostly industrial streets).
Aside from the vandalism/theft problem, I knew one woman who worked a late shift who refused to use Deer Park despite its being only about a half-mile from her front door. She drove all the way to Babylon (about 20 minutes) and paid for a town parking permit rather than use her "free" home station.
Ronkonkoma's south lot is free, and usually doesn't fill until about 8:00. People arriving after that time can park (also for free) in an undeveloped lot on the north side of the station, to the west, although it can be a very long walk to the platforms. That lot never fills.
There are other ways you pay for "free." There is a huge free parking lot (owned by Suffolk County, IIRC) at new Deer Park station. The police don't have the resources to provide the kind of security such a huge lot requires, and the railroad refuses to police it--it isn't their lot. Plus the "free" makes it so popular that parkers overflow into the local (mostly industrial streets).
Aside from the vandalism/theft problem, I knew one woman who worked a late shift who refused to use Deer Park despite its being only about a half-mile from her front door. She drove all the way to Babylon (about 20 minutes) and paid for a town parking permit rather than use her "free" home station.
The main lot at Brentwood, not far from new Deer Park, is free and unrestricted and never fills. It's harder to get to than Deer Park, and of course Brentwood has a bad reputation - though as your friend has figured out, parking at Deer Park's not always the smartest idea.
Here's another one for you: The LIRR reconstructed the Broadway station house, which was in OK condition to begin with. It's only open a few hours 5 days a week. Meanwhile, the rain sheds reek of urine and the Broadway platforms crumble to the tracks. Oh, the LIRR DID come up with a solution to that one: It closed down a staircase and an especially bad section of platform.
So, they did unnecessary repairs on a stationhouse and refuse to fix crumbling platforms.
The LIRR is nuts.
I'd take a picture of the platform and send it to a local politician, but the cops would probably arrest me.
www.forgotten-ny.com
Actually, I'm still trying to determine why Merrick needed a whole new, larger ticket office and waiting room built to the west of the late 1970's-era office. The one in Baldwin, for example, was a 1950's model and was also replaced but in the same location and is about the same size as the previous office. I'd have figured a 1970's model to have been in need of perhaps a paint job and new tile rather than total replacement.
As for Medford, perhaps the LIRR has plans for additional service, maybe when dual-mode locomotives finally have all the bugs fixed and direct service from Riverhead or Greenport is implemented. Either that or an influential legislator lives near Medford.
Your second guess is probably a lot more likely. I've heard nothing at all about expanded service east of Ronkonkoma, even though it would be an excellent idea. Waiting until the dual-modes are running properly is likely to be a very long wait :(
If they build it, they will come.....
I personally think they wasted money elevating Merrick!!
Awww, c'mon man! That section of railroad from Valley Stream to Massapequa Park is one of the best commuter lines in the world. It would have been nuts to let Merrick remain street level. Remember when Massapequa Park was all wood? That was an interesting diversion and I appreciated the red wood. (Hmmm. Was it real "redwood"?) But I was more pleased with the large elevated station that replaced it. I even remember when they built the stretch between Amityville and Lindenhurst. Had local contests to decide what color bricks would be used at each station. I "toured" Amityville and Lindenhurst before they were officially opened. Felt like a real explorer. Just a knucklehead kid nosin' around the place. It was real cool!! :-}
That line would be among the most dangerous anywhere if it still had grade crossings. It would also complicate traffic movements on Sunrise Highway. The grade crossings had to go. You'd agree if you had a mother who shouted "Don't stop me on those railroad tracks!" anytime we slowed near a grade crossing.
It varies. Medford's parking area is owned by the LIRR, except possible for the eastern end which has the Triangle Building Products freight ramp.
GP38 Chris already pointed out that Medford's very sparse service is the reason for low ridership. Installing the TVM surely did nothing for ridership because almost everyone using the station has a monthly or weekly. The TVM is one of the single-fare-only types, and in the month or so since it's been installed I've seen it being used once.
As far as the parking is concerned, while Medford's lot was somewhat rough, though nothing too bad, it also allows one to park within 50 feet of the platform stairs. Try finding that at a busier station.
Amazingly, this is only the second DE30 I have ever photographed. I have hundreds of photos of the old LIRR equipment, but never really got back into the new equipment. I figure I'd better start to like them.
Well, here's Holtsville with a GP38-2. It's about 10 years old, but I don't have a current view of the area. There wasn't much there to begin with. All it was was a shed, a cinder platfom, and a gravel parking lot. All they did was just remove the shed. (Sorry the photos are a bit dark, but it was a really dreary day that day).
Actually, Holtsville had a bit more than the old Medford. Medford didn't even have a shed! Compare that with the newer shots of Medford.
I liked Holtsville station and used it whenever possible. A really rustic looking location. I would take a train to Holtsville and walk down Waverly Avenue into Patchogue, see a movie there and walk down to the Patchogue station and head back west.
What I'd like to see would be pictures of the Holbrook Station, which was gone before I became aware of its existence. You'd think there might be good reasons to reopen both Holbrook and Holtsville so as to encourage alternate traffic patterns amidst that growing area. But Medford is funny; in appearance and design the area around the station has elements resembling closer-in areas of Nassau County. The grid pattern of the streets. The fact of the proper sidewalk along Medford Avenue. The busy traffic and many business along the avenue. Yet there's still that old rural Suffolk mentality in full effect. I can't define it exactly, it's sort of like how it "feels" in the Shirley Mastic area. It's like, you can sense the possibility of having some trouble or confrontations with the local folk. Nobody seems to want to go out of there way to be accomodating. In my jaded opinion, anyway. I still do the circle tour thing when I can, with Medford and Patchogue. But I don't act like an asshole as I wander the streets either. Dudes'll drive up on you and whatnot....
Land use in Medford mostly reflects post-World War II development patterns as there was very little development in the area before the war. You'll note that there's no real downtown and few older houses. Medford's in sharp contrast with nearby Patchogue, which has a much more defined downtown and many older houses - of course, considering the sorry state of much of downtown Patchogue, Medford may be luckier.
As far as the "old rural Suffolk mentality" is concerned, I have no idea what you mean.
Uh, well maybe it's related to the fact that during the time of the American Revolution Suffolk County was strongly in favor of revolution while Nassau had plenty of Tory sympathizers. Also, the classic rural mindset is an understandable suspicion of outsiders and city slickers. I know Medford isn't rural anymore. But you know feelings like that linger for generations.
BTW, Patchogue really isn't in that bad a shape. Sunrise Hwy just took away too much of the shopping. I wish it, and Bay Shore well. It is possible to have a viable Main Street area on Long Island. Look at Sayville and Islip. Both towns have nice places to go to, and both have movie houses.
The Main Street area east of 112 is in really bad shape, full of vacant and rundown storefronts. West of 112, which is the main part of downtown, is in better shape, though there still are many vacancies.
Sayville and Islip have nice downtown areas, but they're both considerably more affluent than Patchogue so it's no surprise.
...which is due in part to the stubborness of so many Long Islanders who seem to genetically obhor anything that looks city-like. Take Medford Avenue from Main Street to Sunrise Hwy. A nice broad boulevard. Two lanes in each direction, flanked by wide city scale sidewalks on both sides, and parking lanes too. Decent level of protected pedestrian crosswalk signals. A bus line traversing it, going right to train stations on three LIRR branches. Yet, the developmental level along it is static. ISTM there is where we should be seeing any new multistory office buildings being built.
I lived in Patchogue for about 2 years in the mid-seventies. It was starting to fade then but still had two movie theatres, shoe stores, book stores, even a Grants. There was a real old Brooklyn style magazine store right up the block from me. So was the Swezeys Dept. Store around the corner. And that small bowling alley/grill across the street from the former Shands farm store. It was still a farm store when I lived there; sold seeds, hoes, tools and such. But the people do love their parking lots, eh?!!
East of 112 is dusty looking but it does have a pulse. The abandoned movie theatre is a weird little statement in itself, I grant you. (Seen a few movies there). But you'll see it get better down the road. For Patchogue the main thing is to make sure the housing close to downtown doesn't get in such bad shape. I'm not sure how this could be done exactly; seems worth thinking about though.
To bring this back on topic, West Main St is undergoing a major resurfacing project. They have grinded up years of pavement, and the trolley tracks are now fully exposed along the Main street, and North Ocean Ave. Wven the "interlocking" of the two routes is exposed. Pretty cool. Something not seen since Patchogue's heyday in the 50's.
The opening of the new Swezey's Department Store a couple of years ago was the classic mixed blessing, as far as downtown Patchogue is concerned. It's a nice new structure and replaced an unsightly abandoned factory. Unfortunately, it resulted in the vacancy of a number of storefronts around the W.Main/No.Ocean intersection, and moreover could be said to be too far west to be a real part of downtown.
I agree, though, W.Main is in reasonably decent shape, with few buildings being run-down or unsightly. If some of the vacancies could be filled, that part of downtown would be even better. E.Main looks like a hopeless case, unfortunately.
NASSAU had nothing!
Hempstead was full of royalists, while northern Hempstead was full of patriots. After the revolution, the state split the town of Hempstead in two.
They weren't creative enough to give North Hempstead a new name.
At least they were creative enough 110 years later to give Nassau County its own name instead of East Queens or something.
In the case of the LIRR, we have a 10 and a 12 car platform at Lynbrook, and of course they chose the wrong one to make the longer, and Rosedale platform extending to 10 cars even though Valley Stream has higher ridership and Valley Stream got rebuilt with 8 cars. That is management's stupid priorities, nothing more, nothing less.
I'm fairly certain that a bunch of stripped redbird hulks, consisting mostly of empty air weigh that much. Thus it couldn't be argued that the increased weight increased the draught and thus accounts for the changing freeboard.
It looks like right above the stern on the deck is a deckhouse. This could actually be the bridge of a tugboat fitted inside the slot in the back of the tugboat. This arrangement is known as an Articulated Tug & Barge or AT/B (do note that the link is to some guy's model boat site, he's making a model of one, but theres good background info, and the site does play a sound when loaded).
Photo by Daniel Choy Boyar, reproduced without authority, located at NYRail.org.
Chip
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
Well, not for me, at least before they weren't. I'm guessing it was a server problem.
Can you be more specific?
They weren't working, i.e. they weren't showing. Can't get any more specific than that! ;-) Anyway, the pictures are working now and they're fine. I admire the El's aesthetic features.
Color Commentary by David J. Greenberger
I didn't see any comments made by the aforementioned. David, an explanation?
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
You've got me beat... I never get the cool starburst lens flare.
Nah, it isn't that hard. You just take the photo when you think it looks good, then look at the photo on the LCD screen and see that it has that cool effect! As I was taking it I actually thought there would be a streak ogflight across the whole photo. It must have taken the photo a split second later. I totally did not plan on creating that effect!!! Anyhow, remember, you're Mr. Underground and I'm Mr. Aboveground :)
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
---Chapter 11 Choo Choo
http://www.railfanwindow.com/gallery/album80?page=1
Hey Fred, look in the mirror. Your trips were not on public transportation. How many times a week do you take public transportation to go anywhere? You could have caught an East/West bus to Rosemead, where you could have transferred to a 266 south to Florence and caught a 460 right to Disneyland's front entrance, relaxing all the way crowded in with others on the hard narrow seats for the 2 ½ hour journey, but you chose the frustration of driving with just your immediate family in the comfort of your automobile and despite the delays probably arrived in less than 2 ½ hours. As one who has used both public and private transportation in Southern California, it is no mystery to me why so many choose the crowded freeways.
Tom
Rah Rah Rah, at least you have public transportation
Off to NYC this Sunday most likely
Be good to see you in person, hang 10 on what we call the WORLD'S GREATEST SUBWAY LINE.
That's easy to say when you're not a Transit Employee.
-Stef
But if you visit www.ebay.com and search for Subway Sign
(two words no quotations) I think you'll find some
PRETTY--------Interesting items there...
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-nysub023312109jun02,0,492127.column?coll=ny%2Dnews%2Dcolumnists
Linked: http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-nysub023312109jun02,0,492127.column?coll=ny%2Dnews%2Dcolumnists
THANK YOU for posting it. Wasn't at ALL hard to copy and paste the link you provided and USE it. No MBA required. THANK YOU!
(and for those whose noses are out of joint, maybe just maybe it's time to move out of "Terror City" ... takes STONES to live in NYC)
But until then, I'll GLADLY forgive folks who post interesting stuff who don't know how to make a link work here. So I'll do MY bit here, for the common good ... a HISTORY of the INTERNET as the first module in HTML 101 ...
HISTORY OF ... DA NET!
1969- ARPANET (precursor to internet) invented. (If anyone makes any
overused Al Gore jokes they will be beaten unconscious with a 300 baud
modem)
1972- Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniack get stoned out of their minds and build
a computer that costs a fortune and runs no software. "Everyone will want
one of these!", says Jobs.
1976- Dr. Robert M. Metcalfe develops Ethernet, later to be replaced by
SodiumPentatholNet.
1977- E-mail invented. most common message: "Let me know when you're there
so I can call you"
1978- Dan Bricklin invents the spreadsheet. It will be 5 more years before
anyone knows what they're for, and another decade before anyone knows how to
use them.
1979- Bill Gates embarks on heroic and lifelong quest to piss off every
person in America.
1983- Researchers develop TCP/IP, DNS, IAB, and other important internet
acronyms.
1985- Apple's low-cost computers for schools offers an affordable way to
give kids training in software they will never use.
1990- Scientists develop sexy buzzword "Internet" to replace awkward term
"ARPANET"
1991- First ISP created. Business is slow due to the fact that the Internet
has no purpose, nobody knows about it, and more people own Betamax machines
than computers.
1992- World-Wide Web released by CERN. Group suggests someone invent a web
browser so people can use it.
1992- Mosaic - the first major web browser - is released. Users complain
that it should support animated gifs, or at least a tag. Yeah, that
would look AWESOME!
1992- DOOM is released, slowing the network to a near stop, and worker
productivity to a total stop.
1993- Parents rejoice as the release of the game frees them from all
responsibility for how their kids behave.
1994- First piece of spam appears in USENET newsgroups and is quickly
removed. "Well, that should be the last of that", say users.
1995- AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, and other on-line services take off, making
heaps of cash. Microsoft execs begin thinking: "Maybe we should look into
this internet thing".
1995- Support for animated .GIF files and MIDI music on webpages becomes
widespread. "Make it stop! MAKE IT STOP!", scream users.
1995- Release of Windows 95 and Internet Explorer bring sharp rise in memory
sales, profanity use.
1995- Real Audio released, allowing users to listen to halting bursts of
static in real time.
1996- Instant messaging created as a way for people all over the world to
interrupt each other.
1996- US Robotics releases the 56k modem, allowing users to download even
more data before their next random disconnect.
1996- AOL begins its efforts to make sure that no human being on planet
earth is without an AOL sign-up disk.
1996- Parenting groups become concerned that spending extended time online
is depriving children of important time spent watching television.
1997- Internet introduced to businesses. Worker productivity up 35%
1997- Internet Porn introduced to businesses. Worker productivity down 97%
1997- Scam e-mails replace oil as the chief export of Nigeria.
1998- 3lit3 hax0rz, d00d: Teens become most prolific illiterate writers in
history.
1999- Internet gold rush. Silicon valley geeks crushed to death under heaps
of investment money
1999- Napster introduced. Rampant piracy drives Metallica to life of abject
poverty as wandering minstrels. Other artists soon to follow.
1999- Everquest Released. People give up repetitive, boring, normal lives in
exchange for repetitive, boring, virtual lives.
1999- FARK introduced as a service to help teenage boys locate pictures of
breasts on the internet.
2000- Year 2k apocalypse averted. Populace comes out of bunkers, goes back
to playing Everquest as if nothing ever happened.
2000- The internet is finally given purpose when Scientists Mathew Chapman
and Michael Chapman complete their research and bring Homestarrunner
technology to the internet.
2000- EPA warns that entire surface of the earth will be completely
blanketed with AOL CDs by the end of 2007
2001- Blogging invented. Promises to change the way people bore strangers
with banal anecdotes about their pets.
2001- Napster collapses. Music industry suddenly profitable again, and able
to meet insatiable public demand for more boy bands.
2001- Internet bubble bursts. Investors take back money and hide it under a
mattress. Geeks go back to Burger King.
2001- Cats becomes sole proprietor of all your base. Every Zig moved.
2002- Instapundit replaces search engines as primary way for users to find
content on the net.
2002- With the fall of Napster, numerous other P2P networks rise to allow
users to share movies as well as music. "I guess we should have seen that
coming", says entertainment industry.
2003- After 43.2 million spams, and over 2.3 billion pop-up ads worldwide,
someone buys an X-10 mini cam.
2004- Still operating after more than three years of service, Zombo.com is
the only successful dot-com to date.
2005- Progress: Since its inception almost 30 years ago, the internet has
been transformed from a primitive device for sharing thoughts and ideas,
into a massive network where people pay to connect and read advertisements
they don't want, while calling each other "asshats".
300 baud was "HIGH speed" at the time of traditional 55 and 110 baud "loop" communications. So here we are today with broadband, and all I seem to see is jugs and kazoos. :(
REMEMBER the ad campaign...I Adore my 64?
Peace,
ANDEE
And here we are decades later with all sorts of technical whizbang with Billy reducing it all right back to the days of the ALTAIR, which was doomed because it was Bill Gates' first hoseup. :)
But the (BLINK) tag (exclusive to Netscape) has got to be the most ANNOYING function there is - wrongly used, it can make a whole PAGE FLASH on and off, making it impossible to read. Aiyee had its equivalent to the BLINK tag though, that Netscape never did ... called
TRY to read this ... now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party ... lambs eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy
(if you were viewing the above in Macrosuck Aiyee, you'd go dizzy)
Netscape is FUSSY ... if you don't OPEN a tag and properly CLOSE EACH tag, then pieces of a page, or the whole page would FAIL to display. But like any Catholic can explain, "special dispensation" applied to that freaking BLINK tag ... it'd do it no matter WHAT. :(
As for the BLINK tag, the text blinked where you had inserted it, stopped where you closed it, and then BLINKed again at the very bpttom of the screen. Usually when someone forgets to close a tag, everything from the tag downwards assumes the tag characteristic.
I was a CHARTER member of Mozilla.org myself - my contributions while Netscape Communications Corp still existed lives on in Mozilla to this DATE (Netscape 6 and 7) ... I wrote the "cookie manager" part of the code (the geniuses have screwed it up since) as well as the "clear history" and "clear caches" buttons (all based on our NSClean product with limitations that DON'T exist in NSClean such as SECURE wipes of the data - in Mozilla, it's SIMPLE deletes which CAN be recovered by your employer, spouse, etc with Norton) ... but the weenies writing Mozilla NOW have had some INTERESTING problems ... I won't TOUCH the newer Netscapes, though our NSClean thingy will take care of YOURS. :)
But yeah, that which you saw SHOULDN'T have displayed that way - yet ANOTHER bug in the Mozilla code. :(
----
You forgot to put down all the other times they did that after 1972.
-Robert King
There's really not much for an FAQ. Maybe there could be just a small box above or below the "Message:" box.
There are relatively few useful tags to SubTalk, being A, IMG, B, I, and FONT (half of which are depreciated in HTML 4 anyway). Do you reaally want every SubTalker knowing about BLINK, MARQUEE and the other annoying tags?
Anyway, for those who need the help:
The SubTalk HTML FAQ
A< A HREF="website address"> What you want the link to say< /A>
IMG< IMG SRC="image URL" WIDTH=x HEIGHT=y> < /IMG> (closing tag optional) Width and Height do not have to be the same as the image's actual dimensions
B< B> Text to appear in bold< /B>
I< I> Text to appear in intalics< /I>
U< B> Text to appear unterlined< /U>
FONT< FONT COLOR="#RRGGBB"> Text to appear in a different color. RR GG and BB are the color values in Hexadecimal (0-F, F being highest)< /U>
Anyone else think of any other tags useful to SubTalk please add to this, but don't add them because they exist in HTML. I do have a simple program I wrote for myself that generates HTML 4 compliant code for posting (I did this because its a bit more than typing "< B> < /B> ", if you want it email me.
But they really, really should be.
If they're bigger, the image will be resized using the quick-and-dirty algorithm in the viewer's browser rather than the superior one in your image processing software.
If they're smaller, you're forcing the viewer to sit through a long download of a large file only to have the browser display a shrunken version of it. If you want to shrink the file, do it beforehand.
But they really, really should be.
Otherwise Broadway-Lafayette could end up looking like this:
Its useful for scaling down an image to fit the browser window if it doesn't mean too much greater of a loading time. ok?
I know, but it's also fun...
Hey, I've got proff IRT cars are wider than BMT cars:
What's wrong with that?
If expecting people to know HOW to do HTML to make it all neat and pretty, then perhaps a "SUBTALK FAQ" on how to do it ... I'm sure if someone WROTE it, Dave would post it somewhere as "tips and tricks to make your internet experience glorious." :)
But until then, I'll GLADLY forgive folks who post interesting stuff who don't know how to make a link work here. So I'll do MY bit here, for the common good ... a HISTORY of the INTERNET as the first module in HTML 101 ...
HISTORY OF ... DA NET!
1969- ARPANET (precursor to internet) invented. (If anyone makes any
overused Al Gore jokes they will be beaten unconscious with a 300 baud
modem)
1972- Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniack get stoned out of their minds and build
a computer that costs a fortune and runs no software. "Everyone will want
one of these!", says Jobs.
1976- Dr. Robert M. Metcalfe develops Ethernet, later to be replaced by
SodiumPentatholNet.
1977- E-mail invented. most common message: "Let me know when you're there
so I can call you"
1978- Dan Bricklin invents the spreadsheet. It will be 5 more years before
anyone knows what they're for, and another decade before anyone knows how to
use them.
1979- Bill Gates embarks on heroic and lifelong quest to piss off every
person in America.
1983- Researchers develop TCP/IP, DNS, IAB, and other important internet
acronyms.
1985- Apple's low-cost computers for schools offers an affordable way to
give kids training in software they will never use.
1990- Scientists develop sexy buzzword "Internet" to replace awkward term
"ARPANET"
1991- First ISP created. Business is slow due to the fact that the Internet
has no purpose, nobody knows about it, and more people own Betamax machines
than computers.
1992- World-Wide Web released by CERN. Group suggests someone invent a web
browser so people can use it.
1992- Mosaic - the first major web browser - is released. Users complain
that it should support animated gifs, or at least a (BLINK) tag. Yeah, that
would look AWESOME!
1992- DOOM is released, slowing the network to a near stop, and worker
productivity to a total stop.
1993- Parents rejoice as the release of the game frees them from all
responsibility for how their kids behave.
1994- First piece of spam appears in USENET newsgroups and is quickly
removed. "Well, that should be the last of that", say users.
1995- AOL, Compuserve, Prodigy, and other on-line services take off, making
heaps of cash. Microsoft execs begin thinking: "Maybe we should look into
this internet thing".
1995- Support for animated .GIF files and MIDI music on webpages becomes
widespread. "Make it stop! MAKE IT STOP!", scream users.
1995- Release of Windows 95 and Internet Explorer bring sharp rise in memory
sales, profanity use.
1995- Real Audio released, allowing users to listen to halting bursts of
static in real time.
1996- Instant messaging created as a way for people all over the world to
interrupt each other.
1996- US Robotics releases the 56k modem, allowing users to download even
more data before their next random disconnect.
1996- AOL begins its efforts to make sure that no human being on planet
earth is without an AOL sign-up disk.
1996- Parenting groups become concerned that spending extended time online
is depriving children of important time spent watching television.
1997- Internet introduced to businesses. Worker productivity up 35%
1997- Internet Porn introduced to businesses. Worker productivity down 97%
1997- Scam e-mails replace oil as the chief export of Nigeria.
1998- 3lit3 hax0rz, d00d: Teens become most prolific illiterate writers in
history.
1999- Internet gold rush. Silicon valley geeks crushed to death under heaps
of investment money
1999- Napster introduced. Rampant piracy drives Metallica to life of abject
poverty as wandering minstrels. Other artists soon to follow.
1999- Everquest Released. People give up repetitive, boring, normal lives in
exchange for repetitive, boring, virtual lives.
1999- FARK introduced as a service to help teenage boys locate pictures of
breasts on the internet.
2000- Year 2k apocalypse averted. Populace comes out of bunkers, goes back
to playing Everquest as if nothing ever happened.
2000- The internet is finally given purpose when Scientists Mathew Chapman
and Michael Chapman complete their research and bring Homestarrunner
technology to the internet.
2000- EPA warns that entire surface of the earth will be completely
blanketed with AOL CDs by the end of 2007
2001- Blogging invented. Promises to change the way people bore strangers
with banal anecdotes about their pets.
2001- Napster collapses. Music industry suddenly profitable again, and able
to meet insatiable public demand for more boy bands.
2001- Internet bubble bursts. Investors take back money and hide it under a
mattress. Geeks go back to Burger King.
2001- Cats becomes sole proprietor of all your base. Every Zig moved.
2002- Instapundit replaces search engines as primary way for users to find
content on the net.
2002- With the fall of Napster, numerous other P2P networks rise to allow
users to share movies as well as music. "I guess we should have seen that
coming", says entertainment industry.
2003- After 43.2 million spams, and over 2.3 billion pop-up ads worldwide,
someone buys an X-10 mini cam.
2004- Still operating after more than three years of service, Zombo.com is
the only successful dot-com to date.
2005- Progress: Since its inception almost 30 years ago, the internet has
been transformed from a primitive device for sharing thoughts and ideas,
into a massive network where people pay to connect and read advertisements
they don't want, while calling each other "asshats".
>>>1969- ARPANET (precursor to internet) invented. (If anyone makes any
overused Al Gore jokes they will be beaten unconscious with a 300 baud
modem)<<<
Peace,
ANDEE
If you have the time and knowledge to post a link, that's very kind. But there's no need to apologize for not doing it. It does take longer to post it as a link, and you've done enough for Subtalk by just listing it as text.
-Robert King
HINT TO ASHCROFT!
The TERRORISTS ALREADY HAVE THE TRACKMAPS! They will NOT be fooled by them vanishing, they ALREADY HAVE THEM! If Unca Peter isn't interested, hand me $4 million, and I'll generate FAKE trackmaps with every single signal number and every vertical column of steel falsely marked! I'll even upload them to Al Jazeera! Hell ... "tax cut discount!" I'll do it for only TWO million! Limited time offer, void where prohibited by logic. :(
Robert
Yes, it's very beautful.
I like the Red Birds being pulled up by an angle, up to heaven. Will this is what it look like they were doing.
Not really. The R17 signed as a '6-Lex' was more like a hot-air balloon.
Probably the axiflow fans were keeping the R-17 afloat !!
Bill "Newkirk"
Incognito
Bill "Newkirk"
Jimmy
So when are you coming by to pay the old gal a visit?
-Stef
When the weather gets warmer and the weekends get drier !
Bill "Newkirk"
-Stef
Jimmy
-Stef
Subway tracks next?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An alternative might be 24 hour service from 7th St/Metro Center to Willow Station with a timed transfer to either the MTA 60 (does it run 24 hours to downtown Long Beach?) or to new owl service on the Long Beach Transit 5 line.
One more weekend to go, just think another weekend forecast calls for rain? We'll see later this week what happens.
"Then subway fares rose last month by 50 cents a ride, and Mr. Messina had to come up with an extra $5 a week for his daily commute."
How is it that Mr. Messina spends an extra $5 a week?
If he used tokens, he spent $15. If he used a pay per ride Metrocard, he spent $13.36.
Now he is forced to use a Metrocard, and surely he can't be so ignorant as to buy in increments of less than $10. So now he spends $16.67 a week.
If he used a weekly then and now (even though not economical if all he does is go to work 5 days a week), his fare went up from $17 to $21. The reporter could have done him a kindness and pointed out the advantages of pay per ride for 10 rides per week.
None of this means that the Messinas have an easy time of life. It is unfair for the Times to emphasize the subway as a big cause, though.
Of course the Times isn't doing real well right now as "The Newspaper of Record."
Hardly the people we should feel sorry for. They are the type that put no money into their surroundings becasue they can't wait to get the hell out.
They have been paying taxes in New York.
Hair dressers often don't pay taxes. Plus they are pulling money out of the economy. On the money they amount of money they were quoted to be making in the NYTIMES article ($32,000) if they are legal residents they are not paying any income tax and are likely getting earned income tax credits if they had any children of up to $5000
My point peter is that their is one class of immigrants who take money out of the economy. It was reported that illegal mexican workers sent $12 million in wages back to mexico from work performed in nyc.
These guys are stealing jobs away from new yorkers, driving up rents on lower end units that the lower working class needs becasue landlords often charge per person. They also drive down the quality of the housing stock becasue slumlords know they are not going to complain becasue they are illegal.
Add to the fact that becasue they are sending a good portion of thier money back to thie country, they are not spending the money in the neigborhood creating addtional economic activity and not spending money improving the apartments they live and the world around them
Removing $12 million from the economy results in $36 million in lost economic activity.
How? The $12 million if spent results in salary for workers at the place spent resulting in the money being spent again in the economy
If placed in the bank, the bank lends out 4/5 of the money to homeowners and businesses in the areas creating addtioanl economic activity(thier is an exct formula for which I don't remeber of the top of my head)
To sum up, parasite immigrants are removing more money from the economy then they are contributing. If they have children add in the education expese and the balance is further off course.
If they are sending money home, they are not spending it hear and they are taking low skilled jobs away from the working class and driving down salaries as well. Take a look at many small construction jobs and you will be hard pressed to find a native workers.
It's not yet certain that they will. First the Court of Appeals needs to hear the case. If they agree with Judge York that the MTA did not follow the law, and if they agree that rolling back the fares is the proper remedy, then it could happen.
For instance, there was a sidebar in Newsday that analyzed how many trips you need to take for a daily/weekly/monthly card to save you money, but its point of comparison was the $2.00 single fare. In fact, if you have $21 to spend for a weekly card, the relevant comparison is a 20% discounted PPR MetroCard.
Cutting the "fare" to $1.45 while eliminating all the discounts should have been one of the options. Adjusting the fare upward by the rate of inflation, beginning with the $1.25 when Pataki took office should have been another. The MTA is the victim of a misleading PR campaign.
S/B 1 train to TS (get the express if it's at 72nd st)
Transfer to any S/B Broadway BMT train to 14th st/U.S.
Transfer again to any IRT express train to BB-CH
He wouldn't, and I had to pay another fare. One of the trip organizers said that the station agent was told in advance to let people bearing fantrip tickets in without paying. But there was no time to make an issue over $1.50. (Besides, Randy Kennedy was interviewing people and I wanted to see my name in the Times.)
Now I have a Premium Transitcheck, so exiting the system is never an issue. As for you, if you have a pay-per-ride card it's best to take the M86 over to Lexington and then the 4 or 5 downtown.
http://www.coraopolisstar.com/estory.asp?ID=9944
An of course State Rep Kotik would rather that area get an LRT line, or an Expressway. Way to go! Perfect way to think about the future demands of the area which you serve, I'm sure your consituants will just love the new highway running right through town!
Strictly speaking, that's not legal either. However, people selling batteries are most likely not potential terrorists; they're merely a nuisance. Therefore not a lot of effort is devoted to stopping them.
Mind you, I'm not sure that the rule against photography would pose that much of an obstacle to the determined terrorist anyway. Nevertheless, that's the rationale. You aren't allowed to take photos at international borders either, for similar reasons.
People taking photographs are most likely not potential terrorists, nor are they usually a nuisance.
People taking photographs are most likely not potential terrorists, nor are they usually a nuisance.
Alright, let me make it clearer. There's no plausible connection at all between selling batteries and being a terrorist. If anything, there's a negative correlation (a terrorist is unlikely to be wasting his time selling batteries to "infidels"). It is, however, plausible, however remotely, that a terrorist would want to take photographs of a potential target.
Jeez.
Jeez.
Not that I want to be on the "wrong side" here but don't want to see someone getting a ticket for this crap either because one part of the law is well known while the other tends to be overlooked.
Who knows, maybe the latest policy changes aren't for security but to contribute to the ticket blitz. If this is indeed their new policy I have failed to see anything posted anywhere. How does the average tourist know they have to get permission? When they get a ticket for it?
I've given up trying to comprehend the rise in terrorism fears. As we get closer to the 2-year anniversary of 9/11, there have been precisely zero additional terrorist attacks in the United States and precisely zero credible threats thereof. al-Qaeda is being systematically dismantled and more and more of its leaders are being captured or exterminated. In a rational world, we'd be breathing a big sigh of relief and putting the Depends back on the shelves. Yet people seem to be getting more and more frightened of additional attacks, and the government overreacts as usual. I'd like to know how long it's going to take for these overblown worries to end. Five years? Ten years? When the last person with living memory of 9/11 kicks the bucket?
Probably about that time we'll have a "safe" subway.
(P.S. The case is same as saying that the economy in Hong Kong won't get better until the Chief Executive, Tung Chee Hwa, is retired or dismissed. Could you see any logic in this?)
as soon as you do, we will get hit again
Part of the reason there has been no addtional attacks is that the govenment shut down many of the easy routes.
As much as it is an inconvience to not be able to take photo's, Terrorists could easily take photo's to use to plan an engagement
You need to open your eyes to see this
I am concerned about the vulnerability of mass transit, but I am not sure sure that a ban on photography poses much of an obstacle to the would-be attacker. A very slight obstacle, perhaps, but one that could be overcome quite easily.
the problem is that the infrastructure pre 9/11 was public knowledge
Pictures could illustrate where CCTB camera's are, where electical boxes, vents etc
An evil mind could use it to thier advantage.
Is it a major hardship not to take pictures at certain stations.
In the grand scheme of things it is not. I am sorry to say that no-one is going to die if us railfans don't get pictures in the subway.
Not ban it per se, but consider it "suspicious activity" and detain the person. Remember, folks; if you see anyone with a note pad on the subway, especially if the carrier of the pad looks like he recently shaved off a beard, call (800) NYC-SAFE and report it. We must be vigilant in these difficult times or something like that.
Oh Great!!! Now detain every kid who is cramming for a test on his way to school and make him miss the test.. Or doing homework on the train like I used to do ;-)
Jotting down arrival and departure times has been specifically cited as potential terrorist activity. Best not be caught with a timetable...
If this is New York today, sorry ... I'm too well to attend. :(
Not only suspicious activity but also you'd know when your train was late something the TA doesn't want you to know. So throw it under "terrorist activity" to try preserve their creative record keeping.
There is a 1976 color code somewhere on this website.
It's a great excuse! :) I can see it already: "You were arrested for doing your homework on the train? It served you right; it's called homework because you're supposed to do it at home."
Ah crap I knew I shouldn't have shaved this morning.
But where do you draw the line? How long is it going to be before nobody is allowed to be a tourist in this country? Yes, security is important but so is freedom, and the line has to be drawn somewhere before all freedoms, hobbies and pastimes become illegal like in some communist dictatorship?
Under that train of logic, noone will "die" if they can't go to the beach, and if someone calls in tomorrow and says they have in their posession a nuclear sub and threaten to detonate it causing a devastating tidal wave, then will they no longer allow anyone to go to the beach? Security's purpose is to PROTECT freedom, not ELIMINATE it.
Try reading the Constitution of the United States. It has some specific lines the government can't step over. Banning photography on the property of public agencies isn't one of them.
(Closing the barn door after all the horses have escaped) - for those who didn't know what I meant.
"We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true. But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages,
colors, creeds. We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning
to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress
like the tube. You eat like the tube. You raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is
mass madness -- you maniacs! In God's name you people are the real thing, WE are the illusion.
"So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them
off. Turn them off right in the middle of the sentence I am speaking to you now. Turn them off!!"
-- Howard Beale, as played by Peter Finch, during his live studio broadcast of the Network News Hour
So, are we mad as hell an not going to take this anymore? :)
Filmed in 1987 or 1988 in and around NYC its a lousy love story.
I turned it on and Scott Baio is on a subway kissing his girlfriend in a very passionate kiss.....The camera pulls back and......its an
R-17 because of the round storm door window.
The trains stops at Spring Street and most of the people get off....They are alone until they get off at 59th Street.
BEST OF ALL------ As the train left the station, it looked like they got off of---------------- # 6688.
In another scene they get off of # 6620.
There is another scene filmed at the GCT shuttle terminal. Another redbird car pulls out. Couldn't catch the number but it had its GOH since those numbers were up by the roof. 6688 & 6620 were pre-GOH because the numbers were at the bottom of the cab windows.
Anyone see this flick? Anyone got a DVD of it to check out if indeed
6688 was in it.
Depending on weather and volunteer availability this is what is needed to be done.
1. - Complete the second side
2. - Prime and paint the ends. Very labor intensive and slow since you have to work on ladders rather than from the high-level platforms and the curves and crevices will not allow you to use wide roller brushes.
3. - Remove, sand, prime and paint and re-attach the pantograph gates.
4. - Reattach the number boards.
5. - The inside needs some painting and sanding. The fan covers must be removed and washed, maybe repainted.
6. - The light covers should be unscrewed and cleaned with windex.
7. - Removal of all materials, followed by a washing and mopping of the car.
8. - Waxing of the floor with Mop'n'Glow or some similar product, unless somebody has one of those professional floor waxing machines and wants to donate some time.
If you want to volunteer some time and elbow grease that would be appreciated. Contact Stef or Thurston privately by e-mail to arrange a date. They can also help arrange a carpool if you need a ride.
I'm planning the following trip:
BOS-NYP Chinatown Bus $10
NYP-NYP NYCTA, $1.50
NYP-TRE NJ Transit, $12
TRE-PHL SEPTA, $5
PHL-HBG (This is the section I need)
HBG-SCE I think I'm going to drive this part
Emphasis is on the "cheap", since I cannot afford airfare at $1,000 BOS-SCE... Amtrak fare at BOS-LEW is $147, so it'll still be cheaper if I commuter rail it..
AEM7902
NYCT fares are now either $2.00 or $1.67, depending on how you pay -- not $1.50.
But you can get from NYP to NYP for $0.00: just stand still. I don't think there's a charge for that yet, but I may have missed the announcement.
Sure, walk from Penn Station/IRT stop to Penn Station/IND stop. Cost: ZILCH
AEM7
AEM7
$150.00
Almost as much as Amtrak at $174, and Amtrak would take me to Lewistown, which is closer to where I needed to go...
AEM7
Otherwise, Susquehanna Trailways runs some service from PABT to a whole host of little central PA towns. See:
http://www.susquehannabus.com/routes.html
No info on fares at their website, though.
CG
AFAIK there's no equivalent bus to get to Harrisburg though. Personally I'd take the Chinatown bus Boston-NY, then take a direct Greyhound for NY-Harrisburg ($55 round-trip).
When the IRT was built, were there lines anywhere in New York built to what we now call "B Division" standards, that the IRT could reasonably have emulated? Or was the BMT the first in New York to use the 10-foot wide, 60-foot long, cars? If so, what prompted this?
(As an aside, the argument against A Division standards is that the cars hold fewer people than B Division cars. But the original IRT stations were only 5 cars long. That decision, more than the width/length of the cars, is what handicapped the IRT—prompting the subsequent station-lengthening program not all that many years later. The decision to build 5-car stations—long since rectified—stands out as a whole lot more short-sighted than the decision to follow the standard of the elevated lines that already existed.)
IINM, the Cobble Hill tunnel illustrates the small loading gauge of the LIRR in days of yore.
Larry, RedbirdR33
--Mark
AFAIK, you are wrong. IINM, the Lexington and demolished half of the Myrtle Els were A Division clearances until their closure. It was only the Dual Contracts and later portions which were wide.
No, because there was a plank beneath the door which would ride above the platforms from Broadway south, but would fill the gap from Central north.
Anyway, it's not exactly a huge deal - 6 inches. LU has gaps like that and no-one cares.
At the time of the dual contracts, all of the BRT elevated
lines were built for the 8.5' loading gauge. The move to
10' wide, 67' long cars was a departure. Everything about
the dual contracts reflected a new standard of rapid transit
design, which, as another poster noted, emerged from the earlier
"Tri-Boro" plan.
None of the elevated lines could accept the new 10' steels (later
to be called "ABs" or "Standards". Recall that at Queens(boro)
Plaza, steel cars from the Broadway subway and 60 St river
tubes had to terminate (at the northerly platforms which were
demolished in 1949). BMT customers could transfer to the
BMT's el car shuttle which ran on both Corona and Astoria lines,
which were both narrow loading gauge.
In the late 1920s, a program of rebuilding some of the BMT elevated
lines to subway (10') loading gauge was undertaken. After the
rebuilding, 10' wide AB class cars, C types (which were rebuilt
wooden el cars) and Multis handled the service on these
wide lines, while the old narrow wooden cars solidered on over
the un-rebuilt portions.
What sources have the accurate information, and where can I obtain them?
722 miles page 160 Chapter 6 The Dual Contracts
..."Moreover, the IRT and BRT tunnels had different dimensions. Years earlier the BRT had adopted a design for an elevated car- sixty-seven feet long, ten feet wide- corresponding to the standards of steam railroads; these specifications were larger than the IRT's. Because the BRT's dual contract lines would combine new subways with its old els, the tunnels had to be big enough to accommodate the el trains, and so the company retained the old specifications."...
Thanks for the recommendation.
--Mark
To my recollection of the literature, BRT trains were also 5 cars long. IIRC, both the Brighton and the Sea Beach ran 5 cars trains. And the train involved in the Malbone wreck was a 5 car train. So it is not the number of cars that handicapped the IRT vs. the BMT, but indeed it was and is car width.
You read too much into "handicapped." In terms of capacity, the decision to make the stations initially 5-cars in length, and not the width of the cars, turns out to be far more short-sighted. I don't think the IRT car width actually "handicapped" the IRT in competition with the BMT.
In the context of how the thread started—which was design mistakes—the original platform lengths take the palm. The IRT subway opened in 1904, and by 1910 many of the station platforms had to be lengthened. If any station built today required such significant modification just six years after opening, we would have no hesitation in describing that as an example of short-sighted design. And they kept lengthening them, through the end of the 1940s. I don't know why they finally stopped at 10 cars, although according to AIM the platforms at 42nd/Grand Central are now as long as they could physically be without compromising the buildings up above. A consequence of the problem is that City Hall Station couldn't be saved, and that South Ferry now needs to be rebuilt.
In contrast, I don't see any particular error in IRT subway car widths. The cars were simply the widths of the elevated lines the IRT was already operating. Probably most railroads, when expanding, would stick to the standards of what they already had. This is the sensible thing to do. If you wanted to expand capacity on the IRT lines today, reconfiguring Flatbush Terminal and Rogers Junction would give you more bang for the buck than widening the tunnels to B Division standards.
But when the IRT started to plan its subway, and decided its train width, was that not *before* IRT had taken over the elevated railways company?
Why stop at 10 cars? Presumably because that's how long expresses were from the start. Extending express platforms is very expensive.
As for Flatbush, the terminal configuration limits service on the Nostrand branch but not on the rest of the IRT. It's not a system bottleneck.
According to Joe Brennan's site, the 86th and 96th St stations were extended in 1959. He says that Spring St and Bleecker St were lengthened in 1948. The Brooklyn Bridge expansion, surely one of the more complicated ones, was completed in 1962, at which point Worth St was closed. BB is the only example I've found (among those Brennan talks about) that went into the 1960s.
As for Flatbush, the terminal configuration limits service on the Nostrand branch but not on the rest of the IRT. It's not a system bottleneck.
But service is constrained by how quickly trains can turn at the terminals. (The IRT also has the Rogers problem, and fixing one probably isn't much good without fixing the other.)
Rogers, OTOH, is the bottleneck on the entire mainline West Side IRT.
The two problems are independent.
Repairing Flatbush would permit more service to Flatbush, Newkirk, Beverly, Church, Winthrop, Sterling, and President.
Repairing Rogers (or reorganizing service patterns through Rogers) would permit more service to Franklin, Eastern Parkway, GAP, Bergen, Atlantic, Nevins, Hoyt, Borough Hall, Clark, Wall, Fulton, Park Place, Chambers, 14th, 34th, 42nd, 72nd, 96th, 110th, 116th, 125th, 135th, 145th, and 148th.
You can guess which one I consider a higher priority.
Actually it was a politically calculated move on Belmont's behalf, to prevent his IRT from being used by freight trains at night (in the days before trucks were commonplace).
However, the perpetuation of the el car dimensions to the new subway was not necessary. The IRT elevateds rarely shared trackage with the elevated subway lines (mostly on the original contract I IRT el in the Bronx and the Jerome Ave line) and the BMT consistently ran "A" dimension cars on "B" divison structures.
I thought he wanted to keep buses out, not trucks.
This was still the day of the great railroad tycoons. Belmont was afraid that one of the railroads would try to take over his railroad and he wanted to make sure their rolling stock would not fit in his tunnels.
Tom
What's going on? Skipping a station at all times is unusual, and normally there would be a pretty significant rehab to justify it.
Is it a full rehab, or just the minimal stuff (platform stripes, MVMs, and the like)?
Incidentally, I'd love to see 168th St fully restored to its former splendor. Along with City Hall, it's one of the wonders of the original IRT, but in rather shabby condition at the moment.
The platforms at the two affected stations are temporarily walled off from the track.
I don't think 168th is currently planned for rehab, but the rehab at 191st is underway.
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
Numerous weekends in Brooklyn that the 2 and 3 are STILL running express between Franklin and Atlantic Aves. And plenty of weekends on the Brighton line on the horizon with the embankment local stations getting a rehab.
I have never seen one like this. Anyone have an idea as to where it might have bene used?
I don't quite get the reference "E" on top of the arrow. The E never went to the Bronx.
Before I commit a bid (and eventually lose to ebayer "almondjoy") I want to see if I can find out what I can about the sign.
An unlinked url??????
How did the html police miss this post?????????
*Elliott Smith - Bled White
So I wait for the F train...
*Yo La Tengo - Cone Of Silence
Just like the F train, you're not waiting.
Just like the F train, there'll always be an F train.
You're my F train. I don't know just why.
*Mike Doughty - Thank You Lord For Sending Me the F Train
Then there's Le Tigre's "My My Metrocard". These lines may have been inspired by a late night (2) train ride:
(Next stop) Atlantic Avenue
(Next stop) Christopher Street
(Next stop) Transfer to the
(Next stop) A, C, or E.
What are the NYCT references in your music?
Yeeeeee Haaaaaaaa!!!!
I seem to remember a video by Ricky Scaggs called "I'm just a country boy, country boy at heart"
Almost the entire video takes place on the NYC subway.
mark
And you know it is about the NYC subway as he lived in the city around the time he wrote that alblum.
And if you want to extend it to NYC bus operations, the same alblum contains "Does This Bus Stop at 82nd Street".
Jimmy
There was this Cypress Hill video that had a scene on what looked like a R42.
Wyclef Jean and Mary J. Blige's "911" features a scene of a F train entering Smith-9 Sts at night
There was also a video for some song by Maxwell that shows a F train entering Avenue X.
Can't think of any others...
You are describing the video "How I Could Just Kill A Man" by Cypress Hill. Good one there. I have another one. "Playground" by Another Bad Creation( ABC) was filmed on an R32 or R42. There was another video filmed on an R68 N train on the Astoria Line and some scenes at Astoria Blvd, but can't recall the name of the song or the female artist. Another video-hip hop, "Working On The Train( or Chain) was filmed on GOH redbirds and pre-scrapped R27, R30, R17, and R22. And to top it off, New Kids On The Block filmed "Please Don't Go Girl" on white R17's and R22's and some scenes with GOH redbirds on either the White Plains Road or Woodlawn Line. My sister had their Hangin' Tough posters with them possing at the Transit Museum on the R17, R11, and an actual green R10 used just for this photo shoot.
Jimmy
Hey, the LP got to #8 in the Swiss metal charts in 1991.
"You're In Love" by Ratt (Opening line "You take the midnight subway train...You're calling all the shots")
"Morning Final" by Blue Oyster Cult (It even includes the sound of a subway train pulling into a station as the song fades at the end)
"Everybody Wants Some!" by Van Halen (It opens with the line "You can't get romantic on a subway line")
That's all I can think of at the moment. The subways mentioned in the above songs could be in any city, but everytime I hear them, I think of New York, especially "You're In Love" by Ratt, because back in 1986, which was around the time that song came out, I went on my first trip to NYC, and while I was railfanning the subways one day, that song kept playing in my head.
I must admit I have wondered if even some non-F riders like walking
around with a big orange circle on their chests with the big "F" on
it.
But you all hit on my key attraction to the subways, not the equipment, but the culture. Having subways and all of their excitement as well as frustration, plus the purely everyday, is
something that unites us as New Yorkers. It's a commonality.
I like that!
The "Brownstone" areas of Brooklyn along the F are one of the few parts of the city outside Manhattan that attract people from other parts of the United States (as opposed to elsewhere in the world). Young musicians and artists cannot afford Manhattan, and thus end up living in these neighborhoods in large numbers. They move to areas they hear about from others like themselves, and are unaware of what life is like in other neighborhoods.
However, "Brownstone Brooklyn" has gotten very expensive. Might hear more songs about the "L" in the future.
You're right, that the L is servicing the "newer generation artist transplants." But so far, the L is not even close to the most popular shirt.
When I started my clothing line, most people thought that no one would want to wear a shirt saying anything about the "dirty, smelly,
crime-ridden subways!" I like to think my shirts have been a great
P.R. tool for the MTA. Plus, they've made some real improvements in
recent years.
And the BMTman bought his L shirt because he thought it would make him look cool ;).
But the trendy like to be different just like everybody else. So they would be more likely to choose a shirt from the most uncool line. Which is?
I nominate the SIR.
J, C, 3.
--Mark
Subway grrl
Jimmy
Jimmy
After 9/11, I went to the Citystore in the Municipal Building and bought several family members NYPD and NYFD caps and t-shirts. Everyone out where they lived seemed to have T-shirts and caps, but none matched the official ones, and none came from the Citystore. They haven't mentioned any transit knockoffs yet.
Remember back in history class, where you learned that covered wagons were "The Ship of the Plains"? I suggest a transit bus T-shirt with a bus and the phrase "The Ship of the City." Maybe the covered wagon could be on the back, for those who miss the reference. One bus could represent all the bus lines.
We do want to do a bus shirt, perhaps the map.
Jimmy
It's sometimes funny to wear the shirt that corresponds to a line you're actually riding.
It's also amazing how many people have come up to me visiting other states (or countries) seeing me wear one of these shirts and they tell me, "hey, I lived at the corner of so-and-so in Queens ... I used to ride that line etc etc etc ...
--Mark
Stop making me laugh, I'm at work :)
BEHIND-THE-SCENES SIGNAL WORK IS CRITICAL STEP IN REOPENING OF EXCHANGE PLACE PATH STATION ON JUNE 29
Date: May 28, 2003
Press Release Number: 73-2003
While dozens of construction workers have worked tirelessly in high-profile jobs to install new track and switches, and lengthen and restore the platforms at PATH’s Exchange Place Station in Jersey City, Edwin Eastman, Michael Galluccio and Genaro Vincelli have labored with little fanfare.
The three men are part of the crews responsible for restoring the station’s massive signal system. Railroad signals are similar to highway traffic lights and direct a train on when it can proceed. Without a functioning signal system, trains cannot run in and out of the station.
The PATH employees have worked 12-hour days, sometimes for seven days a week, to meticulously connect 150 signal cables, which contain more than 1,000 individual wires. The wires must each be connected to terminal boards in a signal relay room at Exchange Place. Another 300 cables were connected in the refurbished and new tunnels to link the individual signals leading in and out of the station to PATH’s train control center in Jersey City.
The signal work must be done for the Exchange Place PATH Station to open on June 29. The reopened station will provide a vital first step toward the restoration of service to Lower Manhattan in November. Signal testing has begun in preparation for the station reopening.
PATH Director/General Manager Michael P. DePallo said, “The work that these men and their colleagues have done is truly remarkable. While installing signals is painstaking work, it must be done right to ensure the safety of the PATH system. We applaud these employees for their dedication and their extraordinary work efforts.”
The crews said the signal work for the project is exciting, although at times it’s been difficult working in the tunnels with other construction work going on at the same time. The three men, who are among some of the most senior employees in PATH’s signal department, volunteered for the work, viewing it as a challenge to help restore the region’s transportation network after the September 11 attacks. All of them believe that the personal sacrifice of the 12-hour, seven-day work week was something that they needed to do to get PATH up and running for the good of the region.
“This has to be one of the most unprecedented jobs we have ever done,” said Mr. Galluccio, a Monroe Township, N.J., resident and PATH employee for 22 years. “We have all worked with no breaks and short lunches, but we clearly understand the need to get this job done.”
Mr. Eastman, a 27-year PATH employee who lives in Old Bridge, N.J., has been given the task of wiring the signals in the tunnels that lead in and out of the station. When the signal crews initially began the job in mid-February and saw stacks of cables on the floor, Mr. Eastman said the task appeared overwhelming. But working with a set of detailed plans, each of the two-person teams embarked on this daunting endeavor and were able to install between 10 and 15 cables a day.
Mr. Vincelli, a 30-year PATH veteran who lives in Breezy Point, N.Y., said the new signal system is computer based and more reliable than the old one, which dates to the turn of the 20th Century.
All three men have close ties to PATH, which provides them with an added incentive to make the Exchange Place opening a success. Mr. Eastman’s father was a PATH engineer, while Mr. Vincelli and Mr. Galluccio also have family members who worked for PATH.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey operates some of the busiest and most important transportation links in the region. They include John F. Kennedy International, Newark Liberty International, LaGuardia and Teterboro airports; the George Washington Bridge; the Lincoln and Holland tunnels; the three bridges between Staten Island and New Jersey; the PATH rapid-transit system; the Downtown Manhattan Heliport; Port Newark; the Elizabeth-Port Authority Marine Terminal; the Howland Hook Marine Terminal on Staten Island; the Brooklyn Piers/Red Hook Container Terminal; and the Port Authority Bus Terminal in midtown Manhattan. The agency also owns the 16-acre World Trade Center site in Lower Manhattan. The Port Authority is financially self-supporting and receives no tax revenue from either state.
Also, don't feel sorry for these guys. Asside from earning heaps of overtime pay, they'll probably also accumulating a goodly number of vacation days in witch to spend in their new Yahts bought with the overtime pay.
-AcelaExpress2005 - R160
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
Some developer recently uploaded some "third rail" track sections to Train-Sim.com, andthough they are dummy sections (they won't necessarily allow a route to be electrified....for that to happen, there must be the catenary -- though it can be set to be invisible at somethingliek 1000 meters height!!)
(At least the schedules are still available in timetable format.)
Mark
Pssst! It is Staten Island!
A couple of observations -- one an annoyance and the other a bug. When you load the LIRR schedule page, there's a button for "view all schedules". This gets you to the old schedule page. If you click on the button before the entire page loads, though you get a nasty pop up box message reading "Please wait until the entire page loads before making your selection. Thank you." How rude.
Once you do get to the old schedules, there is now a snazzy MTA.info logo on the top of the page. Of course, if you click on it only the top "frame" goes back to the home page. The bottom frames are still the LIRR schedules.
If I found this one in about 30 seconds, I'm sure there are others.
CG
CG
That always bugged me. Sometimes I just want to make a polite suggestion or gently call attention to an error in the web site; by not having any way at all to contact anyone, the MTA always gave me the impression that it was afraid of me.
Mark
Paul
Remember the "SIRT: Doomed?" thread?
Well, on the
http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/subsch.htm
page, where they used to link to http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/sircur.pdf
, NOW they link to
http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/sisched.pdf
, which in fact is an OLD (summer '02) timetable!!
Looks like those twits took me literally...LOL!
ZIG
Finally! Now when will I be able to pick up a paper copy?
Maybe with those two new routes, they'll have to print an updated version.
Bill "Newkirk"
CG
Q
Manhattan-bound trains run express from
Kings Hwy to Prospect Park
Weekend, 10 PM Fri to 5 AM Mon, Jan 31 to Feb 3
It makes you wonder just how seriously do they take that website (and how capable are the people they supporting it).
But all the subway schedules were updated to the latest April 2003 ones, right? They were a little whilte ago because I downloaded them all for keeps.
Very sloppy they are.
For whatever reason they reverted back to those.
A new low.
HMMMMM let see how serious they maintain their website:
Under the 4 line strip map the 5 line strip map and the 6 line strip map all claim wheelchair access is available at 125th st, on the 4 strip map, the B78 bus is still running at East 98th st (The new B47 bus replaced the B78)
They still have interns at the MTA who can't tell the difference between the F train and F-Troop.
This is what you get when you browse with Netscape 4.x. I also get a Java Script error at most pages. If they really want the site to be "readable and accessible", they shouldn't oust older browsers. What people need is accurate information, not fancy design. In fact, now that there are people browsing with their PDA or cell phones, they should make text-only timetables available too. I also do not like the DHTML menus that directly link to pdf files. What a poor design! Must have been one of my former workplaces that did the job!:-P
I used Lynx for some time well into the late 1990's when I was still using dial-up shell accounts, and I even brag on my own web site (originally designed in the same era) that it supports Lynx. Lynx is probably still important for lots of people who are using screen readers and the like. The MTA really ought to have a separate site for them-- these people are also likely to be using mass transit. Opera should be supported too; I haven't used it lately but it has its advantages.
Actually, that has been considered. Documentation available at http://www.thehighline.org/
1. Go to www.thehighline.org
2. Click on "Designing the High Line"
3. Click on "Reclaiming the High Line Study"
4. Click on "view the study in PDF format"
There is a section of the study that explains why re-use for transit is not a practical option.
Actually, that has been considered. Documentation available at http://www.thehighline.org/ describes the insuperable problems that this would entail. There is no room for stations; it doesn't connect to anything; it doesn't really go where people want to go; and NIMBYs would be all over it.
(Sorry for the double post.)
Why BRT is a good idea.
it doesn't connect to anything
That is indeed a problem.
it doesn't really go where people want to go
If the Olympic bid is successful, that would change.
and NIMBYs would be all over it.
Aaaaaaarrrrggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!
Nonsense -- elevated stations could be built at each of the major cross streets -- and if it's used for light rail, the platforms don't have to be very long.
"it doesn't connect to anything"
Well, it will connect to the #7 line extension and could be connected to the L line at 14th St.
"it doesn't really go where people want to go"
Again, nonsense. It starts at Javits Center, passes by the site of future W. Side development, goes right by Chelsea Piers, and ends near the very trendy Meatpacking District.
Ok, read the study that I just posted a link to, and then tell us how you'll solve all the problems mentioned in there.
I honestly can't think of a worse idea than running light rail over the High Line. And it ain't gonna happen.
There is no objection in the light rail section for "no room for stations" -- that is mentioned only in regard to subways. There is no mention of NIMBY objection -- that is mentioned in regard to rail passenger service (i.e., heavy rail).
Finally, the study concedes that light rail may in fact be desirable in the future, and the High Line should be rebuilt so as not to preclude light rail should it become desirable.
All in all, there is more support for, than oblection to, light rail in the study.
You're right, though. Ain't gonna happen -- primarily because of the chronic lack of vision of the MTA.
There is no objection in the light rail section for "no room for stations" -- that is mentioned only in regard to subways.
But your last post suggested connecting the High Line to the 7 and L lines. Those are subways.
Ain't gonna happen -- primarily because of the chronic lack of vision of the MTA.
The High Line is not under the MTA's jurisdiction. You need to find someone else to blame if you don't agree with the decision. It is the correct one, IMHO.
"But your last post suggested connecting the High Line to the 7 and L lines. Those are subways."
--- I don't mean a track connection to the subways - just a transfer. Light rail stations on the high line need be no longer than the wide 2-way cross streets that they would cross -23rd, 14th, etc.
"Ain't gonna happen -- primarily because of the chronic lack of vision of the MTA.
The High Line is not under the MTA's jurisdiction. You need to find someone else to blame if you don't agree with the decision. It is the correct one, IMHO."
--- Sure, but MTA could obtain jurisdiction if the political will were there.
There are more new transit projects in the hopper now than at any time in recent history. I'm not seeing the case that this one deserves serious consideration. There are probably better ways to use that space that would contribute more to the community (parkland, walking trails, street fairs, etc.).
Either this idea is too simple and logical, or it is totally crazy. You decide.
Other investments include a new loop track ($5 million) at the Corona yard in Queens to improve train movement in the yard and to enable the turning of trains, which will equalize wheel wear.
I'm glad they finally mention that, but the thing is, where can they put it?
Also, in 2000, Queens boro Pres. Claire Shumann referred to them as an "eyesore" and planned to build an mixed residental and commercial development there.
I hate the scrapyards. They give Queens a bad image. A bad image of a land full of graveyards, rail yards, smokestacks, and eyesores like this.
Anyway, I've been noticing recently that to the east of Shea, a big hole has been cleaned up and cleared. Maybe for the MTA's interests or the 'clean up' of the area?
The rear yard is going to be moved, a loop track built and 111 Tower will become no longer needed (great considering the money they just spent replacing the 111 - Main St portion of the machine and last weeks poor service): a master tower will be built in the yard controlling both the yard and mainline.
The loop track, a new barn depend on displacement of current tracks, there supposedly won't be front and rear yards anymore. No mention has been made of new tracks, but maybe just rearranging the current layout could gain some track space without using more land.
Speaking of Corona Barn, the Redbirds still dominate.
There are still about 220 Redbirds and about 100 R62As.
I predict in the coming months:
by July:
160 Redbirds
140 R62A
by October:
140 Redbirds
180 R62A
by December/January:
50 Redbirds
260 R62A
Then, GOODBYE Redbirds!!
Close Ruppert Murdoch.
This was a pro-transit move.
Pro-transit…? Removal of revenue from car-ferrying is pro-transit. That makes no sense. There isn't even revenue from passengers nowadays.
I understand why it was done. It drove up the cost of operating those huge ships.
DOT should switch to smaller more effecient boat more often to save on operating costs.
The current ferry has huge crews and don't need the huge capasity if ran more often. Plus the ride would be faster
The BARBERI sails with 15 men - a Captain, Assistant Captain, 2 Mates, 7 Deckhands, a Chief Marine Engineer, a Marine Engineer, and 2 Marine Oilers.
The AUSTEN sails with 9 men - a Captain, Assistant Captain, Mate, 4 Deckhands, a Marine Engineer, and an Oiler.
To meet the crush demands of the rush hour, you would need to run 5 AUSTEN class boats to meet the load requirement that is met by the single BARBERI. So that would mean that you would need 45 men to do the one trip that 15 men currently do.
The KENNEDY class sails with 13 men - same as the BARBERI, except one Mate and 6 Deckhands. You'd have to sail two KENNEDY class boats to make one BARBERI run. So that's 26 men.
And remember, that's only one run. What will you do with the 7:40 and 8:00 from SI and the 4:40 and 5:00 from NY - that have historicly had the largest run and largest loads (nearly 6,000)? Run smaller boats every five minutes?
It was a common sense move immediately after the Whitehall terminal fire. It was either load 3000+ pedestrians or 90 cars per boat.
It has been a "security" issue after 9/11.
Jimmy
It sounds as though the temporary PATH station may not be as customer friendly as some might like, so the ferry may have even more aesthetic value than usual.
I don't think the Ferries have much to worry about from Secaucus transfer, though. Those passengers are likely headed to midtown. PATH should be concerned about their Hoboken-33rd service, though.
CG
I'm trying to figure out how your gonna pay for that tractor trailer load of Depends. Win Lotto lately ?
Bill "Newkirk"
ZIG
The taller ones get Nurse Diesel.
:0)
In that case I will be driving to Staten Island over the VZ bridge just so I park there and take the ferry to work in Manhattan :-]
FERRY HIGH SECURITY - ANTI-TERROR RULES TO PUT AIRPORT-LIKE SCANNERS AT TERMINALS
New York Post; New York, N.Y.; Jun 2, 2003; CLEMENTE LISI Transit Reporter;
Words in Document: 363
Available Formats:
Buy Full Text
Abstract:
Ferry passengers citywide - including tens of thousands of Staten Island riders - will have to go through metal detectors next year as part of a new federal law that aims to tighten security aboard commuter and tour boats, The Post has learned.
With more than 70,000 riders a day on the Staten Island Ferry, riders - including 20,000 during the morning ...
It'll be hell. I recently had jury duty and it took them about 2 hours to get the small amount of people into the building.
We need large x-rays scanners like in Total Recall for crap like this so several people can be examined at once. With todays technology its not even going to be fun to watch.
Of course at this point I must defend my own 'Sea Bits' and mention that passengers carried per weekday is the ONE AND ONLY way the SI Ferry is the largest ferry operation in the country. Washington State Ferries is, in any other respect, the largest ferry operator in the country, but at 40,667 riders on a weekday, falls short of SI ferry's 60,000 some riders.
However, WSF beats SIFerry on both weekend days, with 47,960 (yes, up from the weekdays, WSF actually goes somewhere people WANT to go, you should see the car lines at Mukilteo and Anacortes) and 39,410 passengers on Saturday and Sunday respectively, this compared to 31,069 on both saturday and sunday (odd, don't you think?). WSF operates a bigger fleet with larger Dead Weight Tonnage vessels (okay, they don't carry as many pax, a Jumbo MKII only makes 2500 pax, with 218 cars, but knock out the car decks and you easily have 7000pax), over more routes, covering greater annual mileage. Plus, you can't compare Puget Sound with the Olympics to the east and glittering Seattle CBD to the east to the industrial squalor of Upper New York Harbor, no matter what french chick you stick on an island!
Oh yeah, and nowhere on WSF or WSDoT's websites could I find even the slightest mention of metal detectors anywhere near the vessels. I suppose with all the cars on the boats, passengers are kind of seen as a secondary threat. I'm fairly certain that they do checks of cars while those cars wait for the ferries, there are most of the time large holding lots, or dedicated parking lanes for the ferry traffic, which makes vehicle checking very easy.
Photo of the M/V Wenatchee, a Jumbo MKII vessel, and is located at the Evergreenfleet.com
The USCG inspects each of the boats on an annual basis. Then then issue a Certificate of Inspection. If you don't comply with their rules, they hold the COI. No COI, you can't operate.
Chip
even the ones to Fire Island
Why are the Fire Island ferries exempted? I can just see it being implemented on the Balboa ferry in Newport Beach, CA. [Note: The link site is sometimes unresponsive with NS. You may have to use IE]
Tom
Two short high-level platforms have been constructed for the use of employees. Several new non-electrified tracks have been constructed on the east side of the mainline. That is on the right-of-way of the former Putnam Division. These tracks run north for about a mile or so to the vicinity of the Washington Bridge. (The old one not the G & MW). So the old PUT will see trains again.
Larry, RedbirdR33
Jimmy
-Stef
Jimmy
-Stef
The WF cars are kept as work cars.
The WF Cars are something different.
-Stef
Jimmy
1. Why was this station closed?
2. When was this station demolished?
3. What was the name of this station?
As always, thanks in advance for your answers.
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
1985
2. When was this station demolished?
shortly thereafter
3. What was the name of this station?
Elmhurst
I think Stephen saw a "When" where there was a "Why". If I remember correctly, the answer to Why was -- like many other LIRR closings -- a combination of very low ridership and the need for major station repairs.
CG
Also the staion was called Broadway folks, the neighbourhood was Elmhurst, but the street and the station was called Broadway.
R-32.
R-32.
R-32.
I think a choice is a good thing, as long as enough folks choose the railroad to make it worth maintaining the station.
What about Woodside? (Not saying that's a reason to get rid of either Flushing or Woodside -- both stations more than justify their existence).
Are you seriously suggesting that to get from Flushing to Port Washington I first board a train towards the City? I can imagine the protests...
Not saying that's a reason to get rid of either Flushing or Woodside -- both stations more than justify their existence
:-D
In the same 45 minutes the bus gets me from Baldwin to Jamaica I can be in Penn Station (at a much higher price, of course). Yep, it's still a bus.
I can easily understand that. If you had a job close enough to Penn Station that you could walk to it, and a salary that could support the higher commutation cost it might be worth it to get on the train at Kew Gardens or Flushing. Both would give you a quicker ride in. Would be more appealing at night for women and others squeamish about taking the subway late.
I remember Elmhurst station well. Over 20 years of so the surrounding neighborhood developed a higher population density. Strange how that increased population base didn't result in a larger ridership. Possibly because while the neighborhood densified the income level remained static or even declined. Once or twice I purposely rode a train from there out to Murray Hill and also to Little Neck. Just to get a feel for how a intra-city "super express" service could work. And taking it to Little Neck avoiding the more egalitarian standard fare modes did induce a mild sense of, uh, "the elite lifestyle".
I worked in Penn Plaza for a few years. There were a number of people who lived in Forest Hills and go office-to-couch in about 25 minutes if they timed the elevators correctly. (Meanwhile I was living on the Upper East Side, paying ghastly rent and taking a 3 subway ride and 3 avenue walk commute for 55 minutes each way)
CG
Nice take of the end to end trip designation! Should be on the census forms as a description of commutation time. Office-to-couch is the best way to consider it. And 25 minutes is a wonderful commute. By express subway from Forest Hills even, you're not gonna beat the LIRR. It's at the top of the food chain, starting with car, bus, local subway, express subway and LIRR "super el". Nice concurrence of multi-node transit multiplexing! I love that stuff...
Maybe it should be phrased "a cheaper ride or a faster way into the city."
Well...Queens and Brooklyn are part of Long Island.
Peace,
ANDEE
How else could they be part of Long Island?
BTW, I already know Queens and Brooklyn are on LI!!!!!!
The name of the station was always called Elmhurst. Broadway was further out where the line reached Northern Blvd.
1) Closed, to allow a shorter running time (faster schedule) for trains on the line, with passengers referred to Broadway or Main Street instead?
2) Kept as is, with a little paint and new tactile strips?
3) Rebuilt with full length platforms and ADA compliance? That station's rehab would probably involve switchback ramps similar to Bayside's, and the rehab might run anywhere from $10-20 million or more.
Switchback ramps sometimes seem like a very poor attempt at ADA compliance. The ones at Forest Hills LIRR are the most unwieldy I can think of -- I suspect the only folks who could make it up those ramps without assistance are the people who compete in the wheelchair marathons.
CG
Check out Bayside, which, in my opinion, was very nicely done.
I've never been to Murray Hill -- but from the pictures it appears to be an open cut more in the mold of a Brighton line station -- concrete walls on both sides. That seems like a limitation to safely add ramps. I just can't envision how you could add a winding ramp without taking up too much space on the platform.
Of course, it does look like they could put an island platform in at Murray Hill and solve the ramp issue with one ADA elevator down from the street. But then you have to figure in considerably higher maintenance expense in your cost/benefit versus just closing the station.
CG
1. That station was closed simply because of low patronage. I can't ever recall anyone boarding or alighting there. I've known that station since I was a kid; since the '80s.
2. That station was demolished around '84, '85. I went through there again, looked up, and suddenly it wasn't there anymore.
3. The station was simply called 'Broadway'.
In junior high, my school buses used to take that way. They would leave Whitney Ave. from Elmhurst, cross under the tracks, and then hang a right on So. Railroad Av. on the way 51st Av. across Queens Blvd. This path would make the Broadway station obvious. This is why I know the area intimately. Oh...uh, that and the fact that I used to walk the tracks from the Bay Ridge Conrail line, across Queens Blvd. into Elmhurst. I used to go to Junior High School 73 in Maspeth.
R-32.
http://www.timesnewsweekly.com/NewFiles/OURNEIGH.html
There is a great photo of the skeleton of the El and the old ground level Forest Ave station, which was on the other side of Forest Avenue from where it is now. A current view of this picture is in the station photo section of this site. Another photo is there showing a little tower (what was that for?) Finally, another photo from the opposite direction and it seems Fairview Avenue had yet to be cut through.
The text is also very interesting. The ROW was given back and forth between "heavy Rail" and trolley many times. They failed to mention it, but originally what would become the M line was a "dummy" steam Railroad, then it became a trolley line, then it became a surface continuation Myrtle El, and finally when the el was extended, it went back to a trolley line.
Unfortunately, I haven't a clue where your trolley photo is....great photo though!
By the way, it's easy to link, but I hope people would not be scared to post a link at this site, just because they don't know the codes. By all means share your links! Look what we could miss if someone is scared to post.
But anyway, here's the codes for those that want them, just replace ( ) with < >
(a href="http://www.whatever.the.link.is.com")TEXT YOU WANT IT TO SAY(/a)
The only spaces are between "a" and "href" and your text can have spaces.
Possible proof that some of Stephen Bauman's ideas are good ones. He did say in a recent post that you could cut the time required to bring a southbound express train into Union Square after the previous one departed if you modified the signals.
Such proof would be even more tenuous than your proof that 28 tph is the max service level for the Lex.
$2 million per gap filler. Something's being filled and it isn't the gap. :-)
I have not timed the northbound expresses.
There are no gap fillers on the nortbhound platform.
Let's see the Canarsie CBTC project consists of 23 track miles and costs $137 million. That comes to $5.96 million per mile. The Union Square express platform is 510 feet long. So, a ballpark figure for resignalling the Union Sq platform should be around $575,000. We already know that the Canarsie project is more expnesive than a simple conventional system, so we are being overly generous.
How would you estimate the cost for a block signal system?
Then, I would agree that cost is more likely to be proportional to distance. However, there could be other factors—e.g., if service constraints imposed by the track layout required more of the work to be done at hours when overtime needs to be paid.
This was the case with the 63rd Street Connector, because the work was done on weekends and at night over seven years. In addition, temporary diversion tunnels were created, to allow rail service to continue unimpeded, which required signaling as well.
Let's examine Eas Side Access for a moment: The first section of tunnel, from 2nd Av/63rd Street to Queensbridge (lower level) was built as part of the $898 million 63rd Street subway extension. This included tunnel lighting but no tracks, power, signaling or stations on the LIRR level.
The ESA project, as budgeted by MTA, costs $4.3 billion. Completing the tunnels into Sunnyside and into GCT only costs $150 million (the value of the contracts signed and executed to do this work). So what is most of the billions of dollars going to? I'm guessing that the new terminal and Sunnyside Station together will not be a billion dollars, so what's left? Answer: ventilation plants (already in place, actually), tracks, power and signaling. I'm going to venture the guess that signaling is the single most expensive component in a passenger rail system.
This was the case with the 63rd Street Connector, because the work was done on weekends and at night over seven years. In addition, temporary diversion tunnels were created, to allow rail service to continue unimpeded, which required signaling as well.
The other point is that, when work is limited to off-peak hours, time is lost setting up the equipment at the beginning of the shift, and then breaking it all down again in time for service to be restored. Compare that to the renovation currently being done at uptown #1/9 local stations, where they just close the platform for several weeks straight, and get the job done relatively quickly. It's much less expensive where you have the flexibility to do that.
If the Canarsie Line signaling is $6 million per mile of 2 tracks, that should be a good figure for the simple parts of the line. If Union Square is $10 million for 500 feet of 2 tracks, that's a good estimate for the complex part of the line near GCT and near Sunnyside where it merges with the main LIRR. So complex track signaling might run $10K per foot.
So we have about 4 simple miles at $6 million per mile and maybe 20,000 feet of complex track, for a total of $224 million.
Still a total guess. But it's hard to believe signaling for ESA could cost $1 billion.
The Canarsie Line resignalling comes to $136 million; there are 23 TRACK miles. That comes to $6 million per mile of SINGLE track.
However, $24 million isn't much difference relative to the $1 billion+ in question with ESA.
One comparison might be the PATH WTC reconstruction. The money there made no sense either, based on the workforce they had there. Then the PA issued a more detailed press release, and it turned out that all sorts of other things were lumped in.
That may be the case with ESA too. They are certainly lumping in the new MNRR yard facilities in the Bronx so that LIRR can have space at GCT. Who knows what else they're tossing in? Could there be new rolling stock?
Arti
The Canarsie Line signal installation is under the same constraints regarding overtime pay. It involves work in tunnels which is more expensive than work in stations. Moreover, the Canarsie installation is actually installing dual systems - one CBTC based and a full backup block system. Therefore, using the total cost of the Canarsie rehabilitation as the base for a pre mile cost should overestimate what the costs of a simple block system with no switches and construction within a station area should be.
Thus, I'd assume you should be comfortable with my estimate for the Union Sq signal rehab should be in the 1/2 million dollar range.
I'd assume you should be comfortable with my estimate for the Union Sq signal rehab should be in the 1/2 million dollar range.
No. For one thing, don't forget the premise of your question. You said: "We're agreed that the presence of switches raises costs. Suppose there were no switches - how would you estimate the cost?
I said that in that case, cost is more likely to be proportional to distance. But the factual predicate of your question—absence of switches—is not the case at Union Squre. (I can't be positive, but I'm assuming the switches just north and south of the station are part of the project.)
The other problem is that costs undoubtedly are not proportional when one side of the ratio is a small number. In this case, you're comparing 23 track-miles to a 510-foot platform (a 238:1 ratio), and the analogy surely breaks down. There's a diseconomy of scale when you look at just one station in isolation, compared to re-signalling an entire line.
The signalling plant in the vicinity of a station is more complex than the signallying plant on average throughout the system. Over the 23 track-miles of the Canarsie line, this evens out. When you focus on just one platform—and that for one of the more complex stations due to the presence of gap fillers and grade timers that prevent excessive speeds around the curve the station is built on—calculation by ratios probably doesn't produce an accurate estimate.
Which switches just south of the station? Remember this project is scoped as being for only the southbound express. I'm also assuming that this project will not involve the switch north of the station for the following reason. It will be used to divert trains around the express platform while work is in progress.
The other problem is that costs undoubtedly are not proportional when one side of the ratio is a small number. In this case, you're comparing 23 track-miles to a 510-foot platform (a 238:1 ratio), and the analogy surely breaks down. There's a diseconomy of scale when you look at just one station in isolation, compared to re-signalling an entire line.
The signalling plant in the vicinity of a station is more complex than the signallying plant on average throughout the system. Over the 23 track-miles of the Canarsie line, this evens out. When you focus on just one platform—and that for one of the more complex stations due to the presence of gap fillers and grade timers that prevent excessive speeds around the curve the station is built on—calculation by ratios probably doesn't produce an accurate estimate.
You are worried about a quantization problem. I concede that an estimate based on the number of blocks might be more esthetically pleasing. However, such data is not available.
Consider the Canarsie Line. It has 23 track miles, 24 stations, 6 bumpers, 6 interlockings, grade timers under the river and at Bway-Jct and 4 sharp curves. If we asssume that each of the stations has 4 blocks; each of the bumpers has 3 blocks; each interlocking has 8 blocks, each grade has 10 blocks and each curve has 3 blocks, then this comes to 226 blocks without any blocks between stations. This makes the average block size for the line to be approximately 537 feet. This essentially means that one block has been captured by going pro rata on distance.
Next, consider the working conditions for the Canarsie Line. Only 4.5 of the 23 track miles are within stations. Working between stations means greater setup time, more space constrictions, poorer lighting, etc. I'd guess that workers are 50% as productive in tunnels than in the station. That brings the average labor cost up to 180% of the cost had all the work been done in stations.
Finally, the Canarsie system will be two systems at roughly twice the cost for a single system. Assuming that and the increased labor costs of not working exclusively within the confines of a station, that comes to 3.6 times the cost. Assume that labor accounts for 80% of the installation and equipment accounts for 20%. That means the overall cost base for the Canarsie System over one for the southbound express platform at Union Sq would be 308% greater.
They are not putting more than 3 blocks within the station. So, the $537K estimate is still reasonable. I'll concede 10 or 20 percent error but not an order of magnitude. Union Sq is not 2 Broadway. :-)
It is, assuming you've identified all of the right variables, and you've assigned the correct significance to each. Is that the case? I wonder....
I'm waiting for your estimate and accompanying methodology. How much should it cost and why?
If I understood RonInBayside, the MTA estimated the whole project at $10 million. At this point, I've seen no reason to doubt that that is correct.
Thanks, I'll try to remember that.
I just tried that for the Canarsie project. That comes to 1 signal every 35 feet. With the MTA are you sure that isn't $10,000 per toilet stall? :-)
The $10K/bulb figure applies to wayside block signal systems
only. Obviously that metric would low-ball a moving block system.
How about per signal replaced?
I just rode some of the L line and it appears to have one signal every 500', with now exceptions on the piece I rode. So that makes about 250 signals. Plus another 50 for a separate crude block system allowing 15 minute headways.
That implies each signal costs $450,000!
On the southbound Lex at 14th there are far more signals than 1 per 500'. I count 9 signals between 18th St and 13th St. on the express track. If there are an equal number on the local track, we get
(18 signals) x ($450,000 per signal) = $8 million.
So the $10 million price tag for Union Square is roughly "reasonable" when compared to the Canarsie Line.
I still don't understand how each signal can cost $450,000, I admit.
The costs would include cables, power and the tower equipment that reflects what the signals show and allow controllers to throw switches.
But you ask a very good question. Would you mind asking that question of a company making railroad signals and see if they'll give you a general idea on the matter?
Mr. Jeff H. suggested $10K per light. So a 3 aspect signal would be $30K.
I just rode some of the L line and it appears to have one signal every 500', with now exceptions on the piece I rode. So that makes about 250 signals.
Did you ride it and count or is that just an estimate? Remember, I came up with 226 signals for the line. If you made an accurate count, then I'm within a 20% error margin.
That implies each signal costs $450,000!
Well, I came up with $537K for a single signal based on a distance of 500 feet out of 23 track miles. Again, we are both using the Canarsie CBTC project as our cost basis.
On the southbound Lex at 14th there are far more signals than 1 per 500'. I count 9 signals between 18th St and 13th St. on the express track. If there are an equal number on the local track, we get
(18 signals) x ($450,000 per signal) = $8 million.
We part company here. I read Ron's description as pertaining only to the southbound express track and only to signals within the station. Ron wrote:" five gap fillers on the express trck at Union Square are to be replaced." There's only one express track with gap fillers at Union Sq. It would make sense that some minimal signal work would have to be done in connection with the gap filler replacement. We'll just have to wait until somebody produces a more definitive project description to resolve the difference between $8 million and $500K.
This description is on MTA's procurement listing on the MTA's website.
Of course, at least one writer here opined that gap fillers are pretty simple equipment. But for equipment that needs to be absolutely reliable hundreds of times a day, every day, without fail, I suspect it's a very different story.
Of course, at least one writer here opined that gap fillers are pretty simple equipment. But for equipment that needs to be absolutely reliable hundreds of times a day, every day, without fail, I suspect it's a very different story.
The first question was $10 million for 5 gap fillers seemed excessive - no matter what reliability criterion is set. The question was then raised as to how much the signals would cost. Estimates have ranged from under $100K (Mr. Jeff H); to $500K (myself) to $8 million (Mr. AIM). To be sure, my last post sought to point to the different assumptions that yielded such a large spread between Mr. AIM's estimate and mine.
Remember the original subway cars had doors only at the ends.
And what would be wrong with stringing up a few loudspeakers and playing the following pre-recorded message incessantly from the moment the doors open until they close:
"Mind the gap. Mind the Gap. Mind the Gap. Mind the Gap..."
You wouldn't even need the scrap metal plates for that!
Then your city really has to get with it and change its laws. In NYC if you rode between cars on a subway train and got crushed on sharp curves, you'd sue NYCT; in London, the British Transport Police would take you away to sober up, then put you before the magistrates in the morning. I think I know which I think is better.
I really don't see an announcement stating "mind the gap" to work. Maybe in London, but not here.
I'm sure the announcement at Waterloo (the Bakerloo Line Southbound platform has a huge curve to it) has only one effect - to annoy everyone - but I think in UK law it absolves LU of liability should anyone choose to ignore it.
in a city where the inhabitants not only speak, but expect everyone else to speak in, 100 different languages
An official language has advantages you see. People speak every language under the sun in London, but the official language is English, so that's all you've got to announce in. The only complication I know of in the UK is that Welsh is an official language in Wales, leading to the irritating flashing destination signs on the front of trains:
CARDIFF
Central
then...
CAERDYDD
Canolog
Peace,
ANDEE
I think the Irish call it Irish (or Erse, which is Irish for Irish!) The Scots call their version of it Gaelic - or actually "the Gaelic".
Peace,
ANDEE
Modern Irish people usually refer to it as Irish.
It isn't a dumb question, and the answer is yes. Signposts and town-limit signs on highways in Ireland are bilingual, and Dublin city buses show the destination "An Lar", which is Irish for City Centre. [Dublin is Baile atha Cliath, since you ask (8-) .]
To get back on topic, Dublin has a so-called rapid transit (DART, of course) which is really just the suburban electric rail system, but a LRT system is under construction with the first line due to open within a few months from now (November 2003, I think).
Peace,
ANDEE
Here’s a good LT question: How many stations/platforms have “Mind the Gap” announcements? I know the Northbound Northern Line at Charing Cross does, and I think the Bakerloo at Piccadilly too.
John
Believe me - people have managed it (usually from the platform whilst inebriated). One particularly dumb drunkard boarded a Westbond Piccadilly Line train at Hyde Park Corner in this fashion. Thankfully, someone noticed he was there at Knightsbridge and BT Police came and took him away - otherwise he would have been mincemeat!
How many stations/platforms have “Mind the Gap” announcements? I know the Northbound Northern Line at Charing Cross does, and I think the Bakerloo at Piccadilly too.
And the Bakerloo at Waterloo. It's one of those announcements I really hardly ever notice unless it's at a station I use at all much. I'm sure I heard it somewhere on the District riding in from Richmond to Embankment (yes, I know I should have got a SWT train to Waterloo then walked across the Hungerford Bridge), but I was so half-asleep when I did that, I can't remember where!
It's the Waterloo ones that get me - not only are they on constant repeat mode, but they are loud and (shock, horror, is this really London?) clear!!!
However, the “Sonia” nickname for the female announcer, “because she getS ON YA nerves” was brilliant!
John
LMAO!!!
Or might this be a 7-day overnight job dealie??
Some of us HERE are available, yannow ?? :)
For those who think the L line isn't busy (as some mentioned in another thread), this should be proof that it is a busy line, and continues to get worse.
....the BMT planners really screwed this one up for not building a three track line.....
Too bad it would have solved one of the put in and layup problems they have out there and get rid of some of the hell jobs.
The platforms on the 14th St line were built to handle 8-car standards. They were 536 feet long. They should be able to platform a trains composed of 9 60 footers.
The southern routes were 14th St (8th ave), Bway-Bklyn (Canal St), Fulton-Lex (Park Row/Bridge-Jay) and Fulton (Rockaway Ave).
I don't see that happening—it would be way to expensive. They'd be able to run a lot more tph at rush hour with the existing track plant, which is most likely what they'll do after they're done rebuilding Atlantic Avenue.
How will that help the backup at 8th Ave?
There are other terminals in the system that are configured similarly and get slightly better tph (e.g., 242/VCP). However, I think you are correct that a big improvement isn't possible without the ability to terminate some trains at 6th Ave.
Are you forgetting about the TA's fumigation policy regarding relays. That limits the track to 15 tph. If it were not for this policy the G's could go to Continental 24/7.
But the biggest drawback to the IRT extensions is you now need to reconfigure some stations like 96th st/West Side (switches at north end, exit at south end) or Borough Hall/East side (switches at Manhattan-bound side) and narrow clearance at curve at other side).
But if they wanted to upgrade Myrtle Ave to a TD position. Preauthorize 1-2 of the L runs for skips to try to salvage problems.
Cut the signal blocks so that trains leaving terminals do not hold the interlocking for as long as they do. Add an additional drop back crew so if you are late in you do not hold up your followers.
Of course all of this is unnecessary as all trains are ontime, ROLFMAO.
How many TPH could they run if the L ran ATO once CBTC was up and running. It would limit the turn around time at the terminal
Arti
The restriction in the 14th St Tunnel was due to ventilation problem not a signal problem. That ventilation problem was fixed a few years ago - just prior to the replacement of the El section connecting the Broadway Brooklyn El from Marcy Ave to the Williamsburg Bridge.
The travel time between Bedford Ave and First Ave is 2 minutes. The minimum headway for the 14th St Line is 4 minutes. Trains should not have to wait at Bedford Ave for the train in front to clear the tunnel.
Back on the L, the a stations would be on one very low usage station while the b station will be on average-high usage if it is not an a/b station.
Is that based on the number of paid fares? People who actually pay to get on the train?
People who actually pay to get on the train?
Hmmm, if this was the 70's, I guess the unpaid fares might have outnumbered the paid fares at some of those stations, and the statistics skewed. Seriously though, someone once mentioned here that at some stations in the South Bronx like Freeman and Simpson, sometimes the exit gates were just tied open and people walked in. It sounds exagerated, but I wouldn't doubted for the subway of the 70's and the South Bronx of the 70's.....
Just install a cctv camera for secutiy and monitor the camera to check station crowds
Kill two birds with one stone
Is the franklin shuttle at capasity?
Why bot just rubn more frequent trains. Install platform doors and run the service ZPTO. The franklin shuttle is essentially a people move like airtrain
Why not just run more frequent trains. Install platform doors and run the service ZPTO. The franklin shuttle is essentially a people move(r) like airtrain (spelling and gramma corrected)"
How can you add more trains on the FAS Line? There is only single track on half of the lines' distance so you cannot add more than the two trains you have. And your plan is no good because it does not address the need for train capacity, what happens when the next big weekend Q shuttle bus G.O. take place? Since you now have a free transfer to IRT service at Botanic Garden/Franklin Ave, I find that the shuttle in the winter is a much better indoor option than waiting in the freezing cold for a packed bus. (Note: We had some shuttle buses on the Q line the same weekend as the last Redbird fan trip. On my way home, I tried to guide some people off the diverted Q train at Pacific and instead of taking the shuttle bus, we took the 2 or 3 to Franklin for the transfer to the shuttle. And we enjoyed the warmth of the indoors instead of the cold evening for the bus outside.)
I agree It is quicker and better to take the Franklin shuttle to botanical gardens station. That is the way I went also.
Isn't there room for a secound track. I have to admit I have never ridden the shuttle past botanical gardens. I planned to once and everyone on the car looked at me like I was raw meat and decided against it
If thier was, then adding addtional trains using ZPTO is the way to go. Spending money to extend platforms is not as cost efffective as doubletracking and adding addtional service via ZPTO
-Stef
For the last 5-6 years people have been flocking to the area's converted factories and the new night life and artistic scene. The area is hot and the L line is bennifiting.
I went to a cool place on North 6th right off bedford last weekend called SEA.
It rivals the Thai themed resturants in Paris and Manahattan plus the prices were very reasonable. 3 people including 1 drink each=$40
Not bad
Those who are educated don't hold race up as an issue of freindship.
Many minorities, whites, asians have the same interests.
Most latino and Itailans have very similar family values thus the large amount of latino/Itailan couples
A good example is us subtalkers. will you not go railfaning with me because I am white. Of course not, the subject of rail faning bridges any divides.
It angers me that many so called advocated try to widen divides for thier own bennifit. It hod thier people's back by filling thier minds with half truths and sometimes full out lies
Creating a better environment with shops and resturants serves the bennift of all. In many ways gentrification is bringing out the untapped potential of many neighborhoods.
Neighborhood revitalization is a good thing. Unfortunitly many advocacy groups don't like it because they don't get a cut of the pie
But the real indicator is the amount of white people who move in. Gentrification doesn't exist without them. Yeah, it's racist, but it's true.
Read what Chris said. All he noted was that white people can be seen using J stations located in what presumably were 100% minority areas. Political and cultural realities being what they are, this is a pretty good indication that the neighborhoods in question are being seen as up-and-coming, worthy of residency by people who could afford to live elsewhere. That's what is usually called gentrification.
Of course, a neighborhood also could gentrify through an influx of more-affluent minorities. That's likely to be less apparent if you look at the demographics of subway riders, however.
there are quite a few subtalkers who believe this. They don't believe that the races actually have alot in common and choose to hang out together
Prehabs I am a bit sensitive as the people who jumped on me a few weeks ago for using the phrase "those people" I had no clue that it had any negative implication. I have lived in this city my whole life and never heard the term ment anything bad
Not really. Educated affluent minorities will flee these neighborhoods until they know gentrification is a sure thing, and that again means a visible amount of new caucasian residents.
I wonder what they're doing with that theater building, anyway. Since the couple of weeks when they put up those yellow walls and the scaffolding (which was a while ago), nothing has been done and no construction workers or equipment has been seen since.
Not at all. And there was a cop right in the station mezzanine, he just glanced up at me when I was taking photos of the glass stained windows, and then went back to whatever he was doing. I was actually at Gates Ave for quite a while. Some of the passengers looked at me like I was crazy, but that's about it. I took photos from both platforms, and let a few J's go by. I also took some at Chauncey Street a little further down the line, and also no problems.
My eyes must be really shot, because I swear the first one's rollsign is displaying a question mark, either that or a P. Then again it is not all that uncommon for R42 rollsigns to be a little dirty of fuzzy.
Look at the Flushing Line. After being built as a co-run line with the IRT, it has 3 tracks (for the most part), and suffers as much crowding as the L does.
Heh, I guess that's why the L and the 7 are the first 2 line slated for CBTC.
Both lines are crowded, but the 7 has greater capacity. Also, I believe the 7 is more crowded than the L. It travels through a more densely populated area, and its Manhattan route cuts through the CBD.
Heh, I guess that's why the L and the 7 are the first 2 line slated for CBTC.
I think it's because the 7 and L are the two simplest routes. The L is the only route in the system that's 2 tracks throughout, and never merges/diverges with any other route. The 7 is almost as simple, aside from the 3-to-2 express/local merge.
Based on crowding statistics alone, the L would not have been the first line chosen for CBTC. What makes the L notable, however, is its rapid growth rate.
Personally I think this was a bad decision. The planner was not born of the late-90's drive to self sufficiency, but had been a long standing part of Amtrak's promotional regalia. The planner was probably utilized by existing Amtrak travelers who were eager to take advantage of the greater vacation oppurtunities that Amtrak had to offer. LD rail travel is already a hard sell, making the information to make such trips less available only will worsen the situation.
But I also agree with you on the fact that by loosing the planner, you loose a valuable opportunity to lure possible business.
Amtrak would be better off with a stable route structure that people could count on. This doesn't mean trains aren't added or dropped, but rather, important routes stay long enough so people can count on riding them.
R-32.
The Multi-Section cars did NOT have SMEE braking. They had
something called schedule AMCE, which was a very convoluted
system that evidently forgot to apply sometimes.
The Multis were the first NYC rapid transit car class (other than
one-offs like the Zephyr and Green Hornet) to have dynamic
brakes. SMEE and dynamic brakes have nothing to do with each
other. It is possible to have dynamics without SMEE (as evidenced
by the Multis), and likewise SMEE can be a purely friction-braking
system with no dynamic (though I can't think of an example).
On NYCT SMEE equipment, the dynamic brakes are supplied by the
motor & control manufacturer (GE or WH), while the air brake
system is supplied by WABCO or NYAB. The interface between the
two is the straight air pipe pressure transducer, which tells
the dynamic braking package how much brake is requested, and
the lockout magnet valve, which prevents the SMEE friction brakes
from applying while the dynamics are working.
"Straight Air" means that the pneumatic signal which is sent
via the train-line pipe is directly proportional to the amount
of braking effort desired. E.g. 0 psi is brakes released, 90 psi
is full service. The converse is the "Automatic", aka "Train Air"
or "Reduction" system, in which the amount of brake requested
is proportional to the DEFICIT between the nominal train line pipe
pressure of 70 psi and the actual pressure. The Automatic system
is fail-safe in that any leak or break in the train pipe makes
the brakes come on, not off. SMEE adds back in the fail-safe
feature by running a separate Brake Pipe, which is kept continually
charged to 110 psi. If the pressure in the Brake Pipe falls,
the brakes apply fully.
R-32.
R-32.
And here I was, all this time, thinking that SMEE as explained in school car was based on so many of us Irishmen on the subway ... that SMEE was just GOAN's partner ...
A Cork Radio Station (in Ireland), 96 FM, was running a competition to find contestants who could come up with words that were not found in any English Dictionary yet could still use these words in a sentence that would make logical sense. The prize was a trip to Bali for a week.
The DJ, Neil, had many callers; the following two standing out:
DJ: 96FM, what's your name?
Caller: Hi, me name's Dave.
DJ: Dave, what is your word?
Caller: Goan spelt G O A N, pronounced "go-an"
DJ: We are just checking that (pause) and you are correct, Dave, Goan is certainly a word not found in the English Dictionary. Now the next question, for a trip for two to Bali, is, what sentence can you use that in that would make logical sense?
Caller: GOAN fark yourself!
At this point the DJ cuts the caller short and announces that there is no place for that sort of language on a family show. After many more unsuccessful calls the DJ takes the following caller:
DJ: 96FM, what's your name?
Caller: Hi, me name's Jeff.
DJ: Jeff, what is your word?
Caller: Smee spelt S M E E, pronounced "smee".
DJ: We are checking that (pause) and you are correct, Jeff, Smee is certainly a word not found in the English Dictionary. Now the next question, for a trip for two to Bali, is, what sentence can you use that in that would make logical sense?
Caller: SMEE again! GOAN fark yourself!"
Now ya see why I *like* Unca Dougie ... after all, ya GOTTA be nuts to run real trains. Heh.
BTW, do you mind if I e-mail you with questions? I find the equipment - particularly the braking equipment boggling yet fascinating ( ever since I was a kid ) and I strive to make sense of it all. One example is the superceding brake packages offered from around the r-40m/42's on up ( they no longer use brake shoe guides... probably for lower unsprung weight ) .
R-32
AMUE and SMEE are two ENTIRELY different universes.
But yeah, I found it quite confusing but then again, I was relatively new on the railroad and hadn't quite settled into "one of these, ho-hum" yet ... I was still trying to get my chops together on the Arnines when I got my first 32 to run, and it wasn't pretty. Had I been at it for a while, I'm sure I could have run anything without getting confused. After only three weeks on the road though, got a 32 after nothing but Arnines. I got used to it halfway through the first trip, but there were some hard stops until I got used to it.
One of these days, I'll get back to Branford again and want to try 1227 just to see for myself. Should be amusing, hope it'll be running light the first time. Too much plate glass to send the geese through on gate cars. :)
They stonewall the first time, as they expect the car to self-lap, which it won't.
After a while they figger it out, and the problems go away.
Needless to say, I'm NOT a "morning person" so for my morning put-in, I was groggy. For the PM tour, I was bored STUPID hanging around COney all day, so I fell IMMEDIATELY into a bad pattern of being used to the Arnines (AMUE) and going out of my WAY to trade intervals with those only two willing to NOT take out the Arnine. My motor instructor tried to break me of this habit and insisted that I run other things. Thus the 32 episode on a PM round trip.
Needless to say, I prefer AMUE with manual lapping because it was what I was used to. SMEE's were a pain in the butt to me because I'd go to lap the unlappable and note that I was about to pass THROUGH a stop and go full serv. If I was a little less out of it, I definitely would have done better. Of course by the time I washed out of the service, I *had* gotten it together. But man oh man, two entirely different worlds. Gimme the oldtimers ANY day. :)
3662 is operational, AFAIK.
R-32.
With the older style SMEE trucks, there are once again two cylinders,
but they are mounted in the corners of the truck frame. There
is brake rigging (sets of levers and fulcrums) so the single-acting
piston causes 4 brake shoes to clasp.
The primary advanatge of TBUs is the elimination of all that
rigging, which needs to be inspected & lubricated, and adds
slightly to the weight of the truck. Plus, you have half as many
shoes to service, although they wear out twice as fast.
R1-9
SMEE cars:
R10,11,12,14,15,16,17,21,22,26,27,28,29,30,32,33,36,28,40,42
P-wire:
R44,46
"Newtran" friction system:
R62/68
SMEE is a self-lapping electrodymanic braking system. In older cars prior to SMEE, the T/O had to manually lap (work) the air valve in order the brakes to function. With SMEE, when the T/O works the air valve, the SMEE brake system automatically applies the correct force for the brakes to work. It self-adjusts (therefore "self-lapping") The SMEE system "senses" how much air is needed and therefore would only require the T/O to lightly pull the air valve instead of having to lap it all the way.
Here`s a theorethical application to the Red Line:
Shady Grove, and Rockville AB stations
Twinbrook - A
White Flint - B
Grovesnor - AB
Medical Center - A
Bethesda - B
Friendship Heights - AB
Tenleytown\AU - A
Van Ness\UDC - B
Cleveland Park - A
Woodley Park - B
Dupont Circle, Farragut N, Metro Center, Gallery Pl, Judiciary Sq, and Union Station - all AB stops
Rhode Island Ave - A
Brookland - B
Fort Totten - AB
Takoma - A
Silver Spring - AB
Forest Glen - B
Wheaton, and Glenmont - AB
(Note: If NY ave Station is operational, The station would be a "B "station, and Judiciary Sq would be an "A " station.).
Tell me what do you think of this idea.
A trains: AM rush, skip stop from Shady Grove to DuPont Circle, then all stops to Glenmont, PM rush, all stops from Glenmont to DuPont Circle, then skip stop to Shady Grove
B trains: AM rush, skip stop from Shady Grove to DuPont Circle, then all stops to Glenmont, PM rush, all stops from Glenmont to DuPont Circle, then skip stop to Shady Grove
C trains: AM rush, skip stop from Glenmont to Union Station, then all stops to Shady Grove, PM rush, all stops from Shady Grove to Union Station, then skip stop to Glenmont
D trains: AM rush, skip stop from Glenmont to Union Station, then all stops to Shady Grove, PM rush, all stops from Shady Grove to Union Station, then skip stop to Glenmont
Shady Grove ABCD
Rockville ABCD
Twinbrook BCD
White Flint ACD
Grosvenor ABCD
Medical Center BCD
Bethesda ACD
Friendship Heights BCD
Tenleytown ACD
Van Ness ABCD
Cleveland Park BCD
Woodley Park ACD
Dupont Circle ABCD
Farragut North ABCD
Metro Center ABCD
Judicuary Square ABCD
Union Station ABCD
New York Avenue ABD
Rhode Island Avenue ABC
Brookland ABD
Fort Totten ABCD
Takoma ABC
Silver SPring ABCD
Forest Glen ABD
Wheaton ABC
Glenmont ABCD
This way, skip stop only runs in the peak direction on each side. To DC in the mornings and from DC in the evenings. At times other than rush hour, this would not work. This would only also work on the Red Line and no other line except maybe the Green Line.
Here is the question. How many subtalkers have seen an official MTA sign prohibiting photography and how many Subtalkers have been legitimately threatened by police. I know that many employees have given subtalkers guff, but how many of you have run into either police threatening a ticket or arrest or an MTA employee providing a credible threat of ticket or arrest.
I know that many of us have been questioned re: our activity and many of us have been challenged by employees or cops who "think that one can take photos" or who "kindly ask us to stop taking pictures", but how many of you have run into a chellenge with the air of credibility that one sees in boston.
I was once questioned by a cop at New Lots for a few minutes.
Peggy's most recent tour was challenged by an overzealous transit worker at Essex.
Otherwise, nothing, and I take a lot of photos, some with cops right there. A few months ago I took about 120 photos at Times Square during the afternoon rush and nobody batted an eyelash.
I say personally because although I was not taking photos at Essex Street, some people on Peggy's Eastern Division tour were told to stop taking photos "on transit property". But that's all she did. She may have been a bit abrubt, said not to do it, everyone stopped, and that basically was the end of it. She didn't threaten anyone, and no one argued with her.
(Although apparently pedestrians on the MTA bridges are searched, and those with cameras are turned back.)
This exchange illutrates both problems that face railfans re: photography.
1) We sometimes bug employees, often by our very presence and they will want to find any excuse to be rid of us.
2) Post 9/11 security policy has been half assed at best and in loo of a concrete policy employees are apt to "wing it" in an effort to do their part.
In this case the worker A) wanted to do his part to prevent terrorism and B) wanted the railfan window view.
BTW, he was right, the side window did give me a better view and here are the results (BTW, can you spot the gossling?):
The gosling is at bottom right in the second picture, and again with its parents at left in the third?
Just to add to my original post about never having a problem in the subway, that is true, but I was stopped a few times on the LIRR about 10-12 years ago (so long before 9/11).
Technically I was trespassing each of those times, and each time I was just asked what I was doing.
-Once while taking photos of the former Fremont tower on the Bay Ridge line, a friebd and I were asked why we were on the ROW by a cop, we told him "to take photos of the tower because they were going to to tear it down." He said, "oh that's too bad. Well, just watch out for trains", and left.
-Once in Fresh Pond yard some cop kept insisting that we were there to take photos, not of the trains in general, but of grafitti we had put on the trains. I kept insisting that we would never do that, and he kept insisting that that's what we must be doing. That one got a bit heated, but finally he realized he was wrong, and just said to leave the yard.
Here's a photo of Fremont that hot summer day, a few weeks before it was demolished, and a before and after from another day. That place was never the same after they took the tower away.
Sorry, no gosling in the photos....
I was threatened with arrest and confiscation of my camera by a security guard at 126 St depot for shooting buses from the street, but that was 9/8/01, so it doesn't count.
"What do you mean you could loose your job? I told you to go over there and tell that person to...."
-Robert King
YOu can take all the photos you want on the MBTA you just need to get a permit first it take about a half hour.
I travel on Metrolink and Amtrak in/out of LAUS frequently, and have yet to see such a sign. And I have taken MANY photographs of the trains there in recent months, and have yet to be challenged by anyone.
I was recently with a group of SubTalkers on the LACMTA Red Line. One photographer decided to shoot a photo....WITH a tripod. And, of course, some supervisor came out of the woodwork (uh, make that the concretework...) and hassled him. Yet I was standing right NEXT to him, shooting my digital camera, hand-held, no flash, and the same supervisor said I was okay (as I made a point to ask him).
However the construction foreman was certainly watching what I was doing. Maybe he though I was gonna try to nail them for some violation.
nycguide.us webmaster
I was only 25-30 feet away from the unit staking out a fare control area. This was just before the SAS hearing I attended, which was last month.
Anyway, from this exchange I think that the policy has little to o with photos and more to do with the security/liability issue of letting people wander around and hang out on the parking deck. A suspect if you paid $10 and parked your car in the lot you would have some standing to take as many photos as you wanted.
I also believe that they really only care about people wandering the boothed, attended lot, not the shitty safe lot as Amtrak might be liable for auto-break ins and thefts from the paid lot.
CG
Anyway, I had the last laugh. I lost track of time at the end of the day and by waiting for the next PATCO train with a railfan seat at 15/16th I think Pigs missed the 7:07 R7 which would then cause tim to miss the last bus home resulting in a long walk late at night. I'm really sorry, but it want from 5:30 to 6:50 just like that. I don't know what happened.
Quite likely. Most commercial parking garages prohibit entry by non-customers, and if you look you'll usually find signs to that effect.
If a person falls and sues for millions (and most likely receives a settlement in the $50-75K range), the $15 or so s/he would have contributed as a customer is negilible. A non-customer also would not have the opportunity to sue for damage to a vehicle.
That's not how the employer looks at it. Employers see potential trespassers as risks to their customers, diversions to the duties employees have to attend to, and liability risks. The employer gets the best bvalue when there is nobody on the property except for employees and customers.
"If a person falls and sues for millions (and most likely receives a settlement in the $50-75K range), the $15 or so s/he would have contributed as a customer is negilible. "
And if customers gain the perception that their lot is frequented by people who are not supposed to be there, then the number of $15 fees which the parking lot operator collects will begin to drop.
They are varied and Pig is sure to tell us what they all were (and are).
Link, with a generic subway station picture
Two valuable works of art which were left on a New York subway platform have been handed in at one of the city's police stations.
A reward was offered for the works - a Picasso drawing and a painting by New York artist Sophie Matisse, the great-granddaughter of Henri Matisse.
An absent-minded picture framer left the two works of art on the platform of the 79th Street subway stop last week.
The leather portfolio they were travelling in was left leaning against a column as the picture framer, William Bailey, got on to the southbound number one train.
When he realised what he had lost, Mr Bailey retraced his steps and stuck up posters all around the station promising the reward to anyone who may have found the works.
And, in what is being hailed in New York as "a little Big Apple miracle", they have now turned up.
A street bookseller handed them in to the police, saying only that two men gave him the leather portfolio as they came out of the same subway station in which the picture framer had left them.
“An absent minded picture framer” Surely this has to be a front for some really exciting undercover operator?
Andrew.
Obviously a typo by the BBC. Here on Subtalk, we know it actually happened at 76th St.
Unless this is another one of those pesky phantom subway stations!!
Has anyone suggested this tour?
Subway grrl
Really though, other examples of rehashed dumb jokes include the R142's, Redbirds and poor Fred's Sea Beach line. See, I'm also one of the few people who types it right. Everyone else spells it wrong for laughs as well.
http://www.lowermanhattan.info/rebuild/trans_improve/default.asp
Aha! The PATH will go to the Newark Airport TRAIN STATION. That way, the PA can get its extra $5 from Newark Airport PATH riders too. If the PATH had gone direct to the airport terminals, you could have had a $1.50 ride direct from Newark Airport to 33rd St in Manhattan.
And why does it make ANY sense to extend PATH to the terminals when there is already a transit line conecting the terminals with the NE corridor -- the monorail?
I also support the new East river tunnel, with Long Island Express and Airtrain service.
Interesting the Airtrain would make onestop in Downtown (Metro tech) Brooklyn.
We in New York are spoiled, because our subway system charges the same fare regardless of the distance traveled. Most of the world's subway systems have fare zones, and you pay more to travel farther. (There is a limited precedent for this in NY, as formerly PATH charged a higher fare for trips to/from Newark, and at one time the subway had a surcharge for travel on the Rockaway branch.)
While I am not sure whether $5 is the right amount, I see nothing wrong with charging extra to go to the airport. The cost of building the line has to be paid for somehow, and charging the actual users of it is probably the best solution. And it's still a lot cheaper than any other way of getting to the airport.
Some on this board have opined that building nothing at all would have been much better than building AirTrain (and there were no other viable alternatives, and won't be for another decade). But that's what Subtalk is for.
Some of us are spoiled. Those of us who take longer trips than average are spoiled. Those of us who take shorter trips than average are, to put it bluntly, being ripped off.
Most of the world's subway systems have fare zones, and you pay more to travel farther.
Why think of it as paying more to travel longer distances rather than paying less to travel shorter distances?
Why think of it as paying more to travel longer distances rather than paying less to travel shorter distances?
It's just a turn of phrase. You could say that the Empire State Building is taller than the Chrysler Building, or you could say that the Chrysler Building is shorter than the Empire State Building. Either way, the same information is being conveyed.
Most subway systems are structured so that $x.xx is the base fare, and you pay more to travel farther. No one says that $y.yy is the base fare, but you get a discount for a shorter trip.
Of course, but how information is conveyed affects the reader's perception. In fact, if NYCT were (hypothetically) to switch to a distance-based fare system tomorrow, some riders would come out ahead and others would come out behind, so neither phrase is more or less accurate.
Most subway systems are structured so that $x.xx is the base fare, and you pay more to travel farther. No one says that $y.yy is the base fare, but you get a discount for a shorter trip.
But why not?
Does NYCT have a $2.00 base fare with a bonus on purchases of $10 and up, or does it have a $1.67 base fare with a surcharge on purchases of under $12? The numbers work out the same, but I think NYCT might have had an easier public relations job with the latter formulation.
Well one reason is that a PATH train has a much higher capacity (an order of magnitude?) than a Newark AirTrain train, which basically uses amusement park monorail technology. And there is no way off that station other than by train.
So either the PATH trains to Newark Airport station are going to be running pretty empty (in which case why is the extension needed, given that there is already NJT and Amtrack service to the station), or the arrival of a terminating PATH train is going to overwhelm the AirTrain train.
Increasing the frequency of circulators can handle that. MARTA trains empty into an airport circulator with a lower capacity too.
So either the PATH trains to Newark Airport station are going to be running pretty empty (in which case why is the extension needed, given that there is already NJT and Amtrack service to the station), or the arrival of a terminating PATH train is going to overwhelm the AirTrain train. "
Neither. Refer to my comment above.
BTW, how much do you really know about the monorail? ( Judging by your amusement park comment, not much.)
Also, there could be some trains that merely shuttled between the airport and the parking lots (especially the new one), with only a subset going to the NEC station.
My upset at this is that the station was built in the first place. I would have liked to have seen the AirTrain extended to Newark station (built on the roof next to the PATH?). I think this would have made a much more sensible hub, given the variety of transportation modes available.
I still think the engineering to extend the monorail to Newark (given its relative flexibility) would be less than that required to bring PATH to Newark Airport.
However, extending PATH to EWR rail is not just for the airport. As I stated before, it introduces subway service with potential for additional stations in Newark and Elizabeth. This introduces new ridership to the system. These riders will go to Newark, use the Newark subway; they'll go to Hobokenj, they'll go to New York; they'll transfer to HBLR.
Stop thinking about it as only an airport extension. It is new PATH service, which includes a terminal at EWR Rail.
I believe the premise of the proposed extension is that it will take advantage of existing rights of way. That makes it a lot cheaper than extending the monorail, which has no ROW beyond its current extent.
The PATH option has other benefits that the monorail option doesn't, but it's also in fact the cheapest way to do go.
Similarly, so would a PATH extension. However, the PATH tracks, by the time they come down to North-East Corridor level are on the west side of the NEC, where there are lay-up tracks, all built on a viaduct. There is no ROW for a few hundred yards for anything until the railroad is back at ground level. Then the west side has the turn-off for the Raritan Valley line. There are also a couple of bridges that need to be negociated.
Given all the engineering, I just thought that it would be easier to extend the monorail, where it could go down a median on a set of pylons, rather than the relatively heavy PATH.
I've used it for its intended purpose as an airline passenger. I found it overcrowded (admittedly largely with inter-terminal and car park passengers rather than rail passengers).
I know that it is basically a Von Roll system (although officially acredited to Adtranz who purchased Von Roll during the planning stage) both because I recognised the look and feel from other Von Roll systems I've ridden, and because I've just checked.
The other Von Roll systems I'm aware of are:
Alton Towers (an amusement park in the UK)
Sentosa (an amusement park island in Singapore)
Sydney Darling Harbour (not an amusement park, but very much a tourist ride nonetheless).
Europa Park (an amusement park in Germany)
Seaworld (an amusement park in Australia)
I rest my case.
No. Since the PA operates PATH and the airport, it could easily require that you pay an additional fare upon exiting a turnstile at the airport terminal. In fact, the PA would most likely impose such a surcharge, which would be in effect only at airport stations.
The current plan is the most reasonable, because it uses an existing ROW (which would be widened a bit) to an existing station; could provide additional stops along the way, minimizes NIMBY concerns, and avoids unnecessary infrastructure expense. There is no reason to spend what coul be up to an extra $600 million or more building a line into the airport when the monorail already serves it adequately.
Evidently, the PATH feasibility study was completed. The cost of the extension is about $210 million per mile, not out of line with infrastructure costs these days. Hopefully, this plan will include additional stations in Newark and Elizabeth, which will increase PATH ridership into NYC as well, and take a bit of pressure off crowded NJT trains.
Also, passengers can use PATH plus the Newark subway to commute to jobs and higher education in Newark.
Thanks,
Paul
And hopefully that dealer contributed to ongoing RT projects that
we have an interest for the amount of gratis verbiage extended them.
>>GG<<
8-) ~ Sparky
Paul
It appeared to be the first ones they issued after the Chicago cars,
44, 42, 46, 68 they all look the same to me ;-)
Big, ulgy & out of scale.
So why you telling us on this board where they are "FOR SALE", like
we give a phuck. Complimentary verbosity for those folks. Come on
Gramps, this posting was disgustingly unpleasant.
More so, since most of the sets available are above & beyond MSRP,
a well known pratice of this franchise.
Phew, it reekes.
8-) ~ Sparky
I do all my stuff in N gauge - but if they ever did an Arnine set of four, I'd have to rethink my track gauge ...
For shame...and you call yourself a RAILFAN???
That's why I pre-order from Charlie at Nassau Hobbys ... the price he originally quotes you is the price you pay PERIOD.
Jimmy
Quick, get that man some serious medication!
-Stef
VERY limited customer base
http://www.brooklynrail.com/news_12.html
Bob D.
HTML Police Alert: NON-LINKING VIOLATION! Please cease and desist your non-linking activities at once.
Linked for your enjoyment: http://www.brooklynrail.com/news_12.html
Along this line, I plan on working up a SubTalk "Common Courtesy" FAQ that, with Dave's approval, could be placed here. So far my ideas include:
1. You should write HTML links
2. Here is how to do it...
3. Capital letters mean you are shouting. Use them wisely and sparingly
Most other SubTalk "peculiarities" seem to be picked up by new members pretty quickly so I don't even see the need to list them in the FAQ.
Uh huh. Many's the time I happily spent Sundays at the Main Branch of the Brooklyn Public Library perusing a randomly picked spool of the NY Times microfilm, especially from the teens and `20s. One thing I was amazed at: How many streetcar and elevated and other passenger train stories made the front page! It was really interesting to read those stories, as it's a good way to get an honest idea of how they were operating. And that was in the days of private ownership of the rail lines. So you could also follow their adventures in the business sections.
Regarding the digitalization of these resources, the question of bandwidth is still the major stumbling block. The microfilm allows for a much larger block of data to become available at a, yes, higher speed then the digital. I don't see that changing in the next five or ten years. The drawback is the bulky nature of film. But you could order complete years content of the N.Y. Times or other pubs. for use in a home viewer. When I can I'm going to do just that. Get a home microfilm reader that is. For uh, "recreational reading" purposes.
What do you mean by bandwidth? Is it true that microfilm gives a larger block of data than a CD? Typically there is half a month of the NY Times on a roll of microfilm. I would think you could get at least three months, if not more, on a CD, and the CD would be text searchable. In film, for storage purposes, microfiche is much more compact than microfilm, although more expensive to produce.
Tom
Okay, I was using bandwidth in a different sense. Sure, images are stored on CD. Microfilm is a more, uh, direct reproduction. And the image quality is higher with film. Maybe that level of clarity isn't a primary requirement if searching the records. Look at it this way. One full page of the N.Y. Times as a filmed image versus the digital image. I would think the digital reproduction of that single page could require many hundreds of megabytes. Of course that depends on how exact a copy of the page your needs require. But that would quickly fill a cd rom after a couple of images, if true.
I could be wrong on this. My experience has generally been with TIFF scanned image files. I guess if the images that are accessable via this new system are using that format it might be feasible to use the stored cd images. I still say that going from page to page will still be clunkier with the cd than with the microfilm spool. Sometimes analog is better.
While you can't do the groovy digital stuff like e-mailing a pdf version of the frame with film (except with a combo system), it's just simpler to get high density page image "data" with microfilm. (Might as well consider photographs as data, IMO.). I feel comfortable with equating "bandwidth" with the ease of me being able to read a complete N.Y. Times broadsheet page image. I don't mind losing the digital advantages since my primary requirement is to read that page. Each methodology has it's drawbacks. At least with film there is a sense of seeing the actual page of which a photograph was taken. (So I guess my opinion here is tinged with a personal bias.)
Digital sort of grinds every bit of the page into "atomic dust" and uses mathematical techniques to virtually spray paint this "dust" via a highly refined version of color-by-number painting to sketch the image.
Which is cool in itself. But the old systems still have use. Micrographics has stubbornly refused to go quietly into that dark night.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4
Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!! It's the home of Mornington Crescent - I win, back on topic!!!!!!!!!!!
I never understood Mornington Crescent–I failed to find it funny when I’m Sorry I haven’t a Clue started in the 1970’s, and still don’t.
OTOH, if the BBC would rerun some of the I’m Sorry I’ll Read That Again episodes, I would be ecstatic. Full frontal radio…
Aaaarrrggghhh! Quickly switches to Medium Wave twiddles dial and swears at radio that with Radio 5 having 2 frequencies it shouldn't be so hard to find one of them!
I never understood Mornington Crescent–I failed to find it funny when I’m Sorry I haven’t a Clue started in the 1970’s, and still don’t.
It's just randomness... I like it! Having said that, my favourite is One Song to the Tune of Another. Click here for Barry Cryer singing "I am sixteen, going on seventeen" from the Sound of Music to the tune of "House of the Rising Sun"!
OTOH, if the BBC would rerun some of the I’m Sorry I’ll Read That Again episodes, I would be ecstatic.
Hear hear! And I can't wait for All the Right Notes to return!
One of the things I miss most about British Radio is Radio 4. I know I can listen to it on the Internet, but I need a 5-hour time-shifted version, so I can listen to the evening plays and intelligent discourse in the evenings US time!
If you know which programme you want to listen to, find it on the A-Z list on the Radio 4 website, and you can listen to at least the last episode of most of them!
No Picture Taking
No Mooing
No Homework to be done on trains
No clipboards
No notepads
No Nothing
A huge Subtalk fantasy, by which the line is extended South under the Thames to Waterloo and North via Euston then under Regent's Park to Marylebone, so that I have an alternative when the Bakerloo Line's signalling system breaks down again / there is an incident at Baker Street.
BTW, is there any room to extend the tunnels without major reconfiguration? Since Surrey Street slopes down to the Embankment, what is the clearance between the Piccadilly line tubes and the District line?
It's not as wacky as this proposal of a rather obvious date.
I actually think there should be three new lines in London - in addition to my extended Aldwych Line, a version of a Chelsea-Hackney Line, with interchange at Aldwych, and a North-South Line running via Marylebone, Marble Arch and Victoria. I've actually drawn a map of how these would fit together - I'll try and find the file!
and there is nowhere available to put escalators
My idea would be to build a pedestrian passageway (like the Bank-Monument Escalator Link) to Temple station and refurbish the lifts at Aldwych. I think it would probably then handle the crowds! If not, there is space (ie unused lift shafts) at Aldwych for a further 4 lifts in addition to the 2 which saw service.
BTW, is there any room to extend the tunnels without major reconfiguration? Since Surrey Street slopes down to the Embankment, what is the clearance between the Piccadilly line tubes and the District line?
I'm not sure what the clearance is, but I'm fairly sure that Aldwych quite a long way down - the spiral staircase is 119 steps, then there are further flights down to both platforms (yes, Aldwych is a two-platform station - one of them's been closed since 1917), so I'd guess it's 70 or 80 ft down. It would still have to dive down a bit to get under the river.
:) :) :)
Look at item #2 of my FAQ. It will tell you how to write a link (when it is complete and posted here). And you must agree that it is super simple.
[hey a while back I asked how to wirte them and now I use them regularly]
See, you are one of the nice people. I think most people want to be nice, and given the oppurtunity and instruction, they will use HTML links. The other people here at SubTalk will be easily identifiable by their lack of use of HTML links. Personally, I only want to converse with nice people here at SubTalk. So I really wouldn't care if the other people got all mad about my request and killfiled me.
Thank you. People don't have to use them but in some instaances I think it will be more convenient example providing links and sometimes when you cut & paste if one thing is wrong then you won't find the page. If people were to killfile you based on a request of use of HTML codes, then I think that is flat out immature and ridiculous that someone will stoop low like that.
(Come on you know that couldn't be ignored)
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
- The reader still has to copy and paste the URL if the botched link even it.
- If the URL isn't displayed, the poster tends to go back, fix it. This adds a second post, which may seem harmless, but uses Dave's bandwidth.
I use links whenever possible but I think they should be optional. However it would be a great service to everyone if using a link to remember to hit preview first before posting.
Maybe in general that should be added to your FAQ. "Hit Preview before Post".
If I could do it in 12 seconds, I always would. It takes me about 3 minutes to get it right. I'm sure others are faster.
So I only do it if I think lots of people will look at the article, and if I have the time at the moment. If doing the link will cause me not to post the item, I'll post without the link.
Bill "Newkirk"
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
First, is BHRA considering selling any of its rolling stock to raise funds?
Second, is there any danger of being evicted either from the shop site or from the Brooklyn Navy Yard in the immediate future?
Third, are restoration activities on Shaker Heights #70 continuing or have they effectively ceased for the time being?
Frank Hicks
Ahem.
Those of you who know me can attest to the license plate on my van:
TROLLEY
And no, I don't have
SUBWAY
on any of my vehicles... although for many years I had
PENNSYRR
on one of our station wagons. (The plate was retired with the car a few years back.)
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Too bad you won't be able to get tickets for that one if you don't already have.
What's the procedure if you want to purchase tickets the day of the trip (Like this Sunday the 9th)? I'm thinking about possibly dissing the family function I am supposed to go to. It's too late to order them by mail.
Help!
Call the information number.
(347) 643-5310
Bill "Newkirk"
Just show up! That's the bottom line. I wasn't planning on being on the 1st set of trips, but I've got an itch. I might just head for the shuttle platform Saturday morning.
-Stef
-Stef
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
-Stef
Anyone here interested ?
Bill "Newkirk"
Just my opinion.
Jimmy
Meanwhile, the man is worshipped by millions!
Anyway, Fred, just update us on your e.t.a. so I can run for the hills (just kidding)!
"I want to thank everyone for making this night necessary."
In fact my favorite all time Yank isn't Italian. I'll be sure to wear his # when we meet. :)
My father tried to raise me as a Mets fan and so I hated the Sox 86 and after, and as I educated myself more about the Yanks hated them more.
But I would never go as far as to say I hated any Sox player. Maybe I didn't care for Clemens too much. But I'd never say I hated Ted Williams. He was a player. Same goes for Garciapara. At one point I thought he was a better shortstop than Jeter, but I haven't watched him play lately so I won't comment on his current play.
Nomar has nothing because his team has won nothing.
Because the Yanks won nothing in the 80s does that mean that Mattingly was a poor player?
Can you imagine a Brighton-Sea Beach debate hitting the papers every day?:)
I got it "The Bad News MUTTS".
Jimmy
You may not recognize Coney Island terminal, with three of the four platforms removed. Are the Cyclones on your itinerary?
Hope to get together-
Peace,
ANDEE
--Mark
Oh, wait, I must be having another senior moment.
Uh....George????
He was there with the rest of us at Union Station a few weeks ago.
:-)
Never mind.
Thanks,
Bob Sklar
??? This actually EXISTS? I thought it was just a dream of the IND Second System.
There is also additional info on Joe Brennan's Abandoned Stations site
The Roosevelt station is no 76th Street. Wh have "PROFF"!!
http://www.quuxuum.org/~joekor/nyctind/roosvelt-rock-line/
You've added yet another phrase to the lexicon.
One was never offered although at one time a tour at this location was being investigated.
Does the transit museum ever still give tours of any of the abandoned stations?
Nope ... no more.
When was the last abandoned station tour they gave?
I am not certain but the last one I attended was held in December 1998.
--Mark
It is in a book called 12 historical maps or something like that.
Elias
I got a photocopy of the map from the NY Public Library on 5th Avenue. If you walk in the main entrance, turn right down that huge corridor and it was in a room about 2/3 of the way down on the right. I think it is the "Transportation" room.
It's the Map Division.
Yeah, that's it. I couldn't remember because it was almost 2 years ago. =)
Background from the NE Transit Web site.
Roster from NE Transit with updated history.
-Robert King
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
For the record: Every LRV built by Breda for a US transit agency has been delivered with a host of problems. GCRTA, MUNI and now MBTA. When are the agencies going to eliminate Breda fron the list of qualified bidders?
Peace,
ANDEE
more seriously, one might imagine the bid specs for the WMATA cars were based on the already proven Rohr cars, and thus less room for dumb design. The SF MUNI Bredas are regularly cycling back for "mods" upgrades, and 'warranty work'. The Cleveland RTA essentially rebuilt theirs in house to correct as built deficiencies. Not a good track record.
The two nighttime routes were Newark-WTC and Journal Square-Hoboken-33rd St.
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 13:03:34 -0700
From: Jim Holland pghpcc@pacbell.net
Subject: [Fwd: Energy Intensity of Rail Transit]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Energy Intensity of Rail Transit
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 10:28:40 -0400
From: James Robinson wascana@....com
Organization: Complete
Newsgroups: misc.transport.rail.americas
There are a few interesting charts in the Transportation Energy Data Book about the energy use of different rail transit systems across the US. There is a huge spread of efficiencies, which I can't really explain from simply differences in climate, operating speed, or load factors. They come from reportings to the Federal Transit Administration.
To start, and to give a perspective, here are the average numbers for various modes in all types of service. (BTU / psgr-mi, year 2000):
Rail commuter: 2759
Rail Transit: 3105
Autos: 3543
Personal Trucks: 4396
Bus Transit: 4775
Autos/trucks**: 6036
** My assessment of the combination of autos and personal trucks when used for transit-competitive travel between home
and work. (Long distance trips excluded; average passengers per vehicle adjusted to 1.1 from 1.6; and autos, pickups, SUVs combined into a single weighted number.)
Now the numbers for heavy rail transit, as reported by individual transit systems, interpolated off a graph:
Atlanta, GA: 2200
Brooklyn, NY: 2400
Oakland, CA: 2700
New York, NY: 3400
Washington, DC: 3700
Baltimore, MD: 3800
Philadelphia, PA: 4000
Chicago, IL: 4200
Boston, MA: 4400
Miami, FL: 4900
Lindenwold, NJ: 5000
Cleveland, OH: 6200
That's a spread of almost 3:1 between the least efficient and the most efficient systems. The spread is even greater for
light rail systems:
Newark, NJ: 1600
Salt Lake City, UT: 1900
San Diego, CA: 2300
St. Louis, MO: 2300
New Orleans, LA: 2500
Los Angeles, CA: 2600
Portland, OR: 2900
Denver, CO: 3600
Boston, MA: 3800
Sacramento, CA: 4300
Seattle, WA: 5400
Baltimore, MD: 5500
Philadelphia, PA: 5800
Dallas, TX: 5900
San Francisco, CA: 6600
Buffalo, NY: 6800
San Jose, CA: 7000
Pittsburgh, PA: 7400
Cleveland, OH: 8200
That's a spread of 5:1 between the bottom and top performers.
I sure can't explain from my experience with the system why Cleveland's energy use is so high on both heavy and light rail
systems. I wouldn't have thought they would have used so much energy per passenger. I'll have to do more digging to see what their average load factor is.
James B. Holland
Holland Electric Railway Operation.......
NYCT engergy consumption could be so much lower per passenger if it ran the right level of service plus used common sense on non-transit places such as closed off fae controls
That was what surprised me too.
I'd be interested in seeing a tabulation of efficiency in terms of trips rather than miles.
That would depend on whether the figures are correct!
To a lesser extent to say the least! On the margin and in the short run, the only possible response to a loss of oil is an increase in coal burned for electricity, something that carries its own environmental cost.
Not want to employ people at a living wage? Put it in India.
Not want to buy off the NIMBYs? Put it in India.
It's the next step. And think what a wonderful idea a global power network would be.
Nuclear Reactor design has come a long way from the reactors of the 1970s, designed in the 1960s, based on knowledge from the 1950s. The French generate some 70% of their power with their nuclear reactors, and have never had a major problem with them. If the US could follow their example and build a standardized, reliable, relatively foolproof nuclear reactor (perhaps based on the CANDU reactor), we could avoid the current brownouts and such that we get in the summer, as well as reduce sulfer dioxide production, and elminate oil needed to be imported for power production.
The MTA waste's so much fuel
If you follow any bustalk threads. There is a whole thread concerning the picking of ovetime shuttle routes where drivers pick up buses from there home depot rather then the nearest depot to the route
This weekend the Q beach Shuttle had buses from east Ny depot and fresh ponds and The L line Shuttle had buses from Ulmer park in bensonhurst. UP is less then 1 mile from CI
Iraq's "prosuction" is/can be quite high, but its reserves are much smaller than Shitty Arabia's, indeed the latter country is the only one with the potential to greatly increase its production and therefore effectively controls world oil prices.
America's overseas (used to be Iraq's) total proven reserves are 112.5 billion barrels, the second highest in the area after Saudi Arabia's 261.5 billion barrels. This compares with the U.S.'s North American reserves of 29.8 billion barrels. Iraq may be #2, but there is enough oil there to keep Saudi Arabia from dictating the prices. If we were to go ahead and liberate Iran, it would add another 93 billion barrels to the oil we control, and if we now determine that Kuwait really is Iraq's lost province after all (as Hussein claimed in 1990) and therefore it should be administered with Iraq, it would increase the proven reserves another 96.5 billion barrels. That would keep our SUVs and armored divisions fueled for quite some time.
Tom
That tends to indicate that any upheaval in the country might not cause a major spike in gasoline pricing, but you never know.
Both the demand and supply of oil are inelastic in both the short and the medium term. That is, oil exploration and conservation cannot be started up on a dime the moment prices rise, so people keep buying even as the price soars. People have to go to work, and cannot trade in all their SUVs for Honda Hybrids overnight. Neither can they abandon all the McMansions for small apartments.
A ten percent change in supply can lead to a huge swing in price, which is why oil prices can soar and plunge.
If it takes X amount of energy to move the train, and Y amount to move each passenger on the train, and if X is considerably higher than Y, you will find that the "empty" car uses far more energy per passenger mile than the "full" car.
Example: X = 100; y =1.
10 passengers: Total energy = 1x + 10y = 100 +10 = 110.
Energy per passenger = 11.
50 passengers: Total energy = 1x + 50y = 100 + 50 = 150.
Energy per passenger = 3.
100 passengers: Total energy = 1x +100y = 100 + 100 = 200.
Energy per passenger = 2.
A gallon of oil is 130,000 BTUs. I doubt gasoline is much less.
So that would be close to 35 passenger-miles per gallon, which would surprise me, given how much travel is by people alone in their car.
Since the effeciency of transit is based on riders.
The auto figure is probsbly also. Two people in a car by your calulation would mean an average fuel economy of 17 miles per gallon. More believable.
The average car gets about 25-30 miles per gallon combined city/highway. This number needs to be reduced by the number of average riders per car.
NYCT for instance runs near empty train full length trains all night long with brings down it's numbers.
Unfortunately, not. It was heading that way, but stopped. Maybe hybrid technology will help. But it is likely to help buses first, thanks to NYCT's aggressive program.
Regardless of the accuracy and provenance of these figures (no, I haven't bothered to check either), they do imply an important point. Transit isn't always good for the environment, since a bus with one passenger uses far more energy per rider than a car with two. In fact, carpools may be the most environmentally friendly form of transportation for many trips.
And overnight service really needs to be looked at. Can we run a diminished rail network with bus connections? How about cars that are easier to decouple, with half length trains, OPTO, and more frequent service? Van instead of buses on some routes that have to be run? Would it pay to own a separate fleet of vans just for this purpose? Private vans on bus routes overnight?
A diminished rail network with bus connections will not due. it will chase riders away. I can talk from personal experience as I need to take a bus home from the train. If I plan on coming home after 11 PM, I drive to the subway station as infrequent bus service is unreliable(I know what time the bus comes after 11pm on the B3 and try to time my trip for the connection)
Techonlogy is available today to make rail operations less expensive including possible running ZPTO short trains overnights. Remeber most trains already have a police officer aboard overnight thus they won't be truely ZPTO but ZPTO in terms of train crew memebers. If overnight ZPTO is put into place, a security officer should be aboard each train. Of course such as setup is 20 years away according to the MTA singal upgrade schedule
"How about cars that are easier to decouple, with half length trains, OPTO, and more frequent service?"
Such service patterns should be looked at right now. As many already know I beleive in extensive testing and trail prior to jumping off the deep end. Perfect the OPTO implimentation on the "G" including in cab CCTV, improved signage and announcements. Expand it to 6 car "G" operation during the week. Once all the kinks are worked out extend it to say the Sea Beach or brighon line.
"Van instead of buses on some routes that have to be run? Would it pay to own a separate fleet of vans just for this purpose? Private vans on bus routes overnight"
It does not make econimic sense to own a separate fleet of vans for overnight service. What does make sense is for the MTA to bring the some of the access-a-ride program in house. Some access-a-ride vans could be used for overnight service on some lower volume routes such as the B3. I speak of the B3 becasue it is a line that I have rode many times at various times overnight over a 15 year period plus it runs in front of my house.
The current access-a-ride program is out of hand with many opertors finding ways to "cheat" the MTA by using unscupolus tactics such as taking the long route to a destination. Plus the service level provided to riders is not acceptable plus metrocard is not currently accepted.
Access a-ride tracking and dispatching could be improved by incorporating into an NYCT wide bus monitoring and tracking such as Orbitals smarttrax manangement system
http://www.orbital.com/TMS/
The mta should also end the practice of running Articulated buses overnights when the ridership does not warrent thier use. A small reduction in energy costs on a system the size of NYCT is a huge money saver.
Mr. private sector advocates in-house? Well I have to agree with you there. At least if there were some in-house service, there would be a civil service costs to compare the private operators to. And, as you say, the vans would be there for other uses at night.
http://www-cta.ornl.gov/cta/data/Index.html
From Chapter 2 "Energy": http://www-cta.ornl.gov/cta/data/tedb22/Edition22Chapter02.pdf
Total energy use 2001 (Quadrillion Btu)
Transportation 27.1
Industrial 34.0
Commercial 16.6
Residential 19.4
Total all uses 2001 = 97 Quadrillion Btu.
See also www.eia.doe.gov
Transportation share of U.S. energy consumption, 2001 = 27.9%.
Petroleum share of transportation energy consumption, 2001 = 96.9%.
Transportation energy use per mode, 2000 (Trillion Btu):
Automobiles 9,082 (33.1%)
Light Trucks 6,598 (24.0%)
Heavy Trucks 4,813 (17.5%)
Air 2,549 (9.3%)
Water 1,720 (6.3%)
Off-highway 944 (3.4%)
Pipeline 911 (3.3%)
Rail 605 (2.2%) (of which freight = 516, passenger = 89)
Buses 211 (0.8%)
Transportation Total 2000 = 27 Quadrillion Btu, equivalent to 13.3 million barrels per day of crude oil.
Passenger Travel and Energy Use, 2000 (Table 2.11):
(1) Million passenger miles, (2) Persons per vehicle, (3) BTU per vehicle mile, (4) BTU per passenger mile, (5) Trillion BTU
Automobiles: (1) = 2,563,062, (2) = 1.6, (3) = 5,669, (4) = 3,543, (5) = 9,081.6
Personal Trucks: (1) = 1,068,627, (2) = 1.6, (3) = 7,033, (4) = 4,396, (5) = 4,697.5
Air (Certificated Route): (1) = 529,629, (2) = 91.1, (3) = 334,086, (4) = 3,666, (5) = 1,892.4
Rail (Amtrak Inter-city): (1) = 5,574, (2) = 15.0, (3) = 43,581, (4) = 2,902, (5) = 16.2
Rail (Commuter): (1) = 9402, (2) = 34.7, (3) = 95,757, (4) = 2,759, (5) = 25.9
Rail (Light and Heavy Transit): (1) = 15,200, (2) = 23.5, (3) = 72,841, (4) = 3,105, (5) = 47.2
Buses (Transit only): (1) = 21,241, (2) = 9.2, (3) = 43,817, (4) = 4,775, (5) = 101.4
From Chapter 12 "Nonhighway Modes": http://www-cta.ornl.gov/cta/data/tedb22/Edition22Chapter12.pdf
Nonhighway Modes - Passenger (2000):
(A) Million passenger miles, (B) Energy use (Trillion Btus), (C) Average trip length (miles), (D) Energy intensity (Btus per revenue passenger mile).
Domestic and International Air Carrier: A = 708,419, B =2743.1, C = 833, D = 3872
General Aviation: A = 14, B = 175.2
Recreational Boats: B = 311.2
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak, see also www.amtrak.com): A = 5,574, B = 16.2, C = 243, D = 2902.
Commuter rail: A = 9,402, B = 25.9 C = 22.8, D = 2759.
Rail Transit Operations (heavy and light rail, see also www.apta.com): A = 15,200, B = 47.2, C = 5.1, D = 3105.
(Total Passenger Rail: B = 89.3.)
Nonhighway Modes - Freight (2000):
Freight Modes (a) Million Freight-Ton Miles and (b) Trillion Btus:
Domestic Waterborne Commerce: a = 646,000 and b = 327.9
Class I Railroad (see also www.aar.org): a = 1,465,960 and b = 516.0
Overall, passenger rail consumes 89.3 Trillion Btus out of the total U.S. energy consumption of 97 Quadrillion Btus.
They're thumbnails, at the request of another, so click'm for the big picture.
STATIONS CURRENTLY OR COMPLETED BY NYCT IN-HOUSE FORCES:
All local stations between Franklin and 28th st/IRT West Side line
Prince,8th, 23rd,28th, all on the Broadway/BMT line(N/R/Q/W)
Neptune (F), West 8th St (Q AND F)
42nd st/6th Ave/IND and 5th Ave/Flushing Line stations
181st and 191st Street/both IRT
81st CPW/IND
5th Ave/60th st/BMT
Church Ave/IRT
Bergen St/IND
Queensboro Plaza/IRT and BMT
Tremont Ave/IND Concourse Line.
Cab Associates has:
14/8th- still underway but just about finished (ugh!)
Broadway Junction (inherited from Excel which went belly up)
Delancey/Essex (another one taking too long)
Citnalta has:
103,110,116,125 sts/IRT on the 1,
Eastern Parkway/IRT
(I also think they did 34th st/Penn./IND.)
Schiavone Construction is working on:
Atlantic Ave/Pacific St complex
Dekalb/Flatbush Aves/BMT
I do not know these stations:
Lexington/3rd Aves/53rd st/IND
125th st/Lexington/IRT
74/Roosevelt
Queens Plaza/IND
Stilwell complex
Times Square- Phase II (BMT and 7, plus ramps to IND)
Lower White Plains Road/IRT and Jerome Ave/IRT stations (these are very early in renovation stages)
Myrtle/Wyckoff (very early)
I may pass by some of the Manhattan stations to find out however any help on this is always greatly appreciated.
Not only that, but Slattery/Skanska is also doing the massive rehabilitation/expansion of Queens Center Mall. It's going to look great as well.
Here's a preview of the new mall at 96th Street.
The picture's a bit small, but it gets the message across rather effectively.
Make that three projects plus. After the structural job, the new signals come in. Then the are equipped with CBTC at the same time as the rest of the Flushing Line. In the end there will be more storage, and a loop track.
Also add 207, 215, 225, 231 and 238th Streets, all on the 1 and 9 lines to the list of in-house jobs. (231st Street is on the schedule to get ADA elevators but what's going happen to the HEET's on the Uptown side?)
36th st/BMT Brooklyn was also done in-house.
Geesh, I hope they can do Essex/Delancey faster than Broadway Junction got done. I think the entire IND was built in a shorter amount of time than that complex's renovation!
I must admit that some of the in house renovations are some of the nicest in the system.
Do you know who did 33rd Street/PAS (also an amazing job), and Broad and Fulton on the Nassau?
Of course, I want ADA access at that station. It doesn't look like they did that.
There are elevators; I think they're even working by now.
As for 14th St/8th Ave both IND and BMT platforms are ADA accessible.
Peace,
ANDEE
--Mark
"---S 4 ST--->?"
Also when were those old tiles (and stairways) removed?
Fulton St (S. Portland, now an employee facility)
Myrtle (Willoughby)
Flushing Ave (Walton St)
Broadway (South 4th st as you mentioned)
Metropolitan Ave (Grand St)
21st-Van Alst (11th st/48th Ave)
Court Square (Old exit in the area, before Citicorp building erected)
For most of the stations mentioned it seems that TA workers have taken over the closed ends of the stations.
Mark
As sure as I can be without having lived through his term.
Mark
Same thing for Dyckman. Its also 2nd grade grammar... a vowel followed by 2 consonants has the "short" sound.
P.S.: What do you mean "same as Dyckman"? No one pronounces Dyckman as "dickman".
I asked a friend who is from (Old) Amsterdam what the proper
pronunciation of Van Wyck is. The answer is none of the
above: "Fahn Veck"
How do you KNOW that? Show me an official document that gives
the pronunciation with an "ae" sound as in "like".
Everyone says "it's _supposed to be_ pronounced X", where X is
simply the way they were taught to say it.
In this case we know how the original Dutch name is said in Dutch.
So it's a question of what is the "correct" anglicized version?
Frank Hicks
The actor Dick Van Dyke's name was originally Van Dyk - he added the final "E" to make its spelling match the pronunciation to English speakers - the name is actually Dutch, as is Van Wyck's.
In a word: Funding.
In case you think that the NJ Transit situation is unique, there are other systems around the Northeast and some of the rest of the USA that have both high and low platforms on the same lines of their systems, those including MARC, SEPTA, SLE, MBTA, NICTD, and of course Amtrak.
The cheaper copout of using mini-high platforms in order to facilitate wheelchair access has been embraced by NJT, SEPTA, MBTA, MARC, etc. etc. in order to comply with the ADA while saving money over building full-length (or at least one-to-two-car length) high platforms. Also of note is the fact that some cities extend their influence over whether or not they wish high platforms to be built at their train stations, one of the stations on the Gladstone Branch of NJ Transit’s system (forget which one) forbidding NJT to convert to high platforms for reasons of “historical accuracy” or suchlike.
For my part, I am not fond of un-standardized systems where both low and high platforms are on the same line—it leads to the design compromises that are painfully evident on many railcars today (steps/trapdoors being the chief example). Such design differences may have been useful to railroads in the past in order to defray the possibility of takeover, but are a hindrance and nuisance nowadays.
I've always wondered if disabled people could sue those towns for limiting their mobility like that. Fanwood is another one of those "historical acuuracy" places, and one time somebody in a wheelchair was waiting at the low platform for a train. Of course, they could not access the train, but I told them to speak with the local government of Fanwood since it was their fault he could not get on the train.
If I recall correctly, NJT stations are state property. NJT doesn't need permission to put up a high platform.
Although rumored, many people claim that Hoboken Terminal won't get high platforms due to its historical landmark status (to wit, removing an historically accurate feature); however, NJ Transit owns the station fully AFAIK and has mentioned in the past that long-range plans include a conversion to high platforms.
I believe that you're both somewhat mistaken. It was the new LIRR rail cars had to be made ADA compliant. Unless you're going to put wheelchair ramps down the middle of the car, a wheelchair passenger wouldn't be able to get on and off the train with a mix of high and low platforms. As a result, the stations had to be rebuilt with high platforms.
CG
A mix of high and low platforms obviously complicates ADA compliance, but as Chris mentioned, low platforms are used in California with low floor rail cars. The San Francisco Muni has an interesting solution for their LRVs which have high platforms in the tunnel and a few places where it runs in a median, and low platforms where it runs in the street. The cars are high floor, with interior steps that can be remotely converted into a platform for the high platform stations.
On the low level platforms in the street, there is a ramp to a very short high platform at the head end of the platform. After the T/O opens the doors for the other passengers, he pulls forward so the first door is at the high platform and opens only that one door to load or unload a wheelchair.
Tom
That solution does work, albeit at the cost of extending station dwell time. Better if everybody can get on and off at the same time. I do accept that different cities will have different solutions.
CG
But there is $$ to think about.
It isn't so much whether a system uses high platforms or low platforms that complicates ADA compliance. It is more having a mixture of the two that gives ADA compliance headaches.
-- Ed Sachs
Most LIRR lines have some freight activity, albeit modest, and they all have high platforms.
Peace,
ANDEE
The issue is the kinds of freight cars allowed on the lines.
Freight cars have a wide variety of clearences (called plates).
The LIRR does not have any oversized cars running on it, nor does it have any over length cars or any over height cars.
Other railroad lines have to be built for better clearences.
AMTK does not bring superliners into Penn Station.
You'd crunch them at the top, and not platform them at the bottom.
Elias
You'd crunch them at the top, and not platform them at the bottom.
I think there are also cleareance issues with the 3rd rail for the Superliners.
Elmhurst, IL Metra station, my home stop.
-- Ed Sachs
(UP is my favorite by the way).
The NEC also has freight activity, virtually up and down its whole length. High platforms on NJT’s segment feature gaps to permit sufficient clearance of freight cars. If the NEC were indeed a dedicated passenger line, then FRA Tier II crashworthiness specs may have been unnecessary for the Acela Express; same goes for the 150-mph speed limit, which then could have been exceeded (that is, assuming the use of off-the-shelf HSTs).
Comparisons with Metra non-IC lines are invalid, since the CNW-style push-pull gallery cars were designed to operate at low platforms. Not to mention the Superliners that Amtrak operates out of Union Station cannot use high platforms either.
Sort of chicken and egg kind of thing - Gallery Cars and Superliners were designed for low platforms because high platforms were incompatible with the size of freight trains used in midwest and west.
-- Ed Sachs
To make the trainmen's jobs more difficult? ;)
To accomodate freight cars of larger dimensions that can be transveresed on the LIRR.
Sometimes a very oversized movement must be made, and special contractors have to plan the routes for all of the clearences necessary for the load.
If a lion sees much freight, they will want better clearances than your standard 40' boxcars.
Elias
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
If it isn't broke, don't fix it. The WMATA exterior design works well. It looks good, blends in with the stations, and I never read anything about anyone complaining about it. Meanwhile, there are going to be some major changes on the 6000 Series cars when they arrive for the Largo opening in terms of interior design (and it is more than just changing the interior colors which will be the same as what is on the 5000s).
As for stations:
The National Capital Fine Arts Planning Commission or whatever they call themselves has to approve the design of everything built within the DC line, including subway stations. It is not worth the trouble to go to the Fine Arts Comission to change the design. Of course, WMATA can do whatever it wants in Maryland and Virginia but they prefer to keep things looking similar to how they are downtown. The one exception in DC is Anacostia which could not be constructed with an arch but the board approved the design there and it has many features that the other stations have.
Hopefully this answers your question.
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
When we look at surface and elevated stations the earliest stations had gullwing canopies. Later stations had flat roof canopies. The two stations within Old Town Alexandria have 6/12 peeked sheet metal canopies.
The three new surface station that are now under construction will have a far more radical canopies design; www.largotowncenter.com/photos/renderings
As for the track structure, tunnels. The systems WMATA has used in the track structure has also evolved over there years. The rail fastening system used on wood ties has evolved from spikes on tie plates to clips on plates with screws. As far as I know WMATA has no plans to use concrete or any other type crosstie.
Direct fixation rail fasteners on concrete track beds have also evolved. Early rail fasteners (rubber and steel plates sandwich) had the rail held to fasteners with blocks and T bolts with nuts and lock washers, the rail fasteners were held to the track bed with studs epoxied in to the track bed secured with nuts and lock washers. There were three different versions of the rail fasteners used over the years. The lasted versions (still rubber and steel plates sandwich) of the direct fixation rail fastener uses clips on fastener. The fastener are held with bolted screwed in to sleeves epoxied in to the track bed.
The bolts and nuts used in the older direct fixation rail fastener required retorquing on a regular schedule. The newer rail fastener
require less maintenance.
The tunnel structures have stayed the same over the years. The cut and cover tunnels that are presently under construction on the G Route Blue line extension are basically of the same design as the first cut and cover tunnels built in the 1970s. The only differences between present day construction and the work done in the 1970s is the water proofing technology used. In the 1970s liquid hot asphalt and asphalt sheets were used, today PVC sheeting is used.
John
wayne
John
Mark..
p.s.--NO, I wasn't caught in the 100-car pile-up on I-68 the other day, although it did make my normal 20 minute commute a 2 hr 15 minute commute----Even John got caught up in the traffic the next morning when he came up to WOW me with his collection---those of you who are Metro fans are truly missing the premier collection (I thought mine was good but it doesn't hold a candle to John's)
That makes her a jerk, but your tripping her, if you did it purposefully, could have caused a serious injury, and could have caused the train to be delayed while this woman got medical attention. Is that what you intended to do?
One of the times Irode the Lexington Av line I was squeezed in with a bunch of folks around a man balancing a sketch pad on a bicycle. He was drawing the portrait of a little girl sitting on the seat in front of us. He gave his truly captive audience an impromptu art lesson.
I liked it so much he signed it and gave it to me before he walked his bike off the train. My wife framed it and the little girl's angelic smile looks over us in our living room today!
Mark
Nappy
There are some subtle exterior cosmetic differences between the products of the builder of the car that WMATA has. Two of the obvious differences are the corrugated roofs on the Bredas and CAFs and the operable windows in the cabs of the Bredas and CAFs. On closer inspection one will notice that the CAFs attached the roofs differently to sides compared to the Rohrs and Bredas, the fiberglass bulkhead caps on the cabs ends of the Bredas and CAFs have shallower window shield recesses and the Bredas and CAFs were delivered with only one destination sign box on each side of the car.
The undercarriage have some differences as well. The Bredas and CAFs have a different wheel base trucks compared to Rohrs, and the anticlimber on the CAFs are different then the Bredas and Rohrs.
Mind you the differences are somewhat like what the big three automakers do with production car between model years.
I would hazard a guess that the Alstrom cars will also have some subtle exterior cosmetic differences compared to the exiting rolling stock
John
Each city is different, learn as much as you can. Don't expect to find a good frank on the street.
Ah, yes, by far the most common phrase spoken by NYers anytime they leave the city limits. If only I had a nickel everytime I heard it... :-)
Monday through Friday Harlem Line Train No.515 leaves from GCT at 744AM to North White Plains stopping only at 125 Street and White Plains. The trip takes 40 minutes. The equiptment for this trip is a six or seven car set of ACMU's, the last passenger cars built for the New York Central Railroad and the oldest railroad electric multiple-units now in service. It is a fast express run and a good way to see the third-tracking project between Mount Vernon West and Crestwood. The station at North White Plains is about a ten minute walk from Westchester Collectibles. A great source for Code 3 and Corgi models as well as O guage trains. Don't forget to buy your ticket before you get on the train.
Larry, RedbirdR33
Use of ACMU's on the weekend is not scheduled and is very very rare.
Larry, RedbirdR33
Use of ACMU's on the weekend is not scheduled and is very very rare.
Larry, RedbirdR33
What kind of name is that? I think it's Dutch.
Incognito
http://as0.mta.info/mnr/fares/get_fares.cfm
You're referring to people who don't live in Westchester, obviously. It might be worth the trouble if you really like the trains and they're headed for the scrap heap soon.
I'm planning a trip to ride the ACMU's in the near future, and Train #515 looks like a real winner. Then there is another train leaving North White Plains at 8:27am which would be good for the return trip. Does anyone know if that return train uses the same set of ACMU's?
The trip is open to anyone who would like to come along, and I'll post more information as it becomes available.
---Sir Ronald of McDonald
www.railfanwindow.com
May 27, 1981, Wednesday, Late City Final Edition
SECTION: Section C; Page 2, Column 1; Living Desk
LENGTH: 1114 words
HEADLINE: METROPOLITAN DIARY
BYLINE: By Glenn Collins
BODY:
OUR GRAFFITI OBSERVERS: The other day J. Tevere MacFadyen came upon a graffitized billboard beneath the Brooklyn terminus of the Manhattan Bridge. The message, in waist-high letters, said:
WALK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG RADIO
The signs are everywhere: Disintegration and drought scares, rising inflation and falling expectations, gremlinized Grumman buses and the little trains that can't. The question is: What is going on here?
There is, in fact, a way to make sense of it all. The answer lies in the principle called ''Josephson's Law.'' What is that? ''Josephson's Law,'' says Larry Josephson, ''states very simply that NEW IS WORSE.'' Mr. Josephson is the Manhattan radio consultant and WBAI-FM talk-show host, and Metropolitan Diary asked him to describe The Law. Here is his report:
NEW IS WORSE
''Josephson's Law'' is the explaining axiom of our Post-Competence Age. Some of the most obvious examples are Flxible buses that brk, Tuesday's welds that barely last to Friday, the acoustics of newly constructed concert halls, and motel shower valves that force you turn one knob to choose between drowning or scalding. Each new television season is a disimprovement of its predecessor. Telephone answering machines, in their impersonal ubiquity, are worse than telephones - which have nothing over the back fence, or the air shaft.
Josephson's Law is useful in understanding everything from architecture to the arts. Public architecture has gone the way of the hamburger. The World Trade Center is twice as bad as the Empire State Building (and so, we are told, is the reception from the new Trade Center television mast). Serious music has been on a steady decline since Bartok or, if you insist, Copland.
Society? Well, the nuclear family was worse than the extended family, and neither could compete with the tribe for warmth and protection. But now, here in the Post-Laundry Age, the new, improved atomic family has made loneliness and workaholism accessible to all races, sexes, classes and orientations.
Politics? Rulers aren't what they used to be either. Elizabeth II can't hold a scepter to her namesake or, for that matter, to Glenda Jackson. Reagan is worse than Carter, Carter was worse than Johnson, and all of them were inferior to J.F.K., who was no F.D.R. (Ford was not worse than Nixon, but that's the exception that proves the rule.)
Josephson's Law is inexorable. Resistance is useless. Turn on your answering machine, immerse yourself in your home entertainment center/hot tub, lie back and let Carl Sagan condescend to you on the cable, accompanied by the soft hum of the family dinner thawing in the microwave oven.
I have seen the future and it is broken.
The Ex Years.
Ex = former. Ergo, everything once more will be like it was of old. According to this very silly thread: GOOD!
It's getting quite silly, indeed.
Lemon curry?!?
#!%$#@^%^% REPUBLICANS!!! (obligatory liberal rant)
Here's a direct link to the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation site - the advisory for "Do NOT eat the fish" is the second item down in the table for "Ashoken reservoir (Ulster county)" ... have a look for yourself:
Encon advisory:
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/fish/fishregs/fishadvisories.html (HTML format)
NYS Department of Health (DOH) advisory:
http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/environ/02fish.pdf (Adobe PDF format)
I read that as implying that it is possible for bass who have eaten PCBs in the Hudson River can somehow make it into the Ashokan Reservoir by swimming upstream.
I do not read it as saying that the Cannonsville and Ashokan watersheds have PCBs in them.
HTML Question:
How do you imbed the Liberty Bell March into a Subtalk Post?
Hmmmm... I suppose I could make it a post about the Liberty Avenue El so it's at least vaguely on topic...
A Scotsman on a horse.
A man with three buttocks.
Loneliness can often be a good thing. Workaholism more rarely so. Solitary success with as little effort as possible is the best of all.
Ford was not worse than Nixon, but that's the exception that proves the rule
I disagree. Nixon was a truly great man, but was misunderstood.
He may well be still around, but look again, the dateline is 1981...
My first encounter with a Collins. They were up on Empire with the transmitter, got to meet Mitch Katz (of WNEW) while up there, and eventually parlayed a REAL job. But BAI was a timesucker. No money, no contacts worth a whistle, bomb scares every four hours, and all the work they could con ya into. If it weren't for the folks I worked with, probably would have phoned in a bomb threat myself. Heh.
In any case, even if you didn't notice the date line, this will date the article nicely:
"The World Trade Center is twice as bad as the Empire State Building (and so, we are told, is the reception from the new Trade Center television mast)."
When it comes to LGA, things get a bit more interesting. Plenty of proposals come up like the obvious, 'Let's extend the N/W to LGA.' and the rather farfetched... I remember one poster mentioning somehow getting the Airtrain to both serve JFK and LGA... Other weird things I can think of involve connecting a new subway line from LGA to the Queens Blvd. IND, but that's hardly a good choice, for now anyway. There was even a proposal to bring the 7 to LGA, but that line is crowded as it is.
he MTA had that option, and declined it. So the PA stepped in and did something else. Something better.
Given the way the airport is laid out, I don't think you could have used MTA rolling stock for intra-airport transfers. What they did was to connect the AirTrain to the two most likely MTA transfer points, namely Howard Beach and Jamaica Center.
And also the long term parking lots, which are FAR from the terminals.
EWR and LGA have fewer terminals, and they aren't as spread out.
True, though anything to Delta Shuttle is a hassle at LGA, and C to A is something of a hassle at Newark. Newark also has a long term lot that's a hefty hike (I don't know if the Airtrain goes there).
Due to the smaller size in comparison to JFK and EWR, LGA inter airport transport would be much better served better served by some sort of people mover.
Due to the smaller size in comparison to JFK and EWR, LGA inter airport transport would be much better served better served by some sort of people mover.
Amtrak is in the way.
A web search showed that the firm of DMJM+HARRIS says it is working on the project, but there's no telling how current the information is. Look here.
But the N extension to La Guardia has less political support, less of a strong mandate, and a big NIMBY problem. So it's the easiest one to jettison. A routing that would avoid NIMBY, like extending a branch of the 63rd St line underground, would cost too much given all the current project needs.
Much of the route of any extension proposed would run through communities not directly served by the subways. The 19th Avenue extension would have also run by a major industrial park (whose representatives were rabidly against the extension). It would have added time to the trip to the airport, but maybe someone should have thought to add a station or two to those lines before the airport. If people would have benefitted from having the subway run through the community, perhaps the opposition might have been somewhat muted, at least.
The problem -- having to split service, with some running to Ditmars and some to LaGuardia. But many members of "the community" objected not only to the proposed extension but also to the existing el. So why not just remove the existing El? Eliminate Ditmars and Astoria Blvd stations. Build new station at Steinway Street on the way to the airport to take their place.
Kansas City International (MCI) is spread out; a shuttle bus takes you between terminals. However, once at a terminal it is literally 40 feet or less from security to the jetway door.
JFK's Delta Terminal is actually not horrible. Ifind the gate layout confusing, but once you know where you are, it's pretty quick. And on arrival, you're out to the street pretty efficiently.
Given that the AirTrain rolling stock has the same dimensions as the R-38, why not?
In fact, this is exactly the approach you support on 2nd Avenue. I think it makes at least as much sense at an airport than on 2nd Avenue.
In fact, this is exactly the approach you support on 2nd Avenue. I think it makes at least as much sense at an airport than on 2nd Avenue.
I don't think the cramped quarters at the airport would allow this to work. There's too much infrastructure blocking the way. (OTOH, I do admit that I am just making an educated guess, so I would defer to anyone else who's actually worked it out.) The 2nd Avenue line is underground—which it has to be, as no new NYCT line through a residential area will be built elevated. Your design for the airport would certainly have worked underground, but it would have made the AirTrain a lot more expensive to construct.
That is exactly what you will have anyway. At Newark, the NJT/future PATH station is called "Newark Airport". At JFK, the LIRR/Subway terminal is called "Jamaica (LIRR)/Sutphin Blvd (subway)". The argument is about how it gets paid for - since airport funds, not subway funds, paid for the AirTrains, there is a requirement for a supplemenatry fare on users of these connections.
Only users of the connections to Howard Beach and Jamaica will be paying the supplementary fare (which happens to be three times the current subway fare). Access to and from the parking lots and between terminals will be free.
The financial question is a separate political problem for New York to solve. Of course it would be nice to ride into Manhattan for a subway fare (or even for the now-cheaper PATH fare), but the system wouldn't have got built that way, with the legal, political and financial frameworks you are blessed (cursed?) with.
It depends on the nature of the connection.
I agree that a direct (high-speed) link running from a single airport station to a single CBD station leaves most people with a three-seat ride. I've never advocated such a direct (high-speed) link except perhaps as a premium service, supplemental to the basic service integrated into the basic transit system.
If, however, the service into the CBD is an existing subway line, and the extension into the airport stops at each terminal, then many riders really do get a one-seat ride, and most of those who don't get two-seat rides where otherwise they'd have three-seat rides.
Notice that with a direct subway extension, the terminal loop could have had half as many stations as it does (since trains would be longer), and the gaudy new Howard Beach station would have been entirely unnecessary.
The financial question is a separate political problem for New York to solve. Of course it would be nice to ride into Manhattan for a subway fare (or even for the now-cheaper PATH fare), but the system wouldn't have got built that way, with the legal, political and financial frameworks you are blessed (cursed?) with.
I still don't see why not. Passengers though the 63rd Street connection aren't assessed an extra $5 charge, are they?
And, if we are going to charge users of the new line, why is AirTrain free between the airport and the parking lot, with a $5 fee for the last half mile, which is conveniently unwalkable? (Knowing there was no access across the tracks at Howard Beach itself, I tried walking from the N. Conduit station on Wednesday. There is a road over the Belt just east of the tracks, and it leads directly towards the JFK parking lot, but the parking lot is fenced off. Pedestrian access to the parking lot isn't available until Lefferts.) Shouldn't everyone who uses it be charged, not just the affluent subway riders? (Oops, wait a minute...)
You have described almost exactly what London has at Heathrow. The premium service was paid for by the airport authority, which charges a premium fare for it [which is why I don't use it (8-) ], presumably to recoup its investment. And yes, the premium system is probably a two-seat ride (plus long walks in the terminals) for most riders while the tube is possibly a one-seat ride (plus the aforesaid long walks), albeit a slow one, for quite a few, since the Piccadilly Line stops at many useful places in central London.
"(Me): Of course it would be nice to ride into Manhattan for a subway fare (or even for the now-cheaper PATH fare), but the system wouldn't have got built that way, with the legal, political and financial frameworks you are blessed (cursed?) with."
What I meant was: (1) the Port Authority is two states, not one, and is supposed to be financially self-supporting, as I understand it; (2) airport funding and subway funding are two different federal pockets. The MTA, aka New York State - a political entity - did not choose to give priority for its slice of federal subway funding to airport transit projects. It could have done, presumably, if public opinion as expressed through elected representatives had been strong enough.
It might make even more sense in New York than it does in London. The Piccadilly line appears to take about an hour to reach the CBD (I plugged in Heathrow to Piccadilly Circus and it spat back 57 minutes). It does have a brief express run, but it's mostly local. The A train, except at night when it runs local, takes about 40 minutes to reach the near end of the CBD and under an hour to reach the far end.
There are alternatives:
Bus to Feltham Station (285, every 7-10 minutes, 25 minute journey and 726, hourly, 20 minute journey)
Train to Waterloo (5-7tph, journey time 29-34 minutes)
or
Bus to Hayes & Harlington Station (140, every 6-10 minutes, 13 minute journey)
Train to Paddington (5-6tph, journey time 16-21 minutes)
They gain pretty much nothing, but they're there and I much prefer local trains to tin cans.
R-32.
Central Business District. In most cities this = downtown. In NYC this = downtown + midtown.
The PA could always increase the fee for parking. I personally think that's not necessarily a bad idea.
A family of five leaving the car parked for one day pays a lot less for parking than an individual leaving the car parked for a week, but the family of five takes up five times as much space on AirTrain.
Moses was involved with chosing the sites for both LGA and JFK, as well as building the highway infrastructure to reach them. There were people at the time who argued that mass transit connections should be part of that infrastructure. This could have been done quite easily, but Moses opposed mass transit and prevented it from happening.
You need to look back into history to see why there were no rail connections to the airports. Until the end of WWII, there was no need for rail connections to the airports. the railroad stations were the normal place to go for long distance transportation (you caught the Carey Transportation bus to La Guardia or Newark at Grand Central Terminal). The DC-3, the most popular commercial aircraft held only 17 passengers while the really big post war airliner, the Lockheed Constellation had a capacity of 54 passengers. Because of the low capacity of airplanes, prices were too high for high volume passenger use. The Boeing 707 introduced in the mid ‘50s increased capacity to more than 100 passengers on an aircraft and increased speed significantly, but it wasn't till the Boeing 747 went into service in 1970 that airports started bursting at the seams with all the travelers.
By that time it was too late to hope for subway lines to be built anywhere in NYC.
Tom
How recently is recently? I used the Cleveland Rapid Transit from Hopkins Airport around 1970. And O'Hare has been linked for quite a while. And Boston (Logan)?
Incidentally even in Europe a lot of the airport rail links are quite recent - Copenhagen and Rome only very recently, and even Schipol was not *that* long ago. Berlin Tegel still isn't rail-linked, though Schonefeld is.
So what was the first airport in the world to be rail-linked? (This isn't a trivia question, I really don't know the answer.) Cleveland must be one of the earlier ones.
Don't know which was the first, but Boston certainly predates Cleveland (the Blue line with its Airport stop was built in the 1950s).
Also, Chicago has two tranist linked airports. Both O'Hare and Midway have L stations. I use them when I'm going direct from my office in the Loop to the airports.
-- Ed Sachs
I thought that Boston's Airport stop really isn't at the airport.
It's better than the A train currently because Logan Airport is closer to downtown Boston than JFK is to downtown areas of NY. So the trip is shorter. But there are stairs to climb, and no elevator or escalator (unless that has recently changed?).
Does anyone know when SEPTA R1 rail service began to PHL? It hasbeen expanded recently (new train station at Terminal E).
Certainly not the first such airport. Both Gatwick and Frankfurt had direct rail from their opening in 1936. In the late ‘90s, Frankfurt upgraded to ICE going all over Germany and to other European cities.
Tom
From this web page on the history of London's Gatwick Airport:
It started life modestly in 1931 as a private airfield owned by Home Counties Aviation Services. Serious development was later carried out by Airports Limited and the first terminal, together with taxiways and aprons, was opened in 1936. Passengers arriving by train could walk into the airport through subways and covered walkways.
I remember the "old" Gatwick Airport station that opened in 1936 - not that I can remember 1936. As a kid growing up in Brighton, my trains to London went through (without stopping) Gatwick Airport and Gatwick Racecourse stations. Then the decision was made to expand the little airport into London's no. 2 airport, taking in the land of the racecourse. The present Gatwick Airport station is on the site of Gatwick Racecourse station; the original Gatwick Airport station, now demolished, was a little further south, near the control tower (still there, I think) of the small 1931 airport.
When the new airport opened, the main London-Brighton road (the A23 - the M23 motorway wasn't there then) had to be diverted to avoid the airport. My parents and I happened to be driving to London (an unusual thing, we usually went by train) the day the diversion opened - and we drove up on the old road in the morning and back on the new one in the evening, to my Dad's great surprise.
As the remaining 6800 and 6900 series R-142s go into service on the 5, some 7000 and all 7100 series cars can be moved to the 4.
6891-95 and 6921-25 are road testing currently for the 5.
-Stef
First one shows portal #1 on the east side, tracks merging to slip through the low building. The tram shares this with street traffic in the westbound direction on the street named Letenska between Malostranska on the east and Malostranske Namesti (namesti = "Square") on the west.
Second one shows a tram inside the small tunnel; a sidewalk runs alongside.
Third one shows the west portal with a tram heading into Malostranske Namesti showing the eastbound portal (note the damage along the top from overheight vehicles!)
-DAve
Seriously, why is it called the Czech Republic? Why couldn't it be called Czechland?
Arti
In that case, why not Czechia?
Huh?? Is there any reason to suppose that there is anything bad about transit in Bratislava? There are no pictures from there on nycsubway.org, but why should we imagine there's anything unusual about its transit systems?
-Stef
What part of "And since all employees are under a "gag order" and not allowed to post any "inside info", I can not post the details. " did you not undertand?
-Stef
I'll be seated in 6609 for much of the trip taking comparative notes....
-Stef
If the trip does go to Coney, it would most likely be over the West End- which would be somewhat of a disappointment, because the R1/9s very seldom ran on that line. I never knew it ever ran on the West End at all until seeing pictures in the Rolling Stock section. The Culver and Brighton lines would be more appropriate- though the Culver would only be accessible through the defunct Delancey-Christie connection and a lot of reversing.
These cars ran on the original IND section for over 40 years, and on the Culver for over 20. They saw some action on the Brighton from 1967 to 1972. I never had the pleasure, but they probably sounded great on the embankment's express run.
If the trip covers any combo of CPW, Concourse, Crosstown and Queens- traditional territory- it would be entirely underground. That would fit the R1/9 ambience, but hinder photography. (It WOULD be fun to go through 63rd Street, one line that you can say in no uncertain terms EVER served the R1/9s!)
With Rockaway unfortunately off-limits, it looks like the Eastern Division would be likely territory for this trip- IF there's no GO on the L. There probably is. Other than the original IND, the Eastern Division is most heavily associated with the R1/9s.
It's going to be interesting as to where we go.
You also left out both levels of the Archer Ave extension, another location where the R1/9 (obvious) has never seen passenger service.
I'm not 100% I will be going on the trip Sunday, as I can only buy my ticket on the train at this point, and I am supposed to go somewhere else. However, I may make it, and if I do, I want to ride from Essex Street to Broadway-Lafayette! That is one of my railfanning goals.
The Southern Division has to be first on the agenda, either in Brooklyn or (changing ends south of Broad) in Manhattan.
Not neccessarily, go to Southern Div., and run back up through Stillwell/CI yard and up Culver, change ends at West 4th st. Then go through KK tunnel and wait for J shuttle to leave N/B track at Essex, going towards Chambers before going right through.
I believe there's a marker on that track, plus as David said the shuttle has exclusive access.
Is the Chrystie connection a given now.
EIther way, it seems that now the Eastern Division is completely out west of Essex, and only a slight chance of the train going through the Chrystie connection at Essex, the Rockaways are out, looks like some Southern Division and undeground routes.
I wonder why this has to be such a big secret with this "gag order". A few years back I remember a fantrip, and the routings (or tentative routings) were given at the time of the announcements of the trip, subject to change of course.
We will definitely go through Fulton and Broad, because of the J GO. If the J GO is run as it usually is, we will wrong-rail through Fulton, since the J shuttle will have exclusive access to the SB "local" track, and the SB "express" track doesn't go anywhere.
It looks like the train will not be even going near Essex because of the J GO single tracking.
It looks like the train will not be even going near Essex because of the J GO single tracking.
As for Fulton wrong-railing, I always expect the train to come from the opposite direction anyway when I use that station (It would actually be coming from the direction I would expect, if I was on the platform to witness it). It almost never fails to make me loose all sense of direction at that platform.
-Stef
I don't believe the intention was apply it to a Fan Trip schedule. GO’s are usually for construction, and I can maybe understand not wanting the details of those published.
But the rule was set as such, so I guess I will find out on Sunday where we are going. I understand the position you are in.
IRT, June 7: Westchester Yard to Grand Central Shuttle (track 1); via Lex to Livonia Yard; via 7th Avenue line to 239th Street Yard and lunch stop. To E180 and change ends for Dyre line. Then via Lex to Brooklyn Bridge, loop to Track 4 where excursion ends. Train returns to Westchester Yard.
IND/BMT, June 8: Coney Island Yard to Chambers Street track J1. To Broad Street and then via W line to 9th Ave lower. Then north to Ditmars via W line. South via W to Lex, change ends, then via R/F line to 179th Street and lunch. 179 to Jamaica Yard, then via G to 4th Ave then via F to Ave X and CI Yard. Leave CI Yard to Stillwell Ave and Brighton line to Whitehall Street and end of excursion. Train returns to Coney Island Yard.
Both GO's state that "stops for photographs or other reasons will be made at the discretion of the RTO Supervisor In-Charge."
Not responsible for last minute changes.
Now I guess I'll have to give myself 30 days in the street ;-)
-Stef
-Stef
There's a lot of eateries at 179th Street- I went to high school near there. Among others, a Burger King, McDonald's, KFC, Castle, coffee shop, pizzeria.
I'm going to stop by the Transit Store for an E-train shirt. That's the line I've always associated with the 1/9s.
See y'all Sunday.
Funny thing - I associate the R-1/9s with the D.
I hope that by the time we get to the Brighton Line the rains will have stopped. Would I love to get a full speed runby there!!
--Mark
Yea, imagine me at either RF window at the front and FOAMING BIG TIME AT THE BRIGHTON EXPRESS, I heard these babies can top nearly 50 mph on a dip.
YESSSSS!
Just a minute! The TA's weekend service advisories have the R running between Queens and Manhattan via 63rd Street and the W not running between the Plaza and Lex. That means the 60th Street tube is closed down. So there's no way the trip could go to Astoria. It could still go to Jamaica through 63rd Street, following the R detour.
That WOULD be neat, riding a 1/9 through trackage that was born more than a decade after their retirements.
WHO-HOO, YIPPEE, YEESSSSSS! You know what this means once we leave Stillwell heading on our last leg of the trip: FULL SPEED AHEAD ON THE BRIGHTON EXPRESS TRACK. Wow! Just CAN'T MISS THIS!
And NO RUNS ON THE SLIME BITCH LINE EITHER, PERFECT!
Wish I could have made it for this one - used to run those puppies on the Brighton. If the track's clear and your motorman or woman can wrap it, hang onto yer hats!
And, of course, you could tell how fast you were going on the R-1/9s by the sound of the gears.
Which reminds me: I'd be very curious to know how high their gears got up to on, say the Brighton express dash or the Hillside express dash. OTOH they usually store trains on the Hillside express tracks on weekends, so that may not happen.
That very first D train I ever rode up CPW in 1967 reached F# above middle C heading n/b. That's the pitch it sang out when the motorman gave it juice at 103rd.
Wayne says he was aboard R-6-2 1233 on a Queens-bound F train that hit A above middle C at about Sutphin Blvd. in 1973. That's flat-out flying.
I *doubt* the Arnines were neutered. :)
Those R-1/9s will have the Brighton express tracks all to themselves.
And my SAT practice test score is up 70 points to 1310; have to take the real thing tomorrow (else I'd be going tomorrow too). Wish me luck (on both the SAT and the million-to-one chance of running into the excursion train).
But GOs typically are published.
It appears that you don't understand.
The TA doesn't want any one but "authorized" staff to give out information to the public, so
- GOs are a internal document, but "Advisorys" are not.
- Rumors & other stuff that staff may hear is confidental, press statements are for the public at large.
This is realy nothing new. I have dealt with various groups in the TA for years. They tend to NOT give you information unless you ask the right question.
Some of this information they don't want to get out, or seriously feel can comprise the security & safety of the system, so they will go after the person that spilled the beans. The letter, probably, says that they intend to do this more then less in the future.
Disclaimer: I don't work for the MTA, TA, or nycDOT and am speaking for myself and not my employeer.
--Mark
Any chance GO Saturday visits 239th Yard??? CI Peter
Now, where's Mr. Todd with the (good) weather forecast for the weekend?
--Mark
(Are they planning to finish the reallignment work on the L line this weekend? - that would mean it's guaranteed to be bad weather).
Some had said that "they" were experiences problems getting the cars serviced (more required then they thought, didn't have some of the parts they needed for some of the models).
I haven't heard yet if in fact the either fleet is ready. So, I'm just assuming they are. Even if it's Red Birds & D-Types it will be a failfan fest.
--Mark
-Stef
6946-50
6961-70
6981-90
1181-85
1206-50
Approx. 75 Cars remain.
Widecab5 can verify the numbers....
-Stef
Breslin doesn't have, or didn't attempt, to come up with any ways the subway can possibly be funded without fare box revenue.
Would that it were so. Any ideas how the subways could be funded without depriving us of arms and legs?
www.forgotten-ny.com
Jimmy also needs to get some fact checkers. It's hard to understand why his first subject needs to take a dollar van to "147th in Rosedale" after getting off the 111 bus. The 111 runs the entire length of 147th Avenue in Rosedale. Worse, he implies that the person works 27.5 hours a week and makes 40 bucks doing it. Either Jimmy hasn't checked his facts or the store is violating the minimum wage laws.
But that's journalism... never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
I wouldn't suggest it, but I've never heard of Breslin, so I'm hoping he's just saying it in an attempt to get some attention. If he's serious, then I'm scared.
I hope you mean federal taxes. After all, New York can't tax the rich who move away.
I believe that the fare should be low and that it should be largely funded by tax revenues as New York State and City roads are (because its use limits the wear and tear on roads, but let's get real.
The same applies to Subway. Infrastructure is not funded by fare, only portion of the operating costs.
Arti
Bottom line though, if EVERYBODY paid their taxes, YOU AND I would be paying a WHOLE lot less, the SAS would have been built by now, and your train would be dashing back and forth on the bridge. :(
He's a columnist and author who's been writing for decades. Much of his earlier stuff was pretty good, focusing on gritty urban issues. Several years ago, however, he suffered a stroke or similar illness and nearly died, and it's been said that his thinking and writing processes have been impaired.
And of course, the G would run only on sundays, Court st to Hoyt.
I think somebody's been hitting the wacky tobakky!
Peace,
ANDEE
He should pay a premium...
Chuck Greene
Finally, Jimmy and I have something in common.
www.forgotten-ny.com
So children aren't Americans?
Makes sense.
Makes sense.
Just because they aren't licensed to drive a car doesn't mean they can't ;)
Lobotomy as in frontal lobotomy ?
It was more like a "bottle in front of me" syndrome !!
Bill "Newkirk"
This has brought up the issue of the fenceing around the Rt. 100 tracks. Despite being a 3rd rail electrified line most of the fencing is low and does not have barbed wire. Residents have been complaining for some time about the holes and I have personally seen people cutting accross Rt 100 tracks just like they were normal railroad tracks. Just like the old bullet cars, the new N-5's are fast and quiet, a deadly combination when inattentive people are fouling the loading guage.
At this moment the child is in serious condition at a local hospital, but has not died yet.
-Robert King
Tragic...
**Actually this isn't quite true as my dad told me about the 3rd rail and how PATCO trains worked and the fear of the 3rd rail kept me off the PATCO tracks, however I can hardly hold average parents to this standard.
The picture includes an end view of the re-rebuilt gate cars and an end view of one of the new R-143 subway cars on an adjoining track. It is a rather small picture, but is in color.
A great shot of the oldest and the newest equipment.
Bill "Newkirk"
Now THAT is the kind of scratchitti I like to see!
Did they permit people in these cars at Coney Island during the roadeo?
as well as the mockup R-68 "D" train (sorry, the pic for that one didn't quite come out!)
There is no evidence of a third rail in the shop, but there appears to be an orange extension cord going into the car by way of the storm door.
Did they really supply current to those cars with that extension cord?
I did spot a couple of M7 train's while riding the LIRR including one ON the Ronkonkoma branch.After arriving at Ronkonkoma and going to Smith Haven Mall and a 5 bus trip to get back to the city,I arrived at Flushing and hopped on a R62A 7 train,lead car #2150,and I'm pleased to say that there does seem to be some new arrival's of R62A singles's from Livonia since I saw them still with blue sticker's,also spotted car set #1711-1715 with blue sticker's heading to Corona Yard.Once at Times Sq.I let a 1 train go and it was a good thing I let it go cause a few mintues later in came the 3 train and it was ANOTHER R62!! This time I was in the back of the train on car #1466 which means that set was #1466-1470 and the 2nd set was in the 1500's.And arriving at 72St on that same train,I spotted yet another R62 headind SB,only car set I caught was 1426-1430.So that's 3 R62 train's on the 3 today.And after getting off at 96St,waited for the next 1 train and continued on my married way home.
Hmmmm. Let's see....S59 or S57 to Vets Hwy in Bohemia, S54 to Walt Whitman Mall, N78 to Hicksville, N21 to Flushing. Two fares, but only four buses. And that probably took near to three hours. What routes did you take for the return to Flushing?
I once rode to Patchogue from Williamsburg by bus. B53 to Jamaica, N4 to Hempstead, N72 to Babylon, S40 to Patchogue. (I realize the B53 is now the Q53.) I also like doing "bus in/train back" trips, especially in NJ. Plenty of interesting possibilities.
S63 9632
S54 9919
N79 174
N20 386
Albany, NY TimesUnion, no subscription required. Article is entitled, "Not merely a diary, a multimedia event - Pentagon's LifeLog project aims to digitize a person's every experience" ... Like I said, no joke ... WOW. But DOES solve that problem with using a camera - you will BE the camera ... and then some. We are SHRUB, we are SMART. We drill for fluids to make us go. Resistance is futile, you WILL be assimilated. :-\
This is DARPA. They do off the wall things. After all, they funded this totally pointless thing called Arpanet back in the 70s.
(yes, I'm joking)
-Robert King
-Robert King
It's more "fluff" from the Spin Factory (TM).
Saw the picture of the dude all trussed up with electronic doo-dads. My take is that any idiot dumb enough (there are a lot of them in the country, not to mention the world) to sign up will most likely scare little kids, as you WILL stand out in a crowd.
That story falls squarely in the catagory of "look waht we can do", not that is gonna be done.
Gee, I didn't know the newspapers have sweep months.
Well, SOMEONE would have to actually leave the house wearing that thingy on the train...
But I posted it because I thought folks would find it amusing, especially in light of all the "photography prohibited" scenarios. Wonder where THIS would fit in. :)
Peace,
ANDEE
Later that day I heard the alla turca movement played from one of Mozart's piano sonatas and that subway scene was seared into my memory. I see that train now whenever I hear that piano piece.
Ahh...alla turca. Very relaxing.
Peace,
AMDEE
Not for the guy playing it!!!
Randomly enough, I tend to stick Mozart CDs in my Discman when I'm on the train. A couple of symphonies will really make the lethargic Birmingham to Leicester ride go quickly!
31 and 38 are good fun and easy to listen to as well. 40 was rather wrecked by the advent of the mobile phone, but is undoubtedly a wonderful piece of music, although I prefer his other G minor Symphony (25). My all time favourite has to be 39.
Beethoven is more up my alley, though.
I reckon Beethoven 3 and Mahler 9 rather vie as to the definition of the ultimate symphony!
Peace,
ANDEE
But the News has been going overboard with some of its summon blitz articles. They wrote an article about a poor lady in Queens who got a ticket for putting out a toilet seat in its original cardboard box. They also wrote an article about people who got summonses for putting recyling in with regular trash.
They forgot to mention that these folks were flagrantly ignoring the recyling rules. Recycling only works if people follow the rules, and the city has worked very hard to inform everyone of those rules.
An example of the half-truths the daily news is printing
The pregnant lady was not some tired lady trying to get a breather as the Daily News stated
excerpt from NYTIMES
"Crystal Rivera, the pregnant woman cited in the subway, was part of a group of teenagers blocking the stairs. "Her inconsideration for people trying to exit the subway suddenly became a cause célèbre," Mr. Kelly said.
Mr. Bloomberg is not the only mayor to take heat for perceived blitzes. At a news conference last week he read from a Daily News article of December 1996 that described people ticketed for seemingly innocuous offenses."
Every few years the Daily News in conjuntion with an outside force exagerates stories to make good reading. Nothing Else. The guy picking up a nickle could have been harrasing riders. The story choose to say only that he was picking up a nickle noting else
The nothing real to do and no real qualification city concilman will play on public perception vs. reality. That is why this city is in it's sorry shape.
Even though quaility of life summons are down, a bunch of city concilman saw an opurtunity for a photo op making the same racialy divisive remarks. From what these guys say you would think the city was 90% white
"On the steps of City Hall a group of black and Hispanic New York City Council members, responding to the stories, said the so-called Bloomberg ticket blitz has disproportionately affected their neighborhoods. Allusions to his perceived lack of empathy for the common man abounded."
How could it disproportionately affect black and hipspnic neighborhoods when MOST NEIGHBORHOODS have significant black and hispanic populations.
Reducing garbage pickups get spinned as streets are going to get dirtier. No mention that areas such as the area I live in, resdents put out half empty garbage cans twice a week becasue if you recycle, a two family house does not have much garbage. Also concider that most people have garbage disposals as well.
"There is no strategy to raise money through the increase of tickets," Mr. Giuliani is quoted as saying. "No matter how often I say it, you want to write it or somebody else wants to write it."
Edward Skyler, Mr. Bloomberg's press secretary, said he understood why people might accept the possibility of a blitz. "At first blush," he said, "it makes sense to people, that `Oh, the city is so cash strapped it's trying to find a buck anyway it can.' " But, Mr. Skyler added, "The numbers don't lie."
For instance, he said, overall summonses for blocking subway movement are down by 29 percent for the first months of this year. Similarly, he said, parking tickets were down by 17 percent and moving violations were down by 7 percent.
The figures are through April of this year, but Mr. Skyler said he did not expect May data to alter the result.
"We've issued far fewer tickets than we did last year and even the Independent Budget Office confirmed that tickets are not moneymakers," he said, referring to a report released last week that said New York City typically spends more money than it collects from summonses. The only money-maker was parking tickets, and the city plans to issue more of those in coming months.
Mr. Skyler said: "If we relied on tickets to balance our budget, the city would have gone out of business a long time ago. It just doesn't add up."
Mr. Skyler was less understanding of what he considered a falsehood spread by the P.B.A. president, Patrick Lynch, who is running for re-election. Mr. Bloomberg and his aides have suggested that Mr. Lynch is trying to promote himself as a defender of beleaguered officers. There are no ticket quotas, Mr. Bloomberg said, but, yes, officers are judged in part on how well they enforce the law."
I like to think subtalkers are smarter then the average city resident who often fail to see the crap thier local representives are pulling
Peace,
ANDEE
The city concil idiots refused to allow bloomberg to raise the recycling fine from a measly $25 to $50. No wonder many people choose not to recycle.
Meanwhile not recycling is costing the city a fortune in extra pickup costs.
If you run all the numbers the city actually makes money on the recycling program. It makes money for selling the paper, the taxes from recycling plants such as vicey on staten island which is in negotiations to add 70 more workers. The only holdup is that it needs more paper from the city to make it worthwild
The Guliani administration wanted no interest in the recycling program. The former contract for plastic, glass and metals cost the city becaue it was poorly written. The contract stated if Waste Management was not able to market the glass, plastic or metal, the city would pay to have it dumped at a WMI landfill. Which most of it ended up
The new contract for glass and plastic is for $9 a ton gauranteed vs $60 a ton to landfill the garbage.
Bloomberg is also pushing a plan that would allow delevery companies such as fed ex to buy a fixed cost parking plaqu that would exempt them from paying for individual tickerts
PArking tickets is part of FedEX cost structure just like fuel and labor costs. Such a plan would free up police and traffic agents to issue tickets for other vioaltors
The end of hand written tickets would also speed up the proccess. The university police at stony brook were using such as system back in 1993
If I read the statistics correctly, thier were fewer tickets issued but increaed revenue due to the higher costs
1)People are more care full where they park. This is a good thing. The higher tickets served part of thier purpose
plus a biggies is
Lower economic activity in manahttan has resulted in such things as fewer fedex and package deliveries which are a nice portion of the ticket pool. Plus fewer manhattan visiotors overall.
A large portion of parking tickets are issued in manhattan to no city residents or busineses. Fewer companies in business, fewer tickets
Is the reason why the NYPD and traffic officer still writing paper tickets the parking Violations Bueru schadle of the mid 1980's. If memeory serves me it involved an electonics company. Hand written tickets take too long to write and are prone to human error.
The time to write a parking ticket could be cut to under 1 minute or less using a hand held computer and portable printer. You would need less traffic agents and you would be able to track the work patterns of agents
Channel 5 ran a story last year where agents would write a few quick tickets and then take a hour break and read the paper etc. Not only are they not working hard, but they then need to find violations to meet the average daily tickets issues mark. I hate to use the word quota because it has been twisted to mean something negative such as the words "discrimination" and "profiling" . Profiling is the cornerstone of detective work. Unfortunitly the popular meaning today is states something negative
If I read the statistics correctly, thier were fewer tickets issued but increaed revenue due to the higher costs
Where's the blitz? Blitz means more tickets are being issued. Obviously, the blitz is on minor, low-fine violations, not parking tickets.
Profiling is the cornerstone of detective work. Unfortunitly the popular meaning today is states something negative
"Profiling" isn't negative. "Racial profiling" is.
You are right, but many people don't draw the distiction. In fact the NJ just pass a law that prohibited profiling, not racial profiing. What this law means is that it is techically illegal to create a criinal profile of a suspect and broadcat it over a police radio
This has megans law implications because how the law is written, f you call out that you are looking for a white make, mide 30's brown hair. That is techically a profile and a racial profile
Just as discrimination is not negative. Illegally discriminating against a person because his race is
Ask the average guy in harlem if an employer should be discriminate about who he hires and you will get an angry outcry
Every employer is discriminate about who he hire's. you would not hire a guy with a suspended licence to drive a bus.
You are completely wrong. If you are looking for an individual, it is a description, and perfectly legal to give the color of the skin, the hair, the sex and the clothing. It is racial profiling when you say that certain crimes are usually committed by persons of a certain race and age, so be on the lookout for anyone of that race and age, and if you see someone matching the profile, check to see if any crime has been committed in the area so you can stop them.
An egregious example was the belief that on the highways between Florida and the Northeast, drug runners were Black and Hispanic males, driving late model cars being careful not to exceed the speed limit. This resulted in police officers sitting beside the highway checking cars until they saw the profiled cars go by, then following until they saw a real or imagined traffic violation and pull them over and hold them until a drug sniffing dog could be brought to the scene. Needless to say, drug dealers quickly changed their M.O. after losing a few loads, and a great many honest citizens of color were unjustly harassed.
And who can forget, the FBI profile of the Washington area sniper was a lone white male in his ‘30s. You have to wonder how many times the real snipers passed through roadblocks without close inspection because they did not fit the profile.
Tom
Statistics can be very misleading especially when it comes to so-called "quality of life" issues. You need to examine the types of offenses these tickets are being issued for and do a comparison. I suspect that years ago many more tickets were issued to squeegee men, public begging, etc... Since these flagrant quality of life issues have disappeared to a large extent I suspect that more tickets are now being issued to people who occupy more than one seat on the subway, etc... People who had not been targets previously...
Personally I feel that we have TOO MANY laws to obey for a so-called free society and that police tend to be very rude when they bark orders. I am not in the military therefore I demand that I be treated with respect and that police precede all orders with the word "PLEASE" and followed by the phrase "THANK YOU SIR ".
Many of these laws have legitamate purposes, some are nothing more then a polician wanting to make himeself look like he was doing things
As a society we need to look at the laws on the books and weed out the ones that no longer make sense and grade the one's we want to keep
Free society does not me anarchy. Many of the laws even those you may not see a point for do make sene.
The animal licencing law for examply
- It provides protection against animal thrft
- It ensures the public safety by ensuring animals have all thier shots and don't harbor any diseases that can get past on to humans or other animals
-Provides away to track animals if they become lost.
-Provides a way to punish animal owners who abandon thier animal
-It banned animals are not kept
It does make sense and is needed. The licencing fees pay for animal shelters
Who's advocating anarchy - but what good is having freedom if it can't be excercized. I'm sorry but we have gone too far.
And as far as obeying the law - well we should be informed of what the laws are first... It seems the city is now enforcing obscure statutes that no-one ever knew existed. If the city wants to enforce these rules then the city should provide a complete set of rules on demand to anyone who requests it, free of charge, and translated to simple English as well as ALL possible languages spoken here. Only then will I consider the enforcement fair.
Parking regulations are available on the DOT website but the rules for using the Transit system, walking on city streets, etc are no-where to be found unless you are a lawyer with thousands of dollars to spend on access to services like Lexis/Nexus etc... Then you need to be a lawyer to understand these rules...
All this has accomplished is to make me lose respect for cops and the city government...
Not only that, but reasonable people will know that they will be subject to a number of regulations when they are driving and parking. That is not the case with riding the subway or, even less, walking down the street.
That's not such a great idea. Giving anyone a licence to break the law is not the way to go. Fedex may consider the tickets a cost of doing business, but they cannot deduct them as a business expense from their taxes. If there is not enough commercial parking space, then more loading zones need to be made available by preventing others from misusing the existing ones (more aggressive ticketing) and creating new ones, not selling licences to a favored few to break the law.
Tom
Peace,
ANDEE
The poice precents in cooperation with the local community boards shout get together and make a concertive effort to list there top ten complaints and laws they want to be enforced rigorously.
In your neighborhood it may be pooper scoop law and red light running.
In my neighborhood it may be loitering at all hours of the night that contrbuted to the drug trade
In a third neighborhood it may be kids blocking the subway steps that are intidating riders(what the police claim the group of teanagers who included the pregant girl was doing)
If the daily news puts out an artice. Have the local precent commander hold up the top ten list put together by the community board.
laws are on the books to help make life better. Local politiacians love to add new laws, but cry when they are enforced
One such law is the no cell phone on public transit law. yes it is anoying but go forbid the police give a ticket 5 years fromnow when people forgot how big of a problem some people made it out to be, It will be all over the paper.
A little note: Much of the problem on train is due to the nextel speaker walky talkie which technically could be classified as no radio playing. No need for a vague new over restrictive statue. It was preposed to get ones name in the paper.
the term limit law has made the grandstanding worse becsue each city concil idiot wants to create a citywide name for himeself to run for another office.
Gilford Miller is doing his best I want to be your next mayor impressions.
WHAT no cell phone on public transit law?? Where?? Effective date??
Another law that is hard to enforce and if it ever is will get blamed on the mayor tring to push quota's on cops
This is where some of these crazy laws come from
He's a troll who, when called on his abismal speeling, promptly began posting made up stuff that was correctly spelled.
The Funny part is that many NYPD officer live wuite well in Nassau county.
It is another Union circular eqaution. You overpay for police and county services. You need to raise taxes to pay for the servies. The police say becasue you raised taxes you need to give us a raise
The end result everyone suffers for no reason
On the other hand, Nassau cops write their own share of BS tickets. I got ticketed last year for honking my car horn for my wife, who was dawdling in a store. I got socked for $50 for using my horn in a non-emergency situation.
The NYPD could easily write 2000 times more tickets if it devoted teh man power to do so.
the fact of the matter is the daily news is not reporting the full story of these selected tickets. There is much more to each story then what is being reported
Any ticket that gets dismissed by the judge or administrative person ajducating the case should be paid for by the police officer who issued it.
That would be one way to get the money the Bloomie wants and make sure that "silly summonses" are cut to a minimum.
Production enhancements, HAH!! Corporate doubletalk!! No matter what it is called it is a quota.
Once again quaility of life tickets are down. And most of the silly tickets highlighed in the daily news had other issue attached to them. For instace the pregant teanager was part of a group that refused to get up from the stairway creating a legitamate safety hazzard
the guy on the milk crate was sitting in front of a known drug dealing location where two shooting occured in the past few months. It is hard to pick up a person on dealing drugs. the guy on the crate could have been the lookout and the police used a quirk in the law to deter him from working from the locations. Probably at the request of a complaint. Police offcice in this city ignor too many blatant offenses right in front of their face.
You have made this *UNQUALIFIED* statement before. He was sitting in front of HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT.
Peace,
ANDEE
If the quote was still available online I would post it.
Peace,
ANDEE
Thank God for small favors. 8-)
Peace,
ANDEE
EXCUSE me????!!!!!
May your daily mode of trasnportation develop mechanical problems when it is least convenient.
Yea,
but most of the snot-nosed residents would deny it.
Peace,
ANDEE
But no, the current residents are STILL trying to seceed.
Too late; all three modes failed me on Wednesday.
Peace,
ANDEW
Peace,
ANDEE
Was the dog on a leashe
Was the dog on the subway
Did the dog have it's proper licance around his neck
Just saying you had a dog tell me nothing.
If you were doing any of the above incorrectly you should be issued a ticket
Dog Poop spreads deseases- IE a possible casue for SARS
Unlicence dogs may or may not have all thier shots
Dogs in the subway are a no-no unless you ae blind
2. Yes
3. No
4. Yes
I did nothing to justify being stopped.
Or a dog in a carrier. IE, taking a dog/cat to a vet.
Peace,
ANDEE
But that is without saying. To tell you the truth, by law as written it is probably a violation but I can not see anyone issuing such a summons. Most cops have dogs themselves
He should have produced a listing of just about every city ordiance up there in a spreadsheet, along with a box for members of the City Council to indicate which ones it wants repealed, which ones it wants to be made voluntary, and which ones it only wants enforced against the "wrong kind of people" -- and who those people are. That's the real scandal.
These are the same city concil idiots who stand up two or three times a year and compliant that th epoice are not doing enough to enforce qualiy of life issues in thier area
There's lies,
Damn lies,
and statistics
8-)
Peace,
ANDEE
Oxymoron. You've got those looking to score political points (Hevesi, Thompson) and those looking to get paid (the accountants the MTA says blessed its books).
The article is about preserving historic buildings in lower manhattan, and specifically near the proposed Fulton Street Transit Center.
I think that it'll be a disaster, saving far less money that they expect over a four-track line and that the lack of express service will not pull away that many riders. But what can you say about people who dubbed the West End line the W train (instead of the traditional T) because West End begins with W?
-- Ed Sachs
Finally, who says that an express tunnel, a la the uppper Lexington IRT and the 6th Avenue IND, cannot be built someday under the existing tracks?
Potentially, at least. Skip-stop saves time if a lot of passengers are traveling from all-stop stations at one end of the line to all-stop stations at the other end of the line. If typical trips are short, skip-stop doesn't save much time at all, and if many passengers board at skip-stop stations, they lose much more time in the extended wait than they gain in the faster ride.
I don't think skip-stop would help on the 2nd Avenue line. It's just not long enough, and there will be busy stations throughout.
I wonder how much transfer traffic will be generated (meaning, people getting on the SAS at 125 St or other stops, riding to 63rd/Lex, and transferring to Queens-bound F trains, and vice versa)?
Or even 4th Avenue
You have access, as all of us do, to accurate information regarding the cost of constructing subways; I suggest you look at it.
Look up the zillion threads on this site; examine the DEIS, which is available on-line and in the Manhattan Borough President's office and the public library (if you are in New York).
I suggest you also look up David Greenberger's posts regarding express vs. local trains. Examine the way that express and local trains work along CPW and Queens Blvd.
It would be nice to have four tracks on Second Avenue, but it is not crucial to its function.
The supposed time saving of express trains is greatly exaggerated, especially where the local stations are fairly widely spaced, as they will be on the SAS. This is not the IRT, with stations sometimes as little as 4 blocks apart. On the SAS, it will be an average of about 10 blocks.
Yes, of course express service is a bit faster, but even over a fairly long route the time saved is only a few minutes. If the SAS goes where the passenger wants, the passenger isn't going to walk over to Lexington Avenue just because he can catch an express. The passenger would lose more time in the walk than he'd save by taking a Lex express.
What express service really buys you, is that it doubles capacity. But the SAS is being designed for 30tph. The argument to build the SAS 4-tracked is tantamount to an argument that Second Avenue needs 60tph, which I don't think it does.
In the SDEIS, I don't recall any statement that the line was being designed so that express tracks could be added "easily" (I use the term loosely) in the future. This may be short-sighted; I don't know. There are some on this board who believe that the ridership projections are insufficient to justify even a 2-track line. I'm not in that camp, but I tend to think that 4 tracks would be overkill.
The SDEIS contemplates only 24 tph operation. Even this is suspect because the MTA has not been able to design stub terminals that can handle even 15 tph - e.g. Jamaica Center.
Capacity there is reduced because the switch is too far from the terminal, increasing the length of wrong-way operation. The switch is too far from the terminal because it was not planned to be the terminal. Big mistake.
Was Rockaway Ave planned to be the terminal on the Fulton St Line? What service levels did they operate?
Was 169th St planned to be the terminal on the Queens Blvd Line?
What service levels did they operate?
I suppose it was. When was the extension to 179 St first planned (as opposed to actually built)?
The SDEIS contemplates only 24 tph operation.
Page 2-7 of the SDEIS says, "Facilities for the Second Avenue Subway are being developed to accommodate up to 30 trains per hour during peak periods."
Even this is suspect because the MTA has not been able to design stub terminals that can handle even 15 tph - e.g. Jamaica Center.
However, both SAS termini are being designed 3-tracked, with tail tracks. The comparison to Jamaica Center is therefore inapposite.
Exactly how do 3-tracks increase terminal capacity?
Jamaica Center has tail tracks.
If you have a 2-track terminal, then to achieve 30tph each platform needs to turn 15tph. That is, each peak-hour train has 4 minutes to clear the interlocking, enter the station, unload, load, change ends, exit the station, and clear the interlocking again.
If you have a 3-track terminal, then to achieve 30tph each platform needs to turn around 10tph, allowing 6 minutes for all of the above to occur. Obviously you're still constrained by the interlocking, but that's only a small part of the 6-minute turnaround time.
Jamaica Center has tail tracks.
I'm assuming Larry Littlefield is correct when he said the peculiar problem at Jamaica Center is that the switches are too far from the station.
I think the interlocking, and waiting for a signal allowing you to enter the interlocking, are the bulk of the time. Neither of those are less for 3 tracks.
How long can it take to unload and load a train? Even GCT on the 4/5 only takes a minute. All terminals are far less crowded than that.
In a 3-track terminal the interlocking is more complex and might even take longer to get through. The only advantage I see of a 3-track terminal is that it provides time to clean the trains.
I plan to go to 8th Ave on the L some time in the near future and try to figure out what actually takes up the 4 minutes between trains. I can only account for 2.5 minutes myself.
Increasing throughput by having more tracks at a terminal isn't exactly a new idea. All of the PATH terminals, except for Newark, are more than 2 tracks (e.g., three at 33rd and HOB, five at WTC).
In the morning rush, PATH operates every 5 minutes from 33rd St to Hoboken, and every 4 minutes from 33rd St to Newark. That's a total of 27 tph, out of a 3-track terminal (without tail tracks). I am guessing that this would not be possible if 33rd St were 2 tracks.
I don't think NYCT turns 27 tph at any of its 2-track stub-end terminals, does it?
Your guess is wrong. It is possible because PATH trains are 350 feet long whereas NYCT trains are 600 feet long.
Times Square?
Times Square has tail tracks.
The New York City Transit System Rapid Transit Lines - Flow Chart for August 1949 shows the following Morning Peak Hour service for the following 2 track stub terminals that are close to or exceed 27 tph.
Pelham Bay Park - 30 tph/210 cars
Bronx Park (3rd Ave El) - 25 tph/159 cars
E 241st St (Lex + 3rd Ave El) - 25 tph/220 cars
8th Ave (14th St Line) - 24 tph/137 cars
Hudson Terminal - 26 tph/244 cars
Of course, I do have some data for the Brooklyn Bridge Cable Railway in 1887 - before the terminals were enlarged and were still simple 2-track stub terminals with a single center platform. They show 45 tph/90 cars. After the 1887 enlargment, they were still stub terminals but with 3 platforms. The were able to increase service levels to 50 tph/200 cars.
This assertion is based on specific knowledge. A relocation was under consideration as part of the 2005-09 capital plan. I believe it was deferred in favor of signal improvments on the Lex, intended to squeeze out a couple of more tph.
1. Assume that the interlocking is 100 feet long and that the train is 600 feet long.
2. Assume that the average speed of the train over the interlocking is 5 mph such as is necessary for a stub terminal.
3. Assume that the average speed of the train over the interlocking is 10 mph such as can be achieved with tail tracks.
4. Now assume that the interlocking length is 150 feet long such as is necessary for a 3 track terminal. Recalculate the answers for questions 2 and 3.
5. Finally, assume that the train is only 350 feet long - such as for PATH. Recalculate the inerlocking time for a train speed of 5 mph.
N.B. each train must pass over the interlocking twice. For a single track terminal the minimum headway is double the time to pass over the interlocking with 0 dwell time. A two track terminal has the same minimum headway but provides a dwell time equal to the minimum headway. A three track terminal has the same minimum headway (adjusted for the longer interlocking) but has a dwell time equal to twice the headway.
PATH at WTC and possibly even 33rd have boarding volumes (as percent of total train capacity) that exceed that of any NYCT terminal, even including Times Square and Flushing. Times Square handles at most 1/3 of 7 passengers going under the East River. Flushing handles a high percentage of 7 passengers but it has 3 tracks. WTC handles 100% of peak load, and 33rd is also high. Therefore the issue of loading/unloading may be a good reason for 3 or more tracks at those terminals.
But for the all the other (less busy) NYCT terminals, I haven't seen any good reason in all the discussions that have ever been posted on this board why 2 tracks aren't as good as 3 for pure capacity. Again, 3 might be important just so that you have time to clean the train.
That doesn't mean I'm right. But I haven't seen any coherent argument saying I'm wrong.
You should not have any problems regarding the length of trains nor the average speed through the interlocking.
Regarding the length of an interlocking - here's a shot of an R12 on a switch. The R12's are 50 feet long and appears to have navigated half the interlocking.
Is there anything else holding you back?
But let's go with your assumptions for a moment. If the interlocking is 150' long, and the train is 600' long, then the interlocking is occupied for the amount of time it takes the train to travel 750'. At your assumed speed of 10 mph (with tail tracks), each train will pass the interlocking in about 51 seconds. Since each train must pass it twice (in and out), we're on a pace for at least 30 tph.
Under your assumptions, the interlocking would be occupied for only 48 seconds if the terminal were two tracks, so in that sense a 2-track terminal is "better." However, with the difference being so small, it basically tells us that the time it takes to clear the interlocking isn't a bounding variable on achieving 30 tph. But as you have observed, with a 3-track terminal the dwell time is twice the headway, instead of being equal to the headway.
On the other hand, if one believes that 2 minutes' dwell time is ample, then a 3-track terminal is unnecessary, except perhaps for other purposes (e.g., train storage).
Now that you've started doing a little analysis let me throw a curve. Which would be better: a terminal with three tracks and two platforms or a a terminal with two tracks and 3 platforms?
The former scheme offers three tracks but both departing and arriving passengers will share the same platform. Will the third track improve train handling compared to two tracks?
A train arriving on track 2 will have to merge with track 1 when it leaves. A train on track 3 (what track 2 splits into) will have to cross over to track 1 when it leaves. A train on track 1 will have crossed over from track 2 on arrival. Intuitively, it appears that this configuration can be helpful in terms of handling a disabled train, a train requiring cleaning, or an extra train where capacity is not yet maxed out. But otherwise, the 3 platform, two track design is superior, all other factors held equal.
It's still done at a few terminals. I also once was on a Metro-bound M train that, with no prior warning to the passengers, ran express from Marcy to Myrtle. The C/R opened the doors first on the right and then on the left, so passengers who missed their stops could transfer back without crossing over. I don't know if that's standard practice (where possible) after unannounced express runs -- I'd guess it's not.
Some 4 trains went through the jughandle to the lower level at 149-GC and relayed at Jackson. Others went to the upper level and relayed onto the middle track (presumably they bypassed 138 on their way back down). The shuttle was on the SB local track.
I was sitting on a shuttle train, waiting for it to leave. An empty 4 train came in on the middle track and opened its doors on both sides. A full 4 train came in on the NB local track, and its passengers streamed through the empty train to reach the shuttle.
The usual arrangement is for exit at the side platforms and entry at the center platform. This means that entering passengers use only one platform instead of two. It also simplifies fare control arrangements in the station. One line in NYC uses this arrangement at both terminals.
But meanwhile, let me say that the TSQ station has absolutely no problem unloading and loading a train in 2 minutes.
Also, one additional time factor is not counted in any of the above discussions: after the departing train clears the interlocking, it takes some time before the incoming train can actually start to cross the interlocking. Similarly, after the incoming train clears the interlocking, it takes time before the departing train can start to cross it.
If there are trains waiting for the interlocking to give a clear aspect, then this is a measure of the performance of the tower operations. One should expect that this should be on the order of the time it takes to throw a switch. This used to be around 3 seconds but the TA has decided to replace these switches with ones that take 5 seconds longer to activate.
Okay, so we're talking 51 second intervals. But it helps to know what events these intervals are between.
Consider a three-track Northern terminal, with the tracks numbered from the Northbound side to the Southbound side as 1, 2, 3. Let us presume that the interlocking is constructed in the following way South of the station: track 2 splits in a Y shape and one fork merges into track 1, the other into track 3; there is then an X-crossover between tracks 1 and 3. The moves across the interlocking (remember, the ones that 51 seconds is needed for) are as follows:
(1) arrival track 1 AND departure track 2
(2) arrival track 2 AND departure track 3
(3) departure track 1
(4) arrival track 3
At 51 second intervals between each of these events, we are talking the equivalent of 53tph (3600 [seconds per hour] ÷ 51 [seconds] x 3 [departure events] ÷ 4 [total events]). Therefore, I don't think the interlocking would be the limiting factor on running 24tph.
This could theoretically be permitted in a two-track terminal when neither the arriving nor departing train has to cross over. In a three track terminal, if the order of track usage is properly set, it could happen 2/3 of the time.
It wouldn't have been difficult. The SB track already drops to a lower level to clear the express tracks. Before rising back up, it could branch in two, one rising on either side of the NB track.
It wouldn't have been difficult. The SB track already drops to a lower level to clear the express tracks. Before rising back up, it could branch in two, one rising on either side of the NB track.
1. Not sure if Church St is wide enough for 5 tracks.
2. Why? Certainly a properly signaled stub terminal can handle 24 tph. Why would WTC ever need to handle more?
Arti
This could theoretically be permitted in a two-track terminal when neither the arriving nor departing train has to cross over. In a three track terminal, if the order of track usage is properly set, it could happen 2/3 of the time.
The downside of such a strategy is that you don't have uniform headways. One train will have to enter and leave at twice the interval than the other trains. Schedules with uneven headways are more difficult to maintain.
Of course, but if we're talking 51 seconds to clear the interlocking, then a little headway tweaking could go on at the subsequent station.
If you have a train whose relative time is 0 seconds, then departures from the terminal relative to this train would be:
00:00, 00:51, 01:42, 03:24, 04:15, 05:06, 06:48, etc
The next station, the trains could be held to depart at the following times from the train at 0 seconds relative time:
00:00, 01:08, 02:16, 03:24, 04:32, 05:40, 06:48, etc
In other words, the train after the double gap wouldn't be held at all, the one after that would be held for 17 seconds and the one after that would be held for 34 seconds. After that, headways would be equal! Circle squared!
Go to the J level of Parsons and time 10 incoming trains on both rtacks when the layups are there and then time them when the layups are not there and you almost have real pockets.
Extra room on the plat is not really a tail track when you have a red homeball blocking off that room.
Dwell time is a problem with most passengers coming from the back of the train in such large numbers. It really is a pain to close the doors there.
That was before the FRA said the MTA would not be permitted to do that. Ibelieve the LIRR wasn't happy about the plan either.
Which would have landed a decisive blow against the relative stagnation of southeast Queens. I do remember eagerly anticipating that proposed extension. It was fairly innovative of the MTA to route the J line parallel to the LIRR there considering the paucity of new subway construction up to that point, and irregardless of the (IMO) faulty logic of depriving the major shopping areas of the modern replacement of the torn-down el.
Saint Albans in particular seems like it could be a good catchment area for subway riders. If I was clever enough or had the spare time I would also love to sketch out a new route: a line running along Linden Blvd straight across from the city line(Nassau/Queens) into Brooklyn. Yep, dreamland. Doesn't Linden Blvd seem to be a decent route though? Such a line would place a broad stretch of un-subway'd terrain into the grid. Call it a "3rd System" line. :-)
You seem to be suggesting that SAS ridership will be so low that they ought to build a four-track line!
I can see that a case could be made for building an express line rather than a local line. But bear in mind that the Upper East Side is very densely populated. The plan is a compromise, in that the stations are to be about ten blocks apart.
Do not overestimate the value added by additional tracks. According to the "Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual" (Part C), page 3.2 (which may be seen at http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_6-c.pdf): "The capacity of four track lines is not a simple multiple of two single tracks and varies widely with operating practices such as the merging and dividing of local and express services and trains holding at stations for local-express transfers. The result is that four tracks rarely increase capacity by more than 50% over a double track line - and often less."
As you may know, the MESA study recommended only the "stubway", an extension of the Q train from 57th Street and Seventh Avenue via the 63rd Street tunnel and up Second Avenue to 125th Street. The MESA study recommendations were overruled by politicians who insisted on a full-length Second Avenue subway going down the East Side to Lower Manhattan. But even the politicians didn't demand a four-track line!
Is there any other station that would match the same criteria? Name it.
The Bronx elevated terminals (242/VCP, Woodlawn, 241st/Wakefield, and Pelham Bay Park) also share the same characteristics, but they have an island platform and the fare control area is at the front end of the terminal station..
Besides if they want to extend the line all they have to do is remove the bottom of the "U".
Wrong, 205th st/IND has an island platform but it was never intended to be a terminal. The IND master plan called for the Concourse line to be extended to the yet-undeveloped Co-Op City.
8-)
Peace,
ANDEE
Flatbush Avenue is the only underground stub-end terminal station that has only side platforms. All the others have center island platforms (and some have center island and side).
Thank you RIPTA42.
And you people call yourselves railfans?? 10 lashes with a wet single ride MetroCard for each of you.
Now - for extra credit what elevated station would also fit the criteria?
While we are on the subject - you mean Pavonia/Newport not Newark.
Newark has 2 platforms for PATH. Track H (inbound)is a single side platform. Track C [I think it is track C] (outbound) is a part of the various center island platforms in the main station. On one side it shares the center platform with NJT/Amtrak track 1 on the other it shares the center island platform with NJT/Amtrak track 2.
Franklin Ave/BMT station. One ELEVATED, SIDE PLATFORM AT STUB-END.
Now Times Square shuttle seems more like what you're looking at, because your same train to your same destination might be at different platforms, like at Flatbush Avenue.
Quite frankly, I have always considered the Times Square Shuttle station in a class by itself. It really doesn't fully fit the criteria because track 4 is not stub end at the TS side and track 1 is not stub end at the GC side.
Now look at modern-day Park Place. One track, one platform way station, bi-directional. That's like an old trolley line!
Flatbush Avenue and Franklin Avenue were the ones that came to my mind as uniques.
Or the Culver Shuttle :)
Operationally, they are stub end terminals. The train exits the same way it came in. Of course, there is now an island platform where the downtown express track was, so it doesn't fit the side-platform criterion.
New Lots Ave is another side-platform terminal, but I think all trains relay and depart from the Manhattan-bound platform.
By the way, if you include the old shuttle platform, South Ferry meets the criteria of being an underground terminal with two side platforms.
2 side platforms? Where? You can't count SF because it isn't a stub end terminal. The old BG platform is a center island platform.
By the way, if you include the old shuttle platform, S.Ferry is another underground terminal which meets the criteria of being a terminal with 2 side platforms!!!
I also noted that the little insert map for the 1 line diagram still takes it to New Lots.
I have yet to receive any response or tickets.
I'd like to follow up with someone directly but I don't know exactly who to contact.
Any help will be appreciated. I don't want to miss out on that fan trip.
I ordered mine on a Friday, and they came 10 days later (the Monday after next).
Just been to NYC only a couple of times this year, most recently last week.
On visit #1 to NYC, I bought an old R-44 number plate, #283 at the GCT Transit Museum shop.
My most recent visit, I checked the number plates, and they offered one of the unfortunate scrapped before its time victims, R-44 #248, with several number plates of #248 for sale.
On a seperate note, on the day I went back to Boston (this past Sunday), I took an R-143 M (running on 4-car OPTO) with a nice number on it...#8288...great number for Chinese people!
Nick
For those of us who aren't Chinese, care to explain the significance?
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Nick
In Hebrew, the letter "chai" (first letter of the word "chayim") also represents the number "18", so 18 is considered the "number of life". Monetary gifts on special occasions are traditionally multiples of 18, and those of us whose house number is 18 consider ourselves extremely fortunate.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
The question is, has anyone recently seen a 6-car R-42 consist off-peak on the J/M?
Nick
They are still needed, just incase the yard needs to send up a six car train after pulling off a pair of bad order cars.
Elias
The J and M lines can use either 4 or 8 car sets but NEVER a 6 car set.
Why not? The J and M lines use R40M & R42 cars which are in married pairs (with the exception of the M OPTO shuttle which uses R143 trainsets). They used to use 6-car sets several years ago during certain off-peak periods (I believe it was done on weekends, but I don't remember).
The Eastern Division (primarily the J and L lines) used to have alternate conductor indication boards (which were red and yellow in addition to the black and white main boards) in case the conductor had to change operating positions while on the road. Some had numbers on them to indicate the car class for the C/R to know that the train was properly berthed in the station.
Currently, the J and L do not run anything less than full-length trains, 8 cars, so for now the alternate boards have been taken down.
On the F for example, an 8 car train of R46's [75 footers] is about the same length of 10 cars of an R32 [60 footers]. The R46 train would use the 10 car marker just like a 10 car train of R32's would.
8 x 75 = 600
10 x 60 = 600
600=600
For all practical intents and purposes, the 8 car train of 75 foot cars and 10 car train of 60 foot cars are the same length.
600=600
YIKES! He must be an AlGebra Terrorist!
He's even got impliments of math instruction!
:^) Elias
An 8-car train of R-46's stops at the 10-car marker.
A 6-car train of R-46's stops at the 8-car marker.
OTOH, a 2-car train of R-68's (on the Franklin shuttle) stops at the 2-car marker. Whoops!
The Eastern division stations had separate stopping marks for 4, 6, and 8 car R types. The Southern division only had separate stopping marks for 8 car R types -- shorter trains used the same stopping marks as the Standards.
-- Ed Sachs
I know, in preperation for the new longer trains the Chrystie St. connection would need.
NOT!
R-27s started arriving on the BMT long before the Christie Street connection. Broadway needed longer trains, and so the platforms were extended.
Elias
Yes, But...
BMT cars were 67' feet long, so an 8 car train was 536 feet, just 70 shorter than a 10 car R- Train.
Elias
Would that have fitted into Metropolitan Avenue station?
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
Do BP's have any real power today? Or are they little more than figureheads?
I guess I need a course in civics.
Prior to 1989, the borough presidents sat on the Board of Estimate, which passed on both the budget and many other matters such as zoning changes. Since 1989, those powers belong to the New York City Council. The Borough Presidents were permitted to receive a lump sum in the capital plan to use for things like parks and culture. This is little more than the right to distribute a small amount of pork.
The last real vestige of BP power was the school system, where they held the majority of seats on the Board of Education. That's why the state legislature, which is aligned with the BPs politically, fought Mayoral Control so hard. The BPs still appoint people to the City Planning Commission, but the Mayor appoints the majority and controls the staff. The Mayor controls City Planning like the Governor controls the MTA, regardless of the other appointees.
Of the current Borough Presidents one, Marty Markowitz of Brooklyn, not only accepts but revels in his capacity as a figurehead. With no real power, and therefore no need to make difficult decisions, he has appointed himself the de facto spokesman, ombudsman, and man about town for the borough, not without some success. Like the City Council and the State Legislature, he is against both all tax and fee increases and all service reductions, and in favor of everyone and everything all in exchange for nothing. Since he doesn't hold a responsible office, however, no one blames him.
From what I've seen of Marty MARBLEMOUTHOWITZ he does not impress me at all.
Peace,
ANDEE
They are largely figure heads who through thier influence around by utilizing public opinion.
They server no real purpose. NYC residents are over represented. A huge waste of money because each representive has a staff and descretionary budget.
Bob Sklar
The next time we need to find money in the budget, look at how many elected officaial we have, what thier rea contribution to our lives are, and what the costs of having them around
One of the biggest reasons local elected officials and community districts were against the 311 system is that it tool away one of the only useful purposed they served. Telling people which number to call to get a particular issue adressed.
All residents need to do is call 311. Every concievable senario including a wild turley in your yard is at the finger tips of the 311 operator
this is also why many local elected officials are against the ending of community school distericts. They remove a political favor they can do in excahnge for a vote thus reducing thier political power.
We have a whole flock of wild turkies that frequent our yard. They even had the arch-hubris to parade outside of our kitchen on the day before thanksgiving!
: ) Elias
NOPE... They use kerosene lamps and cook on a wood stove!
Sheesh! some people's questions.
:^) Elias
Nick
-Stef
Here are my guesses:
#1 8401 to 9900 and 101 to 300 is likely, that is, if they are willing to resurrect the three-digit-numbers as car numbers...or they could use 0101 to 0300.
#2 3011 to 4710. This assumes that all R-32, R-38, R-40, R-40M and R-42 are retired.
#3 Since the R160 and R143 are almost presumed to be look-alikes, we could start from 8313 to 9900 and continue from 101 to 212 or some other odd arrangement.
Nick
wayne
1938 Tube Stock DM 11175
Peace,
ANDEE
Is there any reason why MTA couldn't go to five digit numbers?
And here's a crazy "thinking outside the box" idea (hee hee) that'll probably have some people ready to toss me INTO a box....if they used a fleet number made up of two digits and two letters (not using the letters I and O to prevent confusion with digits 1 and 0), then they could handle 1728 cars just using 84AA through 86ZZ. I know, it ain't gonna happen.....but it would keep them from having to use two different number ranges! :-)
Is there any reason why MTA couldn't go to five digit numbers?
I could see this happening over the letter/number if that was the case but since all the Redbirds will be gone already they could use those old numbers and keep it 4 digits [or maybe 3].
eg.
Blue Line 0600
Red Line 01800
0range Line 01200
til next time
Base order will begin at 8316 (660 cars)
The first option order will be 640 cars and the numbers will follow in order after the base order.
Second option order, if less than 400 cars will follow the SIRR numbers up to 1100. If it's more than 400 cars the R-44 SIRR will be renumbered so that the second option order will still end with 1100.
This is not BS. I saw the letter.
Why would it start at 8316? Nowadays, fleet numbers on a set either start on xx00, xx01 or xx50 I doubt it would start from xx16.
I wonder why the short trains, though. N passengers aren't used to them (in the daytime), and the Sea Beach has a lot of stations with entrances at the far ends.
"....for continuing service to Queens, take a 1, 2, 4 or 5 train to Fulton Street for transfer to the J"
Main issue here:
Does the announcer ever think that 1 trains no longer go to Brooklyn? That was a 9/11 service related matter when the 3 could not go to Brooklyn. Does RTO have the correct subway map? Are were still in Mars with the #1 train going to New Lots? DUH!
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
Check my post. My scenario, with no appeal on the toll case only on the transit case, was even more cynical, but it didn't pan out.
Bridges and tunnel customers have a real argument. Why do they have to pay for the ineffeciently run public transit operations
They don't.
They have to pay their fare share of highway construction, maintenance, street congestion, air polution, environmental degredation, and associated services shuch as the highway patrol, litter control, snow removal, and electricity to run the street lamps.
Ops.., sorry I guess their tolls and gas taxes don't cover all of that stuff! I guess we will either A) have to CUT BACK on SERVICES or 2) INCRESE the DAMN TOLLS!
:^) Elias
I assume you mean INCREASE. And I didn't think clergy were supposed to use swear words. Now, getting back to the thread:
$7.00 to cross a stupid bridge is HIGHWAY ROBBERY!!!
Nope, just the price of doing business in the city :) Long live the toll increase!
I did that last week when I was headed for Ct. - paid for lunch ;-)
By in large, streets, roads, highways, etc. get paid for by government without thought that they are being subsidized. Air transportation is subsidized as well.
Take a look at the Free Congress Foundation's trolleycar.org website and the New, New Electric Railway Journal. It has a conservative/libertarian approach to the issue of rail versus other transportation. Their papers discuss how other conservative/libertarian think tanks get funding from road/highway/motor vehicle interests and produce reports that support road subsidies and bash rail. I may not agree with much Free Congress says, but they are often on target when it comes to rail.
The usual way is to make the toll even lower for a specified number of days. I wouldn't count on it happening, though.
Getting a refund is just a dream, it probably wouldn't happen for those who pay by cash or toll tokens in other words they'll be stiffed. And some people won't care about it since they have to get where they have to go and keeping track on all the people who paid the new charge you won't reach everyone obviously.
When they were litigating the fate of the Southern State Parkway tolls, people had to ask for recipts, only those with recipts would get a refund. Everybody asked for recipts. I think it was those delays more than anything else caused the parkway commission to toss up their hands and pull down the tolls.
Betcha the pols wish there were still tolls there now.
Elias
Now it seems like the West End wins! It reached Coney in June 1864. See the material at the bottom of the page: A Little More About the West End Line.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH for that wonderful story on the line of the future D train. Suddenly, I'm glad they're chaging things. What a wonderful and eclectic railroad. Even settles my mind with the trolley poles on top of the subway cars at Branford. Thanks for doing what you do, guy! :)
Reason?
I think this will improve the look of the Nassau Line at Bowery and Canal, as there will be less to maintain, and abandoned trackways will not all be in plain view.
If there is some kind of diversion, why would Nassau have so many trains that it would be impossible to terminate at Chambers and Broad. The only reroutes that could feed INTO the Nassau line from the north are reroutes from the Canarsie line.
What have I been saying for YEARS now?
THE BEST ACCIDENT IS ONE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN
ANd if yuou pulled your head out of your ass for, oh, maybe 1/2 a second, you'd note this accident happed on track with NO automatic stops.
THE EXACT KIND OF SYSTEM YOU SAY IS SAFE BECAUSE OF THE SO-CALLED "PROFESSIONAL" CREWS!!!
Once again, the human element FAILED. Once again, had an automatic, redundant stop been installed, as has been the cae so many times before elsewhere, this accident would not have happened.
Once again, you're theorty of 'safety' by 'professional' crews has been proven dead wrong.
The rest of the industrial world recognized decades ago that the human element is inherintly unreliable, and designed around it. It's only boneheaded railroads thgat seem to think otherwise.
I don't want a potentially tired / drunk / drugged up / fatigued/ distracted / incapacitated / stupid / whatever 'professional' being in charge of whether or not a train's going to crash into another, I want a redundant and fail safe automatic system making that call. You'd be a total idiot to not want that.
As far as tier I / tier II is concerned, there have been plenty of Amtrak crashes that have provided zero support for them. You keep extolling the virtues of heavyweight equipment, yet Superliners are well known for their ability to flip and fly in even minor derailments. A few years ago, what should have been a minor derailment in Florida killed 4 people because of the 'safe' Superliner design. Recently, another 'safe' heavyweight train collided with a pickup truck - and derailed 1/2 the cars in the train. The other year a "professional" crew on a frieght train blew past not one, but two restrictive signals, and collided head on with a commuter train, killing a passenger.
But what do I know? I've only read studies commisioned by the US DOT that concluded Tier II won't work.
I'll tell you exactly what will happen in the first high speed crash of an Acela with a reasonably fixed object (bridge, freight train, another train, etc) right now:
1) The cars will be scattered and a number will overturn. This is inevitable with the non articulated design and a heavy locomotive pushing from the rear.
2) Structually, the cars will appear intact.
3) A number of people will nonetheless die due to secondary collisions with objects inside the train car.
4) The accident will be fairly fatal, and increasingly more so at higher speeds. Basically, any collision above 80mph would cetainly result in at least a few fatalities, with the number increasing with rapidity as speeds increased. Even below 80, there would be big potential, especially if the cars were to sepperate as a result of the poor car-car connection that a non articulated design inherently has, coupled with the inherint instability of any train in compression.
5) In an ICE - type accident, the fatality rates would be the same or worse, due to the very high amount of energy available and nowhere to put it beides randomly crushing cars and people.
6) In a head on with a freight, it would be fatal to at least the occupants in the first few cars, but there would likey be fatalities in every car. Once again, due to the totaly lack of crushability in the Tier II standards.
7) In an accident of this Talgo type - it would also be fatal, because a good number of the deaths occured from fire, not structural failure of the cars. in fact, a good portion of the train was intact (not surprising), but burnt (not surprising either - it collided with a freight that I believe was carrying highly flammable materials.
It should be noted also this was a commuter train. You honestly think a rudh hour train of M-7s crashing into a another train would be less fatal? Are you really that stupid?
This was a dispatching error that none of the modern hi-tech systems you support could have prevented (dispatcher giving absolute block authority). However a lo-tech token block system might have worked. This is your problem. This is exactly the reason trains need to meet better crash worthyness requirements. There will always be some unpreventable factor that fouls the RoW, jamms the movable bridge, splits the switch or bugs the dispatching system.
You forget that in many cases the economics can't justify all the hi-tech solutions your propose. Railroads have limited cash and in most cases GPS ATO isn't an option. Your position is equivalent to believing that everyone should go out and buy a Lexus and the only reason that someone dosen't buy one is because they are willfully ignorant of the advantages.
A few years ago, what should have been a minor derailment in Florida killed 4 people because of the 'safe' Superliner design.
The train derailed on an embankment at 60-80 and Flordia trains are full of fragile elderly so there is a selection bias.
Recently, another 'safe' heavyweight train collided with a pickup truck - and derailed 1/2 the cars in the train.
But nobody was killed. In fact, derailing is a good thing. If a train hits an immovable object we want it to derail so that the cars have time to decellerate and lessen the internal impact forces. The train also did not hit a "pickup" truck but a logging truck with 20 tonnes of cargo.
3) A number of people will nonetheless die due to secondary collisions with objects inside the train car.
I don't know, ACELA cars are pretty plush inside.
Also regarding the fire, while I am sure that flames killed a number of people, the train looked pretty mangled. Don't forget the Sydney crash where the internal truss frame EMU derailed, split open and killed 20 people.
Diesel fuel unquestionably fed the flames. Given the speed of impact, it almost certainly came from both the Talgo and the freight locomotive. Building a "heavyweight" train would not have alleviated this problem.
Deaths from an impact at that speed would almost all have been from blunt force trauma. An unrestrained body, colliding with other objects, cannot easily survive such an impact. This is why we have seat belts in modern automobiles - to restrain the passengers in the event of a collision or rollover. Again, a "heavyweight" train would not have made a difference. Interior design of any type of train might have some minimal effect, but the biggest benefit would come from seatbelts, which I haven't ever seen on any railroad (and I've travelled extensively by rail in Spain as well as the US and Canada). Amtrak's Superliners, with their high center of gravity, are more prone to derailment and rollover than conventional cars; it is the rollover problem that makes them less safe, not the derailment issue (as you pointed out, a derailment usually is an effective way of absorbing energy and reducing injuries, but that's only true if the cars remain upright and don't hit any obstructions).
And, if I recall correctly, three of the four passengers who died in the Auto Train accident you and Phil referenced were in the same family - a couple in their late thirties/early forties and one of their parents. Last I looked that didn't qualify as elderly.
Slow down and think before you post.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Has the DMU's have a stronger body design the fuel tanks would not have ruptured and caught fire. While some people in the train might have been injured during the deceleration process, the death toll would have been lower as the trainset would have not burned so badly. Ideally, we want a design that can crunch through most obsticles and if it hits something like another train, will sort of glance off to the side, but remain intact.
All you are doing by making trains heavier is ensuring that there is that much more energy there to be dissipated in the crunching of the body. The heavier you make it the stronger the body needs to be to absorb the impact energies without deforming. However, deformation should not be taken as a bad thing, so long as the deformation occurs in a predictable and safe location, say the vestibules. Crumple zones would allow massive amounts of energy to be dissapated all while maintaining the structural integrity of the passenger compartment. The word is not stronger or heavier, but smarter, with CAD and CAM there is absolutely no reason you shouldn't be able to get a car stronger than the much touted (and much doubted) MP54 for at least half the weight per area in square feet.
The FRA's stifling tier requirements are destroying passenger rail in the US, it's not economical to run a 70 ton per car 150mph train, it just doesn't work. If the FRA keeps kicking the load requirements for different parts of the train up every time theres an accident, then in less than 20 years passenger rail will be legislated out of exsistance.
Deformation is important, however in railcars its simply too little too late. In Europe each railcoach typically can absorb about 4MJ of energy, or 4 times that of a standard passenger car. In terms of the forces involved in a rail crash vs an auto crash, this absorbtion simply won't cut it and with the light weight construction the passenger section either get crunched or split open. To truely be safe about half the length of a railcoach would have to be crumple zone. I advocate the derail and slide approach because people won't get crunched or ejected.
Light weight poses another problem as the railcars ride like hell. Unless you are on a dedicated hi-speed passenger right of way with out grade crossings, or gap frogged points light weight stock feels, bounces and sways like shit. If you give American passengers the choice between a bus-like ride and their SUV, they'll pick their SUV.
The PL-42AC locos for NJT will be well over 120 tons (pathetic even for a diesel in this day and age - 100 tons is probbably achiveable under FRA regulations).
Of course, it could just be Bombardier/Alstom's inability to design a decent car, the ABB designed ALP-46s are 11 tons lighter than the HHP-8s, yet meet the same standards (Tier I) and are effectively as powerful (less HP but slightly better starting TE, probbably due to better truck /inverter/software design).
The M-7s are already pathetically overweight for an EMU, being 30,000 lbs heavier than the M-1s - which have 30 years of safe, practical running behind them (but they're Budd, so what else would you expect?). Even with the efficiency advantages of AC propulsion, I fully expect the LIRR to encounter substation overloading and eventually knock down the acceleration rates a bit. They're punchy as 6 car trains, but I've yet to see a 12 car one run.
As costs spiral due to overpriced, custom designed, poor performing equipment, the class I RRs will get exactly what they want - a passenger free rail network in the US.
Oh yes, and any good study of their crash history will reveal the 120,000 lb MP-54s were basically death traps. The much pointed out Highliner Vs Pullman EMU accident in Chicago in the 70's has one fact tha'ts very ofrten ignorted - both train cars were of nearly identical weight. In fact, the Pullman trailers that fared well in an accident were actually fairly light weight.
Bad example. Pilots are notorious for fighting "backups" to them and even, historically for disabling systems that keep them from doing the flying.
Mechanical or technological safeguards are a good idea where training standards are low or the situations exceed a person's typical responce time, but when this is not the case (like for railroads with speeds under 80 mph) such safeguards are only a waste of resources.
I still advocate robust railcar design because most accidents cannot be prevented, even by signaling systems. ATC can be cut out, boulders can fall on the tracks, brake systems can fail, box cars can roll out of sidings, trucks carrying I-beams can belly out on grade crossings. You say that even with heavy cars the internal impacts will kill and/or injure people. Ok, that may be true, but what is the alternative? If the car pancakes will the occupants not get turned into a goo? If the sides split open and eject people all over the right of way will they somehow not be turned to pulp? The carbody remaining intact is probably the single most important part of railcan design.
Your use of larger letters doesn't eliminate the problem of your faulty analysis here. You've allowed your consistent anti-FRA bias to color your reporting of the facts of the US collission.
Jersey Mike has it pretty much accurate this time around. Re-examine your points.
Can you explain how an automated system works that prevents the possibility of a crash between a passenger train and a logging truck or cement truck? Do you propose that every single crossing in the US have full width gates that can't be driven around? If so, how much would that cost? If not, what do you propose?
Of course no-one's gonna die on a railroad no-one rides ;-)
Wow! That's one hell of a busy route!
Judge Lippmann wrote that the M.T.A. officials had "displayed a pattern of untrammeled arrogance and deception and a disdain for the public they were obligated to serve."
Just look at the numerous ways they cook the books, deeceive the public in how much red ink they really have, and allow NYCT (and in some cases, LIRR) provide incorrect and inaccurate transportation information to the general public.
And the ARROGANCE portrayed by the politicos and their minions is nothing more than disgusting. To see that judges are willing to call a shovel a shovel is even MORE impressive and speaks volumes with respect to the arrogance of politicians and their institutions of late. And yet we keep ELECTING these bozos who thumb their noses and wave their private parts at us.
Although you just KNOW the MTA will win in the end, isn't it about time that the voting public say ENOUGH and throw all of these bums out of office? This little MTA issue is but a small part of a larger picture of arrogance as those who are our SERVANTS think THEY own the mansion. :(
"This doesn't improve transportation for anyone," said community activist John Fisher. "It only helps the city get the Olympics."
Is he out of his damn or what the hell!?I say people living in the West Side between 34 and 42Sts will be very happy to have a subway they can just walk a short distance to instead of walking long distance's and the of course all the walking you gotta do at Times Sq. to get from one train to another.
The missing element is the real estate development. If you want to have venues to which people go, you need subway service. Javits is even more important, frankly, than an Olympic Stadium, and you can't expand Javits without bringing subway service.
Screw John Fisher. These activists are hypocrites and Fisher will be the first one to ride the train when it opens for service.
It's all a part of a grander scheme by bloomberg to develop that side of the city, turning the high line into a park is another key piece to recreating that side of town, lifting property values and increasing the tax base...
Not true. In fact, SAS is further along. Construction will begin fourth quarter 2004. That is not true of the 7 extension.
The 7 extension is a much smaller project, so it's not appropriate to compare them.
The MTA has begun the process of buying and condemning real estate along the proposed extension. But the EIS process, including scoping, has not yet begun. That portion requires less work than SAS, due to the latter's size. Before 7 construction can begin, all the needed steps (EIS, preliminary engineering, funding in the Capital Plan) must be confirmed. That aspect is no different than any other project.
Is a cost/benefit analysis part of the process?
The benefits of any such project are not easy to quantify in monetary terms, so perhaps the analysis is not even attempted.
They do it in Britain, but I suspect that the benefits may be jury-rigged to give the politically desired result.
Yes, a cost/benefit analysis is part of the process. The costs occur sooner, and are easier to forecast, than the benefits. Nevertheless, it is possible to make some reasonable projections. You will find such analysis in the public documents that are already available for this project. (Sorry, I don't have the time to find the documents for you, but they're on the web.)
They do it in Britain, but I suspect that the benefits may be jury-rigged to give the politically desired result.
Reasonable minds can differ; that doesn't mean the results are jury-rigged. Most politicians want to bring economic growth to the city, which is one of the purposes they're elected for. I'm agnostic on this project, but certainly there are compelling benefits—to the extent you accept the underlying assumptions.
I'm referring to the planning process, not real time. Granted, 7 extension is a much smaller project, but it's being pushed a lot faster than SAS.
The City of New York has tentatively comitted to pay for the construction of the Flushing Extenstion, and is trying to get out of any and all other payments to the MTA.
The federal and state governments have committed to pay for the construction of East Side Access.
The federal and state governments have agreed to pay for the DESIGN of the Second Avenue Subway.
Every level of government is deep in debt. The unfunded cost of paying retirement benefits, and paying for health care, keeps going up.
The fact that ESA went first is not an accident in my view.
Critics argue the extension of the No. 7 train doesn't benefit anyone who lives on the West Side.
"This doesn't improve transportation for anyone," said community activist John Fisher. "It only helps the city get the Olympics."
In an unusual agreement, the city will pay for building the extension - something usually done by the MTA - although the agency agreed to dole out $41 million to pay for the preliminary engineering work
I think this guy is crazy, it will spur development on the West Side and will provide direct service to Javits Center, they seem to be more serious with this than most projects like the SAS [not that they aren't]. I see why the MTA has decided to put out $41 million so they don't too much work on the city. Now wait a minute, where will the city find money for this, OH YEAH the ticket blitz amazing :-0!
Josh
#7 Flushing
More In-house projects do not automatically equal better money management. In some cases, "in house" is worse, not better.
Better project management, contractor oversight and incentives can do wonders. MTA does have trouble with this.
It's really not one vs. the other.
True, but they could save some money from bidding for a outside contractor to do work that the MTA's workers could do; also projects tend to fall behind schedule & run overbudget from outside contractors too but in the end the renovations come out great. And yes the MTA does have problems with project management if they could improve in that department then its all good.
Sometimes yes, sometimes not. It depends on the project and what other things MTA crews need to do. Admittedly, MTA is a little top-heavy in management (too many chiefs, not enough Indians) but that is not uncommon in government.
" also projects tend to fall behind schedule & run overbudget from outside contractors too but in the end the renovations come out great."
Such projects can also overrun their in-house budgets. The difference is we may not see an accounting of that as quickly.
It really depends on the project. I am not saying that one approach is always better than the other.
Then there is the Alley Pond Environmental Center, on Northern Blvd. just past the Cross Island and across from the golf course. They have a cool nature center for school kids (and they could use a donation from you). There are nature trails to follow and this is a great time for walks.
Regarding the lake: A long while back, I organized a cleanup committee for the park. We pulled debris out of the lake, picked up soda cans, bottles, old clothes, plastic, you name it, and filled dozens of trash barrels for pick up by the Parks Dept. I spotted an abandoned car near the far southern street side of that park. (1999 or so). I called the Community Board to try to get them to extract it. They supposedly scheduled the job (the car would have to be winched out of the muck and past the broken concrete which was illegally dumped wthin 25 feet of the sidewalk.) I don't know if that's been accomplished yet.
I encourage all Subtalkers to check it out. Take the 7 subway to Main Street, then transfer to the Q12; take it to 223rd Street (right before the Cross Island Parkway). Then walk south on 223 (Cloverdale) toward the College. The Lake will be to your right; more parkland to your left across the street. That portion of the park extends to the LIE. Don't forget to get a sundae from the Mr. Softee truck.
Or: LIRR PW line to Bayside station; get some lunch along Bell Blvd. (great Thai food available at Erawan), then walk or ride the Q12 to the park.
(1) We need to open up an area for development which is currently underdeveloped because of its poor transport links. This argument was much used in the glory days of subway construction (in both New York and London), and is the argument for the #7 extension, as it was for the Jubilee Line extension in London. The benefit of such lines tends to accrue to property owners, whose property values rise, but unfortunately they don't usually pay for the construction of the lines, which falls to the taxpayers in general. And people tend to argue that these proposals aren't necessary because don't help very many people - which of course is true at present, since not many live or work in in the less-developed areas with poor access!
(2) We need to build a new line through already-developed areas because existing links are overcrowded. This is the argument for the 2nd Avenue line and was (more or less) the argument for the Victoria Line in London. Current passengers like these proposals, but they tend to be difficult to justify financially, because there won't be new revenue, just the same number of people travelling in more convenient and less overcrowded circumstances.
In the case of the #7 extension, one of the purported benefits is that, coupled with an expansion of the Javits Center, it will make New York a more attractive convention destination. Convention visitors don't spend all of their time at the Javits. They go to Broadway shows, eat dinner in restaurants, go shopping at Macy's, stay in hotels (and pay NYC's high hospitality taxes), ride our trains, travel to our airports, and so forth.
None of this means that the #7 extension is necessarily a good idea; only that the benefits—however you calculate them—certainly go far beyond the happy property owners whose land becomes more valuable.
Your #2 suffers from a similar flaw, but as this thread is about the #7 extension I'll stop here.
Put up the Rates!!!
Not any more. That was the original plan, but if you read the scoping statement on the MTA website, the extension is now planned to head west along 42nd St to 10th Ave, and then turn south. It will not reach Penn Station.
I want to read it through and see what it says (if anything) about different routes.
OTOH, the benefit of the current proposal is that it adds two new stations to areas that currently lack mass transit. Had the line gone by Penn Station, there would have been only one new station on the far west side. I think there's a good argument that, to the extent the renewal of the far west side is worth the investment, the #7 should actually go toward that purpose—which after all is the reason why this project is on the table.
Now, many workers from the West side move to NJ, and East Side, to Westchester and Conn.
Well there's another MIS in progress to bring MNR trains into Penn Station, which would go a long way toward alleviating that problem. For the other direction, the M4 bus gets from Penn Station to the east side in about 10 minutes.
Guess that's why I'm subway grrl!
You may not need to extend it. A station at 34th and 10th could have a people mover to at least ninth avenue near the proposed new Penn Station
Do you mean that it's technically possible, or that it's actually being considered? I tend to doubt that that this would ever be done.
A more plausible extension of the #7 would be southward—possibly to meet a westward-extended L line at 14th St/10th Ave.
You have until June 16 to send comments into the scoping process.
Why not write this up and send it to:
NYC Transit Govt and Community Relations
130 Livingston St
Brooklyn NY 11201
But does is this project taking away resources from more pressing transit projects?
This was studied, and unfortunately it isn't possible. It would require lifting all the bridges along the line and building a new bridge next to the Hell Gate. Supposedly, it is possible to dig the line down and modifiy the Hell Gate sufficiently for TOFC, but not for double stack. This was a disappointment that came out of the engineering study.
So did it end in 1968 or '76? Wait a minute; freight is still transported across the harbor by float bridge! Oooops :).
IMO, this is more pressing than any currently proposed transit project, including Second Ave Subway. It will remove far more vehicles from the roads, aiding both congestion and air quality, and industries would be enticed to stay in/come back to western Long Island. The economic benefit of attracting industry is far greater than that of a staduim on Hudson Yards or luxury high rises on the east side.
There is only one pot of money -- the income earned by New Yorkers in the private market, which can be taxed by one of the levels of government and borrowed against. Anything else is ledgerdemain. Transportation competes for a share of that income. Capital spending competes for a share of money for transportation.
(IMO, this is more pressing than any currently proposed transit project, including Second Ave Subway. It will remove far more vehicles from the roads, aiding both congestion and air quality, and industries would be enticed to stay in/come back to western Long Island.)
Fallacy and propaganda. It will remove trucks from the George Washington and other bridges, allowing more people to travel by automobile, but not from local roads, unless you advocate delivery by hand trucks. Look at the perecentage decline in industrial employment over the past 30 years in Hudson, Essex, and Union Counties -- older places with older multi-story industrial buildings but WITH rail access and WITH the port. It is the same as in Brooklyn and Queens. THE SAME. How come no one makes this comparison?
Let's not be ignorant about the city's economy. It is supported (2002 annual average data) by 550,000 jobs in Professional and Business Services, 330,000 jobs in Finance and Insurance, 175,000 jobs in Information, 56,000 in Management Headquarters -- and about 50,000 in Apparel manufacturing and related things like Jewelry. These taxes and salaries paid by these industries, and the goods and services they buy, generate everything else, not only in the City but also in most of the suburbs. And the passenger transit system supports this whole complex, most of which is in Manhattan.
IF it can be done cheaply, IF nearby property owners don't mind trains going by at a good clip (30 -- 40 mph), IF it will be possible to have drive-on drive-off service for trucks al-la the Chunnel, then it is worth doing. But I'd just as soon leave the roads for the trucks and divert the people to rail -- not the other way around.
The problem is traffic, i.e. which comes first the traffic or the tunnel ?
Why do you think trucks exist?
Although, I agree that the tunnel would be an expensive solution to potentially a simple problem. There are a number of reasons why New England has no railfreight: (1) It's like Florida (duh, it's a consuming region and things come in by truck), and (2) No real railroad goes to New England (yes, between the Metro-North and Amtrak takeover, there's not many freight routes left up here anymore -- Conrail was priced off the NEC after the Chase accident...), (3) Guilford "Rail" System.
The interstate system here is so dense that you sometimes wonder why the railroads bother at all. Obviously, for coal, and some garbage. Lumber can forget it after all the Maine lumber went to truck because they built their state highways to higher weight standards than the interstate system. There's even intermodal going right to Allston Yard here in BOS, but they are bothering with it less and less... and I can see why. You want to save that yard? What about tolling trucks to come into the city? Even better, just toll people to come into the city so we could have the freeways for truck use. That yard in Allston would make a great staging area for MBTA, saving the capacity problems at South Sta.
AEM7902
No rail freight in Florida? Then I must be hallucinating whenever I'm there and see these big freights on the FEC line.
Yes. Why do you think they are FEC and not CSX? Small fish. At least CSX is operating to Worcester (MA) still.
AEM7
$7 billion, eh? That would definitely take a lot of dough away from passenger projects, assuming that public money is used to build the tunnel. If this tunnel is merely for commercial purposes and no passenger trains are to use it, then public money ought not go anywhere near it, and especially no TEA-21 money. Besides, wasn’t constructing such a tunnel part of the PANYNJ’s original charter???
There is also concerns about what manner of locomotive would traverse such a long underwater tunnel. This is not fifty years ago, when haulage of freight trains by all-electric traction was an everyday occurrence. Freight companies have embraced the AC-traction high-horsepower diesel whole-heartedly…and certainly with today’s safety concerns, putting diesel traction underground (and underwater) for such a distance would be looked upon askance by OSHA, the legal system, the unions, and whatever other pertinent organizations.
Did others in this thread mention double-stack container trains? I was not aware that the business thereof was departing Port Newark. Double-stack trains are at least 23 feet tall above the rail. Even if container train business were to migrate to Brooklyn, this tunnel had better be extremely high-clearance; certainly, no other rail route exiting Brooklyn, apart from going further east on LI, could accommodate such trains (not to mention LIRR platforms not having horizontal clearance for such trains either). I suspect that the primary freight business that this tunnel would concern itself with would be intermodal (tractor-trailer) and carload, among certain others.
This is the kind of attitude that leads to Bruno's bondoogles in upstate, and leave freight companies selling downtown yards because they need the cash.
Times have changed. Alameda Corridor. I-81 Inland Port. All (at least) publicly funded. All with good reasons. Would you rather expand I-81 or build a two-track railroad? The next time you go to the store, think long and hard about how the merchandize got there, and why you could buy stuff here that's Made in China at about the same price as you could buy it in China.
AEM7
Port Authorities is kind of a weird type of organization. It could only exist in a place like the United States where cities tend to form on the boundaries of state jurisdictions rather than in the middle.
Given the current institutional framework, I'd say let each agency sponsor a number of projects and just use whatever money that's available, using a ranking system to prioritize. So let's say PANYNJ could commit $4bn (because there are other projects in its portofolio that generates a higher return), the other $3bn should come from whatever funding source that is available, although obviously it shouldn't squeeze out any projects that generates a higher return than that portion of the tunnel that costs the extra $3bn. Of course, the real problem there is you can't build half a tunnel, and the cost of a single-track tunnel is nearly the same as a double-track one.
I think the issue there is that PANYNJ is really a real estate company and is more interested in investing projects that generate revenue for itself than in projects that generate public benefit. Alameda Corridor was funded with state backing (and thus lower interest rates), but the users are paying a fee to use the infrastructure -- which is also paying back the capital costs. I think a similar framework for the NYNJ freight tunnel might be appropriate. This means any other users (NJ Transit, Amtrak potentially) should pay at the same rate.
On the other hand, if TEA-21 money is going to Bruno and letting him build bondoogles, I'd say go right ahead and subsidize the freight users. At least it (supposedly) translates into cheaper merchandize and lower gargabe collection rates east of the Hudson.
AEM7
Question: If the Port Auth.'s role is the ports of NY/NJ (I'm ignoring PATH & Port Auth Bus Term. in Manhattan for the moment), then why would they care about a tunnel under the Hudson ?
i.e. they are already doing things in SI & else where on the NJ side to increase the freight traffic from boats. Why wouldn't they just simply re-ferubish one of the piers on the NY side of the Hudson, either in Brooklyn (near the Bayridge freight line) or Manhattan (maybe using the "High Line") ?
The reason I ask is that last Thursday (around 5:40pm) I saw an Arrow consist move west/south (from Hoboken to Newark) through the connection.
That is not the Waterfront Connection. Originally the connector you are referring to was termed the Kearny Connection, then later the Midtown Direct connection (in the press) aka Swift Interlocking. Obviously, you cannot access the Hudson River waterfront via that connector.
The Waterfront Connection allows eastbound movements from the NEC into Hoboken Terminal and vice-versa, hence its name; it is not electrified, and is currently used by diesel trains from the Raritan Valley and North Jersey Coast Lines. It is currently single-track; long-range plans involve a second track on the other side of the NEC.
Are you sure about that? I recall seeing catenary wire and poles on the Waterfront Connector, unless they are not powered.
Jimmy
I threw in the ALP-44/46 name because under the belief there was wire somewhere, it would require one of those engines due to similar voltage changes, and could not be an Arrow consist.
I did find this map which is very interesting (No HTML skills, sorry)
http://www.nj.com/njtransit/krnytrk.gif
It shows a proposed westerly Waterfront connection. I am not sure it is still possible because of: 1) the scheduled Raritan Valley "pocket track" that is to be built; and 2) I am not sure the track exists that crosses over the West-bound PATH track.
The June 8th trip, 59th St/Columbus Circle, middle platform...
Correct me if I am wrong
Chambers St on the J for the IND/BMT special.
-Stef
-Stef
STILL givin' directions.......... even when OFF-DUTY.
0 =)
The trips won't be identical routings either.
-Stef
-Stef
I've always felt a good clerk or agents is NEVER off duty.
Yea, like another S/A we know here at Subtalk that at one time gave wonderful station tours, but decided to cancel all tours, and to save her job, becuase some people have an agenda.
i know that the R160 are going to look like the R143(inside and outside except for the silver front)and that they are going to replace
the 10 GE R32,R38,R40,R40M,but i also hear that the coney island overhauled R42 are also going to be replaced.my opinion is that they
could maybe be used as replacements for the R40 and R40m on the Q and
N line,and in the process the R160 could be on the J,M,&Z lines.then
as soon as the R160A begin service they could be placed on the N,Q,
lines.removing the R42 from service.(and this idea gose to all R42).
that,s my opinion.
and did anybody hear about that swicth problem on the L line this past
monday.they say that swicthes were locked,so they had to unlock them
manualy.quite a mess monday.that day,i was on R143#8312(lucky me:)held
at atlantic av for about 20 mins.before we pulled from the station.
and stoped 2 or 3 times so that the crew on the tracks could unlock
the swicthes beetween sutter av and livonia av.(and it was after school)
til next time
As I said, that's what the Restricting aspect is for. You get Restricting when you enter an unsignaled (in your
direction) stretch of track under manual block protection provided from the dispatcher.
NO! Stop trying to apply the freakin NORAC rulebook to the
NYC transit system! EVERYTHING you said above is WRONG.
There is no manual block in NYCT. The Dispatcher is the guy
who determines when the trains leave the terminal. He or she
can not authorize passing a red signal. He or she can not
give a call-on. You do not get a call-on to make reverse move.
There is always manual block system is the most basic of all signaling systems that only needs a radio to be put into effect. Dispatchers (or their equivilent title) at Command Center or possibly Train Directors at master towers (or their equivilent) can most certainly establish manual block protection between two control points. It probably happens every single day for work and rescue movements. The Dispatchers (or their equivilent title) at Command Center or possibly Train Directors at master towers (or their equivilent) can instruct T/O's to get out and tie down trip stops to pass any red signal where the trip is mobile. Finally, what do you think the call-on/restricting signal is there for? Show? It has two uses. The minor use of allowing a train to enter an interlocking immediately behind another train (sort of pointless given the subway's small block length) and the major use of letting a train enter a stretch of track not signaled in its direction of travel.
Several other posters who actually run trains or interlocking
machines for NYCT have told you how it is done here, but you
simply refuse to believe them.
For the last time, a call-on signal, i.e. R/R/Y, what you
call restricting, is not the means used to set up running against
the flow of traffic where the signal system is not bi-directional.
A call-on is only used to allow a train to pass a R/R home signal,
and only when the sole reason for the signal being at danger
is that the track circuit or circuits within its control length
are occupied (or failed). Call-ons most certainly have a use
in the system, such as allowing a train to get past a homeball
and key a door open on a station platform in case of the train ahead
laying down, or for off-hours layups on revenue tracks.
NYCT is not a big-time railroad. We don't have, with a few
rare exceptions, dark territory. We don't have industrial
sidings hanging off the railroad. Tower operators, dispatchers
and even the friendly folks at Control Center do not have the
authority to order a reverse move where the signals do not protect
it. The next time you make one of your visits to the NYCT system,
go to W4 St lower level and ride the Grand St. shuttle, then
tell me how many call-on signals you saw.
If you are INSIDE an interlocking, different story. Sure, you can
cross over and travel some distance against the normal flow
of traffic. This is all under interlocking signal protection,
with all of the usual route locking, etc. to prevent the tower
operator from lining up two trains into each other.
SOME automatic territory tracks are signalled both ways. This
includes just about every river crossing and the middle track of
3-track lines. If the area is thus signalled, you have what
is called traffic control. The two towers at the ends of the
wrong-rail move both have to execute a sequence of lever operations
to prove agreement of traffic direction. Traffic then locks in
the particular direction. If that direction is "wrong-rail",
then all of the automatic signals the back of which you'd now
be seeing stay red but the stop arms are driven down, and the
other signals, which are facing the wrong-rail traffic, act
as block signals to enforce train spacing. In some cases,
there is basically one long block in the wrong-rail direction.
(The WB is a special situation because clearances did not permit
the mounting of wrong-rail signal heads.)
Now, we were originally talking about wrong-railing where the
signal system does not permit it, for example if one had to make
a reverse move past that marker signal which started this thread.
Such a move is a really, really big deal because the whole automatic
block signal system depends on no one backing up! Let's say
you are a train proceeding northbound and you stop at some local
station, say 77 St on the LEX. There's another train stopped
at the station behind you. Just for giggles, you change ends
and start heading southbound. Can you tell me why a collision
occurs, and why the automatic trips don't stop it?
Anyway, the whole point of my arguement here is that 1) reverse running/wrong railing/single tracking is sometimes necessary and 2) the signal system should be set up to accomidate that necessity. If between points A and B track one is out of service and you need to wrong rail trains down track two, the train control god a manual/absolute block between interlocking A and interlocking B and as trains move about, occasionally gives tower A permission to route train X against the flow of traffic when conditions permit. To design a signal system where such a common move must be co-ordinated with onsite flagmen is lunacy. Well what else can I expect with a signaling system that allows a high green to stand for something else besides CLEAR. That totally voilates the first commandment of signaling, Thou Shalt Be Failsafe.
To answer your question, yes the cars trip on one side only. Not that it matters, the trips would drive before the train came upon them anyway.
Let's use a busy subway line (like the Lex) as an example. How much would MTA have to spend to create full two-way signaling on all four tracks, and link them to each other? By this, I mean trains could be set up to wrong-rail on any track, and switch over to other tracks and wrong-rail there too, and there would be a fully-functional, full-featured signal system governing this regardless of direction of movement.
In NYCT it is not "OK" to back up a train at all with the exception of making a cut in a yard or terminal.
2) The TA signal system DOES accomodate reverse moves, when there is no alternative. If there IS another way around, like Express/Local routing swaps in the same direction, then that method is used, and there is no provision for reverse running.
3) I'm not sure what you mean about the "CLEAR" thing. If you wanta get worked up because a top green means "PROCEED" and not "CLEAR," the go ahead and have a semantic tantrum. Both words mean "wrap it around, the next signal is not red."
Well, not only where there is no alternative, but in some places they are part of daily operations. Such places include 179, Continental, Utica Ave and Parkchester.
Yes, Yes. The thread is about moves outside interlocking limits.
A reverse move (a.k.a. relay) is a move over a short distance and under signal protection.
Moves outside the interlocking limits become wrong rail moves, according to RTO. If there's no protection, its a wrong rail move.
I'm not trying to get technical on you. But it helps to understand when you're taught something different. What were you instructed was a w/r move and reverse?
Signal Control vs. No Signal Control
If you're single tracking through a river tube, some trains are traveling in the reverse direction "wrong rail", outside interlocking limits, but under full signal protection.
Moves not signal protected require co-ordination and/or flagging from RTO and/or Signal, depending on how involved the move is.
What would it take for an 8-car R42 consist to back up down the Broadway El (on the local track, 3-track line) in the middle of AM rush hour (7:45 AM)? I have also seen this happen at about 10PM on a Friday.
Now, you said:
I'm good on the application of markers, the point of the thread is that we have rarely seen them used outside of bumper blocks
I don't know who we are, but we need to be more
observant when looking out the railfan window (especially from
the last car). Marker signals are to be found at any interlocking
except those where all tracks are signaled bidrectionally going
both ways from the interlocking. Come to think of it, I'm not sure
I can name any actual cases, so perhaps markers are indeed found
at every NYCT interlocking.
Not that it matters, the trips would drive before the train came upon them anyway.
Good, so you have some idea of automatic signal retaining circuits.
Now, about backing up:
Two, it is generally safe to run
against the flow of traffic as long as the reverse running train obeys the rules of restricted speed.
That is not sufficient. The train running in the normal direction
must also be stopped or doing no more than restricted speed. If
both trains are restricted, they each own 1/2 of the sight distance.
Let's say the n/b train is proceding normally and the s/b train
backs up. We're on a tight curve in the tunnel with poor visibility.
The n/b train passes a green just as the s/b train crosses the
IJ 2 blocks away. The next signal the n/b sees is RED. The
motorman did not see the tumble-down to YELLOW on the previous
signal because it happened as or after he passed it. The n/b train
is approaching that red signal at track speed. He will probably
run way past it and now you have two trains approaching each
other, unable to stop once they sight each other, with all
stop arms down. Now do you see why backing up is a big deal
on NYCT?
Well what else can I expect
with a signaling system that allows a high green to stand for something else besides CLEAR. That
totally voilates the first commandment of signaling, Thou Shalt Be Failsafe
Could you explain 1) in your opinion what a high green (there is
no other kind on NYCT) indicates and 2) why that is not fail-safe?
Well what else can I expect
with a signaling system that allows a high green to stand for something else besides CLEAR. That totally voilates the first commandment of signaling, Thou Shalt Be Failsafe
Could you explain 1) in your opinion what a high green (there is
no other kind on NYCT) indicates and 2) why that is not fail-safe?
http://www.nycsubway.org/tech/signals/holdout.html
this describes in grueling detail how reverse moves are handled under signal control at NYCT.
In the hole there are a surprising amount of spots where radio transmission is nearly impossible. And while most of the tunnel phones work, its always the busted one right by where you are.
If there is a train laying down for some reason, there is always some way to get trains around easily other wise every day there would be huge snarlups. Most of the baroque flagging/hooking operations described happen in the middle of the night for some big rebuilding project.
speak for yourself!
that's what Restricted SPEED is for. The indication of a signal displaying a Restricting ASPECT is to operate at Restricted speed.
Markers will not ever display a permissive aspect of any kind, some other method must be employed to get a train in motion reversely, for example:
As you said, correctly (translated to Transit-ese):
Per Rule 41, trains on NYCT may be operated against the normal flow of traffic, after an absolute block has been set up by RTO supervision. (Tower operators or dispatchers cannot do this alone, the desk superintendent must arrange the entire thing by radio and phone.)
Some authorized person must hook the stop and flag the train past any Home, Dwarf, or Marker signal that will not clear for the reverse move.
At West 4th, right now, one can observe a Marker signal that has been hooked and bagged (covered) so the Grand St Shuttle may operate, in an absolute block, in both directions on B4 track, under a General Order. Also note, at the north end of the platform, that a red lamp and temporary tripper have been positioned to function as a "temporary marker signal," defining the limits of the G.O.
As you said, correctly (translated to Transit-ese):
Per Rule 41, trains on NYCT may be operated against the normal flow of traffic, after an absolute block has been set up by RTO supervision. (Tower operators or dispatchers cannot do this alone, the desk superintendent must arrange the entire thing by radio and phone.)
Some authorized person must hook the stop and flag the train past any Home, Dwarf, or Marker signal that will not clear for the reverse move.
Yes, and although I haven't checked all interlockings, I suspect that many or most allow the tower to line up a reverse movement. Naturally the levers would be blocked out for such a movement, the "cans" (blocking devices) removable only upon proper authorization naturally. I mean if not you might as well ditch the interlockings and go with hand operated switches.
Markers do not indicate restricting, which is permissive. They are absolute stop and stay, always and forever, with no potential to change aspect or indication. If a maintainer is flagging the train through, then its the human that is over-riding the signal, by rule.
Also, markers don't have levers, and cannot be cleared. Do you mean dwarf -or jack?
Any reverse-running signal, high or low, has a lever and can be cleared at any time by a towerman.
Cans are only on levers for G.O.'s service, or other special circumstances, not as a matter of course.
Many, in fact almost all NYCT towers are designed for some kinds of reverse moves, but usually only from directly beyond the plant behind a dwarf to tracks running the opposite direction. --To turn trains.
Without exception, all instances where trains can run in either direction between controlled points under signal control are governed by traffic locking between the plants.
Depends on how hard you look. There are a few on the mainline that I can think of off the top of my head:
Queens Blvd (forget the exact location, somewhere around 63rd or 67th)
4th Ave
S/O Fisk Ave, S/B track
N/O Main St on Track 2. I don't know if this one still exists with the new signals in place.
!
They are there, at every controlled point on NYCT, without exception.
If I ever find a plant that defies the previous blanket generalization, I'll post it here. -But don't hold your breath!
Every possible entrance to an interlocking on NYCT has an interlocking signal, be it Marker, Dwarf or Home.
Absent a Home or Dwarf, there will be a marker, because there has to be something.
a home signal w/o the ability to give a call on would achieve the same effect
There's a marker on A3 visible from the south end of the 49th St platform, BMT. On prints its shown as a homeball always at danger. In the field its actually just two call-on heads with red lenses mounted to a pipe.
If a train did somehow get going northbound on B1, someone would be going to jail -motorman, car inspector, saboteur, etc.
My point is the marker really gives zero protection, since any train hitting it at speed is going to pass through the entire plant before grinding to a halt. The marker just says: "You'd be SOOOO BUSTED" to any T/O who's charging up and thinking about moving north out of the station.
Most markers installed on later contracts have not stops at all, since thay would be of limited effect anyway.
Please don't confuse: Bumper blocks also have markers, since the train may travel no farther, and yes these all do have the immobile trip arm.
I suppose there'll be no trains turning in that area coming out of Coney and going back without flagging. :)
Every stop arm has the ability to be hooked down. In this case, if the stop arm failed to clear for a southbound train CC would tell the T/O first to step on it, and then if it didn't retain to hook it down.
The definition as we were taught in school car is that a marker signal can come in any form. 1 aspect or 2, but regardless all aspects it does display are red only.
Modifies the main aspect? I don't get what you mean by that. But marker signals can be out there on their own.
You guys are talking about 2 different things.
On NYCT (not NYCS, the New York Central System) a marker
signal is one which always displays stop and stay. It is used
to protect the limits of the interlocking against reverse moves.
Not all stop-and-stay indications are given with double reds.
In particular, under the current rulebook, all automatic signals,
with their single red light, are also stop-and-stay.
It was quite common on the IND in USS territory for a 2-light
dwarf signal head to be used as a marker, with the yellow light
plated over.
I was not commenting on the aspects, but the signaling term of "Marker Light", which applies to the little bitty lamp on a high signal that alters the aspect displayed by the main signal. It can also refer to the coloured lamps displayed on old time trains to indicate things like section or extra.
Here is one of many possible links to prove my point
"Also, a marker signal is a small lamp that modifies the
main aspect."
On the New York City Transit System, that is not the definition
of a marker signal. It may be the definition somewhere else
(but I don't think so...I think the rulebook would refer to the
lights as just "markers" or "marker aspects") but it isn't
the definition on this system.
Do big-time railroads generally use absolute signals that display
a permanent stop indication?
As for NYCS, there was once a long thread on this where basically
everyone who is involved in or knows anything about the New York
City subway system told you that they do not recognize NYCS
as an acronym which is used for that. They told you that people
who work in the system both today and in years past call it
NYCT, NYCTS or just "Transit". Why you refuse to believe something
that multiple knowledgeable people tell you is beyond me.
http://www.switch.com/products/hc33.pdf
"Marker Light"
..."used to augment signals."
A marker SIGNAL is used to define the limits of train movements.
"Atlanta was a nice city, but I moved here for better opportunities."
"I just don't see the point of keeping the token booths any more."
"Whew, retirement planning's a lot of work, but it was worth it. Now I won't have to worry about going on Medicaid."
"Yellow alert, orange alert, who cares, it's just a bunch of paranoid hype."
"I'm starting my new job next Monday!"
Um.
I just got an offer this morning. I'm starting my new job a week from Monday.
Close enough?
(from www.ny.existingstations.com)
My car broke down in Brewster about 8 years ago on my way home from Vermont. On that trip, up to that point, I took photos of the stations all the way down along the Harlem Line, and abandoned portion of the line many of which you really have to hunt for because at times it's even hard to find the ROW. I can still picture how pissed I was standing in front of that station that evening. My car breaking down was a mixed blessing though, as I got to take my first ride on the Metro-North Harlem Line from Brewster to GCT after my car was towed. And then the next day got to do it again with a friend to go pick my car back up after it was repaired.
I finally got the details a few days ago. I'd be paid about half what I'm worth, and I'd be trapped with an incredibly restrictive noncompete clause and a condescending title. I need a job, but not from someone who simply wants a cheap slave.
Ugh. Guess that leaves more time for railfanning.
Though I personally wouldn't mind being paid half of what I'm worth in today's economic climate.
Of course, if it would give you a black ball in your industry...
"I'll get there quicker if I ride this nice empty C train."
"We could make better time by subway."
"I love the V train."
"The LIE is a fast way to my job."
Same here. While this sounds silly, I actually can understand why newcomers do it, as color-naming of transit lines is standard practice in so many other cities.
I've never heard the Bakerloo Line in London called the Brown Line, but I guess this is because everyone can read the line names on the legend.
I love riding the IRT Flushing, then getting the BMT Astoria heading into Manhattan. Screw those numbers and letters... :-)
20 years ago, maybe. Not anymore.
What was wrong with the letters A and B?
B is reserved for a future diesel-electric line from Denver to Boulder.
Both lines are currently on the drawing boards.
The new Southeast Corridor will add four more routes: E, F, G and H.
I know someone who was doing it after a full year in the city of frequently riding the subway!
"I'm going to the Mets game tonight."
"Its ok this train was late because I was holding the doors too."
I grew up right in the period whent the color-coding was being fased in and route names fased out. Personally I think color-coding, letters, numbers, and automated announcements are great. I don't really need them here in Chicago, I know more then most CTA or Metra employees do. However when I go to NYC, I thank god that the maps are color, letter and number coded.
It just makes it a hell of a lot easier on tourists and people from out of town. I can't imagine trying to navigate the NYC subway if the map was in black and white! It's hard enough as it is coded and everything.
You must realize that people are dumb now-a-days also. Most of my non-railfan friends can undertand a Blue Line train to 54th/Cermak, but they have no clue what a westbound Douglas B train is.
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
And the B and the M, and occasionally during GO's or other odd events.
. And I think one of the reasons 59/CC was done away with was because of the safety factor involved.
This is totally speculation, but I think it is probably more to save time. Until the R143's arrived, all the 60 foot cars had small cabs. The conductor would have to leave his/her cab after opening one side, and then go to the next car and then open the doors on the other side. This is hardly a fast operation. Of course the 75 foot cars make that easier, as they are full length cabs, however using 59th street as an example, the A uses a mix of 60 ft and 75 foot cars, so some trains would still have the problem of the conductor having to switch cars to open the opposite side. Opening only one side is much quicker.
The center platform was still being used even after the R-32s took over on the D. I boarded a s/b D of Brightliners from the center platform in December of 1969. Or maybe it was a mixed R-32/42 consist that I didn't notice. That was about the time smorgasbord trains began rearing their ugly heads.
Are LIRR trains designed differently in this regard? Many rush hour trains open on both sides at Jamaica.
Maybe all LIRR trains have more than 1 conductor.
Also LIRR platforms tend to be a lot less full than subway platforms after a train has loaded and the doors are closed. Usually there's not another train departing on the same platform in 2 or 3 minutes.
I asked the contrator, he says they're installing lighting as part of the rehab/modernization of Hoyt-Schermerhorn. There are no plans, supposedly, for anything else regarding that platform.
The Second Avenue Subway has been designed primarily to address the needs of neighborhoods that have no near-by subway service. And in the sense that the line runs pretty much right through a strip of under-serviced neighborhoods, it seems to satisfy its primary reason for being designed in the first place.
BUT... there are two sides to every subway journey. 1) The proximity of the home station, AND 2) the proximity to the destination; the place you have to "go" to. I am of the opinion, that as it is designed, the 2nd avenue subway might suffer from poor service to the latter.
Here's my hypothesis: THE SECOND AVENUE LINE IS POTENTAILLY IMPOTENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THOSE USING THE LEXINGTON AVENUE LINE BECAUSE IT OFFERS 1) SLOWER SERVICE TO 2) LESS DESIRABLE DESTINATIONS ALONG ITS ENTIRE LENGTH, COMPLETELY BYPASSING GRAND CENTRAL, TIMES SQUARE, and PENN STATION.
Even if by some chance one of the few 2nd avenue line stations was closer to my home than any other current subway station, I would be pissed off that the line would not take me directly to ANY of the following: Grand Central, Times Square, Penn Station. Nor does it connect to any other train line that goes to Times Square or Penn Station, below 42nd street.
In other words: When people say, "I live on the far East Side. The Second Avenue line will help me because I will have to walk less distance to get in the subway," I don't think the person is imagining a real journey. For example, lets say someone on 8th st. and 1st avenue. With the 2nd Av Line, A subway line will be closer to him, so it's better for him. But what if you were to imagine the complete journey? For example, that person needs to get to Grand Central. First of all, they would need to walk 8 blocks to Houston or 6 blocks to 14th street in order to get to the two nearest 2nd avenue stations. (Thse locations, by the way, are on the site of existing subway stations, thus also not really bringing the subway any closer to anybody). They could walk the same distance and get to Astor Place and take the 6 train directly to Grand Central. Meanwhile, if they choose to walk the same distance to get to the 2nd avenue line, they would then arrive at 2nd avenue and 42nd street, not Grand Central. To get to Grand Central they would have to walk the remainder of the distance that they supposedly saved by not walking to Astor Place. If they wanted to go to Times Square, this situation is further aggrivated by the fact that the Shuttle, as built, only connects with the Lex, not with the 2nd avenue line.
An uptown example: Someone lives at 86th and 1st avenue. They need to get to Grand Central. They could walk 1 avenue and take the 2nd avenue line 3 stops to 2nd avenue and 42nd street, at which point they would have to walk from 2nd avenue to Park Avenue. Wether it's an underground connection or above ground doesn't matter. It's still a significant walk. Or they could do all their walking on 86th street, (having to walk a little shorter distance overall to Lex, rather than to Park), and take the Lex Express 2 stops right into Grand Central. Where is the major benefit of taking 2nd avenue?
Another uptown example: Someone lives at 77th and 1st avenue. They could walk up to 86th (9 blocks) or down to 72nd (5 blocks), and then over to 2nd (1 avenue) and get the T train, or they would walk straigt across 77th, as they do now, to Lex (2.5 avenues) and get the 6 train. The walks are almost the same to 72nd on 2nd ave, and 77th on Lex. Meanwhile, only the 6 actually takes the person to Grand Central, or to the Shuttle to everywhere else. So...if I lived there, I would almost always still take the 6.
A final example: A person lives right above the entrance to the 2nd avenue line station at 86th street. They therefore live 1.5 avenues away from the Lexington Line's 86th street express stop. They want to go to Grand Central. To they get on the 2nd avenue line and walk to Grand Central, or do they walk to Lexington Avenue and get right into Grand Central? Why is this a tough call if the 2nd avenue line is so important?
So, this begs the question: Where would you need to be GOING in order to make good use of the 2nd avenue line?
It makes great time for anyone going from the lower east to the upper east sides. But, both being primarily residential areas, this does not represent a significant ridership pattern.
It is safe to assume that most people using any of Manhattan's trunk lines are getting on or off the trains at 34th near Penn or 42nd street at Grand Central or Times Square to make connections or use the facilities in that area. To prove this theory without statistics, stay on any 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, A, C, E, B, D, F, N, Q, R, or W train as it passes through, and try to notice how many people got on before those stations and stayed on with you as the train passes through. It's usually a small percentage.
That being the case, I fear that the 2nd avenue line bypasses the most important connections, and has the potential to suffer the fate of becoming "Manhattan's G train"!!! It will be useful to a core group of people who live in very specific locations, most importantly those locations within a block or two of the 2nd avenue stations. But it will be irrelevant to everyone else, which is a massive majority.
The upper east siders have a slightly better set of potential connections because of that Q train connection, in which broadway line trains will use the upper half of the second avenue line. This will let upper east siders get within an avenue of Penn Station via a 1 seat ride, rather than the 3 seat ride that gets them right into the facility (the lex to the shuttle to the 7th av line). But, the walk from 6th Av to 7th ave, especially in the rain, is sometimes enough to veto the value of a close-but-no-cigar 1 seat ride.
I feel that the fatal flaw of the 2nd avenue line as designed at this time is the lack of a true connection. It connects to lots of other trains (or at least, potentailly does), but is doesn't GO to any places that people want to go, and often, nor do its connections!
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS:
1) MAKE THE LINE BOW WEST AT 42nd STREET. Create a diagonal right of way that brings the passenger within a block of Grand Central. This would nullify the concerns that I have in all of the above examples. It would truly get you to Grand Central, and truly connect with the Shuttle, though potentially aggrivating overcrowding on the shuttle.
1a) MAKE A SPUR AT 42nd STREET TO GRAND CENTRAL. One of the regional planning groups (I forgot which) had this in their reccomendation for a 2nd avenue line. It was totally ignored by the MTA plan. A terminal right next to Grand Central with subway trains waiting on multiple platforms for passengers, and then going East to 2nd avenue, and south to the financial district via the 2nd avenue line might actually pull people off the Lex. But still, it would have trouble competing with the express without an express of its own, which was also suggested by the aforementioned planning group. The current plan makes almost as many stops as the lumbering N and R on Broadway, notorious for being the slow way to go.
2) CREATE A NON-WALKING CROSSTOWN CONNECTION AT 42nd STREET. This could take the form of a light-light rail (trolly). Or more practically, a set of people movers redundant enough to be reliable. One in each direction wouldn't cut it. If they can't keep escalators moving, they probably won't be able to keep people mover's moving either. This way, you can call 42nd St and 2nd avenue a real CONNECTION!!!
3) CREATE A TRUE LOCAL AND A TRUE EXPRESS. In conjunction with one of the above suggestions, this would solve the problem of the person who lives 8 blocks away from the 2nd avenue station in each direction. Being 2 tracks, the 2nd avenue line doesn't function well as an express, nor as a local. It stops too infrequently to serve as a local, and it makes too many stops to give the impression of speed over the Lex Express. So people who need to go longer distances will gravitate towards the Lex Express, as they do now, and people who lack a local station will find themselves closer to a lex local station than they will to a 2nd avenue station.
4) CREATE A SUPER EXPRESS. What about a 1 stop one seat ride from 42nd and 2nd to "Seaport?" Would that pull enough People off the Lex? What if it went a little more towards the center of downtown? What if it actually went to Grand Central? The current plan does not address any of these concerns.
AHHHH!!!
Am I totally out of my mind? How can a plan be in the works with these kinds of FUNDAMENTAL problems? Am I missing something?
Take the following test: Knowing what we now know about the 2nd avenue subway line plans... and knowing what you know about your personal daily travels through the city for work and for pleasure... will the Second Avenue Subway, stopping at 125 and Lex, 116, 106, 96, 86, 72, 57, 42, 34, 23, 14, and Houston all on 2nd avenue, and Grand Chatam Square, Seaport, and Hannover Sq... be useful to you?
And being that we're trying to address the overcrowding on the Lex line today, shouldn't we be specifically addressing the movement patterns of the most common user of the line? For if we can siphon off the larger chunks of people who use the Lex onto somethig else, then the project will have been as successful as it can be, no? So... where are people going to and coming from when they are on the overcrowded Lex line?
Grand Central to points on the Upper East Side. Union Square to points on the Upper East Side. Grand Central to Union Square seems to be another big chunk of people. And Grand Central to Financial District, a la, Broadway and Fulton, Wall, and Bowling Green. How can any line that does not actually go to Grand Central and that does not offer a faster trip hope to siphon off riders from the efficient lex? For it is the efficiency of the direct and fast route of the Lex that makes it so popular. Will the 2nd avenue line be so efficient? It doesn't look like it to me. It will make more stops than an express, less stops than a local, and not get as close to either Grand Central, Union Square, AND much of Downtown as it seems like we lost the Whitehall stop.
I can go on, and on. East siders trying to get to the Staten Island Ferry? Tough luck, take the Lex. The closest the 2nd avenue line will come is Hannover Square. I'd walk the extra distance to get a Lex express that takes me to Bowling Green. This is true from everywhere but potentially the very very east side. But who's coming from there to go to Staten Island? Again, they're both primarily residential areas!
What about people working on Water St? I used to live there. It would have been "great to have the 2nd avenue line stopping right in front of my building at the "Seaport" station." But would it? When I lived down there, I most often went to Penn Station. More than half of the commuters that work down there need Penn Station to get East and West out of the city. Would the 2nd avenue line have helped them? The line itself doesn't go anywhere near Penn Station. The nearest connection to a train that actually goes to Penn Station is at "57th street" where one could get a WTC-bound E train to Penn Station. But would people go up to 57th to come back down to 34th? They'd probably just rather walk to the fast and efficient 2 or 3 express on William St, and get right to Penn in 5 stops. So what about Metro North people? They might use the line to get to 42nd and 2nd. But they'll be complaining for the rest of their lives about having to walk from 2nd Avenue to Park Avenue. And for most workers trying to get to Grand Central from downtown, who would be somewhere between the new line and the Lex, their vote would almost definately be to stay with the Lex, which, once again, to beat a dead horse, GOES DIRECTLY TO WHERE THEY ARE GOING, AND WITH FEWER STOPS.
Am I forgetting a large portion of the travelling population? Or is the beauty of the 2nd avenue line actually supposed to be the fact that it should be used to connect to other lines at all of its stations? Are we really so excited about spending the money on building an amazing, modern, 2-seat and 3-seat ride system?
Keep in mind that the 2nd avenue elevated was very useful. But it had direct connections to things that no longer exist. Long Islanders took ferries to Manhattan at 34th street, where a spur of the 2nd avenue elevated would pick them up and bring them inland, and then north or south. Connections to other trolly cars were available at 59th and 2nd ave over the Queensboro Bridge. Today, no station exists at that location, as one must walk inland to "connect" with an outbound train (at 59th and Lex).
I'm a transit buff, and for historical reasons, I'm a total fan of anything having to do with the 2nd avenue line. But... I have to say... I can't see a good reason why I would EVER use the thing if it were built, other than to admire its sheer existence, against all odds, as the geeky railfan that I am. And that's not fiscally reponsible. In the final analysis, it seems that the 2nd avenue line suffers from being a compromise between those who want lots of service to the East Side and those who want a faster way to get between midtown and downtown. As it is planned, it does niether well at all. It doesn't offer fast north-south service for commuters. And it doesn't offer useful east-west service for those living on the east side. East siders want to get west, not north and south! Commuters want to get north and south, not east!!!
Please. PLEASE. Show me that I'm totally wrong about this.
-Andrew Merelis
Let's see:
63 Street: Track connection for north<->west only, connection for south<->east will be built but is not planned to be used in service.60 Street: Nope. It might be unnecessary with the 63rd Street connection, but as planned, connections to Queens are pretty poor.53 Street: Yup.42 Street: Yes, but as a quarter-mile connection, how useful will it be?14 Street: Yes.Further downtown: Transfers to the Rutgers Tunnel and Manhattan Bridge only for connecting Brooklyn service, it misses making any connections with the IRT.
Keep in mind that these are proposed connections only, and are subject to evaluation. The list will certainly be shorter as the project advances to the final EIS phase.
Mark
1) That's five minute walk without help. Install a moving sidewalk, and you've cut it down quite a bit.
"60 Street: Nope. It might be unnecessary with the 63rd Street connection, but as planned, connections to Queens are pretty poor."
I disagree. In fact, the connection to Queens is excellent and convenient. You have an ADA-compliant connection to 63rd Street service and a connection to 53rd Street service. You also have the potential of service through a track connection that, right now, is non-revenue, but could change.
You don't need more than that. The Lex, with the pressure taken off its trains, canhandle the rest.
That's part of the problem: how much pressure will be alleviated? If we are to believe the SDEIS numbers, the express will still be loaded to capacity in the peak hour. That's admittedly better than being loaded beyond capacity, but I wonder if the Lex' load could be reduced further through design refinements of the Second Avenue line. I also wonder if the project's priorities are in order: as things stand now, between the local and the express, the express is the line with more pressing capacity problems, but the SDEIS proposal makes greater strides in reducing local ridership.
(And that's if we believe the SDEIS ridership projections, which I've challenged as being unsupported and others have asserted are just plain made-up.)
Mark
Of course it can. Stay involved with it and make your own contribution. Any plan can be improved upon. I encourage you to put in your thoughts to the MTA and your elected officials.
("And that's if we believe the SDEIS ridership projections, which I've challenged as being unsupported and others have asserted are just plain made-up.)"
Simply saying to somebody "You've made this all up" is worthless. You have to be able to show that your methodology is better. MTA staff and contractors did a lot of research to put this together. If you have done a lot of hardwork yourself to come up with different numbers and a rationale, fine, write to them and present that. Otherwise, all you're doing is throwing rocks, and that's bogus.
How about showing that the numbers contradict the numbers in some of their other reports? That should show at least one set of numbers is cooked. Shouldn't it?
Forecasting isn't an exact science. Two studies—both done conscientiously—could reasonably come up with different results.
Two writeups of the same study could reasonably come up with different conclusions, depending on the assumptions that are used and the weighting assigned to each factor.
There are many conceivable explanations why different numbers may have been presented at different times. Of these explanations, "corruption" is the most sinister. We should give due weight to the other possibilities before assuming the worst.
Aren't you the same person who characterized my analyses as "voodoo math" without examining them?
Aren't you the same person who characterized my analyses as "voodoo math" without examining them?
Well, presuming I did this, do you think it's a good practice? Or is your defense: "oakapple did it too".
In any event, I confess to having used the phrase "voodoo math," so the only question is whether I used it without examining the underlying analysis. I contend I did.
But of course subtalk posts aren't governed by the same strictures as MTA environmental impact studies. To accuse a subtalker of having indulged in hyperbole is not the same thing as accusing the MTA of having "cooked" its ridership forecasts.
What criteria would you use to prove the hypothesis that the MTA cooked its ridership forecasts?
The accusation is somewhat akin to a criminal offense. That is, if the forecasts really were "cooked"—given the usual meaning of that term—then probably a crime has been committed. If so, I would apply the usual criminal law standard of proof, i.e., proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'd even be interested in proof to a lesser standard—e.g., the "preponderance of the evidence" that applies in certain types of civil cases. This is what's sometimes called a "more likely than not" standard. However, that standard would come nowhere close to legally acceptable proof of deliberate falsification—which is what "cooked" usually means.
To show that the forecasts have been cooked? Simply that there's countervailing evidence that's susceptible of no other reasonable explanation. Since I'm not the one who thinks the forecasts have been cooked, I can't be the one to say what that evidence would be. It's the person who's arguing the influence of corruption who has the benefit of demonstrating that.
Certainly there are a number of very smart and knowledgeable people on this board who have read the documents, and who—whether they favor the project or not—accept the honest intentions of those who are advocating it. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with somebody, and accusing them of dishonesty.
I don't know about that. I think you should be allowed to say "prove that this ISN'T made up" when you find numbers seemingly coming out of nowhere. It's obvious that a lot of work went in to producing the SDEIS, but if it provides a ridership projection while glossing over or omitting the details of how the model works and the data plugged in to it, the projection becomes suspect. Maybe it's made up. Maybe it's not. Maybe there's a lot of hocus-pocus involved. Maybe the model missed something. Maybe it didn't. With what is in my mind inadequate support in the SDEIS, it's difficult to say.
Questions. Not rocks.
Mark
But the charge of "making up" the data in a document mandated by law is a very serious one. Typically, the burden of proof is on the person making such a charge.
You are 100% right. On the other hand, the MTA isn't doing its cause any good by failing to reveal its methodology for its traffic estimates.
(Of course, Selkirk would probably say that that's their plan. Then the FTA can reject the project for lack of proper supporting numbers, and they're off the hook of actually having to come up with the money.)
Has anybody on this bopard asked for an explanation? Why condemn the MTA for failing to answer a question you haven't asked?
If you have, and they've been evasive, then say so and post their reply here.
It's customary in a detailed engineering report, which the SDEIS is, to explain the origin of your data, especially when it's projections of future usage of a system. It may be there somewhere, but I've looked for it and haven't found it and I don't think anyone else has either.
Analogy: when you read an article by a doctor that draws conclusions based on a study, you expect some outline of how the study was done. This is the way science and engineering work.
Your criticism is still premature. So take out a piece of paper and a pen, or pick up the phone, and find out. If you get the runaround, then you've made your point.
I'm not charging that. I'm saying that I found support for the data to be deficient.
Mark
But you haven't explained what that support is. And I suspect you can't, else you already would have posted it.
"It's obvious that a lot of work went in to producing the SDEIS, but if it provides a ridership projection while glossing over or omitting the details of how the model works and the data plugged in to it, the projection becomes suspect"
What exactly are they "glossing over?" And what makes you think they are "glossing over it?" MTA has a lot of solid ridership data to go along with their SAS work, and a lot of that you can look at, too.
The Straphangers' Campaign collected a lot of data too, which they have used to support their argument for the SAS. If you don't agree, let's see what you have.
"Maybe the model missed something. Maybe it didn't. With what is in my mind inadequate support in the SDEIS, it's difficult to say."
What you have just said is that you don't trust them, but you don't know enough about the subject to even point to a reason for doubt. In other words, you criticize without a coherent reason to.
That's not questioning. That's rock throwing. And it's bogus.
If the SAS had reasonably placed local stations, I wouldn't have much of a complaint. It's the attempt to satisfy everyone that worries me; it may end up satisfying no one.
Check chapter 5B (that number comes from memory) of the SDEIS. It indicates that under current conditions, the peak v:c during the peak hour is higher on the express.
I think I know which papers you're talking about, but I haven't studied them. At least not recently.
Mark
I withdraw part of the above statement: the ridership model is described in detail in appendix D1 of the SDEIS. I don't know how I missed it the first two times I read it.
Mark
A classy post if I ever read one! I say, "No problem" - and on top of that, you're now familiar with the EIS document and can tell others about it. Cool!
I have goofed worse than you! Engaged in a discussion about physics, I insisted that the speed of light is the same regardless of the materials it travels through.
The R44 door chimes sang as the egg cracked and yummy yolk spread across my face...
I retract my last statement too, asking you to write a letter.
No more retractions OK? My muscles are cramping. Where's the Advil? I thought I left it on top of the egg carton...
:0)
They did the right thing. At City Planning I always argued that an EIS should be no more than 100 pages if it is to actually be read, as opposed to just a massive document to provide to the courts you took a "hard look" when you get sued (the usual rule). Stick the rest in an appendix, and don't send it out, just have it available to the lawyers and nitpickers.
The last EIS I worked on was the one for the "Unified Bulk" amendments, which never went forward. They changed the way height and setback was regulated in R6 zones and up throughout the city. Just to show we took a "hard look," I was asked to produce the "description of the affected area" in a way that no one could say we skimped. You could imagine the result. I assume the document was delivered to the Community Boards with a forklift.
While I have some idea what the cost of the SAS might be ($16 billion and change), I don't think I have ever seen an estimate of the benefits, expressed in dollar terms.
First I would like to know the estimated total benefit, which presumably must exceed $16 billion.
Then I would like to know how much value is attributed to each benefit, such as saved time, reduced crowding, and so forth.
I am told that Cost/Benefit Analysis is a standard part of the procedure to get approval for major construction projects, but I have also heard that it is discredited, being too easily manipulated to reach a desired conclusion.
This is true for both the "pro-construction" and "anti-construction" views.
With enough careful reading, one could probably come up with total person hours saved by the SAS over the life of the project. This is tricky in part because the life of the project ought to be well over a century, while the costs are heavily though not entirely up front.
Then one could come up with a ratio of cost to hours saved, and discover that each person hour saved would cost $x. Then one could decide (opinion, not fact) whether $x/hour was worthwhile.
I suspect the number x is quite high because it is very hard in standard finance to really measure the worth of a project that should be around for over 100 years.
Cost/benefit analysis should seek to determine the public benefit of what they do, in relation to its cost.
Clearly cost/benefit analysis for a project such as the SAS is far from an exact science, mainly because the values of the benefits are quite subjective.
Nonetheless I would still like to know (a) whether it is was in fact done and (b) where the results can be found.
If it was done, I would like to know what methods were used and what assumptions were made.
If the analysis exists, it is a starting point. If one disagrees with the methods or assumptions, one can substitute ones own.
While I agree with the critics that it can easily be manipulated, cost/benefit analysis aims to provide a way to find out if you are getting good value for money. Whether it succeeds in doing so in any given case is open to question.
Even if the analysis was not done, one can look at the cost per future hour saved, as suggested by AlM.
Or, let's take a service enhancement that has already been completed: the 63rd St connector. This project allowed NYCT to increase the service from Queens Blvd into Manhattan. Whether you were for it or against it, how do you say whether the billions spent on that project were worthwhile? Obviously the world wouldn't have ended had service remained what it was, so it wasn't literally essential. Should a project like that ever be done? If so, how do you justify it?
Easy - you voted for me and it's in my manifesto.
If only politicians had that much guts.
The theory is that a capital expenditure, as opposed to a straight expense, should pay for itself either by increasing revenues and/or by reducing cost. If such an expenditure cannot pay for itself, then it should be viewed as an expense. The company will borrow the money for the project and pay back the loan with interest through the increased revenues or decreased sales. Clearly, when interest rates are low, a longer payout can be envisioned.
Agreed. Even with a low discount rate of three percent, any benefits 50 years in the future are worth little more than one-fifth the value of benefits (or cost avoidance) today. Clearly there was a substantial "cost-benefit" review of transit investment from 1930 to 1980. The result is what we experienced in 1980. Cost-benefit analysis is for those who do not care about the next generation. Americans?
The cost justification for creating Central Park could have been increased revenue. It is the same justification that was used by Robert Moses for creating the Interboro and Belt Parkways in the 1930's.
The presence of the park would enhance property values. This would increase city revenues which are based to a large degree on property taxes.
I was talking about capital projects - those for which one borrows money (and presumably pays off). There is nothing to prevent a civic project that cannot be cost justified from being financed directly from taxes.
Am I right in thinking that as interest rates tend towards 0, payout period tends towards +infinity?
If one could get a loan with 0 interest and of infinite duration, then any project that can generate any cost savings and/or increased revenue could be cost justified.
It will also be the best route for everyone who can transfer to employment east of the CBD, which is substantial (hospitals, universities, U.N., hotels, retail). I believe the number was 300,000 plus back in 1990, based on journey to work data I compiled at the time. People don't realize this because this employment is dwarfed by Midtown and Downtown. Yet only a few CBDs in the U.S. have more employment.
East Midtown? The SAS will be the best route for all those who can transfer who work on 3rd Avenue. That, too, is substantial. For those living on the East Side, it may be better to take the SAS and walk west at the point of destination than to walk west to the Lex at the point of origin.
That's a good point. Third Avenue is perfect as a ridership source and destination for the SAS. Second Ave rail will serve Third Avenue traffic. And I think another important function of the SAS will be to establish new a brand new heavy rail corridor. Should New York never go beyond the present day subway served avenues? The development will cluster around it, mixing in with the current high density structures. I think we'll be surprised at how quickly it becomes a busy and important line. It won't suffer the misfortune of our downhearted Brooklyn Queens Crosstown subway simply because it's located in Manhattan. I don't think it's apt to compare it to the 8th Avenue subway either. Second Ave doesn't pass by 51 blocks of park. That's a pretty large chunk of extremely dense real estate. (Although I admire the cheekiness of the IND planners in routing it up Central Park West. That stretch of parkfront served by a subway is a world class urban design. To walk on C.P.W. is to feel civilized...)
I do like the idea of spurs ala the 2nd and 3rd Ave. els. Spur to L.I.C. ferry. Spur to G.C.T. I would go so far as to wonder of the feasibility of building a LIRR station where its tracks pass Second Avenue. But that's probably railfan talk.
You are not the only one who wondered about that. But I imagine that the LIRR must have considered it before deciding on the East Side Access. It seems highly unlikely that both would be built, and ESA has the support of the Federal Government.
Nobody is in a hurry to build this, though.
No they couldn't. The T train wouldn't stop between 72nd and 53rd if it ever happened. It would be Q (Broadway) that would be the other choice.
Second Avenue or not, I think that this is worth investigating. It would provide one more north-south subway option for LIRR passengers who might otherwise use Lexington from GCT, and it may even attract additional riders away from Penn.
Mark
Not a bad idea, given that it would allow a transfer to the Q downtown. But the Q wouldn't go all the way downtown, now that the Canal Street flip has been abandoned. The flip would have to be reinstated for this to work.
I think the best solution is the one the RPA proposed -- a line from Secaucus Transfer in New Jersey, across 43rd Street to Grand Central, then down Second Avenue to Lower Manhattan, then out to Jamaica via a new tunnel to Brooklyn, paid for by a reinstated commuter tax.
The RPA's error was to assert that this service could be merged onto a two track SAS local. The SDEIS rejected this option, on the grounds that suburbanites would likely choose to pack onto the Lex Express for three stops to the transit center rather than wait twice as long for a seven stop ride to an equivalent station on the SAS.
If the goal is to go big, this "suburban connector" should be a separate line on express tracks Second Avenue. Twenty trains per hour could take the line -- plus the Airtrain, which could terminate at Grand Central. NJT riders would have extensive service to Times Square and Grand Central. MetroNorth riders could take it over to Times Square or down to Downtown. LIRR riders could take it from Jamaica to Downtown. There would be no stops on the express bewteen 34th Street (change for far east side destinations in either direction) and Lower Manhattan, making the "suburban connector" faster than the Lex Express. The Express would use the proposed Water Street route before going onto Brooklyn.
In exchange for tearing up the city for their own separate service, the suburbanites could be required to "dig the hole" the lower portion of the SAS would run through, thereby finanicing it. The Second Avenue Local could be connected to the former "H" tracks south of Canal Street, and terminate on the east side of Chambers Street (with JMZ service shifted to the west side). A change to the JMZ would complete the trip Downtown.
Not a bad idea, given that it would allow a transfer to the Q downtown. But the Q wouldn't go all the way downtown, now that the Canal Street flip has been abandoned. The flip would have to be reinstated for this to work.
Yet another possible reason to have the F go downtown instead of the E (i.e., swap all local services south of W 4th).
One hell of a lot of switching.
Take a look at the track maps. If you switch ALL local services south of W 4th, there is no additional switching.
C goes to 2nd Ave, Culver, or Metropolitan Ave.
E goes to Culver.
F goes to WTC.
V goes to Fulton Line.
So, in other words, the stated aim is to build the worst subway possible.
The only purpose for that statement is to confirm that you're not interested in an informed discussion on the subject.
My post was a mere observation that this is in fact a preconception.
Your post is an ad hominem attack claiming in effect that any view which does not hold your preconceptions is uninformed. This is also what is known as bigotry.
I have long prided myself in having a killfile list of no people: E_DOG never made it there, nor did that Russian bloke who everyone decided they hated. Perhaps this is finally time for an exception.
I happen to believe that we should build the best subway that we can given available budgets. The MTA shares that basic belief. There are differences of opinion over what that means, and you are, of course, entitled to your own as well.
"My post was a mere observation that this is in fact a preconception. "
You observed nothing but your own bias. I hold no preconceptions here. Are you sure you're not suffering from one?
"Your post is an ad hominem attack claiming in effect that any view which does not hold your preconceptions is uninformed."
No, not at all. I opined that a flippant post, in general, tends to reflect lack of serious interest in the topic by the writer.
"I have long prided myself in having a killfile list of no people: E_DOG never made it there, nor did that Russian bloke who everyone decided they hated. Perhaps this is finally time for an exception."
If you are so thin-skinned and fragile that you cannot bear to be criticized in a public forum, and you believe the Killfile is helpful to you, by all means use it. I have no need for it myself, and refuse to use it.
Almost needless to say, you'll find those precise words nowhere in the SDEIS, nor in Ron's post, so this is a perception, not a fact. I am curious to know the basis for it.
The irony is that many political leaders thought that the MTA's first idea—to build just the "stubway"—was the worst subway they could get away with. The present proposal, which runs the full length of Manhattan, is obviously more than that, and hence not the "worst" they could have done.
Other things have been changed since then to improve it, based on community input, such as the direct vertical transfer with MNR at 125th St, and the added station at 116th St (not in the original proposal). So it is clearly not the worst that it could be. What ever it is, it isn't that.
So I think Ron's point, even if not as elegantly stated as it might be, is that dismissing it as "the worst subway you can get away with" is untrue on its face, and without more, doesn't offer much basis for a discussion.
No it's not. The section below 42nd St is so far off it begins to look as likely as the Jubilee Line running under Fleet Street. It is to all intents and purposes the same plan as stubway in this respect - it's just that they phrased it differently.
Other things have been changed since then to improve it, based on community input, such as the direct vertical transfer with MNR at 125th St, and the added station at 116th St (not in the original proposal).
Cosmetics. It turns it from the worst possible plan to the worst one they can get away with. The MNRR connection is bizarre and the 116th St station was such a blatantly sensible thing to do that, if the MTA's intention were to build anything other than the most pisspoor possible, no-one would have left it out of any plan.
It still is a failure of an idea of a local service - it offers no relief to many of those using 68th/Lex and 77th/Lex (nor 59/Lex if it ever gets that far South). It is even more of a failure as an idea of express service as it doesn't go to the Bronx, it's an extra transfer, it goes a more roundabout route and it has more stops.
To be fair to it, it has two good points:
- it is just about okay as a local service above 86th St
- at least it will be of BMT dimensions
However, the accusation is obvious: it is just a cherry-picked central section, devoid of its feeder lines, then made devoid of the capacity to deal with those feeder lines, then with the local stops buggered up on half the line.
I just don't get it. The SAS will have connections to:
The B & D at Grand St
The E at 53rd St
The F at Houston St
The L at 14th St
The 4, 5, 6 at 125 St
The 6 at 51st St
The 7 at 42nd St
MNR at 125 St
And obviously the upper half (north of 63rd) will have connections to anything the Q connects to. So what's this about "lack of feeders"?
Quite obviously, the SAS will benefit anyone who:
Lives and works on the far east side; or,
Lives on the far east side and desires a connection to one of the above lines; or,
Works on the far east side and is coming from one of the above lines.
The SAS will be better after it connects to the Bronx and/or Brooklyn, but you have to start somewhere. Fytton's analogy to the Jubilee line is apposite, but you could give other examples (e.g.), the original IRT).
The MNRR connection is bizarre....
I don't see what's bizarre about it. Today, MNRR connects directly only to the 4, 5, 6, 7, and S. The connection at 125 will be beneficial to MNR patrons destined for work locations along the Broadway route, as well as those who work along the far east side. (The SDEIS does not estimate this to be a huge population, but given that there was going to be a station at 125th anyway, why not allow for the connection?)
None of the lines you mentioned (except the Q) are feeders. They all involve one or more transfers. A feeder line is a line from which trains feed into a trunk line. Basically the 2nd Avenue Line as planned fails as a trunk line.
The SAS will be better after it connects to the Bronx and/or Brooklyn, but you have to start somewhere.
And it is a good idea to start by building something which will support branches in the Bronx and Brooklyn rather than building an on the cheap trunk line in Manhattan which is just about capable of dealing with the traffic the trunk line itself creates, but not the feeder lines if they ever get built.
Compare the plan for SAS which does not understand the concept of a feeder line with Crossrail Line 1 which does. Compare also to the inferior scheme of the LRM consortium which basically would make exactly the same mistake SAS does: ignoring the whole theory of trunk lines and feeder lines to save a few bucks.
I don't see what's bizarre about it. Today, MNRR connects directly only to the 4, 5, 6, 7, and S. The connection at 125 will be beneficial to MNR patrons destined for work locations along the Broadway route
It's bizarre as it seems to go against the grain of the project as an on the cheap effort. I'm not sure whether anyone would actually ride a local all round UES instead of the Shuttle to the 1, 2, 3, N, R, Q and W lines, but it's a nice idea. The effect I wouldn't be too surprised to see would be if people rode from 116/2 to 125/Park to get MNRR to GCT.
Wrong. In fact, the "Stubway" portion of the SAS is itself a feed line into the BMT Broadway line system (it would be a branch of it).
"And it is a good idea to start by building something which will support branches in the Bronx and Brooklyn"
Extending the line west along 125 St, and feeding it north into the D line would help Bronx riders and redistribute passenger loads between the IND 6th Av and BMT Broadway lines. That option is very inexpensive given the magnitude of the project to begin with.
"rather than building an on the cheap trunk line in Manhattan which is just about capable of dealing with the traffic the trunk line itself creates, but not the feeder lines if they ever get built. "
That is your unsupported opinion only; you have no data whatsoever to support it.
"It's bizarre as it seems to go against the grain of the project as an on the cheap effort."
That's also strivtly your perjorative view, again, unsupported by any objective evidence. Maybe the only bizarre thing is that you expect us to believe it if you repeat it often enough.
So I am in fact right that it is a failed attempt at a trunk line, but you are too arrogant to admit it.
That is your unsupported opinion only; you have no data whatsoever to support it.
Yes, I do: the MTA's claim that this line requires 24tph for their half-assed plan alone. Unless you are claiming another 12-24tph could be fitted through on top of that, use of 2nd Av as a trunk line is effectively precluded. Stop talking out of your derrière just because you have a personal grudge against me.
That's also strivtly your perjorative view, again, unsupported by any objective evidence.
The evidence is all there in the words of the MTA and a good critical interpretation. I suggest you remove your head from inside your own arse and open your eyes.
No, it is both. The full-length line is the trunk, but the upper half is a very decent feeder in its own right.
"Yes, I do: the MTA's claim that this line requires 24tph for their half-assed plan alone. Unless you are claiming another 12-24tph could be fitted through on top of that,"
That is pure nonsense, of course. The MTA did not say the plan was limited t 24 tph. In fact, to run an additional branch to it would require an additional 6 tph, easily achieved. And feeding the SAS into to the D line, one possible option, would provide a Bronx option without necessarily increasing the tph frequency demand at all.
"The evidence is all there in the words of the MTA and a good critical interpretation"
No, you've essentially written a new MTA plan in your own words and offered them the credit. I'm sorry if you don't know the difference. Fortunately, most of us do.
Incidentally, I read your critique of the Jubilee Line. I'm glad to see that you don't think MTA is the only agency run by idiots. Do you think you could run both agencies simultaneously., and save us all from transit hell? It appears you're the only one who can do that - truly a legend in your own mind. :0)
Glad to see you haven't used your kill file - you're not as thin-skinned as you'd like us to believe. Bully for you.
Explain how 12tph Q and 12tph T can add up to anything other than 24tph. Using hexadecimal is not allowed.
And feeding the SAS into to the D line, one possible option, would provide a Bronx option without necessarily increasing the tph frequency demand at all.
But if they really believe the line they've planned would require 24tph, there is going to be no space on these hypothetical trains for the riders from the Bronx.
In fact, to run an additional branch to it would require an additional 6 tph
Now you're making things up. Has 3rd Avenue in the Bronx suddenly become a semi-rural area?
Incidentally, I read your critique of the Jubilee Line. I'm glad to see that you don't think MTA is the only agency run by idiots.
I'm glad you can read. I doubt if you were being serious you would find it a very sensible idea building a line that crosses under the Thames four times with the justification of an exhibition that would last one year. In case you were wondering, it is called the Millennium Dome and is being maintained at public expense whilst no-one has any use for it and no-one wants to buy it. I'm really surprised you think that the JLE of all things was worthwhile.
Glad to see you haven't used your kill file
Quite frankly, why bother? When you aren't being blinkered, your posts are quite good.
The SDEIS says that the line will be built to operate 30tph. To accommodate the initial demand, 24tph is enough. The rest is room for growth.
In fact, to run an additional branch to it would require an additional 6 tph
Now you're making things up. Has 3rd Avenue in the Bronx suddenly become a semi-rural area?
I think he meant 6 more tph, not 6 total.
I visited the place and enjoyed it with my cousin. The trains were quite full leaving Dollis Hill and did not empty. Of course that was some time ago, and my observations were limited in both number and calendar.
"When you aren't being blinkered, your posts are quite good."
Why, thank you sir. I could say the same for you...
I personally never went to the Rev. A.R.P. Blair MA (Oxon)'s Millennium Tent, but from what I've heard it was very good - with the exception of the huge queues for everything.
The trains were quite full leaving Dollis Hill and did not empty.
I remember back in 2000 when off-peak it was absolutely packed all the way from Baker Street to Westminster. These days I can get a seat Southbound at Bond Street in the Rush Hour.
Since I lived in Notting Hill, north of the river, South London was a black box. I knew that tube service was generally poor, but BR Southern Region (as was then) service made up for it. So I hope that the people/jobs/buildings will follow.
OTOH: I can see that continuing the Charing Cross branch along Fleet Street (and calling it the Fleet Line!) will help ease the horrible Central Line crush, even if the line only goes as far as Liverpool Street. The question would then become, what to do on the northern side? When they rebuilt Baker Street for the FleetJubilee line, how flexible did they leave the junction?
John
The thing is it really doesn't go anywhere that the Southern Region doesn't go. In fact, from Waterloo to Bermondsey, the line is in a deep tube beneath the South Eastern Main Line's viaducts. The main things which would be needed to get the South Eastern Main Line up to standard for this sort of service would be:
- 4 tracking a 13 chain section (1m37c to 1m50c ex Charing X) through Borough Market Junction.
- extra stations at Southwark (1m06c, with interchange to Holborn Line above), either Abbey Street (2m58c) or Spa Road (2m70c), Southwark Park (3m39c), and Deptford Park (4m06c, with interchange to ELL below). All of these would be on the Charing X Slow and Cannon St Lines only.
- reconfiguration of Western approach tracks 1-6 to London Bridge: 1 Dn Cannon St, 2 Up Cannon St, 3 Dn Charing X Slow, 4 Up Charing X Slow, 5 Dn Charing X Fast, 6 Up Cannon St Fast.
- reconfiguration of tracks 2-4 London Bridge to North Kent East Junction: 2 Up, 3 Dn, 4 Up.
This would allow an extra 24-30tph through London Bridge and provide a much easier to use service for these parts of South London. I cannot believe that it was cost effective to dig deep tubes beneath the existing structures, with all the underpinning that would require.
Since I lived in Notting Hill, north of the river, South London was a black box.
I know the feeling. Nothing there except railway spaghetti between Waterloo and Calais! I'm growing to like the Southern Region now though - it's a wonderful system - shame about the fragmented franchising.
OTOH: I can see that continuing the Charing Cross branch along Fleet Street (and calling it the Fleet Line!) will help ease the horrible Central Line crush, even if the line only goes as far as Liverpool Street. The question would then become, what to do on the northern side? When they rebuilt Baker Street for the FleetJubilee line, how flexible did they leave the junction?
The way I see it, West of Baker Street the Subsurface network really comes into play. What would really help is if Olympia to Latimer Road were restored - with the Met Uxbridge Road and the Central Shepherd's Bush stations connected by passageways within fare control - and more expensively, 4 tracks from Praed St Junction to where it goes 4 track for Edgware Road (less than 250 metres / 275 yards).
The junction at Baker St allows the Bakerloo Line to run to Stanmore still. The platform config there though is stupid: to go Southbound from Stanmore to Elephant it would use the SB Jubilee Line platform; to go Northbound, however, it would use the NB Bakerloo Line platform.
The Fleet Line remains hugely needed for the part of the Central Line crush in Central London. The remaining question is what to do with that expensive line from Westminster to Stratford. My idea would be to extend it under Victoria St to Victoria. This would give it a really useful purpose: connecting Victoria and Waterloo.
Are you referring to surveyors' chains here (meaning 13 x 66 foot "chains") = 858 feet of track or to engineers' chains (100 feet each, so 1300 feet of track)?
I rarely hear that measure used. Even fathoms are disappearing from conversation.
I didn't know there was ambiguity - UK railways, except London Underground which uses those horrible French km, are measured in miles and chains, there being 80 chains to a mile. Therefore, 1760yds in a mile over 80 = 22yds = 66ft chains. Trust engineers to try and simplify things!
Interestingly, on the Southern Region there are two "short" miles - one at Northam, between St Denys and Southampton Central, where mile 77 is only 68 chains long; the other at Fisherton, just West of Salisbury, where mile 83 is only 72 chains long. I don't know why these happened - presumably because they ballsed up when they first measured out the line!
Getting back to Borough Market, the difficulty actually is as well as 858ft of track, 858ft of elevated structure would be needed too, with all the issues that entails.
I rarely hear that measure used. Even fathoms are disappearing from conversation.
It seems that only boats use fathoms, railways and the rules of Cricket chains, and racing furlongs (a distance which interestingly happens to be 10 chains). The only traditional units of distance which seem to get general use any more are inches, feet, yards and miles - a fact I find quite sad really.
There would be some business NIMBYs, but an appropriately deep TBM should help keep the disruption to a minimum.
John
1) It was dirt cheap to acquire
2) No affluent, well-connected NIMBYs in the way
3) Area is targeted for redevelopment, and transit supports that.
Quite - if it's that far down and it's only businesses there, there would only be disruption at station sites. At Aldwych, Bank and Liverpool Street there are existing stations to build into, so surface disruption there would be minimal. That leaves Ludgate Circus and somewhere near St Paul's - neither of which seem to be too NIMBYified. I reckon the most aggro would be got from the Cathedral itself - and even they would probably think it good for trade and put up with a little disruption.
More of an issue would be existing lines in the Bank area. An alternative alignment avoiding this would be:
CHARING X (change for Bakerloo and Northern Lines and BR) - Strand - ALDWYCH (change for Shuttle) - Fleet St - LUDGATE CIRCUS (change for City Thameslink) - Ludgate Hill - St Paul's Churchyd - ST PAUL'S (change for Central Line) - Paternoster Row - St-Martin's-le-Grand - Aldersgate St - London Wall - MOORGATE (change for Circle, Hammersmith & City, Metropolitan and Northern Lines and BR) - London Wall - Blomfield St - LIVERPOOL STREET (change for Central, Circle, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan Lines and BR).
This would probably have more issues with archaeology though.
Probably was once you got past the City into the East End. However, getting it to the City would of course be the first thing to do and if people in the East End don't want a tube line, then Central London's problems would be sorted without them. As so few people actually live in the City (IIRC, there is a nominal population of 2,500 or so), I doubt the NIMBYs would be there for a five station extension to Liverpool St (via Aldwych, Ludgate Circus, St Paul's, and either Bank or Moorgate).
I'm actually a bit mystified that they thought there would be NIMBYs in the East End either - although it's a lot more plausible than NIMBYs in the City - as in the 90s they managed to push DLR through large parts of it.
But I suppose we should look on the bright side - once Crossrail happens (2012 on their latest estimate), the Central Line's crowding should stop getting worse and Liverpool St in particular will become a little less important.
Since NIMBYs tend to be middle class (what about our house price?), I don’t think you would get much of that until you got well out into the suburbs, like Leytonstone.
Plus we have the benefit in the UK that the Government can hi-jack the planning process and have it decided by the Deputy Prime Minister - pity the Dept of Transport isn't part of the DPM's office any more!
Maybe a line could reach Hackney.
:0)
No fear - those things start charging you for stationary time - which with Central London...
So I am in fact right that it is a failed attempt at a trunk line, but you are too arrogant to admit it.
What defines a "failed...trunk line?" If every line that merges with another were described as a failure, then you'd be talking about almost all of the NYC subway system.
That is your unsupported opinion only; you have no data whatsoever to support it.
Yes, I do: the MTA's claim that this line requires 24tph for their half-assed plan alone. Unless you are claiming another 12-24tph could be fitted through on top of that, use of 2nd Av as a trunk line is effectively precluded.
Maybe I'm missing something, but in what sense wouldn't it be a trunk line? The fact that it doesn't go into the Bronx? What's the hidden magic that turns a line into a "trunk" when it crosses a borough boundary? And what about the 24tph claim are you in a position to refute? Do you have a model that shows otherwise?
By the way, the line is being designed to support 30tph, so there is 25% headroom for growth.
Guess some people don't know what a trunk line is ;-), the SAS would feed into the Broadway line via 63 St connection and has more than one line running on it, making it a trunk line. Its amazing how some people at Subtalk can't have a SERIOUS conversation on transit issues, just pathetic :-\.
By the way, the line is being designed to support 30tph, so there is 25% headroom for growth.
Yes and lets say CBTC were thrown into it, trains could run at a 90 second headway [I'm speaking north of 63 in particular] which turns out to be 33tph but that many trains wouldn't be needed.
Just what do you propose to do with the B?
161st street riders will still use the 4
plus the D is express, nice try unless you plan on making the D local, which will make many riders very mad at you, possibly making you the pinata that they want to hit so badly
unless you want to make the Concourse line 4 tracks to handle the extra traffic, making the D express in BOTH directions
You don't understand what I wrote. Reread my posts. D riders would be given a choice: ride the D onto Sixth Av, like they do now, or ride a train marked Second Av via 125 St, which is a different service. It will increase service options to the Bronx. It will NOT remove existing service choices.
of course there is also the nearby 4 line
This would be just like the 2 and 5 going to the lower east side, but one is a much longer commute.....
Oh and Concourse riders already had a different choice, until the MTA took it away in 1998
if you want to feed the D line add a 4th track so the D can be express both ways
the (B or)C, D, AND T(or Q) could run on the line then, with 7 day express service with at least 2 lines 24/7
D 205-CI Express in Bronx all times except nights(possible night express depending upon 2nd Avenue service to the Bronx)
T 205-Hanover Square Express in Bronx middays and rush hours
C 200-Lefferts Local in Bronx middays and rush hours
Yes, but they were both west side choices (6th/8th). The discussion here is about the east side.
if you want to feed the D line add a 4th track so the D can be express both ways
Does it actually need a 4th track to feed 2nd Ave?
No.
Even without CBTC the Concourse line has room for another 12 tph.
Take a look at the MTA's published B/D schedule. Do you see more than 16 trains arriving at 34th St in any 60 minute period of the AM rush?
schedule(way it should be)
Middays and Rush Hours
(C)Local in Bronx 200th Street-Lefferts Blvd
(D)Express in Bronx(both ways) 205th Street-Coney Island
(T)Express in Bronx(both ways) 205th Street-Hanover Square
Evenings(9 pm)
(C)145th Street-Lefferts Blvd
(D)Express in Bronx 205-CI
(T)Local in Bronx 205-Hanover Square
Nights
(C) Shuttle Lefferts to Rockaway Blvd
(D) Local in Bronx
(T) Local in Bronx(unless it gets cut to 125th Street)
Weekends
(C) 168th Street Lefferts Blvd
(D) Express in Bronx (Until 8 pm Sat, 7 pm Sun)
(T) Local in Bronx
I do not believe for one moment that the MTA is deliberately trying to build the worst possible subway. They may not be very competent but they are not insane. They are trying to build the most necessary section of the SAS first, based on the bitter experience of 80 years of not getting any of it built.
The SAS is a classic example of "the best driving out the good". The effort to build a wonderful, top-grade subway has led to nothing being built for 80 years. Let's get the Stubway built - think of it as a useful extension from 57/7 to the Upper East Side - and once that is up and running, see what else is needed and can be afforded in 2015 or so.
British James's example of the Jubilee Line is illuminating. They built a short piece first (Baker Street-Bond Street-Green Park-Charing Cross) and attached an existing line from the outer city on to it (the Stanmore branch) - just like sending the Q up the Stubway. Then later, when an opportunity arose, they built the proper full length line - not quite as originally planned, because things change over a twenty-year span, but a very nice new line nonetheless, and proving very popular.
From the way the tunnels nearly reach Aldwych, it's looks like that stopping at Charing X was a typical 1970s problem rather than a conscious decision. It's just a shame it didn't get going again in the 1980s when the country had money again - if only Waldegrave had been PM instead of Thatcher. I wonder if Aldwych had had the Fleet Jubilee line as well in 1994 whether they'd have closed it.
they built the proper full length line - not quite as originally planned, because things change over a twenty-year span, but a very nice new line nonetheless, and proving very popular.
The original alignment to Aldwych, Ludgate Circus etc would have been a much better plan. It would have offered relief to the Central Line, which everyone knows is overcrowded. Instead, they got distracted by the Millennial crap at Blackwall Point and forgot the City existed. I suppose you could quite literally say it went to the (Isle of) Dogs (groan).
Personally I find the new alignment relatively useful for when the Bakerloo Line is f***ed and I need to get from Waterloo to Marylebone - the walk along Melcombe Place isn't too bad. However, it was a terrible idea to allow one year's New Year Party to shift the routing of a line away from the heart of London.
If I'd been running the plans for the crap at Blackwall Point in 2000, I'd have built an branch from the North Kent Line just East of Westcombe Park, with the junction over the A102(M) motorway, then elevated above the Angerstein Wharf Branch to the South Eastern Gas Works North Greenwich. I'd then have run 10 car Southern Region Suburban Trains (ie nice big trains not little tube ones) every 5 to 10 minutes to London Cannon Street calling at all stations.
You certainly have a point.
With good connections, the SAS will be very useful. Most people don't get a single seat ride from origin to destination. The SAS will be useful if it gives people decent 2-seat rides. 86th to Penn is easy with a change to the 2/3 at TSQ.
I also think that, when only the upper "stubway" portion exists, the F should be rerouted to go downtown to WTC (and the E go to the Culver), so that UES residents can get downtown by a cross-platform transfer at Lex and 63rd.
The project also needs to include a tunnel from Lex/63rd to Lex/60th, which is not part of the plan yet.
Yes, it's one of the odd quirks of our system that the 6th Ave line does not go to Lower Manhattan. But perhaps the proposal would be more palatable if the F and V swap East River tunnels, and the V goes to WTC.
The project also needs to include a tunnel from Lex/63rd to Lex/60th, which is not part of the plan yet.
I'm not aware it's even being considered.
That would restore the pre-12/16/01 crowds on the E and F and condemn Queens local passengers bound for 53rd Street to the worst commute they've had since the 50's.
If that were to happen, then it would only go back to what it was prior to the V coming into existence and the V would have far less ridership than it does now.
The project also needs to include a tunnel from Lex/63rd to Lex/60th, which is not part of the plan yet.
I'm not aware it's even being considered.
I don't know what the benefits would be out of doing that.
You haven't read all the prior threads, have you? You also haven't read the original DEIS, or the SDEIS. The SDEIS is available on-line at MTA's website. I suggest you read it carefully, because you've started with assumptions that are just plain wrong and unsupportable.
I'll go over some here, but this is a little like somebody wanting to debate a novel or history book (or whatever else) without having read any of it.
You wrote "The Second Avenue Subway has been designed primarily to address the needs of neighborhoods that have no near-by subway service. And in the sense that the line runs pretty much right through a strip of under-serviced neighborhoods, it seems to satisfy its primary reason for being designed in the first place. "
No. That is only one reason for it. The other reasons are: 1. to provide additional capacity for subway passengers on the East Side who use the Lex currently. These passengers come from Manhattan and the Bronx, and some from Westchester (arriving by car or BeeLine bus), and the first SAS segment will give them an ADA compliant transfer at 125 Street. The line is also designed for future extension to the Bronx, and can be extended to merge with the D train if desired. 2. To provide direct access to lower Manhattan and the areas along the East Side below 42nd street which are further from the subway because the Lexington Av line shifts further west to Park Av at that point. 3. To provide connections with other lines (the first connection will be at 63rd Street with the F train) 4. SAS will be the first 100% ADA-compliant subway line in the city. Thus, it will be more elderly, shopping and kid friendly.
You wrote "Even if by some chance one of the few 2nd avenue line stations was closer to my home than any other current subway station, I would be pissed off that the line would not take me directly to ANY of the following: Grand Central, Times Square, Penn Station. Nor does it connect to any other train line that goes to Times Square or Penn Station, below 42nd street."
Refer to my comments above. A direct connection to Penn Station is irrelevant (the Lex doesn't go there either). There are plans for connections to other lines below 42nd Street, though these will not occur in the first phase of construction, which will create essentially an extension of Broadway service up Second Av. The second phase will deal with areas below 63rd Street. Read the SDEIS.
You spend the rest of your post talking about Grand Central. Grand Central is not the point. Lower Manhattan and the financial district is the point. If you want to know how important those destinations are, call the Manhattan Borough President's office or the Chamber of Commerce and find out who rides down there. There are not a lot of Wall Streeters posting on this board, so looking to Subtalk for"which destination is important to you" isn't useful.
Do yourself a favor. Read the SDEIS completely. Read previous threads on this board. Look at Lexington Av ridership figures and sources of service delays. The Straphangers' statistical charts are actually very useful in this regard (one of the things they do really well).
You wrote a very long post. I would like you to do some reading to support it.
If you look at most subway systems, there is a lot of crossing, though not at a single point. New lines cross old ones and often bend to cross other lines at two points, to make a star. Ideally, the SAS would have crossed the Lex somewhere. Why not (theoretically) have brought the upper part across 63rd and down (leaving aside for a moment the problems it creates for Queens) and then perhaps have taken the lower half of the SAS and, instead of going straight up 2nd Ave, for example, make it cross 42 on the shuttle tracks? The idea is, each line should serve the whole system as well as its local population. Don't denigrate the original post for its ambitions.
OK. That's a reasonable approach.
"If you look at most subway systems, there is a lot of crossing, though not at a single point. New lines cross old ones and often bend to cross other lines at two points, to make a star."
Moscow Metro and Washington Metrorail appear to be examples of this. They bring passengers in from suburbs to a central area and then take them out again - and passengers can transfer to different arms.
"Why not (theoretically) have brought the upper part across 63rd and down (leaving aside for a moment the problems it creates for Queens)"
It already is designed to do that (though you mean the "down" part is just west of Lex, not over on Broadway, right?) and then perhaps have taken the lower half of the SAS and, instead of going straight up 2nd Ave, for example, make it cross 42 on the shuttle tracks?
That last part won't work, though I commend your motive. The Lex and the Shuttle are Division A compatible. SAS is a Division B design.
"Don't denigrate the original post for its ambitions."
I don't denigrate its ambitions, because it really had no ambitions. It was mostly rock throwing. Your post, at least, had an interesting idea in it, even if it might not have a practical implementation.
(1) Passenger lives in SAS's catchment area; where is the passenger going?
(2) Passenger works in SAS's catchment area; where is the passenger coming from?
In some of Andrew's examples, I agree that the SAS would be of no help. A passenger who lives at 86th & 2nd and is going to the Staten Island Ferry might very well choose to walk to Lex, and take a one-seat ride to Bowling Green, rather than taking the SAS to Hanover Square. But I tend to doubt that that's a common travel pattern.
Taking the first case, let's consider two sub-cases:
(A) Passenger lives on the far east side, and north of approx. 68th St;
(B) Passenger lives on the far east side, and south of approx. 63rd St.
(I'm taking north of 68th and south of 63rd as defining the SAS's north and south catchment areas respectively.)
If the passenger lives north of 68th St, the SAS offers two options: a Broadway train or a Second Avenue train. This will benefit those who work along either of these trunk lines, as well as those making connections at transfer points along the way. Notably, the SAS's Q train offers a connection to southbound F trains at 63rd/Lex, which is certainly no worse—and may be better—than taking the Lex and transferring to the V at 53rd.
If the passenger lives south of 63th St, then the SAS doesn't offer the Broadway option, but there are a lot of business destinations along the far east side, and the SAS will also have east-west connections at 53rd St, 42nd St, and 14th St. And passengers who work on the east side of the Financial District will probably find the SAS a more appealing trip than the Lex.
The post also ignores the many passengers who are traveling to far east side destinations. Second, First, York, and East End Avenues represent a huge catchment area for businesses, including probably the heaviest density of hospitals anywhere in the world. Passengers coming in from Brooklyn on the B, D, F, or L, and those coming in from Queens on the E, V, and 7, will transfer to the SAS if their work destination is on that corridor.
Andrew observes that the SAS doesn't go to Grand Central, Times Square, or Penn Station. I'm afraid he overstates his case. He says, "It is safe to assume that most people using any of Manhattan's trunk lines are getting on or off the trains at 34th near Penn or 42nd street at Grand Central or Times Square to make connections or use the facilities in that area." This doesn't seem to me a safe assumption at all.
But even accepting the assumption that "most" riders need to get to one of those three places: When the SAS is built, the Q will take riders to Times Square from neighborhoods in the upper half of the catchment area (68th to 125th). The MTA's map shows a transfer connection to Grand Central from the SAS's 42nd St station. The transfer hasn't been designed, but assuming it's some kind of underground moving sidewalk, I think it meets the need. The transfer to the E at 53rd/Lex would likewise offer access to Penn Station.
Am I forgetting a large portion of the travelling population? Or is the beauty of the 2nd avenue line actually supposed to be the fact that it should be used to connect to other lines at all of its stations? Are we really so excited about spending the money on building an amazing, modern, 2-seat and 3-seat ride system?
Yes, I think you are forgetting a large portion of the travelling population. The SAS is unlikely to help those whose home and work locations are both along the Lex's service area. Those people will still take the Lex. But there are an awful lot of people who already need to take 2 trains to get to work. Some of them will now be able to take 1 train, or (more commonly) will have a shorter walk at one end or the other. Providing a 1-seat ride for everybody has never been a realistic objective.
Andrew offers several solutions to the problems he perceives. An lot of what he says is based on the presumption that the SAS doesn't go to Grand Central. But the connection to GC shown on the MTA's map (albeit "under evaluation") should address this issue. (Contrary to what he said, the GC spur of the SAS that the RPA suggested was evaluated, and found not to be worthwhile. You could legitimately question this finding, but it was certainly considered.)
Two of his suggestions involve adding express service to the SAS proposal. I remain positively convinced that this is a shibboleth. Expresses actually save very little time. Here is an illustration. The #4/5 train takes 19 minutes to travel from 125th to Brooklyn Bridge, while the #6 takes 28 minutes. So the express saves you only nine minutes. Bear in mind that the express makes 14 fewer stops than the local, but times the express is held up at cross-platform transfer points.
Now bear in mind that: (1) the SAS's stations are generally farther spaced than the Lex local; (2) SAS trains won't be held up by cross-platform transfers; (3) the SAS won't be slowed by other factors peculiar to the Lex, such as the gap-fillers at 14th St. For all of these reasons, no one with an ounce of sense will choose the Lex solely because it is an express. They will choose a travel route because it goes where they are going, or for the connections it makes.
Now bear in mind that: (1) the SAS's stations are generally farther spaced than the Lex local; (2) SAS trains won't be held up by cross-platform transfers; (3) the SAS won't be slowed by other factors peculiar to the Lex, such as the gap-fillers at 14th St."
I agree with you about the obsession with expresses. There is another factor. The SAS will be modern, newly designed line with a modern signalling system from day 1. Its trains will therefore go faster than locals on old lines dating from almost a hundred years ago that have been modernised only piecemeal, and in many cases recently slowed down by timers, etc.
You have no data to support that. In fact, the line spacing on the proposed SAS supplies a lot of evidence to show that the missing express service won't make much difference at all.
In fact, you could argue that the SAS, as currently designed, is almost an express line by itself. What are missing from it are the local stops. The express stops are already there.
Skip-stop also assumes that very few passengers will be traveling between "A" stops and "B" stops. That assumption is not valid on the SAS.
It's a limitation, to be sure.
And you don't see that as a potential problem?
It is a potential concern. But on the other hand, the typical SAS station is 3-4 blocks long. For instance, as presently designed the 86th St station spans from 86th to 83rd, while the 72nd St station spans from 73rd to 69th. Hence, anyone living or working in the service area of these stations has no more than five N-S blocks to walk. Of course, they may also have an E-W walk, but given the long distance from 2nd to Lex (and the even longer walk from 1st and points farther east), the walk to the SAS station will still be more attractive for most of these commuters—assuming the SAS goes where they're going, or offers a reasonable connection.
There is only one station pair whose entrances are more than 10 blocks apart, and that's 72nd (southern entrance at 69th) and 57th (northern entrance at 57th), a distance of 12 blocks. This is obviously a design compromise, to put the southern end of the 57th St station as close as possible to the 53rd St line, for connections to the E, V, and 6 trains.
I don't think so, in fact, if you implemented a skip/stop system much like on the J/Z line would further help speed up service. Why other lines don't use skip/stop systems is a mystery to me.
Skip-stop makes sense where the stations are rather close together, and where the all-stop stations have much higher ridership than the skipped stations. Passengers who use the all-stop stations get slightly faster service, but passengers at the skipped stations have to wait twice as long for their trains. I don't think the necessary conditions exist on the SAS for this to work. The only line that I can conceivably imagine skip-stop being helpful, that doesn't already have it, is the L (but even this would be controversial!).
What's controversial about it? Most L passengers are getting on at 6 Av, Union Sq, Lorimer, Myrtle, & Bway Jct. And since the L runs every 4 minutes during peak hours, passengers at skipped stations would still have an 8 minute headway (which is better than J/Z skipped stations) while the express stops would have slightly less crowded trains at still 4 minute headways and a slightly faster commute. Grand, Grahm, Montrose, Morgan, Jefferson, DeKalb, Halsey, Wilson, Bushwick/Aberdeen, Atlantic, and Sutter could all be skipped at an approx. 3-5 minute savings, also 1 Av/Bedford if possible (I don't know if regulations allow skipping of East River tunnel end stations).
?? How does skip-stop make the trains less crowded? All the passengers at the skipped stations would still be getting on to trains, so the aggregate number of people on all of the trains would remain the same (unless some of the passengers at the skipped stations get so fed up with the infrequent service that they give up using the trains altogether!).
Since when has NYCT run 792' to 1056' trains? Really the stations will be about 2¼ blocks long like any other station, but with some bloody long passageways.
I assume the escalators will head away from the station in each direction. Since the subway will be deep, that allows entrances at (say) 86th and 83rd without any extra passageways.
I agree, 4 blocks would require horizontal passageways.
Someone going from (e.g.) 69th to 86th, or 73rd to 83rd, still has to walk those 3-4 blocks -- the front of the train will stop at the front end of both stations and the back of the train will stop at the back end of both stations. Granted, the walk is in relatively climate-controlled conditions and can be done while waiting for the train (or even while on the train, if it's not crowded and the doors between cars are unlocked), but it's still a walk.
(I do find it particularly strange that no station entrance will be within a quarter mile of the popular M79 crosstown bus.)
Skip-stop makes sense where the stations are rather close together, and where the all-stop stations have much higher ridership than the skipped stations. Passengers who use the all-stop stations get slightly faster service, but passengers at the skipped stations have to wait twice as long for their trains. I don't think the necessary conditions exist on the SAS for this to work. The only line that I can conceivably imagine skip-stop being helpful, that doesn't already have it, is the L (but even this would be controversial!).
Another important criterion is heavier ridership from the end of the line than from intermediate points. Even if those intermediate points are all-stop, their passengers won't gain much from the remaining skip-stop.
This is why skip-stop on the 1/9 doesn't work. I think this predates your arrival here, but I analyzed NYCT's fare registration counts and train schedules and reached the conclusion that, even skewing all the data in favor of skip-stop (for instance, the schedule shows a time saving of 0-2 minutes per train; I assumed 2 minutes per train), and counting time spent waiting for a train as no worse than time spent riding on a train (many would argue that the wait time should be multiplied by a coefficient greater than 1), the average affected passenger would have a shorter trip without skip-stop than with.
This is also why I don't think skip-stop on the L would work. I haven't analyzed the numbers, but I do know that ridership is much higher north of Broadway Junction than south. The variant of skip-stop that makes the most sense on the L (and the 1/9) has some trains skipping the stops approaching the end of the line -- i.e., short-turning.
What might work would be:
(L)
Trains at 00, 06, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42, 48 and 54 mins past hour:
8th Av, 6th Av, Union Sq, 3rd Av, 1st Av, Bedford Av, Lorimer, Graham Av, Grand, Montrose Av, Morgan Av, Jefferson, De Kalb Av, Myrtle Av.
<L>
Trains at 04, 10, 16, 22, 28, 34, 40, 46, 52 and 58 mins past hour:
8th Av, 6th Av, Union Sq, 3rd Av, 1st Av, Myrtle Av, Halsey, Wilson Av, Bushwick/Aberdeen, Bway Jn, Atlantic Av, Sutter Av, Livonia Av, New Lots Av, E105, Canarsie.
Two problems:
1. The < L > train would only be able to gain 2 minutes over a true local. (It should also stop at Lorimer since there is the G train there.)
2. An (L) train at Myrtle couldn't linger for even a few extra seconds to be emptied out because the < L > would be right on its tail.
It could be considered the successor to the successive Manhattan rail transit design philosophies. Street running trolleys stopping approx. every 2 blocks, fully crossing segregated 2 track els, stopping every 4 to 5 blocks, enlarged to 3 tracks with express stops approx. every 15 - 20 blocks, el-class trains running in 2 and 4 track tunnels, following the station spacing design of the els, larger IND class trains on local/express underground r.o.w.s designed for longer stretches of fast through service, with longer distances between the local stations. Finally, with the experience gained from the IND (and of course, BMT) lines, an two track underground line designed to incorporate modern signal and guidance technologies, allowing for generally faster train dispatching and movements, having a station spacing sufficient to make full use of the infrastructure.
Not that I would object to a multitrack line! Hell, it's New York City! Make it a six track line with multiple express running strategies such as expresses skip stopping express stations, and non-stop terminal to terminal super duper express runs. And locals tuning into expresses, then local, then express. Well anyway....
Yes, but this type of commuter was never part of the target population for the SAS. I agree: if you've already got a seat on the #4, and you're headed to the Financial District, you're going to stay on the #4. A Bronx commuter arriving at 125/Lex will transfer to the SAS only if the SAS gets them considerably closer to work than the Lex does. But those are not the only commuters—or even the main ones—for whom the line is intended.
That would benefit no one, except maybe the Bronx riders who would find it amusing to string you up on a lamppost and use you for a pinata at their next party.
very funny, anyone who would think of a suggestion deserves to be tied to a set of tracks on the Dyre Line waiting slowly for their painful exit from this pitiful existance.
Also 3 Av would have a dedicated bus line like the Bx12! Plus what is so bad about making 3 Av two way, it is WIDE, plus it is two way below 23rd Street, also Park Avenue and Park Avenue South(4th Avenue) above 17th Street are two way as well. 3rd Avenue is 2 way through out most of the Bronx and it also has heavy traffic (has 3 different bus routes most of the day between 149th and 163rd Streets) and the hub is a major business district in Da Bronx
plus the SAS won't be ready for at least another 20 years with the way things are going
Traffic tie ups are a serious problem below 23rd even though volume is lower than further up.
1. Park Av South will start at 23rd Street or 28th Street, 4th Avenue will return north of Union Square. this will show people where 4th Avenue really should be(Park instead of Madison or Lexington), plus it will match the FOURTH AVENUE engraving on the walls at the corner of 4th Avenue(aka Park Av South) and 23rd Street
2. 3rd Av will continue to be 2 way, would improve traffic flow and get more cars off Lexington Avenue
1st and 2nd Avenues will continue to be 1 way streets(at least until the 2nd Avenue line is built)
Click here for the link
Anyway most of the things you are saying is just way off IMO. Another line on the east side besides the Lex would be useful and plus the South St Seaport would have DIRECT subway access so you don't have to walk from Broadway Nassau, in which a connection should be placed at, if it wasn't proposed already.
Here's my hypothesis: THE SECOND AVENUE LINE IS POTENTAILLY IMPOTENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THOSE USING THE LEXINGTON AVENUE LINE BECAUSE IT OFFERS 1) SLOWER SERVICE TO 2) LESS DESIRABLE DESTINATIONS ALONG ITS ENTIRE LENGTH, COMPLETELY BYPASSING GRAND CENTRAL, TIMES SQUARE, and PENN STATION.
I think this hypothesis is wrong and just ignorant if you ask me. How would the SAS go through less desirable areas hello 2 Av doesn't run to Grand Central :-\. Depending on how much tracks it is built with can make a difference as well. However your plan of a spur at 42 St wouldn't be such a bad idea but then you would have to modify the TS shuttle and build 42 St/2 Av as a three track, double island station.
An uptown example: Someone lives at 86th and 1st avenue. They need to get to Grand Central. They could walk 1 avenue and take the 2nd avenue line 3 stops to 2nd avenue and 42nd street, at which point they would have to walk from 2nd avenue to Park Avenue. Wether it's an underground connection or above ground doesn't matter. It's still a significant walk. Or they could do all their walking on 86th street, (having to walk a little shorter distance overall to Lex, rather than to Park), and take the Lex Express 2 stops right into Grand Central. Where is the major benefit of taking 2nd avenue?
They could take the M86 that's why there is a crosstown bus. The major benefit of the SAS is that:
a)relieves crowding on the M15
b)It would probably be faster than the Lex since stations would be spaced out on a 10 block average
c)Gives riders a option other than the Lexington line, which is nursting at the seams
Another uptown example: Someone lives at 77th and 1st avenue. They could walk up to 86th (9 blocks) or down to 72nd (5 blocks), and then over to 2nd (1 avenue) and get the T train, or they would walk straigt across 77th, as they do now, to Lex (2.5 avenues) and get the 6 train. The walks are almost the same to 72nd on 2nd ave, and 77th on Lex. Meanwhile, only the 6 actually takes the person to Grand Central, or to the Shuttle to everywhere else. So...if I lived there, I would almost always still take the 6.
Ok you have the M79 TWO blocks away and plus the distance isn't as far from 1 to 2 Av as 7 to 8 Av is. If you know your buses as well they can just take the SAS train to 42 St then take the crosstown bus to GCT.
Actually, I have given exactly that question some thought. The answer is yes, sometimes. Somewhere between 5% and 10% of my NYCT trips would be on the SAS. For my wife it would probably be between 10 and 15%.
Admittedly, we live near 2nd Ave. But we also live near Union Square, which is the most concentrated source of subway trains to different places in all of NYC.* So the competition is considerable.
* For quibblers, Times Square gets you to more places if you count in 8th Ave as part of Times Square. But Union Square is a much more compact station complex than Times Square.
1) Connect to the E at 53rd street for Penn Station access.
2) Either extend the 42nd street subway to second avenue below the 42nd avenue subway for easy connection or create a new station on the 7 line at second avenue.
Meaning that Bronx-bound trains are likely to add riders from 2nd v trains in the evening rush, and to have higher ridership in the morning rush going down to 125 St from the Bronx.
This is likely. There are a number of options to mitigate this. First, the new 125 St station will be a modern efficient design, and MTA may be persuaded to make further improvements to the existing IRT station. I encourage you to write to MTA and your elected officials to advocate for this.
Other possibilities: extending the train across 125 St to merge with the D line, offering Bronx bound riders a way up north without a transfer.
Also, the line will have a tunnel section facing north which can be extended across the Harlem River.
So you see it's not hopeless. :0)
1. The already-built bellmouths at 63rd St would allow 2nd Ave trains run to 42nd St via Broadway.
2. The Sixth Ave line doens't run thru any of the three important places you mention, so is that line useless? Besides, I think that NYC has more than just three important places.
3. Of course the Lex goes thru the most important places. It was the first subway, so they could build wherever they wanted. So naturally they picked the important places
4. It sounds like you want 2nd Ave to go to all the places the Lex goes. NEW lines are supposed to go to NEW places.
- Brooklyn to hospitals or 3rd Ave midtown, change at Grand, Houston, or 14th.
- Upper east side to west midtown, change at TSQ if necessary.
- E 72nd to almost anywhere, since the Lex doesn't have a stop there.
- UES to downtown east.
- UES to downtown west with a cross-platform change at Lex/63rd if the F is rerouted to go downtown, or else transfer to the E at 53rd.
- East Village to almost anywhere; cut
- East Village to hospitals or 3rd Ave offices.
- Chatham Square area to anywhere on east side without change, to 6th Ave with change at Grand.
- UES to Madison/5th/6th in midtown with cross-platform change at Lex/63rd.
- UWS to UES with a change at TSQ. Faster and more pleasant than the crosstown bus, or 2 IRTs plus shuttle, all the more so if going between different latitudes.
- Queens Blvd line to GCT east area, hospitals, east downtown (not in the service plans but the tracks will allow it and I think they'll discover the demand).
I have been convinced by a few well made arguements that the Q train is quite a worthy line for the expense, linking Times Square (and therefore the easy connections between the 1, 2, 3, 9, 7, and S trains/pain in the butt A, C, E trains) and the Upper East Side. I feel that this will have a very good siphoning effect on the Shuttle Train and on the Upper Lex line.
So, the "Q" satisfies my hypothesis. It comes from somewhere (Broadway, Union Sq., Times Sq., Midtown Crosstown stations) and goes somewhere (Upper East Side, with better walking distances to most residences along its length). I am actually suprised that I have come to the same conclusion that the MTA came to when they dismissed the lower portion of the SAS. I NEVER thought that would happen, as I was one of the strong advocates (at least amongst my friends) of a full length line.
The "T" on the other hand... still gives me trouble. Without a Brooklyn, or a Grand Central connection (of reasonable difficulty, which rules out any walk from Park to 2nd above or under ground) it seems to fail my test. Almost all of the stations that are proposed are at the location of current stations, especailly where new stations are needed most. It is not a good express to downtown, and it doesn't really create enough new stops to be a good local.
So... how do we fix the lower half of the SAS to service the Lower East Side in such a way that it gets lower east siders more conveniently to their destinations.
For example... it's not much of an improvement, if the SAS stops at Houston Street right where the F train already has a station. This brings nobody closer to the subway. It does give people another North-South option once they walk to that station, but that's not what the expense of building a new subway line was supposed to be. It is supposed to (so I've heard) service UNDERSERVICED AREAS of the LES in which there are currently no stations within walking distance. But perhaps a subway line through the Lower East Side is not the Answer. Perhaps an underground, at grade, or above grade trolley system, with a major terminal at Union Square at the north and Broadway-Nassau-Fulton-WTC at the south, with something like three branches in between serving 2nd av, Av A. and Av. C? It would create a net, of sorts, blanketing the LES in transit stations designed to get them around the LES, and to connect them to Subway Hubs for service elsewhere in the city.
Here's why the SAS does not accomplish what this above example does:
1) The SAS would create North-South ONLY rapid transit along the 2nd avenue corridor. This is a problem because:
a) 2nd avenue is still very far from many areas of the LES.
b) People on 2nd avenue, more often than not, when traveling, want to go to areas of the city not along the 2nd avenue corridor.
this is exacerbated by:
2) The SAS does not have any East-West service options that do not already exist.
In other words, A person on Houston and A is completely unaffected by the SAS for travel to anywhere other than the 2nd avenue corridor, which, I would assume, is a small percentage of trips made to and from the Lower East Side.
A person, on the other hand, living at 1 Confucious Plaza, will get a station closer to their building than any other in the system (Chatam Square). But their main use for it would be, as it was said in an earlier post, to use it as a one station shuttle to get to the Grand St. connection to get off of the 2nd avenue corridor in either direction.
But... again... the cost benefit analysis... is the expense of the full length line, as opposed to the upper SAS and some lighter transportation alternatives in the LES, worth it for the few people who will actually get a station closer to them, in order to connect to existing lines 1 or 2 stops away? Remember... any station that is on the site of a transfer does not qualify as being "closer" to anybody.
Well, there's my new question. Sell me on it. Sell each other on it. And please... be civil. This is exciting. It's enraging. It's engaging! Take it out on the planning, not on the poster. And if you must respond to THIS paragraph, please do so in a separate sub-thread?
Should the SAS below 63rd street be more express to siphon people off the Lex as a fast way to get downtown from midtown? Or should it be more local, as a way to better address the local population? If there were ever a need for a 4-track line, I believe it is on 2nd avenue below 42nd street, with the express terminating at Grand Central and the local continuing up the East Side. Am I alone in this sentiment?
-Andrew
Well you are entitled to form your own opinions. You can even change them. Note, however, that MTA did NOT dismiss the full length SAS. In fact, they are now preparing to build it, albeit in stages.
MTA rarely "dismisses"anything - they do the best they can to please the Governor, the legislature and the public. If eveybody tells them to build a line and gives them the money, they do it.
"The "T" on the other hand... still gives me trouble. Without a Brooklyn, or a Grand Central connection (of reasonable difficulty, which rules out any walk from Park to 2nd above or under ground) it seems to fail my test."
There are already long transfers that are heavily used, and the transfers you're talking about can easily be handled with a moving sidewalk. Ever been to an airport with a long haul between gates (try DFW, PHL, MIA,). So the problem is, your test is faulty, not the connections.
"Almost all of the stations that are proposed are at the location of current stations, especailly where new stations are needed most."
Your statement actually implies they are correctly sited. I agree, which is why I support the full-length line. In fact, many stations on existing lines open to the same numbered street level.
"For example... it's not much of an improvement, if the SAS stops at Houston Street right where the F train already has a station. This brings nobody closer to the subway. It does give people another North-South option once they walk to that station, but that's not what the expense of building a new subway line was supposed to be."
How about...people transferring from Brooklyn onto SAS? Did you ignore that?
"But perhaps a subway line through the Lower East Side is not the Answer. Perhaps an underground, at grade, or above grade trolley system, with a major terminal at Union Square at the north and Broadway-Nassau-Fulton-WTC at the south, with something like three branches in between serving 2nd av, Av A. and Av. C? It would create a net, of sorts, blanketing the LES in transit stations designed to get them around the LES, and to connect them to Subway Hubs for service elsewhere in the city."
MTA considered something similar (read the SDEIS instead of posting first without knowing your subject). It was rejected. A trolley in Manhattan is not practical, and it's politically not possible to support it.
Here's why the SAS does not accomplish what this above example does:
1) The SAS would create North-South ONLY rapid transit along the 2nd avenue corridor. This is a problem because:
"a) 2nd avenue is still very far from many areas of the LES."
It's a lot closer than Park Avenue, and First Av is, engineering-wise, difficult for a north-south line placement..
"b) People on 2nd avenue, more often than not, when traveling, want to go to areas of the city not along the 2nd avenue corridor."
Really? Like the same places they'd get to on the sardine cans we call the Lex, where SAS gives them a real alternative??
"But... again... the cost benefit analysis..."
You haven't performed one, and you haven't consulted MTA's analysis either. You don't know anything about the ridership, you don't know anything about the transfer demand, and you don't know anything about travel times.
"Well, there's my new question. Sell me on it."
What I'm trying, withut success, to sell you on is the need to read and research your subject before you post, so what you post actually makes sense.
I do however get a sense of deja vu all over again. See A Defense of the second Ave Stubway.
But since making that post, I have come to realize that a full SAS will serve a lot of people better than they are served now. To recap, here are some examples:
- Anyone going from anywhere east of the Lex line to anywhere else east of the Lex line.
- Anyone going from Brooklyn or the east half of the Bronx to the hospitals, the UN, or the other employers who are well east of the Lex.
- 4/5 riders from the Bronx who would otherwise have to transfer to a 6 for jobs on 3rd Ave.
I also believe that once the whole line is done the MTA will realize that a significant number of people from Queens Blvd would like to go to points along the SAS, and it's worth peeling off 6 or 12 trains of 50 from their current routes and sending them down 2nd Ave.
Just to embellish a bit on what Ron and AIM wrote....
Without a Brooklyn, or a Grand Central connection (of reasonable difficulty, which rules out any walk from Park to 2nd above or under ground) it seems to fail my test.
A number of lines in the subway system were built without a Brooklyn connection initially ... like the whole IRT. But the SAS will have transfers for riders coming in on the B, D, F, or L. Those who work closer to 2nd Ave (or Water St) than they do to Lexington Ave will transfer to the uptown or downtown SAS.
An underground moving sidewalk connection at Grand Central will be just fine for people who are going to locations on, or east of, the SAS's alignment. I mean, nowhere else in town can you find a moving sidewalk from Lexington to 2nd. So, if you need to head east, the moving sidewalk will be better than any other option you have today.
Almost all of the stations that are proposed are at the location of current stations, especially where new stations are needed most.
On the Lower East Side, that's true (the only new station is at Chatham Square). Indeed, I think the most reasonable opposition to the SDEIS design is that it doesn't do enough for the Lower East Side. Some LES people argued that the line should curve further east, which would have been better for the residents there, but then you wouldn't get the connections at Grand St and Houston St that help Brooklyn commuters. It's a trade-off.
It is not a good express to downtown, and it doesn't really create enough new stops to be a good local.
The first half of the statement I don't understand. Look at the MTA timetables for existing lines, and add up the time difference between a local and an express—even on lines where the stations are much more closely spaced than on the SAS. It just isn't that big of a difference.
As far as it being a good local, the station-station gaps are generally reasonable by IND standards. It appears that the gap from the southern portal of one station, to the northern portal of the next station, is 5 blocks or less everywhere along the line except between 72nd and 57th.
Should the SAS below 63rd street be more express to siphon people off the Lex as a fast way to get downtown from midtown? Or should it be more local, as a way to better address the local population?
The stations are generally as close together as IND locals, and as I said the time difference between express and local trains isn't as much as most people think. If the SAS takes you where you're going, the time "lost" because it isn't an true express will be less than the time you'd lose walking the longer distance between Lex and the far east side.
The far east side is very built-up, and the SAS will take a lot of people where they're going. Of course it won't be for everybody, but no line is.
If I have any doubts about the design, it's over the station-station gaps between 86-72, 72-57, and 57-42. These gaps are, perhaps, a bit longer than they should be.
Where does such a stupid argument come from?
Peace,
ANDEE
--Mark
...forever slowing down trains on the rest of the system :(
True, but even more sadly, robbing the T/Os family of their dad.
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
World's wildest railfan videos?
8-) ~ Sparky
Bill "Newkirk"
Add booze, and people will do things that they would even think about doing regularly.
"Instant Asshole, Just Add Alcohol..."
That brings to mind about an incident in Penn Station a decade or so ago. This guy, stewed to the gills climbed between the cars and up to the roof of a parked train. You guessed it.....ZZZAP !..... he grabbed the catenary wire. End of story, end of life.
Bill "Newkirk"
He was attending a party in a private car that was spotted in the station.
Elias
A Darwin Award is less meaningful with a female than with a male due to the female's much lower lifetime reproductive capacity. At most, she would be able to pass on her moron genes to perhaps 20 progeny in a reproductive lifetime; with the male, in contrast, the number could be in the hundreds or above.
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
Let's give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she was a knockout...:0)
It did say: "HOQUIAM, Wash. (AP) -- A Hoquiam woman was cited for assault, trespassing and resisting arrest after she was discovered..." which, the last time I looked was NOT in NYC.
Besides, haven't you ever gone skinny dipping at Riis Park!
: ) Elias
Peace,
ANDEE
Teens surfing on top of subway cars, others riding on the door sills and now a topless chick climbs to the top of a train.
Doesn't anybody ride INSIDE trains anymore ?
Bill "Newkirk"
Peace,
ANDEE
Are the MEM's working? They don't take cash to begin with.
-Stef
Now that it's been in the paper, let's see if it gets replaced. I'm sure they can take a few working units out of GCT. :)
I find that to be untrue. I have used only MVMs/MEMs since they were introduced and only had ONE problem.
Peace,
ANDEE
30 secounds or less with a credit card and no back talk or dirty looks when you are in a rush because your train is coming. Many station agents seem to take pride in taking theier time.
Hey stef, doesent being in a tooken booth fel lie solitary confinement especially in station which are not busy??
This probably explains many S/A poor attitude. All day to think about nothing. Shoot me now.
I'd love to work a booth during PM rush hour in Manhattan where I'd do nothing all day. That hasn't happened yet.
Who takes their time? I wish I could. We've been down this road already. I will not be rushed by anyone because they have to catch a train. If you're in a rush, plan ahead and leave early. When I make a mistake with the money, you're not going to give it back to me.
>>Hey stef, doesent being in a tooken booth fel lie solitary confinement
Solitary confinement: There are three people that keep me company all the time: me, myself, and I. Supv. comes to keep me company, the CTA, etc. I'll see them during the course of my tour. When I'm busy, I rather not have anyone in the booth. I really don't mind. Of course, not everyone is cut out for this job.
>>This probably explains many S/A poor attitude. All day to think about nothing.
When you're busy, you don't have time to think.
>>Shoot me now
I'm afraid that won't change your attitude.
-Stef
I sometimes wish these machines were handled better by the maintainers...
-Stef
-Stef
The more problems with MVM's the more local retailers willstock metrocards and people willl learn to buy thier fare in advance just like people make sure they have money in there pockets
Tring to find an ATM with money in it on a friday night can be difficult sometimes. If you are unprepared you get stucks PERIOD
I have been saying tit for months, If the MTA wants it's fare sales automation program to be a success they need to exceed the publics expectations of machine time availability. They also should post a sign tell riders where their nearest Metrocard retail store is and produce some sort of in store display
And as long as you proved out, downtown wouldn't say a WORD.
I agree that it's harder now than then. But I've heard that booths then were robbed alot more then than now.
Very simple way to solve brooken MVM issues
Have your fare in advance and it is not a problem to you
But as to the machines, you'd spot the problem, give it your best guess as to what module or part failed, change same and write it up and move on. Sometimes the guess was wrong, or there were more things involved than first appeared. Since you folks do the "wipey-wipey" thing, could be flaky power supplies, loose connections and other things that won't act up at the time the droid is in the box. "Murphy's law of selective gravitation" applies. :)
Being the smartass that I am though, maybe they shouldn't have tried to wean the system off them brass coins so quickly if the machines weren't ready to take up that extra slack. :(
In other words, he's not at all familiar with the subject of his story.
Robert
Especially if it's going into a state legislator's pocket ;^)
Ain't it SOMETHING though how our republicans are cramming it sideways in everybody's posterior? Given the landslide, the voters are getting EXACTLY what they DESERVE. Bend over, here comes old one eye.
And there are banks that offer free checking with no minimums and no hidden fees.
Not true. There are some people whose religious beliefs do not permit them to have any form of bank account, credit account, etc. Also, many banks will not issue one to someone under the age of 18, even if a parent guarantees payment.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Meh. It's their own choice.
Also, many banks will not issue one to someone under the age of 18, even if a parent guarantees payment.
I forgot about that one! My bad.
Peace,
ANDEE
Since I always use my credit card at the machines, I prefer the less cumbersome and seemingly more reliable MEM's. I'll use the MVM's if there are no MEM's or if I'm in search of a new special edition card (the MVM's are presumably restocked more frequently), but that's about it.
I am no fan of the TA, but in this instance I was impressed.
Peace,
ANDEE
-Stef
Beakies with large packages and strollers, no doubt.
But for the able-bodied and creditless, is it really so terrible to have to cross the street? "People are missing their trains?" So you have to wait a couple of minutes; Lenox Avenue isn't Greenport, where you have to get a hotel room if you miss a train.
Peace,
ANDEE
Real security needs to be installed
-Stef
Station agents are not needed to sell fares, but there is a need to have a certain level of increased security in subway stations. Especially in this era of increase potential for terrorism
Hire more police officers or MTA security/support officer(new S/A tittle) to assist police officers. The new security officer could even be trained peace officers and carry guns if need be.
The new position would utizize centrally monitored CCTV camera's and patrols to get a leg up on possible crime or terroism,
The new proceedures would cost less becasuse many stations such as 34th street and 14th street already have dedicated police presense most of the day therefore would no need for duplicate postions.
All stations would have CCTV cameras, call boxes and microphones in all fare control areas to allow access through the swing gate. Fare control without access would have a sign clearly stating no gate outside of the station
The aproach and staffing would be dictated by the location, time of day and percieved safety of the station. Overnights for example, the security personel may take up residence in a booth near the main fare control. On the weekend the person may be on the platform assiting passengers concerning a GO
MVM availablity needs to be improved. Searvice level agreements need to put in place to require a max time any machine could be down for say out of change etc. MVM availablity signs at all station entrances alerting passengers of what features at an MVM is not available
Automated phone and Internet refills of metrocards by credit card, devit card, or ARC-automatic bank account deduction. Riders would simply enter their cards serial number and the amount they want.
Improved third party metrocard reseller network. Allow third party vendors to encode cards as S/A now do. this would reduce the high inventory costs that exist in the current system. Currently most resellers only carry one denomination of card due to the high upcost. Improved in store display of metrocard so that riders can quickly see what the retailer has available. Poster in station or at station entracnes notifying where the nearest third party reseller is
Work with Transitcenter to improve the transitchek metrocard system to make it less costly to adminster. This would greatly increase the level of participation in the program.
The goal is to improve security without raising costs that will require another fare increase. It had been my goal all along
--Mark
CCTV camera's reduce the need for undercover officer and provide a deterent.
Calling station command is fine but if there is no easy way to track what station commands responce to the problem is, whats the sense of having station command in the first place.
The entire NYCT management and operational structure needs to be blown up and rebuilt from the ground up in a trackable action orineted format. A Station agent or any other employee should have a easy system to enter a trouble ticket.
The eCRM trouble ticket system then could be queried by management and check to see how issues were reponded to , how wuick was the issue resolved etc.
I organized such as system for a company two years ago to manage interactions between clients, sales, marketing and operations groups.
It ends all the he said she said crap.
"I organized such as system for a company two years ago to manage interactions between clients, sales, marketing and operations groups."
If you have a plan to make the MVM's work better, Give the TA a phone call at 718-243-4222 and talk to them about it. If you have a better idea, share it with TA.
I called that number, let it ring 25Xs, no answer. Not even a voicemail. What good is it?
Peace,
ANDEE
I recently sent in my resume. It is a natural fit, It would give me great pleasure to see the system run better
A eCRM helpdesk system would easily solve your problem of tracking. the supperintendent would be able to see the status himeself.
This is pretty basic stuff that fortune 500 companies have been using for years to keep track of things.
I still don't understand why the MVM's themselves do not report back they are having a problem. They could open the ticket themselves. No joke.
Let them institute ISO 9000 certification. That should make the system grind to a halt. :-)
The MTA is currently a sea of levels of buerocarcy with no real accounability.
The station agent calls station command, station command passes it along to the next level.
Which level droped the ball. When an investigation takes place if their is even any record of the call, the staion command says that he alerted the next level up. The next level up says he never recievd the call or passed it along to the technicians department who says they never got the request.
Who is lying? No way to know all you know is that the MVM is still not working?
We had this problem at my company. We were a small firm and grew rapidly. As we grew and hired more people many issue began to slip through the cracks becasue you can not have a supervisor stand in behind everyone plus we had offices all over the country. We bought a eCRM helpdesk software solutions and instituted SLA's(service level agreements) between departemtns and outside clients as to how quickly an issue would be adressed once reported.
The SA reports a MVM not funtioning including exactly what the problem is and what the overhead sign says - A ticket number is issues
Since it is an MVM technical problem the issue get routed to the technical repair department. Upon receipt of the ticket, the system sends and emial or automated phone call to the S/A that the issue was recieved and a tech will arrive in X period of time.
Once the tech arrives he update the ticket that he arrived and records what the problem is. He closes the tickets, all people who expressed interest are notifies of problem resolution
If he can not solve the problem, the tech updates the ticket as to what the problem is, maybe a part needs to be ordered etc.
When the part arrives, a new tech picks up the ticket and since he knows what the problem is as decribed by tech number 1, he goes out to the site and fixes the problem
At the end of the month, a business analyst pulls a report from the eCRM system and looks at the biggest problems of the months and devises way to reduce them
At my company we were able to reduce responce time, increase customer satisfaction and to reduce the number of duplicate issues by the software and process that caused the problem.
In the case of MVM's if the problem is that single ride cards tend to run out before other MVM needs to be emptied, increse the size of the single ride card holder or rebuild the machine so that single ride cards can be added without accessing the money holding areas.
If Dollar coins are running low but quarters holdeers ae full because people now buy most of there rides in even dollar increments, convert quater hopper to issue dollar coind.
eCRM systmes reduce headaches and fustration. They really work. It took a month to get everyone on board to enter a ticket rather then pick up the phone and call someone, but it made everyones life easier and made it easy to pick out the weak links in the chain that were hiding in the organization
Peace,
ANDEE
One of the other problems at my old firms were poorly written long term cotracts with some of our customers and suppliers that made these run like hell. The same VP that brought me in tackled cotract issues. One of the biggest unbreakable contract called for us to pay $10 million if we did not reach a ceertain level of sales through on the deal.
One would say to replace the entire machine if trouble shooting or repair was a failure, as in this case. Being that the machines weigh hundreds of pounds and aren't that easy to jockey up and down subway stairs, I have a solution. If the machine indeed takes the customers money and doesn't spit out a Metrocard, and this quite cronic, why not do the following.
Remove the computer, bill and coin receptor, Metrocard unit and whatever is assoicated and replace with new tested equipment. That way, the faulty equipment can be returned to the base shop and trouble shooted and find out why the MVM is taking money and not spitting out Metrocards. To have customers being robbed by an MVM that would make the Nevada Gaming Commission blush is a little embarrassing to say the least. There is no excuse to leave these MVM's as is and state that they apologize for the inconvience.
If the customers didn't get receipts, then how are they to have their money refunded for not receiving a Metrocard ? What about those people who lost some big bucks on this ? This after a fare increase, is not a confidence builder.
Bill "Newkirk"
story in Times
I seem to remember when I was a small child in the early 50's, my beloved grandmother took me and my mom on a boat ride from somewhere in Manhattan to the Rockaways.
Am I right? Or, could it have been to Coney Island?
Kevin Walsh and Forgotten-NY.com know anything about this ?
As cars became popular, the boats disappeared.
Train Operator Falls Asleep
The driver of a 170 MPH Bullet Train in Japan fell asleep for 10 minutes with 800 passengers on board. The train was on autopilot at the time and no one was hurt. The incident is the first time that a Bullet Train operator has fallen asleep while driving.
While it's DIFFICULT, it IS possible for a "dead motorman" to land in the right position to run a subway train into a wall if not tripped in time. But Japan? Aside from dishonoring the railroad, the operator wouldn't have caused a cat's-ass-trophe. JR's got a very good safety system, especially after a commuter rail incident at a major junction in Tokyo a few years back that tightened up the remaining "holes" ...
But I'll bet the "perp" ain't running trains any longer. Many of MTA's more outrageous policies and practices are distortions of a properly working system in Nihon.
Almost two decades ago I was helping the Japanese subsidiary of my company I worked for to install some industrial equipment that I'd designed. My daily routine was to travel from my downtown Tokyo hotel to the subsidiary's offices in an industrial suburb. I'd take the Mita line and look out the front window. I was surprised that there appeared to be no trippers and no dead man's switch. I mentioned my observation to some of the people I was working with. They told me my observations were correct. They also said that a few months earlier that a train had overshot a station. They added that the motorman committed suicide within a fortnight of the incident.
I have no way of verifying whether or not the story was true.
It is good to see that some people still maintain standards. :-)
Bushido, is not limited to the Japanese though. In 1996 Admiral Jeremy Michael Borrda, the first Chief of Naval Operations to go from the lowest enlisted rank to the Navy's top officer, committed suicide when told Newsweek reporters wanted to interview him about wearing an unauthorized combat "V" on two of his Vietnam ribbons for the past 20 years. The "V" for valor on such awards is reserved for acts "involving direct participation in combat operations." In a suicide note, the Admiral wrote that he thought he was authorized to wear the Vs when he started wearing them.
Tom
Whoops! Incomplete thought - I refer to NYCTA in the comment int he previous - wouldn't happen in Nihon ...
Suppose the purpose of the deception is to hide the fact that they are basically incompetent when it comes to planning and operations. The last thing the MTA would want is to be forced into building a project that would have an immediate measurable result. Therefore, if they are forced to receive dough, it would be for longterm projects whose completion would be beyond their retirement date. The other possibility is that they would invent projects that should be easy to complete - like removing existing capacity. :-)
Because politicians in all 50 states have learned to play the same game (to the extent you feel it is a game), and therefore New York has no particular advantage.
If your read the lawsuits, they sued on a technicality
The city has just did the same exact the the MTA did.
The cost reductions this year resulted in a small one time surplus vs budgeted items for which the city is putting towards next years budget
The same thing the MTA did
Both lawsuit are aimed at getting headlines. Nothing else.
And that's with three services and 27 tph on the Broadway Express. I'd imagine having two services and 20 tph, once both sides are open, will knock off a minute or two.
Cool! Sounds like a new "head on" photo location!
If you are asking if the train is fully in the station, please note that the 10 car stop marker is mounted on the new punch box pole.
I make three connections some evenings. 1/9 from Houston Street to Penn Station,* LIRR 5:23 to Long Beach, change at Jamaica for the train to Ronkonkoma, change at Ronkonkoma for the Grenport train (to Medford). It takes just over two hours. Some evenings I'll get the 5:22 from Penn to Ronkonkoma and thereby eliminate the connection at Jamaica. While the 5:22 and 5:23 leave from adjacent tracks only one minute apart, the former is much more crowded; if I don't get to the platform by 5:15 at the latest, all seats are taken and I'll go across to the platform and take the 5:23. Mornings I'll get a train from Ronkonkoma to either Penn or Flatbush, then the subway, thereby cutting out the Jamaica connection.
* = I may change from the 1/9 to the 2/3 at 14th if there's an express in the station, but I'm not counting that sort of switch as a connection.
Isn't standing permitted?
Sure. But if I get on the 5:22 too late, I'll have to stand all the way to Wyandanch or maybe Deer Park, close to an hour's ride.* By taking the 5:23 with the Jamaica change, I'll definitely have a seat all the way, quite possibly with no one sitting next to me from Mineola or Hicksville all the way to Ronkonkoma. I'll end up getting to Ronkonkoma only ten minutes or so after I would if it had taken the 5:22, and since I have to wait there for the Greenport connection it doesn't matter at all.
* = technically speaking, I could get a seat on the 5:22 even at the last minute, but it would be a middle seat on the 3-across side. In almost a decade of commuting on Metro North and now the LIRR, I have never sat in a middle seat and have no inclination whatsoever to change matters.
Ouch - not fun!
technically speaking, I could get a seat on the 5:22 even at the last minute, but it would be a middle seat on the 3-across side. In almost a decade of commuting on Metro North and now the LIRR, I have never sat in a middle seat and have no inclination whatsoever to change matters.
3+2 seating sucks! What do they think this is? A crappy aeroplane?
The A stock are really showing their age now. Having said that, the D stock is 20 years younger, and that looks pretty antique, especially the floors!
I believe somehow that older stocks like the 38s, CP/COs had better seats.
I never got to ride them :-( I wonder if there are any CO/CPs still around - if so, they should run a fan trip along the lines of Richmond to Earl's Court to Aldgate (Inner rail) to Chesham (Fast) - that would be so much fun!!!
I suppose I could always go and ride old Northern Line trains on the Isle of Wight, but really tin cans aren't my thing.
On the subject of tin cans, the interior of the current Jubilee Line trains is gruesome!
I only rode the D stock a few times. Do they have the "traditional" wooden floors? It always amazed me that they never caught fire from cigarette ends, when smoking was still allowed in the cars.
they should run a fan trip along the lines of Richmond to Earl's Court to Aldgate (Inner rail) to Chesham (Fast) - that would be so much fun!!!
Indeed. I don't know if they kept any of those in working condition. By the time I moved to London, all CO/CP stock were on the District. I know they were previously used on the Met's Uxbridge service. It would be a hell of a run, non-stop from Finchley Rd. to Harrow.
the interior of the current Jubilee Line trains is gruesome!
My last trip to London was in 93, so I have yet to ride them! I believe the Jubilee still had the ill-fated 83 stock back then.
Back to the topic of multi-seat ride. In 78, I lived in South Hampstead and my school was at Camden Town. It was not an easy commute. Here were the options.
1) Take the 31 bus from Belsize Rd. to Camden Town. The 31 stop at Camden was on the other end of the area from my school and the service infrequent and often delayed.
2) Take the NLL peak-only route (Watford Jct.-Broad St.) from So. Hampstead to Camden Rd. Even less service and Camden Rd. was even further than the 31 bus stop. I could have gotten off at Primrose Hill but that would have made the walk slightly longer. Also, they occasionally cancelled that train, with no annoucements of course. Only by the arrival of the next Euston train, I'd know it was cancelled and be late for school.
3) Take the Loo or Met from Finchley Rd. to Baker St. and take the 76(IINM) bus which stops in front of my school. Sometimes the bus would get delayed.
4) Take the Met(peak hour service, back then) to Great Portland St. and take the 53 which stops a block from my school.
5) Take the Met(peak hour service) to King's X and change to the Northern. A long detour.
6) NLL to Euston, then the Northern. There was no train that met my need. I didn't want to arrive at school too early. If I took the next, I'd be late. Thanks for the 3 tph schedule.
I found out eventually that option 4 was the most reliable in the morning.
Now, there was a real four seat ride commute when I was in Japan, going to high school but I would skip the details since no one would probably know the geography there. To make it short, it took 70-90 minutes by public transportation, while it took only 18 minutes by moped. Like most high schools in Tokyo, going to school using a moped was against the school rules. Ouch!
Why were you going to school in Japan? Try us on the geography, that's why we have Metropla.net. I was talking to a guy who lived in Japan and he was telling me about the 'urban sprawl' in Japan is hidden because there are no transit and foreginers tend not to rent a car when they go to Japan. There are huge mountainsides that have been turned into mini-sized American suburbs complete with the parking, and is very fashionable but so expensive that most foreginers could not afford it so most do not know about it.
There might be a better route than the 4-seat-ride if it is really 18 minutes by moped. Were you using the moped to bust congestion? A friend of mine that went to Osaka said that he always preferred the bus because the rail system is circuitous and sucks, whereas the bus is cheaper and faster as long as you're not travelling in the rush hour.
AEM7
Unfortunately, commuter rail is not really covered there.
Try this site.
Input "Ikuta(Kanagawa)" for departing point and "Shin-Koganei" for destination.
Pick a weekday, IIRC there are no holidays in June in Japan.
Pick a depart time. I tried 6:50, 6:55 and 7:00 and got different results.
Add to that 12 minutes walk from my former home to Ikuta station and another 12 minutes to walk from Shin-Koganei to my school.
Of the results for 6:50, route 1 and 2 were what I used for most of my freshman year. I used different routes not listed there during the rest of my high school years. Some of those included riding buses.
he was telling me about the 'urban sprawl' in Japan is hidden because there are no transit and foreigners tend not to rent a car
when they go to Japan.
The "no transit part" is mostly over. New transit/commuter lines were built for most of those so-called "New Town"s. By foreginers, do you mean tourists? Most tourists do not go to Westchester's residential areas either.
There are huge mountainsides that have been turned into mini-sized American suburbs complete with the parking, and is very fashionable but so expensive that most foreginers could not afford it so most do not know about it.
I would call them hills, instead of mountains. :-) Most residences in New Towns are owned houses or condos. So I would find it rare, if not impossible to find one for lease. Back in the late 80s, it was the American business people who lived in luxury apartments in central Tokyo that the average Japanese could never afford. Now that the economy is down the toilet bowl, many of those luxury apartments lost its tenants and its value and have since been converted to Japanese style (Japanese style bath, a room with tatami mats, de-centralized heating, etc...).
Were you using the moped to bust congestion?
The legal age for driving a car is 18 in Japan. But even if I were over 18, I'd still have used a moped to bust congestion.
A friend of mine that went to Osaka said that he always preferred the bus because the rail system is circuitous and sucks, whereas the bus is cheaper and faster as long as you're not travelling in the rush hour.
That probably depends on which area in Osaka. Generally speaking, Osaka's commuter trains are faster that the ones in Tokyo, due to harsh competitions between different companies with parallel routes.
Buses are terrible during rush.
Why were you going to school in Japan?
First of all, I am Japanese. And although my father's job sent our familly to Europe for quite a long time, he knew he would eventually be sent back to the company's headquarters in Japan, which in turn meant that I might have to go to a college there. Back in the 70s, you had to finish high school in Japan to be admitted in to a Japanese college (exceptions existed but few). So most Japanese residing outside the country for business would send their children back to Japan for high school. The situation has changed since but didn't happen in my time. What my father didn't know back then is that he would spend most of his last ten years at the company outside of Japan! In 87, he was transferred to NYC, where I joined him not much later after gladly quitting my job in Tokyo, in 89 to Paris, and he spent the first half of the 90s going back and forth London-Paris, while I remained in NYC. He is in Japan now, where he spends half of the week with my mother in Tokyo suburbs and the other half on the other side of the country for work.
Definitely the longest post I ever wrote on this board! Ouf!
As far as sleep goes, this is prime time for me - the US Eastern time zone has got to be the WORST time zone to be in as far as the rest of the world goes - so since most of the trojans and nasties originate out of China, the Middle East and Europe, this is the best time to "collect them all" before they start spreading so we can get our updates out as quickly as possible. And since we have many customers in those areas, this is the time they expect assistance.
So while everybody else is doing their "9 to 5" thing here, I'm snoozing. Makes for a strange life, but works out nicely. The commute's EASY too. And the company bar is open when I need it. :)
Selkirk, need to tap into your expertise here (no need to respond if proprietary) -- if you "collect" virii from around the net, how do you do it? Obviously, they don't always come to you first, and your customers will only catch a portion of them, so how do you ensure your customers are always protected against the ones that nobody has seen yet on your network, but obviously exists in other parts of the world? I presume there is some kind of security group where people post virus samples. But isn't that open to abuse? Or do you gain access to it only after you had achieved some "elite" status? Or do they just post "disabled" versions of the virus? Or do they post identifying bit strings only?
AEM7
What we specialize in is trojans and backdoors that thoroughly compromise systems since ordinary viruses and many worms are handled quite adequately by the major antivirus companies. The things WE do here are those things that get right past antiviruses, or worse, delete the antiviruses or otherwise go undetected. Needless to say, makes for near 24 hour workdays 7 days a week. That's why I don't get out to play like I used to when we were doing better financially and had enough people to cover it all. But what our BOClean thingy does is act as the bouncer INSIDE the front gates, nab the nasty as it starts and removes it automatically. If anyone gets past the antivirus, we're there with a Bronx-sized baseball bat and we know how to use it. :)
And to keep it on topic, if more folks bought our stuff, I'd be out on the trains a LOT more often like back when we had an economy. The need for what we do is still there, and we're still the best at what we do but alas since it costs oodles to do what we do, can't give it away for free. And since it ain't free ... well ... I guess it's cheaper to buy a new machine, get new credit cards, yada-yada.
I just checked out your website again... pretty cool. Just thought that BOclean should really be named CSXclean now...
(Yes, it's an RR joke, so it has RR content.)
AEM7
I got lucky since I moved to NYC. The longest commute I had here so far, was from 2nd Ave./Houston to 53rd St./5th Ave. on the F (now V). Two short blocks to the station, a short 15 minute ride and the office I worked at was right above the 5th Ave. station. And for the past two and a half years, I've been experiencing the shortest commute of all. From my bedroom to my home office.
But yeah, the hours are mandatory if we're to do the best job possible at what we do. And one of the things about living upstate - you have two choices. You work for Paturkey (been there, done that) or you make your OWN gig. Unless you like sheep of course. (grin)
Sure do - amazing seeing as they entered service from 1978 onwards - after the C stock was introduced!
My last trip to London was in 93, so I have yet to ride them! I believe the Jubilee still had the ill-fated 83 stock back then.
I believe many of the 83 stock are still sitting around in some yard somewhere waiting for someone to come up with an idea of what to do with them. There is talk of using them to up frequency on the Piccadilly Line from 24tph to 30tph, but I don't know how realistic this is.
5) Take the Met(peak hour service) to King's X and change to the Northern. A long detour.
The tourist option ;-) for people who find the quadrant bus maps confusing... why don't LT go for maps like the NY borough bus maps?
Probably 1980. Although they are also called D78 stock, I don't recall seeing them when I was a full time resident of London.
why don't LT go for maps like the NY borough bus maps?
I think they would still be confusing.:-P
I think they would still be confusing.:-P
Very true - the London Bus Network is a bit of a messy sprawl. Then they do little irritating things like moving the terminus of the 2 from Gt Central St where it's been since Agricola was Mayor to Baker St.
The spider diagrams have been a real help though. They neatly demonstrate that there's no point in spending hours tracing the routes on the map as there's no way of getting a bus to Waterloo anyway.
Sometimes on the return trip Green Line Lechmere cars are short-turned at Government Center, adding another "seat" to the trip.
Peace,
ANDEE
So replace that part with three or four buses :)
Yeah, I never understood that part. Why did they build the Anderson RTC on the Lowell Line rather than the Malden Line? I suppose it's because they couldn't get a site near the Malden Line that would have been able to hold 2,500 cars...
Now that I come to think of it, even if they put the thing on the Malden Line, Todd would still have a three seat ride. I like the way how WMATA interfaces with MARC at multiple points, so you could make as direct a transfer as possible. Really with the Red Line Extension to Alewife, they could have done something to interface the Lowell line with the Red Line. Or maybe not -- there's a distance of about 1 mile there that needs covered. What about just curving the Orange Line towards the Lowell Line so those two could be linked? But then, with the Green Line extension to Somerville pending, my best guess is the Green Line beyond Lechmere will eventually connect with the Lowell Line, if not using its ROW...
AEM7902
For a while my commute was:
1. 1/9 to 42nd (with optional transfer to the 2/3 at 72nd)
2. S to Grand Central
3. 6 to 33rd
4. Walk to 1st (this was pre-MetroCard, or I would have taken the bus)
For my new job, I will be driving -- because the train option looks like this:
1. 1/9 to 96th
2. 2/3 to 125th
3. Walk or bus to Park
4. Metro-North to Brewster
5. Drive to work
With hourly service, and with no off-peak (or reverse-peak) discount on monthly rail passes, it's just not worth it.
- Walk to subway
- subway to GCT
- MNRR to White Plains
- significant walk to bus stop
- bus along Westchester Ave
- significant walk to office
I owe my not being overweight to the use of mass transit.
Peter is at a major disadvantage having to schedule himself around a train (Greenport) that runs twice during every rush. Not a train you want to miss...
Twice? I wish! There is one, count 'em, one evening rush train to Greenport, leaving Ronkonkoma at 6:53. Connecting trains leave Penn at 5:22, 5:23 (via Jamaica), and 5:41. Apropos of what I've mentioned in recent threads, the nice new parking lot and TVM* at Medford, not to mention the consolidation of Fare Zones 10 and 11, isn't going to do anything to relieve the pressure at Ronkonkoma - the LIRR's stated goal with the zone consolidation - unless there is another evening train to Greenport or at least Riverhead. Otherwise there's just too much risk of missing the last train for many people.
1. Drive to Woodcrest PATCO station
2. Ride PATCO to Walter Rand TC, change to a 452 bus
3. Ride 452 (soon to be SNJLRTS) to the Camden waterfront, there I'd change to a RiverLink Ferry.
4. Ride the RiverLink ferry to Penns Landing.
5. From there ride a 21 or 42 bus down Chesnut St to Drexel.
but usually it goes like this:
1. Drive to Woodcrest PATCO station
2. Ride PATCO to 8th and Market
3. Change to a MFL train to 30st station
4. If I want get really close to a class (ie because rain, etc), I might change to a Subway surface line train here
The fastest I ever did it was 40 min door to door, which seems almost obscene, until I considered that I spend 10 minutes in the car and walking to the train from the lot, 20 min on the train, and another 10 min in Philadelphia riding the MFL to school.
Oh well, hopefully this will all end soon and I'll just have a 1 mile bike ride to school from West Philly.
LI Bus to RVC station (transfer #1)
LIRR RVC to Penn (transfer #2)
1/2/3 to Times Square (transfer #3)
S to Grand Central (transfer #4)
MNRR to Greenwich
So technically it's a 5-seat ride. When timed perfectly it is 1 hour 50 minutes, door to door. Most often, though it is 2 hours 30 minutes.
CG
Bicycle to Bedford station
7.41 train to Leicester (which since May 18 doesn't stop at Loughborough, hence the now necessary extra change at Leicester)
8.37 train to Loughborough
9.00 No. 7 bus to the University
If I go an hour earlier (as this morning) then it's only three seats since the 6.46 train from Bedford stops at Loughborough.
Going home at night:
5.10 p.m. No 7 bus from the University to Loughborough station
5.40 p.m. train Loughborough-Bedford
Cycle home -
But if the Loughborough traffic is bad and I miss the 5.40 p.m. train, I catch the 5.45, which doesn't stop at Bedford but catches up the 5.40 at Leicester, and gives me my four-seat ride again.
On the plus side, I always do get a seat on all four vehicles (the advantage of reverse commuting), and Midland Mainline has "free" tea and coffee - not really free, of course, since its fares are high.
If I go an hour earlier (as this morning) then it's only three seats since the 6.46 train from Bedford stops at Loughborough.
You'd've thought they'd've come up with regular interval timetabling by now.
and Midland Mainline has "free" tea and coffee
Wish they did that on their crappy Central Trains subsidiary!
As one of the "vehicles" is a bicycle, one would certainly hope you get a seat!
1. Walk 8 blocks to Southern State Pkwy entrance at Islip Ave.
2. Hitch a ride westbound.
3. End up at either another spot on the Pkwy further in not near a train station hence I had to continue hitching, or be left off at some kind of train station somewhere. That could mean anywhere west of Islip, like Bablylon, Freeport, Mineola, Bayside, Rosedale, Jamaica, East New York, Long Island City...hell, even the Bronx a few times. Basically, it was like I put myself inside the cannon...shot off into the yonder and hopefully landed righteously.
4. Get to Penn Station. That part was easy enough.
5. Take either NJT or PATH to Newark.
6. Take a bus (city or private) up Washington Avenue into Belleville.
7. Finally at work.
Going home once in a while I took a bus from Belleville into the P.A. Bus Terminal. Sometimes I just walked down into Newark Penn Station. And I usually made my way back to Jamaica LIRR to get back home.
I've been out here on the Island again last couple of years. Tranny on my car aint working properly so I use it as a "station car" for now. So the commute now is:
1. Drive to Islip station. Take 7:06 train to Bablylon.
2. Take N72 to Rt. 109 outside of Republic Airport. (busy little executive airport...see low flying planes plenty of times.)
3. Walk about 1/2 mile to job.
Or,
1. Drive to Central Islip station. Take 7:38 to Farmingdale.
2. Walk about mile and a half to work. Maybe 2 miles.
Sometimes I gamble on changing for the supposed 7:33 out of Bablylon that makes Amityville, connect with the S1 bus. But that bus doesn't like to wait for the train so if the 7:33 leaves a little tardy I have to wait until 8:15 for the next S1 (since they go off the "rush hour" 4 BPH after the 7:45 run, become 2 BPH.) Gets me five/ten mins. late for work. Going home is more of the same.
Ref: 6/28 & 6/29
6/28 is the IND trip. There is enough outside track to make it interesting for those not at the front window irrespective of what route they take (unless they are going north).
6/29 is the IRT trip. Probably depends on what track at Grand Central they put it on. I suspect it will be on #1, which means they are going south on the Lexington Ave line. Once you get to Brooklyn unless they go to New Lots you'll be underground the whole trip. Now will they have enough time to go up into the Bronx ? Are they going to turn the train on one of the yard loops ? Where is the lunch stop ?
Car types, visually the IND set may look very much the same throughout the whole train.
"septael.com" or "septa-el" are available and lots shorter and easier to type.
Hey is there a SEPTA fan site; a Philly-specific counterpart to this one for New York and chicago-l.org for My-town?
Philly's subway is the only HISTORIC North American one that I haven't been on.
Hey is there a SEPTA fan site; a Philly-specific counterpart to this one for New York and chicago-l.org for My-town?
Philly's subway is the only HISTORIC North American one that I haven't been on.
Hey is there a SEPTA fan site; a Philly-specific counterpart to this one for New York and chicago-l.org for My-town?
Philly's subway is the only HISTORIC North American one that I haven't been on.
Night Court: My baby the R40 slant
For some others:
-"Archie Bunker's Place", the sequel to "All in the Family", shows what appears to be an R42 on the Astoria El.
-"Mad ABout You" with Helen Hunt and Paul Reiser shows the two of them at the entrance to the Union Square complex.
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
COSBY has several shots of the Astoria el, and I think either R-32s, 68s or both. Makes sense, since it was filmed at Kaufman Studios.
The intro to the short-lived BRONX ZOO, shows a heavily graffitied Whitebird pulling into 215th Street- which is actually located in Manhattan! Obviously the producers sent the photographers from Hollywood to New York saying "The Bronx is full of els- get me a shot of an el station." And THEY probably jumped to the conclusion that a street numbered in the 200s MUST be in the Bronx. Uh-uh.
The intro to BECKER, set in the Bronx, has a heavily matted shot of what looks like a DOUBLE-DECKED el, with possibly trains passing by on both levels. You'd only find a double-decked el in the Bronx at Gun Hill/WP- and there sure wouldn't be trains on both levels. So it may have been filmed at Coney, the only OTHER logical place. How unBronx can you get?
The fourth season opening sequence to RHODA has her just missing a train (R-38?) at what looks like 57th/6th. Either in that or earlier season intros, there's a quick shot of her fumbling her way through a turnstile.
I never watched cop shows enough to notice if trains appeared in any opening title sequences.
This really belongs in Bustalk, but in the intro for first three seasons of THE ODD COUPLE (with the "On November the 13th(?), Felix Unger was asked to remove himself from his place of residence-" expository narration), a green mid-sixties GM Fishbowl is visible for a couple of seconds.
Alas, most TV shows made since the mid-nineties don't even HAVE opening title sequences anymore- they just go in 'cold', the way movies do.
My favorite on that show is the CTA train with the blinker doors that are scratched on the bottom. Nah, I don't watch too much TV.
Peace,
ANDEE
BOTH R32s and R68/R68As, whichever you prefer...
Weclome Back,Kotter- graffti-covered R32s on West End el
King of Queens-opening scene features the #7 near Shea Staduim, and at Queensboro Plaza
Queens Supreme-canceled earlier this year on CBS, has R36 and R62A 7 Trains on openng credits
-William A. Padron
[Yeah...R-10's in this message post!]
They had an R-38 RR train. I got a kick out of it as it was obviously pre-GOH.
Its title sequence featured the famous view of the el, I believe it was turning the corner to head westbound from Lake and Wabash.
Chuck Greene
Buffy season 6/7 opening has a clip in a at-first-glance convincing R-38 set.
Abandon Flushing Main Street.
No, this isn't as wacko as it sounds. Construct the new subway on a parallel alignment then connect it to the El at Shea Stadium. Alternatively, capturing the Port Washington Branch might work (although Flushing station would be a problem on that line too).
What parallel alignment? Main Street is the heart of Flushing.
Tom
You will also have to build a New Station at Parsons Boulevard and Northern Boulevard. Parsons is a two track with side platforms, and Northern is a four track two island platform station.
Beyond Northern is a two track loop under the LIRR Broadway Station so that the outbound tracks loop around to become the inbound tracks.
This will elminate Main Street as the line bottleneck. It probably needs a similar arrangement at the times square end.
Elias
For html police:http://www.nynewsday.com/entertainment/ny-p2cover3314531jun04.story
--Mark
As a postscript the next day was even better. We went to Ebbets Field to see the Giants and the Dodgers in what was then almost an annual July 4th doubleheader, and the Brooklyn guys won both games,
6-5 in extra innings, and 4-2 as Duke Snider and Gil Hodges each hit homers in the second game after Pee Wee Reese and Roy Campanella had hit them in the first game.
I seem to recall Willie Mays made a great play on a line drive hit by Bobby Morgan at Ebbets Field that year.
#3 West End Jeff
#3 West End Jeff
It is not to make the city look bad as much as it is for the PBA president to create awareness for his re-election campaign.
He has even gone as far as creating a radio ad stating "don't blame the cop"
The local city concilman have jumped on the bandwaggon for thier own personal gain
The ASPCA was calling for an increaed enforcement of Dog Licencing. Dogs who are licenced have to have all thier safety shots just like humans and are more likely to have been spayed or naughered
I believe china tried to do that
Oh no! Is that where naughahyde furniture comes from?
#3 West End Jeff
#3 West End Jeff
Asking people to "produce your papers," even if the papers are your dog's papers, for no cause reminds one of the excesses of foreign dictatorships.
thier is a good reason for checking. Unlicenced dogs often do not have thier proper shots and when abandoned by owners, thier is no way to track down who is abandoning the dogs.
We had a problem with wild dogs here in brooklyn a few years back
This is another example of police doing thier job, not ticket crazed police. In many areas in NJ or LI, this is a common occurance.
People were up in arms when Guiliani cracked down on squeegee men who intimidated people, but civil libertarians are strangely silent on having the police tightening people up for everyday behavior. In fact, more than "tightening up"--filling the city's coffers.
As for dog licencing, call the ASPCA and see how they feel about this issue.
I also suggested going through all the quality of life laws and dumping the ones that don't make any sense. grade the level of offense.
For instance if someone runs a red light it should be enforced every time
If someone spits on the the subway,the police officer should use his discretion. the person may have sucked something in the air and was chocking.
The police should look for community input. The kid who was ticketed for siting on a crate was in a known drug selling location where a shootout occured recently. A neighbor may have complained to the police
To make a long story short, commonm sense laws should be enforced concsistantly. Laws that are on the book becasue the public requested them to be their
Throw up on the subway, fine.
Spit on the subway, $50 fine!
-George Carlin
In L.A. there is a law against defecating on buses and subways, with a specific exemption is it occurs because of a medical condition. (The AARP is powerful out here.)
Tom
People were up in arms when Guiliani cracked down on squeegee men who intimidated people, but civil libertarians are strangely silent on having the police tightening people up for everyday behavior. In fact, more than "tightening up"--filling the city's coffers.
How do you know there really is a crackdown, and not isolated mean-spirited cops being given vast publicity?
I haven't seen any ticket blitz in my neighborhood. In the early Giuliani era, there was a heavy sanitation blitz here, but not recently. In the later Giuliani era, there was a big towaway blitz (I'm in a residential neighborhood), but not now.
Basically, when it comes to the city as a whole, as opposed to our little piece of it, we all only know what we read in the papers, and we don't know how evenhanded they are. Recall all the V train articles that carefully only interviewed people at the QB express stations, and no one at the QB local stations.
The whole issue came out when the PBA president began the "don't blame the cop" radio campaign. it balloned by speculation that the city needs to raise money.
the daily news resurected a long time feature and here we go. I have suspected that the PBA president and a few of his supporters may behind some of these crazy tickets. But most of the tickets have had legitamate reasons for issuace once you heard the other side of the story from the police commish
I have a less conspiratorial theory. A small portion of cops are lazy. They are under pressure to prove they are productive in one way or the other.
Writing tickets is easier than finding and arresting criminals. And writing bad tickets is easier than writing good tickets. For example, if a cop sees someone driving recklessly, they may have to chase them to the next red light (puff, puff). And a cop on a transit beat looking for fare evaders may have to stand uncomfortably in some niche for 20 minutes waiting for a culprit.
I'm not surprised.
Why did you leave a New York sticker, expired or not, on a car validly registered elsewhere?
Because removing a registration sticker is a messy task and it simply didn't occur to me that leaving it in place could have possibly caused a problem. I don't see how an expired sticker is any worse than a nonexistent one.
I see your point, but from the cop's (or the city's) point of view, the expired NYS sticker and valid out-of-state stickers might have implied a person living in NY and trying to get out of local regulations by dishonestly registering a car elsewhere. So you effectively got a "spite" ticket.
I don't know if they're still doing it, but DC had been ticketing people with VA or MD plates when they see those cars parked overnight several times in the District. They're assuming that they're DC residents registering their cars out of state. So if you were a Virginia guy who was staying overnight with his DC girlfriend a few times too many, you got a ticket for your trouble.
Lesson: don't raise red flags if you can avoid it.
Many years ago I got a ticket for an expired inspection sticker - ONE MONTH BEFORE the expiration date on the sticker!! Needless to say I was fuming - I called Peter Vallone's office and blasted the the incompetence of the officer that issued the ticket - I said things like "use some of the money you make from these tickets to teach cops how to read"... Then I took a Polaroid pic (digital cams had not yet been invented) of the car trying to get close enough to show the punch hole on the sticker (in those days those stickers had punch holes in the month they expired)... I mailed the ticket with the pic but I got a second notice from the PVB.
Well - at that time the NY Daily News had a column called "Action Line" that helped people with similar problems. By the time I got the second notice the sticker had really expired so I arranged for the service station to carefully peel it off - I made a copy of the sticker, the ticket and the second notice and sent a letter to "Action Line" proving that the sticker was valid when the ticket was issued...
True to their billing - they got ACTION - the ticket was dismissed and I received a separate personally written LETTER of APOLOGY on Department of Transportation Letterhead.. A CC: on the letter indicated the DOT also sent a copy of the letter to the Daily News..
I enjoyed every minute of my "victory" - ;-)
Those "rare" checks aren't all that rare, at least in Nassau and Suffolk. I often see police hiding around the bend on the entrance ramps to parkways and expressways checking all vehicles. The idea seems to be that by the time one sees them, it's too late to go a different way. What has me worried is that the ink on inspection stickers seems to fade rather easily. I happened to look at the one on my father's car a few weeks ago and I really couldn't read it. A police officer looking to give someone a hard time could have a field day with faded inspection stickers.
What happens if I didn't have it on me, or her collar? I'm a law abiding citizen. Go after the crack whores and car thieves for Christ's sakes.
Wait a minute. If the law says a licence is supposed to be on the dog's collar, and you did not have one there you are not a law abiding citizen. You won't make it to the FBI's most wanted list, but you are breaking the law. Be happy they accepted the papers you had with you.
What is it with New Yorkers?? With all the reporting about the tickets given, none have been "bad" tickets in the sense that an offense was not committed. There seems to be a feeling that it alright to pick and choose which laws to obey, and bitch if the one you chose to break is the one that earns you a summons. To paraphrase a popular expression on Rikers, Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine (and for God's sake don't visit Singapore).
Tom
Technically speaking, you are correct, but as a practical manner I would say that sudden vigorous enforcement of long-ignored ordinances is a form of abuse.
Likewise, the law against having a dealer plate on your car: when I had my car serviced last week, I informed the dealership's manager of this law, and that people were getting tickets. He had no idea such a law existed, and that it's been SOP for decades to put the dealer plate on. A quick glance on any street or parking lot in this country would bear this out.
You can also be ticketed by sanitation enforcement if you don't remove your garbage can from the curb within four hours of collection. That means that you'd have to stay home from work on collection day, since the garbage is usually taken during the morning and you'd most likely be at work four hours later. The residents of our block of single-family houses learned of this law the hard way some years ago. No matter how many times we invoked the previous statement as a defense, the fines were upheld.
A similar four-hour rule applies for shoveling your sidewalk after the end of a snowfall. So if it's snowing at night, you'd better stay up and wait for it to stop- and then get out there and shovel no matter what time it is. Sabbath observance is not a valid defense. There was once a big storm Friday night into early Saturday morning. A neighborhood heavily populated by Orthodox Jews was blitzed with summonses that afternoon- long after the snow stopped, but before sundown. If you're an observant Jew, you're not allowed to perform labor- which includes shoveling snow- during the Sabbath. The judge didn't buy it, and the fines were upheld.
It's also against the law to honk your horn out of anger or impatience- hard as it is to believe. That even applies if you're double parked in and that's the only way to (hopefully) get that person to move their car so you can get out. Someone I know got a summons for THAT. You're supposed to go seek out the double parker- not honk. The fact that it's on a block full of apartment buildings- and that if you KNEW who owned the car you would go directly to that person- is completely irrelevant. (To parphrase Groucho: Irrelevant? I shot an irrelevant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I'll never know!) BTW, the double parked car did NOT get a ticket.
Getting back to dogs (and subways for that matter), a lot of people don't seem aware that you can't bring one on the subway unless it's in a carrier- witness all the dogs on leashes or in laps commonly seen on the subway. One weekend, someone boarded an uptown W train at Whitehall with a dog on a leash. The conductor announced that he wouldn't close the doors and the train wouldn't proceed until the passenger with the dog got off.
This led to much conductor, TA and male-bashing. This conductor was male; the dog owner was a young woman. ("He probably hates animals." "He probably hates women." "He probably didn't get any last night.") I pointed out that leashed dogs ARE indeed illegal on the subway, and that the conductor was doing his job, which would be in jeopardy if a cop or supervisor boarded the train down the line and found the dog on it. I was immediately shouted down as another ignorant, insensitive male who defends other ignorant, insensitive males. "That's B.S! It's legal- I see dogs on the trains ALL the time!" More's the pity.
After the conductor went in person to the passenger in question- and a long argument- she finally got off, vowing to report this horrible injustice. This delayed us a good ten minutes, and no doubt messed up the entire inbound Montague tube- (which was carrying three lines thanks to the weekend Manny B closure) and a good part of the Southern Division.
In a way, you almost can't blame people for not knowing about the law against dogs on the subway. More than once, I've seen cops pass through cars where there's someone with a dog. NEVER has the officer advised the passenger of this law; they usually just pass right by. In one instance, a pair of officers stopped to smile and pet the dog- and then move on. No "I'm sorry ma'am, but you have to keep the dog in a carrier or leave the system." CERTAINLY no ticket.
So it must be galling to be stopped on the street and asked for your dog's license- especially if you've seen dogs openly ride the subway with their owners completely unchallenged.
My problem is that there are many statutes that affect how the NYCT should conduct its operations that are ignored. I have yet to see NYCT hauled before magistrates for failure to comply.
You have some spare time. During work breaks at your job at the barcode technology co., you could prepare lawsuits aimed at forcing MTA to comply. You're in Great Neck during your work day, close to Great Neck station, right? Take a morning. Hop on a train, file the papers.
Same law in Baltimore, and the biggest violator is (drumroll) Baltimore City.
After our 28" dumper, guess where the city's plow crews shoved the snow? Right on the sidewalks of the properties on the street, which had been properly cleared.
Too bad they could't find a lawyer willing to take it to the Supreme Court. That might have been reversed on appeal.
Don't tell me they are enforcing that one. EVERY business owning in the city violates the zoning law, and the fine is $500 per day. If they want to fine every business $500 per day, they might as well project that there will be no businesses next year and adjust their tax revenue forecast accordingly.
Tens of thousands of businesses, and just about everyone working at home, violate obscure zoning laws. If the city starts fining people for those, it will really be offensive.
If this happened at Whitehall, why weren't following trains routed via the middle track?
There are reasons for such laws. Just because the police do not enfoce them the way they should does not mean it is harasement if they do.
The probable casue is no licence plaque hanging around the dogs neck
If you don't like the law, call your concilman.
guess they have nothing better to do. you know...all the crime in this city has been eradicated, eh?
Maybe some people have been bitten recently in the neighborhood, hence the stepped-up enforcement.
In that context, the well-known term "foamer" would have an altogether less pleasant meaning.
YES
Peace,
ANDEE
If the cops issued tickets to the tyrants, then wouldn't this whole problem be over?
There would probably then follow a crime surge as they rob people to put together the fine.
REALLY? Good for them!
Back in the 80's in the 73 (Brownsville) I responded to a radio run for fireworks being sold in a bodega. I went into the bodega in full uniform and asked the owner if he sells fireworks, expecting him to say no and I could leave and go to the next job. To my surprise the owner (an Arab immigrant who probably didn't know it was illegal) said, sure, what kind of fireworks are you looking for?
Cops don't seem to care at all. But make sure you don't sit on a milk crate or else..........
In my opinion, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if NYC Transit adopted a photo permit policy. Yeah, it would probably be a hassle to get one, especially for us out-of-towners. But as a long-time photographer of the Boston subway system, I'll tell you that it can be quite enjoyable to see the look on the face of an overzealous MBTA employee when they come storming over to stop you, and you respond by flashing the yellow photo permit in their face. As the credit card commercials say, that moment is 'priceless'.
Jim D.
A bad idea, not just for out of towners. With a permit procedure, the easiest and cheapest thing to do is not issue permits at all. The City of Los Angeles has a procedure for issuing CCW permits, as required by California law, but the only one granted in the past 50 years was to Willie Williams, the LAPD chief who was unable to pass the California Peace Officers exam which would have given him a right to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.
Tom
-Robert King
Which would leave us right where we are now ... with no way to legally take photographs on the property (in the eyes of NYCT employees and perhaps the police).
There's no reason to believe a permit policy in NYC wouldn't work. There's a precedent - NYC Transit must approve dozens of releases/permits every year for professional film crews. How difficult would it be to draft a simplified version of the same procedure with a 'personal use only' restriction? In Boston, the MBTA only requires a xerox copy of a driver's license or other photo identification card, and then asks you to sign a release.
JD
Since the B division is doing away with 75' cars, adjustments need to be made to re-harmonize them back into 60' format, especially in car length.
For those OPTO shuttles that require 4 75's (eg, "S" Rockaway and "A" Lefferts night shuttles), a consist 5 60's will need to take their place, unless if ridership allows only a contist of 4 60's without adverse reaction.
Another example: The G will be most likely a 5-car R-160 consist (if they are used there) or 7/8-car R-160 conists (based on the 4/6-car R-46 lengths they have/are used/using).
There is absolutely no way with such a huge order can these cars come purely in 4-car consists, because most of the B division is 10 cars. Then again, the only other possibility is married pairs OR (that would be a first), married pairs and single cars or some other mix...but the NYCTA has never ordered subway cars where the configuration is a mix without some distinguishing name (even tho the R-33/R-33WF would be close enough to qualify).
Nick
I love the IRT singles, the R36/33 WF & R62A on the 7
#3 West End Jeff
The R143s are already in 4 car consists. But I am sure they will do the proper thing in the new order or the order after it (R1??)
As to the B division doing away with 75' cars I think you are way ahead of yourself.
The R160's are to replace existing R40 and R42 cars which are 60' long. The 75' cars will be around for quiet a while.
I do believe the MTA is phasing out the 75' Cars because of the new R160s that will be arriving and also 60' Cars handle crowds better because of the doorways, a 10 Car (60') trainset has 40 Door Openings while a 8 Car (75') has 32 doorways, witch means longer loading time, but I still would like the 75' Cars to stay in the subways though, it would be kool if they had the R160 in 75' length.
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
Plus bear in mind that the intent of the R-160 is replacment. Replacement of what? The oldest cars. That would be the r-32's ( unfortunately ) through 42's. When you think of new car orders you've got to remember what's 'long in the tooth'. As of now the R-32's are 40 yrs. old; along with the soon to be 42's. They're not replacing the 75 footers because they're not old yet. When the 44's have their 40th birthday in 2014, then they can look at buying 75 footers because they'll be replacing 75 footers ( you can forget about the r-68's for a long time ). Also, as was mentioned, they need to always retain some 60 footers for the eastern division.
R-32.
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
By the way, I can get used to the 75 footers leaving, because I never cared for that awkward rhythm they made on the track. Nor do I care for their frontal overhang due to truck placement, causing their end-doors to be misaligned, causing the TA to keep them locked. So I never will miss them. As for them being phased out, I have to be skeptical.
R-32.
That reduces deployment flexibility.
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
ONLY the ENY Yard allotment and the Pitkin allotment (for the C line) will be 4-car R160s; the rest of the R160s will be 5-car sets...
In the option order, iirc, there is a slipt almost right down the middle, half 4-car sets and half 5-car sets. The option orders, that I don't know about...
Correct me if I am wrong, any one...
Incognito
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
R-32.
Michael
Washington, DC
It should be pretty interesting to see the Belmont Park station (6 or 8 tracks) get it's one day of full utilization for the year.
CG
But still, those LIRR trains WILL be crowded on that spectacular day.
Although this next thought should be on bus-talk---wonder if Jet-Away will be operating their slope-back RTS around the parking lots.
Also worth noting is that one can actually buy a ticket from any LIRR station to Belmont Park. It's just that anyone coming from the east has to go to Jamaica first and then change to a Belmont Park train from there. It would be one fun way to beat the traffic on the Cross Island Parkway though.
I may even do it myself one day just so I can say I did it (but not on Belmont Stakes day). I took a railroad trip to Monmouth Park last summer with my brother-in-law and it was rather interesting. We may do that again this year.
Hay just a thought
There are some hear who would argue that it DID happen. The car that made those trips (The Mineola) still exists, though she needs oh some much TLC to ever run again. Some were hoping that the Transit Museum might help with some cash to get her ready for the subway's 100th birthday, but it doesn't look like they have much money to do any new restoration work :-(
It's going to catch up to the next lumbering A train and tail behind it all the way to Howard Beach.
Even on the express tracks? I think if you cut down A express service through Brooklyn (not a popular option with locals I assume), it would certainly help the JFK get through to midtown manhattan, say 42nd street.
Your solution would not be implemented because Brooklynites would call the MTA to make sure it wasn't.
I don't think that any change in service patterns can make the A more efficient, without canibalizing other service areas, which the MTA won't (and, IMO, shouldn't) do. That's why other options are being considered—such as the super-shuttle, the J express, the Ashland connection, a new East River tunnel and so forth.
The JFK Express already failed once, and there's probably no good reason to think it could be successfully revived.
I wish we could run the trains at a higher average speed.
(I don't think that any change in service patterns can make the A more efficient.)
1. Make Nostrand and Utica local stops. Add more C trains. The Fulton Street C is already just about the fastest local train out there. Make it come more often and it would be a fair deal for those who do not have far to go.
2. Eliminate the Lefferts Branch, instead providing signal priority for buses going into a track level bus terminal at Rockway Blvd, where all A trains would stop. The additional A trains would terminate at Howard Beach -- service to the airport every 10 minutes all the time.
Maybe. It would require more trains and more cost to achieve the same result, but you'd save the capital cost of the new bus terminal and traffic signal modifications.
But I wouldn't be so sure that people in that neighborhood wouldn't mind losing the El. Most end up taking the bus to the train anyway, and as it is at Lefferts you only get 1/3 the trains while at Rockaway Parkway you could get them all, cutting the wait.
How many more trains would it take to extend the C anyway? Maybe the best move would be to run the C to Lefferts and all As to the airport during non-rush hours, when the trains are available and A service to the airport would otherwise be infrequent.
Now you begin to see the light!
0 additional rolling stock, since rush hour patterns remain the same. Just some slight added operational expense off-peak.
OK I agree. When the Airtrain opens, the C should run to Lefferts during non-rush hours and the additional As should terminate south of Howard Beach. The service should be marketed as service to the airport with a minimum of X trains per hour all day.
It would be nice except for the cost. Lots of extra money for minimal rider benefit. There just aren't many Rock Park riders except in rush hour.
IIRC the Rock Park shuttle is OPTO, so it's pretty cheap to run. Also, HB to Broad Channel is quite a distance (12 minutes?).
Howard Beach station is now called JFK (in big letters) Howard Beach (in smaller letters), according to the pictures of the new station recently posted.
So, outside peak hours: run all Cs to Lefferts; run all As to "JFK" (aka Howard Beach) to terminate there, and market the A as the JFK train; and run OPTO shuttles from Howard Beach to both ends of the Rockaways, running alternately to each Rockaway terminus, providing an even-interval service to Broad Channel, and timed to connect with As at Howard Beach. Result: present Cs put in more train-mileage, present Lefferts As put in about the same, present Far Rock As a lot less, present Rock shuttle more because it is extended to Howard Beach from Broad Channel, and the train-mileage of the new Far Rock shuttle is added. Only a modest overall increase in train-mileage, and much of that increase is OPTO.
In the peaks, of course, As go through to both Rockaways, as now.
Advantages: Frequent service to JFK, marketable to airport amployees and passengers; frequent through service to Lefferts, for which there is unmet demand, rather than to the Rockaways, for which there is less demand; capacity to the Rockaways matches demand better than now.
Neutral: Rockaway Park passengers still have to transfer once to get into the city. Hopefully the connections will be better, though, since the A will be more frequent now.
Disadvantages: Lefferts service is local; Broad Channel and Far Rock line passengers have to transfer at Howard Beach; overall costs probably higher than now. The extra costs might be countered by greater business from JFK, despite the low AirTrain estimates; a more frequent subway service than was expected when those estimates were made may lead to a greater proportion of airport users deciding to use the subway.
The Rockaways could be served by light rail type vehicles designed for them only, OPTO, with more frequent service. With fewer vehicles, there would be savings on the trains. Metrocard equipment could be removed from the stations, saving additional cost.
During beach days, the A train could run through.
Somehow, I pictured in my mind an Airtrain crossing Jamaica Bay...:-)
Where is Oxford Ave?
Yeah Im in Eastern Queens, So I usually use the Queens Blvd Line, or J if im heading to/from BK. I havent been on the A or C past Broadway Junction.
That may be because they plan to charge $5.00 to get to at train that runs every 20 minutes for most of the day. Charge an additional $2.00 to get to a train that runs every 10 minutes or better and things may be different.
It might also be because there is another transfer to the JFK LRS at Sutphin Blvd.
(It might also be because there is another transfer to the JFK LRS at Sutphin Blvd.)
Set the price at $2.00 and you'd get more riders from there as well. The PA wants to be competitive with one person in a taxi. It should try to be competitive with three people in a taxi, including other modes.
Remember, the ride within the airport and to the parking lot is free, and there will be a special deal for employees. They are trying to fund the whole thing on the back of transit travelers.
Set the price at $2.00 and you'd get more riders from there as well.
The demand for the service is limited by the number of people who are actually flying. Price is not that much of a factor. Besides, they've probably overestimated the transit demand. The JFK LRS FEIS is already predicting that more people will use the JFK rail connection than are currently using the O'Hare rail connection despite the fact that there are nearly 3 time more enplaning passengers at O'Hare.
So do you really want to inconvenience two and one half times as many passengers who already use the Lefferts leg to save the airport travellers an extra 5 minutes in waiting time?
Remember, the ride within the airport and to the parking lot is free
Yes, the majority of people who are expected to use the JFK LRS will be travelling by car - not by transit.
Yes, as well as those who use the system to transfer between terminals (e.g., passenger arriving on British Airways and transferring to JetBlue).
However, I don't think the system is good enough to pull in huge numbers of rail passengers, because the connections that get you to the AirTrain aren't yet good enough. I don't think tinkering with the A would make a meaningful difference. I agree that dismantling the Lefferts Blvd branch isn't the answer.
The JFK LRS FEIS is already predicting that more people will use the JFK rail connection than are currently using the O'Hare rail connection despite the fact that there are nearly 3 time more enplaning passengers at O'Hare.
While I don't necessarily buy the FEIS estimate, it must be remembered that a much higher percentage of New Yorkers are dependent on mass transit than in Chicago. Number of enplaning pax isn't the only variable in the model.
I also think that the $5 fare is short-sighted and will put a damper on use of the system.
(Yes, the majority of people who are expected to use the JFK LRS will be travelling by car - not by transit.)
Many people use car services and cabs to get to JFK. That is part of the market the Airtrain is aiming at, and for that market it is overpriced at $5.00. In a given day almost as many employees pass through the airport as travelers. Does one really think that $200 per month to go a couple of miles to work is a fair price for these, and will convince them not to drive? As I said, I'd expect some deal for employees. Then why not for travelers?
Somebody has to pay the operating costs for the JFK LRS. Who do you propose should foot the bill?
Moreover, all the airports make profits that have been used to subsidize the PATH, which STILL costs less than the subway. Set the cost of PATH equal to the subway, and reduce the airport transfer. Use that money to subsidize the system that actually brings people to the airport.
Insufficient data to support your claim. In two years' time, we can revisit the issue.
"The JFK LRS FEIS is already predicting that more people will use the JFK rail connection than are currently using the O'Hare rail connection despite the fact that there are nearly 3 time more enplaning passengers at O'Hare. "
Invalid comparison. O'Hare is a hub airport. A large percentage of enplaning passengers are transfers who never leave the airport. JFK is an international hub, but does not see as many transfers proportionally in that sense. A proper comparison considers only those passengers arriving at the airport from outside the security perimeter.
But ofcourse, you know that. So you're dealing in chicanery, as usual. :0)
Granted, a C train at Lefferts every 10 minutes is better than an A train at Lefferts every 20.
this way the A/B and the C/D can provide an alternative to the Bronx and upper Manhattan
Also the choice of Coney Island ro Lefferts/Rockaways would expand riders options
Also the C can run 24/7 as a Lefferts Shuttle at night, becoming a real full time service, like the 5.
Also why does Lefferts have train service at night if Lenox doesn't, seems unfair
If the (upper)Lenox line doesn't have night service, the Lefferts line could also be served by a shuttle bus at night.
A - 207 to Far Rock/Rock Park -8th Ave /Fulton Express - 6am-12 mid.
A - 207 to Lefferts - 8th Av/Fulton Local - 12mid-6am
A Shuttle - Rockaway Round-Robin - Euclid to Rock Park, Far Rock, back to Euclid Local - 12 mid to 6am
C - 168 to Lefferts 8 Av-Fulton Local - 6am to 12 mid.
What do you think of that pattern?
the A runs the SAME way at night that it does NOW, no round robin SHUTTLE
the C runs as a shuttle at night as well(or shuttle bus service is created for Letterts)
A: 207th Street to Far Rockaway or Rockaway Park, all times
C: Lefferts Blvd. to 168th Street, except nights. Lefferts Blvd. to Euclid Ave. nights.
Spare me the arguments about Lefferts Blvd. riders complaining about the loss of express service. It's no big loss, and transfers to A trains from Rockaway can easily be made at any station between Rockaway Blvd. and Euclid Ave. Lefferts Blvd would see more trains being served by full C service than partial A service.
C: Lefferts Blvd. to 168th Street, except nights. Lefferts Blvd. to Euclid Ave. nights.
This may be a good idea, but let's not ignore the fact that more rolling stock would be needed to implement it. The distance from Rockaway Blvd to Lefferts Blvd is significantly less than the distance from Rock Blvd to Far Rockaway. About 1/2 of all A trains go to Lefferts, which amounts to a short-turn back to Manhattan. If every A goes out to the Rockaways, then more trains would be needed to maintain headways on the trunk portion of the line.
The same problem would occur on the C, albeit to a lesser extent, as you'd be extending that route by 7 stops.
Diverting 6 peak tph (plus maybe another 6 trains on the shoulders of the peak hour) from Lefferts to the Rockaways would require about 7 additional trainsets. That's a very dubious use of $100 million in capital.
Only because he's killing a good idea by taking it to extremes.
If the A still went to Lefferts rush hours, while in the non-rush Cs were extended to Lefferts and As went to Howard Beach or Far Rock, no added rolling stock would be needed.
That's a matter of opinion.
What's a clear fact is that my plan takes a lot less rolling stock. 6 rush hour trains, needed for service closer to downtown Brooklyn, only travel as far as Lefferts instead of the extra 18 minutes (IIRC) to Far Rockaway.
That's a lot of extra capital expense that I personally don't want my subway fare going for.
Pros:
Won't confuse tourists with all A trains going to Howard Beach.
Won't confuse Manhattan riders who are used to the C being local.
Lefferts riders will probaly know how and when it runs, the way Rock Park branch riders now use the rush hour A service.
It stops at Spring St. Lots of new offices and boutiques moved to SoHo in recent years, generating more daytime jobs.
Cons:
Brooklyn riders will need to learn that it's running express
Some people although very few, I assume, would want it to run express in Manhattan.
The same people that would rather start the (3) Shuttle from 135th Street instead of 96th Street and the (5) Shuttle at 180th Street instead of 149th Street/Mott Avenue
The same people that would rather start the (3) Shuttle from 135th Street instead of 96th Street and the (5) Shuttle at 180th Street instead of 149th Street/Mott Avenue
The difference being that at 96th, there is a choice of 1 or 2 trains over just the 2 train at 135; and at 149th, there is a choice of 2 or 4 trains over just the 2 train at E180th; whereas in this plan both Euclid and Rockaway Parkway would be a transfer to the A train only. Unless you are suggesting it go to ENY, there's not a hell of a lot of advantage of Euclid over Rockaway Pkwy, except for it being nicer to transfer underground.
Just call the late night service the C.
All Cs to Lefferts
All As to terminate at Howard Beach (renamed JFK, which it more or less already is)
Rockaway Park and Far Rockaway both served by OPTO shuttles starting at JFK (aka Howard Beach)
Minimum frequency of the A (except late nights) 8 tph; each shuttle minimum 4 tph, the two shuttles running alternately at a regular frequency to Broad Channel, timed to make good connections at JFK with the As.
Peak hours: As run through to both Rockaway Park and Far Rockaway as now.
Advantages: Frequent, regular and understandable service to JFK will attract more airport passengers and employees to use the AirTrain; more frequent service to Lefferts; more frequent service with better connections for Rockaway Park.
Disadvantages: Lefferts service is local; Far Rockaway line and Broad Channel passengers to Brooklyn and Manhattan have to transfer at Howrad Beach; some extra running costs, but not as much as running all the As to Far Rockaway would incur.
Are there any fatal flaws in this scheme - like, it is impossible to turn trains from the Roackaways at Howard Beach without ridiculous capital expenditure on new interlocking, platforms etc.?
Yes, there will be no reason to increase Howard Beach service after the completion of AirTrain's Jamaica leg.
My guess is that airport passengers will split about equally between Howard Beach and Jamaica, with out-of-towners more likely to use Howard Beach, and New Yorkers who are "in the know" more likely to use Jamaica.
From a midtown hotel, it really makes more sense to use Jamaica.
While I also think there ought to be more than 4 tph to HB, I'm not so sure it's justifiable from a traffic point of view.
And even 4 tph spaced regularly will be far better than the awful situation with EWR. I was passing near Penn Station Sunday and just went through for fun. There were 4 trains scheduled for Newark in the next hour. They were all between 5:01 and 5:14, then with no trains until 5:57. It's better on weekdays but still not good.
I think you're reading too much into a sign. The big "JFK" letters are simply a description of where the station is located. The sign has nothing to do with anticipated (or actual) ridership patterns.
My guess is that airport passengers will split about equally between Howard Beach and Jamaica, with out-of-towners more likely to use Howard Beach, and New Yorkers who are "in the know" more likely to use Jamaica.
Jamaica will be more heavily used, because it is the quicker ride from midtown, and three transit lines feed it (E, J/Z, and LIRR).
Yes indeed.
1. Run all 8 tph of A service middays and weekends to Howard Beach (extend half to Far Rock) and extend the C to Lefferts. This means wait times for JFK will decrease.
2. Get rid of the timers. Failing that, install CBTC on the Fulton line so that trains can go faster when there is no train immediately ahead of them.
2. Get rid of the timers.
If there were extra tracks on Fulton it would have helped but reducing A service to make room for that is a absoulte no-no. Where would you have the northern terminal, 21 St/Queensbridge is no longer a option since the 63 connector opened.
Well, actually, you could, theoretically, terminate and turn trains at 63/Lexington, on the tracks which are behind the false wall...don't know how useful that is (not very)
Virutally no one rode it. Personally observed many times.
a)It was a $3.50 fare or something like that
b)It had low ridership since people would rather take the A for $1.xx
c)Mostly Howard Beach residents used it, coincides with b)
d)A trains constantly held it up since there was no extra track
The way service was structured back then, that was the least important reason. Today, however, that reason alone would prevent its reestablishment.
The MTA ought to have made their “JFK Express” part of the LIRR a long time ago, long before the oft-cited NIMBYs got entrenched in their dwellings adjacent to the Rockaway Beach branch. Not to mention putting pressure on the PANYNJ to get such a line to actually enter JFK.
Doesn’t matter anyway at this juncture—Manhattan is on the wane, and was already thanks to improper rail access to/from its air terminals, really. The Airtrain will be no help, unless its ROW along the Van Wyck is ever merged in with the TA rail system. JMHO.
On an old episode of "Law and Order," a Jewish teacher is murdered by a Nazi sympathizer from her class. In the second half of the episode, Assistant DA Claire Kincaid is interviewing a woman about the woman's relationship with a suspect, and as they are walking along a leafy, suburban college campus, a consist of MUs rolls by in the background. The train was in view just long enough so that I could see it was made up of Budd MUs, and the absence of a catenary led me to believe this is most likely the Hudson or Harlem line; my guess is Harlem line on Metro-North. This show is known to make use of real locations for shooting scenes.
So where is this, folks? Anybody know? Or was this really LIRR territory (I doubt it - the consist was too short).
Thank you for your reply!
But then it wouldn't have been a signature Jerky Mike post :-)
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Thanks,
Glenn
I'd go further and say this pic was taken near 15th Avenue, borderline of Kensington and Blythebourne (Borough Park).
Thanks in advance, Glenn
Thanks,
Glenn
Look at the supporting bridge steelwork, a dead giveaway for the Brooklyn.
Glenn
"What are you writing down?"
"I'm writing down times between trains. I'm interested in seeing how many trains New York City Transit could really run if they wanted to add more trains."
"What department are you with?"
"I'm not a New York City Transit employee."
"What are you trying to do?"
"With the L train getting so crowded, I'm trying to figure out how many trains New York City Transit could run if it wanted to run more trains."
"What department are you with?"
"I'm not with New York City Transit. I'm interested in this for myself, not as a job."
"If you want to keep on standing right here and writing things down, I'm going to have to call the Control Center."
"Well, I pretty much have all the information I need. I'll leave now."
Fortunately I had gotten pretty much what I wanted by the time he came along. I really didn't feel like explaining to a police officer, especcially since I had somewhere else to be.
The presumed NYCT employee was 100% polite at all times. But he obviously had his instructions. And he certainly couldn't fathom a non-employee caring about time intervals between trains.
On the other hand, I've been writing things down in other locations without being questioned.
Being a Station Agent at 21 St must be pretty boring considering how lightly the station is used...
*Pending rollback.
I'm sure they would have had to leave me alone. But I had to be somewhere else in a while and didn't want to spend the time answering police questions.
http://www.alibris.com/search/search.cfm
Your foolhardy quest to fight terrorism could end up costing the MTA hundreds or thousands of dollars if you count lawyers fees.
I doubt it. MTA employees don't have to know the law in this case; they can leave that for the police. As long as the police officer doesn't mistakenly think he has grounds for arrest, there aren't going to be any lawyers' fees.
Fine. I would have had the same polite conversation with a police officer instead of an NYCT employee. Unless he was very ignorant, he would not have escorted me off the premises, though he very well might have told me to stop.
You think wrong. You have the right to contact your supervisor about anybody on the platform, but you do not have the right to ask anyone to leave for any reason you can think of. That's against the law, and a decision which, if enforceable, is made above your level anyway, by management.
If you see someone hurting someone else, or jumping a turnstile, or trying to break into a Metrocard machine, that is a reason to call the police.
What size pants do you wear? I may have a gift for you.
Would a terrorist really have to stand there and take notes?
You got the 1 employee the rest of us can NEVER seem to find.
Also, why is there no mention of this hearing on the MTA web site?
You can just show up, but if you want to speak you have to register.
Also, why is there no mention of this hearing on the MTA web site?
It's there. From the home page, to to "News," and from there to "Public Hearings."
Would someone be able to leave early if necessary or would he/she have to stay for the entire duration of the hearing?
Just go on to the meeting but if you want to speak, you register when you get there. BTW, it is on the MTA website.
I gave myself an hour 15 to get from home to 30th St. usually more than enough time. Well just as I got to the PATCO station a train pulled out, this cost me 12 minutes. Our train was then delayed at Broadway as it needed to wrong rail to City Hall, plus the driver was manualizing it none too well which caused further delay. My Amtrak train was leaving at 11:09 and I made it to Market East by 10:48, but when I got the the platform, the next two trains (10:52 and 55) had 5 min delays. I then ran to the MFL 11th St. station and lost another 6 minutes waiting for an MFL train. Fortunately, after running from the 30th MFL station to 30th Amtrak station I had 6 minutes to spare, so I bought my tickets and ran onto the waiting train. It turned out I was in no danger as we had to spend a few extra minutes waiting for an ACELA EXPRESS to clear.
Anyway, I had a nice trip down. We arrived on time. Iwent right to hopkins, but after my meeting I caught the 3PM shuttle back to Penn and had about 40 minutes before the 3:47 regional train. I had reserved tickets for the 4:47, but that was in case my meeting ran long. I wandered all over the platform and even off the ends of the platforms takine pictures openly, even around Amtrak cops and nobody paid any attention.
Ok, here are the important items.
-- There was a lot of new construction on the SEPTA tracks b/t REGAN and DAVIS interlockings. They have extended the A track to a new interlocking north of DAVIS and have installed all new concrete ties. the new interlocking has a new position light gantry made from tubular stainless steel. I love the way PL's look on modern ganteries.
-- Can someone explain the stretch of wooden-tied tracks arond Chester PA? Why hasn't it been concreted. I'm talking about 2-3 miles here.
-- PERRY tower appears to have been demolished. Can anyone tellme when and explain why?
-- Both the Bush river and Gunpowder River movable bridges are no longer movable. Can someone explain how Amtrak got away with this?
-- Down the freighthouse track from LANDLITH interlocking were stored about 3 Metroliner EMU cars minus the front fiberglas end and an old Budd heritage car. They were in a small yard just before the Christiana River ex-MB. The Metroliners looked somewhat shined up. Does anyone know what's going on here?
-- ACELA Express seems to be doing very well. I ran into a number of AE's and almost all were packed to the brim, including the first class car. I know that Bussiness and First clases are usually the bread and butter of Airlines so way to go Amtrak. I also saw the first class attendent pulling out first classers bags, after which the suits give him several wads of cash. What a sweet job.
-- Lots of pneumatic operation in and around Baltimore. Everything from the east end of the station to Bayview Yard was ALL PNEUMATIC. This includes PAUL, BIDDLE, BAY, POINT and RIVER interlockings. OAK intelrocking near Havre De Grace was also pneumatic along with HOOK and LANDLITH which I already knew about. Sadly both DAVIS and PERRY have been converted. I had strong hopes for them being holdouts. All told I confirmed the existance of 43 surviving pneumaticly operated turnouts.
-- There was a MARC HHP-8 sitting on the 3 track at Penn Station Baltimore right near the PRINCE home signal. I took lots of good sunny pics of it to be posted later.
-- I only saw mono-levels on the MARC trains at BPS. Do the not operate the bi-levels much?
Well this is all I can remember for now. Thanks for any responces.
Michael
Washington, DC
Also today I rode for the first time the new R142 train's.I was on car #1116 on the 4 from Boro Hall-14St-Union Sq.It was NICE!Highest number I spotted today of the 1100 R142's was 1160.For those interested,especially David(MTA NYCT Traffic Checker)I'm working everyday next week except Saturday and my 2 day's off,Tuesday and Wednesday.Sunday I'm at Jackie Gleason doing a ridecheck on the B37(YES!!!!I'M SO HAPPY!I GET MY B37!WOOHOO!)starting at 12:52.On Monday I'm at Gun Hill doing at ridecheck on the Bx28 at 21:53!Damn,I couldn't believe it when I saw that.I'm suprised they want me there that late at night.Thursday I'm gonna be at Casey Stengel doing a ride check on the Q32 starting at 14:06.And Friday I'm gonna be at 2Av between 94St&95St doing the newest survey in Traffic Checking Operation's,a Bus Camera Study.It's so new,we never learned it in training class.And training class was 2 month's ago.Wow,don't I feel special........yaright. >.
They're still around, but idle in the yard since May 19.
R-32.
This time I decided to step up to the plate.
The day for me started at 7:20 when I woke up, as usual, I left the house at such a time that would give me no room for delay, and that sure bit me in the ass.
The B100 trip was uneventful. The Q trip was not. The must have been forced to wait for a (Q) right in front of it before Prospect Park for a while, and then it stopped on the Manhattan approach to the Manhattan Bridge, which was the difference between my making it on time and being late.
Avoiding the crowds at the 34th Street entrance, I entered through Kresge's Mart. Unfortunately, 5 minutes turned into an hour since the connecting trains only run hourly. Rather than wait for the connecting train, I took the next train out to Trent TownTM where I took a 1/2 hour walk about the town. I didn't get as far as the state capitol. I don't know where it is anyway, but as I was walking down East STATE Street, the house numbers were decreasing so I figured it was where East changed to west. It was good that I turned around (not really around, I took a different route back, even though I didn't do much looking on any maps).
I came back with minutes to spare. It was at this time that my cell phone rang with a call from Mike asking where I was, and I then explained my predicament.
I arrived at 30th Street at 12:3-something and we then bought our Day Passes (Mike already had his) and took the Subway-way (you may have heard it called the Subway-surface) to the last stop before the portal on the lines that are not the 10, where he had our cart-produced lunch. I befouled my cheesesteak with leaves and fruit.
Following this, we took the Subway-way to the MFL and took that to 69th where we rode the Route 100 to Norristown. Because we had time to spare before the R6 train back to Center City, we walked around, checked out the rail trail of the former PRR line and Mike regaled me of stories of ruinous competition between the PRR and the Reading. Then we took the R6 to 30th, the MFL to Bridge-Pratt and BACK, then the BSS to Fern Rock and back. We got off at City Hall to get a schedule and for me to use the facilities, and then rode down to Walnut-Locust for PATCO which we rode to Lindenwold and Back.
Mike got off at Haddonfield and I had to depart prematurely. I got off at M-E and finding that I had misread the schedules, the train I expected was really going to come earlier.
I managed to get back in time to catch the penultimate B100.
Jimmy
- Will it be possible to buy a ticket on Saturday from the departure point? If so, who do you have to find to do it?
- Where and when does the fan trip depart from?
- Finally, how much does the fan trip cost?
Any information posted here or emailed to me at robaking@hotmail.com is much appreciated and, fingers crossed, I hope to see some of you there.
Thanks again,
Robert King
These questions are not answered in the Upcoming Events listing, which is why I asked them here and am asking again:
- Where? Not mentioned.
- When? June 7 is too vague.
- Can I buy tickets when the trip departs? It's a bit late to mail in that stuff tomorrow morning, after all.
The question of how much is at least answered. Now if I can get the information for the remaining three questions, I'd be making substantial progress.
-----
This year's NYCT Subdivision C/March of Dimes charity fan trips will be held using the Transit Museum's IRT and IND cars that have not seen service in many years. There will be four trips, two using the IRT SMEE cars (R14, R15, R17 and a R33 single), and two using the early IND R-types (R1, R4, R7). (If equipment is unavailable, a train of Redbirds or BMT D-types will be substituted.)
These trips are not to be missed. These cars have not run in service on fantrips in many years (probably at least 20!)
Tickets are: $35.00 for Adults; $20.00 for Children.
Include a Stamped Self Adressed Envelope [#10] please.
Checks payable to the March of Dimes.
Sat June 7 (IRT Cars) _____ Qty (Adults) _____ Qty (Children)
Sun June 8 (IND Cars) _____ Qty (Adults) _____ Qty (Children)
Sat June 28 (IND Cars) _____ Qty (Adults) _____ Qty (Children)
Sun June 29 (IRT Cars) _____ Qty (Adults) _____ Qty (Children)
Available from:
NYCT Subdivision C - MOD Trip
1311 Waters Place, Rm 221
The Bronx, NY 10461
Earlier posts have suggested "yes". Ask around when you get there.
- Where and when does the fan trip depart from?
Grand Central shuttle track 1, 10:30 AM
- Finally, how much does the fan trip cost?
Forty Dollars for walkups.
I just checked my email and I have a note saying the trip left from Times Square (shuttle tracks). Either or, I can check both and it shouldn't be a problem provided I can get in for 10.
-Robert King
Tee
How does one get a job on the Geometry Car, any position?
You just sit and sweep stuff around, you don't actually need to bag it or anything, if you decide to get productive you can always just dump it over the edge of the platform. Plus it's like railfanning all day from a few spots, I'd pay more attention to the trains than the sweeping, keep a little notepad to jot stuff down about different oddball things. Oh yeah, and I gotta work on the blank stare off into nothingness so that nobody will come up to me and ask stupid questions, MTA vest or no.
:)
I like a challenge.
You have to have been born in the U. S.
You have to have lived here at least 14 years.
You have to be at least 35 years of age.
And it's OK if you ever inhaled.:)
And it's OK if you ever inhaled.:)
Of those 4 things, I've only ever done one...
Anyway, it said somewhere else in the thread you didn't actually have to be qualified!
Peace,
ANDEE
Joke:
Ask "Is there a hyphen in 'anal retentive'?" If they try to answer, you know they are.
Definition:
Anal Retentive (anal stage of development)
"The anal stage of motivational development is characterized by the child's central area of bodily concern in the
rectum. Bowel movements become a source of pleasure to the child. The child may defecate to receive pleasure.
However, gaining pleasure from defecating brings the child into conflict with the parents regarding toilet
training. Freud claimed that delays during this stage (or this stage occurring prematurely) can cause fixation.
Fixation during the anal stage can result in anal retention in which a person exhibits compulsive cleanliness,
orderliness, or fussiness."
Civil service attracts some interesting type individuals. I'd go into more about a few I worked with who were management type control freaks, but I wouldn't want to offend the eyeballs of folks here with the gory details. Let's just say that Subwaysurf was being KIND in his analysis ...
I do it on MARTA a lot. I sit at the seat on the blind end of a car, which faces the rest of the car, and just watch people come and go. Stopping at busy station, I like watching how most of the passengers exit and a whole new group of passengers take their place. I look dead ahead and watch the tunnel lights and stations go by in my periphial vision. Looking thru the storm door into the next cars, it's neat to see the train entering a curve before your car reaches the curve. It's even better when you're drunk, wasted or just zoned out. :-)
I don't think NYCT has any end seating which faces the rest of the car, but have any of you just stood in the end of any car on a train and just watched people? Am I the only one?
But I cuss out any folk who stand AT THE FRONT RFW with their
back to the glass panel... IF ONLY........ they knew what a rarity
was behind them.
Yes it does. On all the 75 footers (non-cab units only in the case of the R-44 and R-46).
You can see it in this picture.
Peace,
ANDEE
--Mark
Actually, I have a way of sitting sideways on 62s that only does take up on seat.
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
What I despise is when people do it on uncrowded railroad and subway trains. It reminds me of the two security guards that would stand on the bridge of the Enterprise in tense situations, blocking the exit. It annoys me no end. Turn to one side or get away from the door but don't block it.
Here's a nother pic of it, painted red and signed as a 'QJ.'
So
(1) when did Amtrak, which existed in '72 actually start service to NYC?
(2) this is only an observation.
Peace,
ANDEE
Robert
Robert
P.S. A good bribe would be for me two Nathan Hot Dogs with everything. I have not had a Hot Dogs in over three mouths, since I started Weight Watcher. I have allready lost 30+lb.
David
As someone in this thread mentioned, I too agree that someone is eventually going to receive a summons for eating.
I know that many of these concessions are gone now and I don't know current rules. I don't use the subway to commute to work so it really isn't an issue for me...
But I can understand those who have a need to eat or drink on the train. I take evening classes so I don't want to wait till midnite to have dinner (It isn't healthy either) so I go thru the drive-thru after work and eat while I drive. IF I took the train I'm sure i'd have to do the same thing since I can't leave work earlier and I can't get to the classes later so there is NO time to stop to eat. I'm sure that some people who eat on trains are doing it for similar reasons..
Well I won't get nutty about this issue. I am compelled to say this though: I understand about the time constraints people can face. It still doesn't make eating on the subways any more defensible. Between us ladies and gentlemen....it's a piggish thing to do. `cause you know "most" riders will leave greasy papers and food remnants behind them after their meal. Ever see those roaches crawling up from the seats?? Uh huh.
Plus, I resent being forced to smell funky food smells sometimes. I feel like walking over to where these eatin' folk are and, excuse me, taking a leak on the floor near them. My defense would be that, hey, necessity has forced me to do this. Ya don't mind, do ya???!
That's why I said "IF" ;-) Knowing my time constraints I choose to drive on the days in question - therefore eating in my car bothers no-one but me.
I meant to say I understand why people do it - but heck they should eat a candy bar or granola bar, I too hate it if I have to smell a full-blown KFC meal on the subway...
Peace,
ANDEE
David
Also, when would janitors and other MTA workers ride the subway from point A to point B on the job?
Peace,
ANDEE
And Hillbillies prefer to be called "sons of the soil". But it ain't gonna happen.
Arti
David
Then we can require as part of the lease that the vendor keep clean seating, trash recepticals, restrooms etc in the part of the consourses that they are leasing.
Elias
I was made this quip to my wife while on a train. I didn't see it, but she spotted a young woman eating a bag of popcorn, who overheard me and in defiance threw a piece of her popcorn on the floor.
I guess she showed me! The nerve I had, trying to tell her to ride on a train that doesn't have sticky sugary goo all over the floors and foor wrappers all over the tracks!
Mark
Which has plenty of clearly posted signs to that effect. I've seen no such signs on NYC subways, and the back of my MetroCard doesn't say anything about it either. In any case, I'd eat only on a nearly empty train where I had at least a whole bench to myself. If I'm eating, I don't want to have to be worrying about the other things that concern one on a crowded train. I also don't like having to smell what others are eating, so I try not to inflict my meals on others. A cookie is one thing but a tuna fish sandwich or hot taco is something else.
: ) Elias
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Test
Entered by Douce "Butplug" Man on Fri "Bust-a-Cunt" Jun 6 06:53:20 2003, in response to Test, posted by Douce "Fill me up" Man on Fri "Superdick" Jun 6 06:52:07 2003.
Looks like I did. At least it didn't "translate" for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(There are no responses to this message.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a spewing New "Omar Pussy" Response
Your "Thrushmore" Handle:
Your "Spunksupper" Password:
E-Mail "Buzzwordbaby" Address:
Oh yeah?
I was very surprised by how quickly the movements went. The pattern is quite restrictive. Only 1 train can generally be moving between 6th Ave and 8th Ave at any one time, except that if an train bound for the north track is late, the train departing from the south track can still leave on time.
Only 154 seconds of each train cycle was actually needed to get trains in and out of the station, including waiting time for switches to change and signals to turn green. With some minor attention to procedures this could easily be brought down below 150 seconds, allowing 24 tph.
Here are my rush hour observations.
A: Time for departing train to receive green signal after arriving train has fully stopped. Only meaningful for trains departing from the north track. For trains departing from the south track, can be 0 or negative. Mean = 13.3 seconds for trains departing from north track.
B: If north track train, time once train receives green until it departs. If south track train, time from arrival of previous train. This number can be significant just because the train isn’t scheduled to depart yet, or negative if the previous train is late. Mean time not included in A = 117.0.
C: Time for departing train to clear interlocking once it starts moving. Mean = 37.0.
D: Time until arriving train gets green signal at 6th Ave. Mean = 21.7.
E: Time until train at 6th Ave. starts moving. This number can be significant if the arriving train is behind schedule. Mean = 60.7.
F: Time until arriving train reaches interlocking. Mean = 23.2.
G: Time until arriving train comes to a complete stop. Mean = 58.6.
Times B and E don’t affect the capacity of the stub terminal. They are >0 because of schedule or problems elsewhere.
Sum of times A, C, D, F, and G: 153.8 seconds.
The detailed observations are as follows. The first row is for a train arriving on the north track and departing on the south track, after which they alternate.
A, B, C, D, E, F, G:
?, 35, ?, 15, 15, 30, 60
15, 125, 30, 25, 115, 30, 55
0, 270, 30, 25, 0, 30, 55
10, 173, 35, 25, 112, 25, 60
-50, -28, 29, 25, 30, 31, 63
15, 45, 63, 15, 92, ?, ?
For example, D is the "Time until arriving train gets green signal at 6th Ave.". Question when did you start counting seconds, when the train came to a stop at 6th Ave, when the train doors closed at 6th Ave, etc?
D is from time departing train cleared interlocking until arriving train gets green signal at 6th Ave.
E is from time arriving train gets green signal at 6th Ave until it starts moving at 6th Ave.
F is from when it starts moving until it reaches the interlocking.
G is from when it reaches the interlocking until it comes to a full stop (doors not yet open).
We've created a monster...but do keep it up.
Your efforts are commendable.
And in 3 weeks when someone says that stub terminals without tail tracks can't handle more than 15 tph (the conventional wisdom around here) I can pipe up like a wise guy and say well, I did measurements.
They did this with some departures on the 1/2 minute.
I would guess they still do more than 24 at TS.
My drawing can handle higher tph. Add the tail tracks, and just imagine how fast it can move trains.
Elias
Jamaica Center has tail tracks.
The 7's Main street has # tracks and they STILL have issues with mobility.
Main St does not have tail tracks. Also the interlocking is 250 feet long due to having 3 tracks. Finally, they are missing a crossover, to permit two trains from entering simultaneously under all conditions.
Garbage In > Garbage Out :-)
Elias
I like it! I wonder - is there a real live one anywhere?
Here are some times for Times Square on the 7.
A: Time after previous departing train has cleared interlocking until arriving train enters it.
B: Time arriving train spends in interlocking and stopping at station.
C: Time after arriving train stops till departing train starts. Sometimes affected by door holders.
D: Time for departing train to clear interlocking.
A, B, C, D:
Averages: 32.5, 45, 15.2, 40.2
Total: 132.9
Individual trips:
?, ?, 25, 35
30, 60, 5, 40 (tot = 135)
40, 40, 22, 38 (tot = 140)
30, 42, 14, 51 (tot = 137)
30, 38, 10, 37 (tot = 115)
Your data shows that they should be able to run a lot more than 30 tph without any changes in the signalling. Maximum capacity implies that the interlocking is occupied nearly 100% of the time and is being switched for the remaining time. Your measurements indicate that the interlocking is occupied for 80.2 seconds. Suppose it took 10 seconds each for an alert tower to flip the switches. This would bring the total time up to 100.2 seconds for 36 tph. Of course, before one reached that service level, an examination would be made to figure out why some operators took 10 and 20 seconds longer than the others in moving across the interlocking. :-)
To give a more dramatic example, the mandated spacing between passenger airplanes in the sky is greater than physically necessary—assuming skilled pilots. Look at the formations in air shows to see what is actually achievable. Of course, in that scenario even a slight mistake is most likely catastrophic, which is why the airspace isn't actually managed this way.
Your analogy to airspace and in particular comparing spacing between passenger airliners and stunt flying is not a good one. I am keeping the same spacing between trains that has been kept by the same signal system for nearly 80 years. I am not changing a single block length nor am I suggesting that the "pilot decrease the minimum separation between planes" by keying by. Therefore, there are no "catastrophic" consequences for "even a slight mistake". The safety margins that have been in force for nearly 80 years are not being reduced.
...random events will make the schedule unachievable in real life.
I have often said that reducing variability is the key to achieving any schedule. I have stated that schedules must be measured in seconds not minutes. I have also stated that existing manual systems that do operate near the safety limit (36-42 tph) use inexpensive additional devices (accurate station clocks) to give their train operators and conductors the necessary information to adhere to their schedule.
Much has been said about random events - such as door holding - being the achilles heel for increasing service levels to more than 67% of capacity. Random events create variability. However, I've found in my measurements that differences in operating personnel intrduces far more variability. Look at the Times Sq data that Mr. AIM posted. One operator took 60 seconds to stop while the others were clustered around 40 seconds. To be fair to the T/O - half his motors may have been burned out.
I do know that more attention to detail is necessary for service levels to approach capacity. This requires a far greater effort that NYCT management has demonstrated it is capable of producing. We also know, thanks to Mr. AIM's measurements, that NYCT's explanation that existing stub terminals cannot support more than 15 tph is in a word - BUNK.
It's not only safety. The safety means signalization that reduces capacity. But the TA is reluctant to go right up to the theoretical level of capacity, as at that point any minor deviation would cause a delay, and delays can lead to greater delays back along the line. It's the same as on a highway that's at capacity -- someone getting a little too close and hitting the brakes for a moment can cause stop and go traffic behind.
The TA tries to run a level of service it can meet given likely deviations. The fact that only one deviation is likely occur in a peak period is, as I've said, not good enough if there is no room for recovery. It that deviation occurs early in the peak period, the entire rush hour could be trashed.
Steve is correct in that there is now a tendency to go for the grand solution (ie. CBTC) rather than incremental operational improvements. Then again, the TA has been making incremental operational improvements for 20 years, with no major leaps forward, and subway technology is widely seen as obsolte relative to newer systems elsewhere.
Steven argues that the TA should be able to run a tighter schedule, with additional feedback to crews (clocks etc). Possibly.
Your argument that it’s better to have a looser schedule with some recovery time makes more sense to me in what is a mostly manual system. There are just too many variables: people holding doors, crew having off-days (no disrespect intended to any individuals), equipment failures, etc, etc.
It would be instructive to look at a line that is essentially automatic, and see how it functions, and what frequency can be maintained. Unfortunately, the only line that comes to mind is the Victoria Line in London, and last time I looked, that was hardly scheduled to the maximum.
I would suspect that some of the new lines in Hong Kong would meet the criteria. Does anyone know of one?
John
Victoria Line morning peak:
20 trains every 42½ minutes = 28 4/17tph
If you want high frequencies, how about these lines in Paris in the evening peak:
(4) 1m35 headways = 37 17/19tph
(7) 1m40 headways = 36tph
(1), (3), (5), (9), and (13) 1m45 headways = 34 2/7tph
Or Lille Line 2 which operates at peak times a headway of 1m30 = 40tph and they claim that 1 minute headways = 60tph are possible.
1 minute headways definitely looks like pushing it! Anyone holding a door there would definitely lose a hand or something!
The TA tries to run a level of service it can meet given likely deviations. The fact that only one deviation is likely occur in a peak period is, as I've said, not good enough if there is no room for recovery. It that deviation occurs early in the peak period, the entire rush hour could be trashed.
Let's try to quantify this problem for the 14th St Line. Mr. AIM has determined that each train takes approximately 150 seconds to make a round trip across the interlocking. If trains are scheduled at every 240 seconds (15 tph), this provides a 90 second cushion. If service levels were increased 20% to 18 tph, then the 200 second headways would provide a 50 second cushion.
What about the Flushing Line? Mr. AIM has determined that each train takes approximately 85.2 seconds per interlocking round trip at Time Square. Service levels are currently 28 tph (128.6 second headway) for a for a 43.4 second cushion.
The obvious question is why is a 90 second cushion required for the 14th Street Line while a 43 second cushion is adequate for the Flushing Line?
I think that NYCT just doesn't want to spend the money to run more trains on the L at this point. After all, people do usually manage to squeeze on each train and don't get left behind on the platform to wait for the next train.
If that's their rationale then they should so state it. They should not try to deceive the public with statements regarding capacity and safety.
The Flushing Line has TAIL Tracks at Times Square,
The 14th Street Subway does not. Trains must enter the 8th Avenue stubs more slowly.
Elias
The Flushing Line has TAIL Tracks at Times Square,
The 14th Street Subway does not. Trains must enter the 8th Avenue stubs more slowly.
1. This wasn't my comment.
2. The extra time for the lack of tail tracks was already accounted for in the greater time needed to enter the station at 14th.
This depends on the variability of your running times, which differs from line to line. Believe me, the TA has people who study those things. They probably know the distribution and standard deviation of the running times in each section and on each line. AEM7
The differences in interlocking machines have already been factored in the difference between the 85.2 seconds and the 150 seconds necessary to do a complete round trip through the interlockings.
Download the schedules from the MTA's website. You can derive the service levels from there.
The two are not additive: some of the southbound trains originate at Parkchester. Consequently, starting at Parkchester, trains are 2-4 minutes apart—an average of 3 minutes, for 20tph. North of Parkchester, trains are 3-5 minutes apart—an average of 4 minutes, or 15 tph.
Every now and then an insider here publishes some.
Some AM schedules are at http://home.att.net/~alabianca/timetables/schedules_intro.html
I'm afraid that there isn't a decent source that reports peak service levels for all lines that is easily available. The published schedules are notably deficient in providing such information.
NYCT was not bashful about publishing their peak hour service levels, when they could be proud of them. They haven't been bragging since.
Occasionally, the NYCT people who have access to the TA's unabridged schedules will post the service levels for specific lines on this board. That's how I got the 28 tph figure for the Flushing Line. At least one other became tired of answering questions and posted some division B schedules on the web.
The generally accepted value for the current service levels on the 1/9 is 20 tph.
The Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement for the Second Ave Subway has that information (available on the MTA website). Table 5B-2 shows they are currently running 21 tph during the peak hour.
And often similar traffic levels but longer trains.
How long were PATH trains when they ran 40 tph?
Shorter trains allow you to run higher headways with the same saftey margin.
Other than the nitpicky point that you mean higher frequencies and lower headways, it is not true that 30 trains of 6 cars only take up the same track capacity as 20 trains of 9 cars - there has to be some margin (which can be measured in distance, time, or even number of cars equivalent) between each train for basic safety and smooth running. Ergo, in terms of capacity 30x 6 cars > 20x 9 cars. This is why the MTA spent fortunes on lengthening platforms.
1. Of course I meant shorter trains allow shorter time intervals between trains.
2. I also agree that 30 trains of 6 cars take up a greater portion of track capacity than 20 trains of 9 cars. I just meant that even if you were once able to run 40 trains of 6 cars doesn't mean you could now run 40 trains of 9 cars.
Not necessarily. 9 cars will take longer to cross an interlocking than 6.
Ah, I get what you're saying now. Of course, being limited with 6 cars to 40tph means the limit with 9 cars is higher than 26.67tph - can only be a good thing!
These are LOOPS with FIVE tracks. The diverge out to three different termials. There are NO CROSSOVERS at WTC!
Elias
If they can't do it this weekend then it won't be untill sometime in late August early September. They need 5 weeks to do all the track removel and what not, so they can't put off the other track and signal work that is needed for CBTC. If they get the connection in this weekend then the track removel can wait untill the other work is done. All it meens is the trains that have to go into ENY will have to go though the upper dack of the yard it get in.
Also there is now a slow speed order inafect South Bound right before Halsey Street, do to the TA is putting in new Switches at the end of the relay track. This is being done so the trains that get turned around at Myrtle Avenue back to Rockaway woun't have to make a "W" in it to go back. So next few Weekends and at Night there will be Shuttle Buses from Broadway Juction to Lorimer Street.
Robert
Robert
--Mark
When is that pattern used?
The J & G line at Broadway.
Provides the much maligned G line another transfer instead of the aforementioned L.
The far end of the L doesn't have many riders. It's the middle that fills up the trains.
The J & G line at Broadway.
Provides the much maligned G line another transfer instead of the aforementioned L.
G riders to lower Manhattan already have a simple cross-platform transfer (as opposed to a climb up to an El) at H-S. G riders to midtown don't want the J/M/Z.
NYCT has its priorities straight on this topic: Bleecker and Jay-Lawrence are on top of their list.
Next in my mind is Lex 63rd-60th.
The far end of the L doesn't have many riders. It's the middle that fills up the trains.
However, my understanding is that there is already a passenger bridge between the L and the #3 at that location, but it is outside the fare control. Creating a free transfer there would be relatively easy, and hence probably worthwhile even though not a high-traffic area.
Not street, RR tracks.
By the way, it's a no-brainer why there are a lot of cops at Bway Junction. There is a police station right in the station. (Transit District#33)
You're claiming the TA removed an existing free transfer from the system? That would be the only time this has ever happened in the entire history of the NY subway system.
Then again, the same report claimed estimated time savings due to Culver and West End express services that were at least three times greater than the time savings on any similar existing express run, so I'm not ready to put full faith in their claims about transfers.
Especially since you claim that 76th Street exists and you were convinced the tokens would not die with the fare hike.
Incidentally, other than single and multi riders, can't anybody with any sort of unlimited metrocard make these trasfers? So what is the big deal about allowing per riders the same? Can't see any possible objection to it.
Metrocard transfers cost the MTA revenue.
Because of the Metrocard transfer at Lex/60-63, I can make a round trip to that neighborhood on a pay per ride card for $1.67 instead of $3.33. The MTA has lost a few of my dollars because of that.
More Metrocard transfers could be added, but it is not the answer. It takes time to get all the way up to the street, and then back down into the subway -- as much as six minutes even if within a block. Not much? It's an hour a week out of your one and only life. That's why the Metrocard transfer between 63rd and Lex and 59th and Lex doesn't make anyone happy. A transfer across the platform is better than a transfer within the station, and a transfer within the station is better than a street transfer.
The transfers that would matter most to me are:
1) Broadway-Lafayette to Bleeker -- in the 2005-09 capital plan, hope it stays there.
2) Jay Street to Lawrence -- in the 2005-09 capital plan, hope it stays there.
3) Fulton Street (G) and Lafayette Avenue (C) to Atlantic/Pacific (just about everything else).
I've always used an unlimited ride card, even before I was an employee, so I guess it never mattered to me. I use pay per ride cards for the kids, however, so I guess it might someday. Essentially, with the new fares even if you generally only use the subway for commuting to work you are better off with a weekly or monthly.
Actually if you ONLY use the card for a 5-day-a-week job, an unlimited is not worthwhile, since all employees are entitled to vacation and holidays.
There are 261 weekdays in a year, less 10 vacation days, 5 sick/personal days, and 10 holidays, for a maximum in almost all jobs of 236 regular total work days.
- Pay per ride: $787.
- 12 30-day passes: $840
- 50 weeklies: $1050.
2) Jay Street to Lawrence -- in the 2005-09 capital plan, hope it stays there.
3) Fulton Street (G) and Lafayette Avenue (C) to Atlantic/Pacific (just about everything else).
4) Queens Plaza (IND) to QBP (IRT/BMT)
5) Court Sq (G) to Court House Sq (7)
6) Livonia (L) to Junius (3)
7) Hoyt (2)(3) to Hoyt-Sch (A)(C)(G)
2)Agreed. How hard could that be? The damn Lawrence station literally sits right on top of Jay St, in fact their exits are diagonally across the street, and you can even hear the M/N/R from the A/C/F platform.
3)Atlantic/Pacific is a nightmare. Better to connect it with DeKalb and Nevins (if that's physically possible).
4)Agreed. Imagine if you run up the stairs at 60th/Lex and get on the wrong train? That's a long ride back to correct it, or an extra fare + a walk.
5)Already there as an out-of-system transfer
6)Agreed.
7)Does Hoyt (2)(3) even have a mezzaine? I believe the platforms are separated, and as such, it would turn into another Bleecker/Lafyette situation, whereupon only the southbound platform would transfer to Hoyt/Schermerhorn. Although they're not too far apart, so it's feasible.
To add to that:
8)City Hall (R)/Hudson Term (E)/Chambers (A)(C)/Park Pl (2)(3)
9)Cortlandt (1)(9)/Cortlandt (R)/Fulton-Bway-Nassau (isn't this part of the plans for the Fulton Transit Center?)
10)Hewes (J)(M) or Lorimer (J)(M) with Broadway (G) (for crying out loud they're only 3 short blocks apart!)
9)Cortlandt (1)(9)/Cortlandt (R)/Fulton-Bway-Nassau (isn't this part of the plans for the Fulton Transit Center?)
As part of the Fulton St Transit Center (FSTC), the Cortlandt (R/W) and WTC (E) will be connected to the Fulton-Bway-Nassau station. The scoping statement doesn't actually mention the Cortlandt 1/9, but I think that will be incorporated in another EIS because the whole station needs to be rebuilt. (There isn't a 1/9 Cortlandt station right now!)
If all of those connections are built, then a connection from City Hall (R) to the same complex of stations really would be superfluous.
Why bother disconnecting it?
It would be interesting to have one station complex connecting two platforms on a single line. It's happened before, but those passageways have since been closed - the old corridor from 14th/8th to 14th/7th, for example, let you walk between the L stations at 8th and 6th.
I can only see that happening if the 14th St Line is extended West.
I think the point of that one was not the transfer between the C and the G, but the one between the IND at Fulton/Lafayette and IRT/BMT/LIRR at Atlantic/Pacific/Flatbush.
And it would give LIRR riders easy access to 8th Avenue and WTC - so not only is it justified, it stands some chance! Moving sidewalk anyone?
Well it does eliminate going to West 4 to transfer to the A [from the B & D] and gives the G new connections to the ML IRT & all the lines that use the Atlantic/Pacific comples but I don't see it happening.
Other areas where there should be transfers and that havent been mentioned yet: Pennsylvania Station in Midtown, UPTOWN 6 and the Sixth Avenue Line at Bleecker Street (or at least a crossunder at Bleecker Street), and Bowery and Grand Street, to alleviate crowding @ Grand when it reopens, as it was the 34th busiest station in the city before the Manhattan Bridge closed.
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
Bleecker is mention 6 posts up from this one (easy to miss).
Penn Station? A/C/E to 1/2/3? Already available at 42nd; no need to reproduce at 34th.
Bowery-Grand? JMZ riders can already transfer to the 6th Ave line at Essex, so why do they also need to do so at Grand? Riders from south of Dekalb can transfer to the JMZ at Canal.
This transfer would make sense if there was a station on the el directly at Union Ave. The original IND planners assumed the el here would be demolished when the IND system was complete.
What they should really do is connect Jay St.-Borough Hall (IND) to Court St.-Borough Hall (BMT/IRT).
It's just a matter of building an pedestrian underpass beneath Willoughby Street between Court St. & Jay St. and/or Lawrence St.
The "lost revenue" you're talking about costs all of us. The system needs to be paid for somehow. If subway-subway transfers were wide open, granted some one-way rides would become a bit more convenient, but in many other cases riders would get two rides for the price of one. That's the cost of providing the transfer you're talking about: it isn't free. Perhaps you believe it's worth it, but once you recognize that "we're all paying," you start thinking about it in a different way.
Compared with the present NYC system in the post-token era, the differences are: (1) unlimited transfers within the time limit; (2)hence no distinction needs to be made between in-system and out-of-system subway transfers; (3) you *can* quite legally use the ticket for an out-and-back trip along the same line, so long as it within its two-hour validity; and (4) the downside is that if two people are travelling together they have to have a ticket each, they can't both swipe the same one.
To make sure you don't cheat (i.e. ride without a ticket, or fail to validate your ticket when you first board) they have inspectors making random checks.
It *is* true that a completely free transfer system within a time limit in NYC would lose some revenue from people who, under present rules, have to pay a second fare. On the other hand, *not* having to put in any more new pedestrian transfer tunnels inside fare control, ever, would save a fair bit of capital expenditure over the years, wouldn't it?
As others have pointed out, a big portion of the reason for the tunnels is to save time and improve safety, not just to save customers money.
Take Bleecker as an example. If yoy have an unlimited, to switch from the F to the 6 at Bleecker, you have to climb an extra flight of stairs, cross Lafayette St, and go back downstairs. Lafayette at Houston is a hazardous creossing because of the left turns from Houston eastbound.
Far more extreme is Lex 63rd/60th. An underground passageway would save many flights of stairs/escalators, plus replace 3 blocks of 12 foot wide sidewalk with a presumably wider passageway.
Just to follow this point, I have a neighbor who lives in Windsor Terrace but works in Bronxville. He usually drives to work, but for several months after 9/11 he took the subway and MetroNorth.
He claimed that it took him 15 minutues longer to get to work, going up to 42nd and taking the 7 to GCT, than coming home, switching at Bleeker. I suggested getting out and going over. He said he tried it but it was tiring and confusing, and took almost as much time.
That's my experience as well. Not only is there all those stairs, and getting out the Metrocard to swipe again, but there is also two additional blocks. Not far? Maybe if you can walk underground without stopping, but not if you end up waiting for a light. You might be able to shave it down to an additional five minutes or so if you take the trip every day, but if you have to find your way that takes considerably more time.
Morevoer, plenty of less transit-aggressive people fail to use the 6 coming home because they can only use it one way, and thus it is not familiar to them. I'll bet lots of people are losing an hour a week off their one and only lives.
Altogheter, I think the Bleeker connection is a big deal for Brooklyn. It will give the F a direct transfer to the Lex south of Midtown, and make it faster for BMT riders to change to the local at Broadway-Lafayette rather than the crowded express in Brooklyn. With enough marketing, you might be able to get, for example, Park Slope riders to choose the BMT rather than the IRT, given that both Broadway and 6th Avenue trains would have a transfer to the Lex.
I agree that Bleecker is an important transfer, but your friend is exaggerating grossly.
First of all, the extra block can't be helped, because the uptown platform at Bleecker is a block further north than the downtown platform. But that block is a minute of walking.
Secondly, you can cross Lafayette at Bleecker rather than Houston (safer). You have to wait at most 60 seeconds for a walk sign, and Lafayette is not that wide.
I'd say at most 3 minutes from the back of the F at Bway-Lafayette to the front of the 6 at Bleecker.
It's a pain, but not THAT bad.
But still, I do believe many people don't do it even if it's faster than other routes.
Go to the downtown 6 platform, walk to the Bleecker St. exit, get out and the Uptown entrance is visible right across the street.
Not recommended during evening rush, though.
Can't blame people for that. The notion of actually leaving a station completely and "transferring" into another station doesn't seem right for most riders.
It's much more than that. The west end of Lawrence Street station is right under Jay Street. The Court Street station, on the other hand, is across Adams Street, an eight lane boulevard crowded with cars heading to and from the Brooklyn Bridge. Tearing that up cut and cover, and thus closing off Adams Street for years, would be extremely disruptive for the benefit received. Doing the construction without tearing up Adams Street would be extremely expensive.
When I have to go that way, I usually take the B or D one stop to the 1, so I'm not too familiar with 50 St. It has no crossunder or mezzanine for an E/C reverse direction transfer? I always assumed that I could transfer there but something about going the wrong way, even for a block or two, bothered me. Come to think of it, I vaguely recall trying that once and staying on to 42 St. It must have been so bad that I've tried to forget the experience. :)
On weekdays, or if I'm transferring from the 1/9, I usually opt for the B/D. But on weekends, when the B doesn't run, I don't want to give up my C to wait up to ten minutes for the D, only to ride one stop.
I agree that there should be an additional transfer there. Ideally, combine 50th IRT, 49th and/or 57th BMT, and 7th IND into a single mazelike complex.
They are both close enough to deserve one, IMHO.
Enough demand? I don't know. I would use the former one quite often if it existed.
Doing this would make find room for the R160's number easy since the number on the other newers fleets could have been closer together.
The number for the 4 cars sets would be (Just making up nembers for now. 8175A-D though 8225A-D. The 5 cars sets would be 8250A-E though 8330A-E. I know that this does not add up to 1700 cars but I just took number to make to easyer for you to see.
Robert
8175A-D means that someone has to think of what that indicates - 5 cars whereas 8175, 8176, 8177, 8178, 8179 immediately indicates 5 cars.
Take it from a Financial Analyst (yours truely) from a management standpoint individual numbering saves a lot of problems.
OK - which one of you wiseguys called me a beancounter?????!!!!
And whaddya mean, which ONE of us called you a beancounter? ;-)
The main problem I see is if they decided to reconfigure the sets in the future. For example, suppose they decided (for whatever reason) that they were better off with some three-car sets? The renumbering would be a mess.
Remember that history shows us that the BMT Standards (at various points including A, AX, B, BX and BT configurations) went through a decent bit of shuffling over their service lives.
D-types and other articulateds were never reconfigured. They did do some unit swapping, but they still came out as A-B-C or A-B-C-B1-A1 within their own types.
You might make a better case for married pairs being A-B, insofar as I don't recall any married pairs being made into any other configuration.
The contract to redo GCT is worth about $50 million,and includes the following (from MTA's website):
"The scope of work for Contract CM008 includes but is not limited to: partition work area from active track area, sidewalks and existing cross passageways; relocate existing conduits and raceways; relocate existing utilities; remove existing rail, third-rail, railroad ties, ballast, concrete crash walls, abandoned track signals and electrical systems along with associated materials; demolish four existing platforms; provide instrumentation on existing structures, columns and tracks within the influence zone of column; excavate rock and concrete for elevator, utilities, stairs and vent shafts; construct column relocations, modifications, structural re-framing and underpinning; and demolition of an existing building structure.
Jeez, it makes GCT seem like a racing facility. :-P
Also, there seems to be some confusion about the 10:30 departure location. Is it Grand Central Shuttle platform or TSQ Shuttle Platform?
I shall print-out a nametag (thanks to SubTalker RIPTA...HopeTunnel for the link), and I hope to see you there.
That would be Grand Central, Shuttle platform, Track #1 (left side as you walk the passageway from the Lex IRT)
No MOD trips at all start from Times Square
See you there!
i.e. the track four set just goes back & forth while the track one & three sets can merge into track three at Grand Central. SO, I assume we'll find our train on track one at Grand Central (the southern most track).
-Stef
Guess I will have to buy a couple of throwaways (single-use cameras), SOB!
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
Partially correct. It will end tonight at sundown in Israel and, for the non-Orthodox, everywhere else. Only the Orthodox in the Diaspora observe for two days. This is true of almost all holidays. The three notable exceptions to that are Yom Kippur, observed for only one day by everyone; Chanukah, observed for eight days by everyone; and Passover, observed for seven days in Israel and by Reform Jews in the Diaspora, and eight days by all other Jews in the Diaspora (Orthodox, Conservative, and others).
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Also, there are fewer intermediate days during Sukkot in the Diasporah and Simchat Torah and Shemini Atzeret do not fall on the same day in the Diaspora. Rosh Hashannah is two days in both Israel and the Diaspora (but it is also technically one long day).
I believe that is correct.
However, the rationale for the second day of Shavuot is far weaker than the rationale for the second day of any other biblical holiday. What do I mean, and why do we have the second day anyway?
Just curious: if you are a person who has a good 35 mm camera who wants to take pictures on a fan trip, why not just buy film elsewhere? I understand that B & H is the place to go for inexpensive film, but to stoop to "single use" cameras when you already have a good camera is crazy! I know it sucks that you were planning to make your purchase at B & H, and you are dissapointed that they aren't open during their "holiday", but to take lesser quality photos because of that makes no sense to me.
However, if you don't have a good 35 mm camera to begin with, please disregard!
Would ridership sometime down the line force the possibility to run 9-car trains on the C, J/Z, L and M?
Exactly how crowded are any of these lines in their current 8-car configuration? I probably guess that the M isn't too badly crowded, but the J/Z and L I have seen at times fairly crowded during rush hours.
Nick
A 9th car would be great if it works.
The J/M/Z combined are currently running 18-20tph in the AM peak hour. This is well below the capacity of the line. If necessary, the MTA could add more trains on the J/M/Z, before the possibility of extending the platforms would be entertained. I believe this would be very difficult on the Manhattan portion of the line, due to the environmental impacts on the Lower East Side and downtown.
The C visits the same stations as the A, and could run 10-car trains today, if they had the rolling stock, and if there were sufficient demand.
That leaves us with the L. If AIM's observations are correct, and if there are no other bottlenecks on the line, it should be possible to add more trains. I think this would be tried before extending the platforms—probably do-able on the L, but still a big undertaking.
So 9 cars, if feasible logistically, are cheaper than adding more trains.
4 feet doesn't sound like much longer, but I remember when the BMT ran 8 car Standards, the front of the first car, and the back of the last car would stop out of the station. The doors would be at the platform.
Remember, the Standards had 3 sets of doors, and they were further back from the end of the car than today's 4 set per car doors on the 60 foot cars.
I don't think a 9 car train of current 60 foot cars would make it in the stations.
The front doors are more than 2 feet behind the bulkhead, ditto for the rear doors. The would fit within the station. However, if such stopping accuracy is too much for T/O's then one could always have the front and rear doors closed.
Actually, it was 12'1 5/8" back. Again, the simple solution is keeping the fron and back door closed as was done with the LV's on the IRT.
My point was is that I could never understand why it happened just the one Sunday night.
The problem is that the R143 has CBTC equipment installed for use on the L line, and 9 car train operation would mean only R160's would be used. Will they have the same CBTC equipment the R143's have?
That would certainly be a good test of the TA's interoperability criterion. :-)
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
Is this one of those things where the difference in cost between an extra 10ft and an extra 100ft is minimal?
Arti
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
Main points:
1. It will be possible to make a 9 car train of R160s
2. All 4 car R160 sets are slated to go to the Eastern Division
3. All 5 car R160 sets are slated to go elsewhere
4. This is subject to change at any time
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
How difficult would it be to extend the PATH trains to GCT? This would help link MNR users to N.J. How great would it be to add another rail ine to GCT.
How would you route the trains to GCT?
Of course, the building of the 6th Ave. subway got in the way of any such extension.
-- Ed Sachs
South of 33rd street PATH (well, H&M) tracks were there first. IND tracks were built outboard of these on a slightly lower level. Whe the Express tracks were built, they had to dive deep under everything including the 14th Street subway which itself was below the PATH Lion.
I was speaking of NORTH of 33rd street, where PATH trains had never been built but had been planned. In this place the IND built a concourse above its own tracks between 34th and 42nd Street, and *this* looks like where the PATH lion might have been aligned, thence bending south to GCT.
Actually the better way to get there now would be to use the 9th street tunnel and thence north under the Lexington.
But actually, this extention ought never to be built anyway.
Elias
Bad idea. The 9th St. extension would have an at-grade crossing and clobber the TPH numbers for both it and the uptown service. When I first encountered it, I had to wonder "what the heck were they thinking" with that extension - the entire rest of the system was built with flying junctions to avoid this sort of thing. Then, after reading some of Jacobs' notebooks, it turns out it was not actually planned for regular service - if all the proposed extensions had been built, the uptown service would have terminated at Grand Central and there would have been a service from Grand Central down to Hudson Terminal, diverging at 33rd from the existing line, so the 9th St. "extension" would have been a simple extension to allow for track work and service diversions, not a regular revenue route - it would have just connected the two north-south H&M lines at the last reasonable point before they split and proceeded to New Jersey on their respective tunnels. See this map:
Don't be fooled into thinking that is the Broadway line or something - note the different alignment south of 17th St.
Elias
However, I'll tend to believe Jacobs' own notebooks over any of those maps. Further, if the idea was just to go a few blocks across town, they would not have left the tunneling machinery in there (as an example, the ring erector), since the H&M tunnels change to cut & cover at 12th St, and the only reason it stays in rings at 9th is because of the curves. A straight crosstown run under 9th Street could be done in cut & cover more effectively.
The full announcement of the show is at www.tmk.com/announce.
R-32.
The 34th-42nd Street tunnel was mostly but not completely useless and was closed because of a high profile incident in the 1980s.
Now a good passageway to be reopened would be the Penn Station-Herald Square passage.
So what was that high profile incident. I was out of the country after '85. BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, there is Manhattan Mall, but it has Stern's at the back. From what I understand, that development was a Stern's idea, with Stern's subletting to other vendors / brands, in much the same way Macy's is now doing. Stern's has restricted itself to the rear of the 'mall' subletting what I understand they used to own. Unless Stern's is no longer back there, I walked through Stern's myself.
R-32.
It seems the intent of the Hudson and Manhattan Rairoad was to link various railroad terminals on both side of the Hudson. McAdoo was ahead of his time.
Bill "Newkirk"
See http://www.accesstotheregionscore.com.
I believe a NJT->GCT extension is easier, because it would run deeper and wouldn't have to displace as much existing infrastructure. PATH, being shallower, would be blocked by subway lines all along the way.
The LIRR to GCT makes better sense than NJT to GCT.
If you like the idea of extending PATH to GCT, then presumably you believe that there are NJ commuters who want to reach jobs in east midtown. A NJT link to GCT would not only get them there faster, but it would offer the option to a far wider service area.
That's exactly what a PATH extention to GCT would do for commuters from Hoboken, JSQ, and Newark. There are many commuters from those areas that would benefit from it.
"I believe a NJT->GCT extension is easier, because it would run deeper and wouldn't have to displace as much existing infrastructure."
Whose to say the PATH couldn't be run deeper past 33rd street to accomodate current infrastructure. The tunnel would be a lot shorter and probably only two tracks.
The problem is the infrastructure right there at 33rd. See post here.
The mezzanine could be reorganized to accomodate the extension. Think of how many more people would use the PATH simply to shuttle back and forth between GCT and 33rd.
Think of how many more people would use the PATH simply to shuttle back and forth between GCT and 33rd.
Is there a great un-met demand for this particular travel route? I doubt it. It would benefit mainly NJ commuters, but the NJT connection (if that's ever built) would be more likely to get traction.
Because the PATH is just one level below the street, you wouldn't be able to make a turn onto one of the cross streets without taking out the basements of a few buildings.
Also important is to consider where in GCT one wants the PATH terminal to be. It isn't as though there's a whole lot of space available.
If PATH to GCT is to be viable I'd think it would have to break off somewhere between Christopher and 9th Street and make it's way over to Park Avenue.
Would people use it? Absolutely. Enough to justify the cost and inconvenience -- in my opinion, no.
We should also consider that there is expected to be a reasonably convenient transfer from PATH to the 4/5 trains at the WTC site. This provides PATH riders with a one connection ride to the entire east side, as opposed to just GCT.
CG
That's key. Extending PATH is a nice idea, but as long as you have good connections, you're providing a lot to passengers already. PATH transfers are available to the 6th Av IND and, soon to the Lex.
An underground passage connecting PATH, the 6th Av IND and Penn Station would be nice too.
Then the 4-5-6 Line would be in the way - remember it's under Park below 42nd.
This is really getting like a version of Minesweeper.
Anything to connect GCT. Sometimes I feel like it's on another planet, connected only to the Lex.
Finally some support! I couldn't agree with you more. It feels like GCT and PENN and WTC are in different cities. It's so ridiculous the way it's set up now. Thank fully, the WTC site will have a new opportunity to rectify it's flaws through the Fulton Station.
BTW, Welcome to Subtalk. My experience as a train buff has opened up here on a universal level, I hope for the same with you here.
R-32.
The mezzanine between 34th and 40th streets has nothing to do with this - it was solid ground (with the 6th Ave El over it) until the 6th Ave IND came along. It was a concession to merchants on 6th Ave who were assessed an extra property tax for the demolition of the El and construction of the subway, since the El had a station between 34th and 42nd which the subway would not have. Lots of entrances to the mezzanine meant people could stay dry/warm in inclement weather and not have to walk more than a half block outside to visit the stores when leaving the subway. The H&M was cut back to 30th to 32nd streets and slightly raised to make room for the IND to rise up (and then the IND dips down to avoid the Broadway line). The H&M/PATH "33rd" St. station looks like an IND station because it is an IND station - it was the IND's concession for taking the original station and most of the platform width of the 14th/19th/23rd stations and all of the 28th station.
Below the IND you have the NJ Transit/LIRR tunnels running east/west, and below that you have the water tunnel running roughly north/south. That doesn't leave a lot of room for anything.
Here is the artist's rendering of the proposed H&M station at Grand Central. That space is still a gap.
And here is a more architectural drawing:
Arti
And as for some people on this board who may doubt the validity of his claim of poor health, just take a look of yourself in the mirror and think about this: CC Local NEVER used his health as an issue for leverage to obtain financial support from other Subtalkers, just a little emotional support to combat the bouts of depression he was going through. I hope the day when YOU get sick or ill and post your status on this board, I will remind you with links of YOUR POSTINGS SAYING THAT IS B.S.. so that I will come out to you telling you a liar. But I am NEVER that way and never will, just wake up and give the other person the benefit of doubt.
I rest my case on this issue.
Bill "Newkirk"
-4thAveLocal
1. Ridge is looking at a local (Pennsylvania) office and wants to distance himself from Dubna.
2. The administration is finally realizing that the color-coded system causes too much paranoia among the country and is an abject failure, especially when the "up & down" is due to totally nebulous "reports" with nothing to back them up. Constantly crying WOLF when nothing happens leads to major problems if anything does occur.
To put this in a NYC rail contect: The color alert system is responsible for the furor over photography in the Subway.
I'd agree with your second theory. The first one's probably not correct because Ridge, far from becoming the hero that he'd expected, has largely made a buffoon of himself, in the process greatly limiting his political opportunities for some time to come.
Unfortunately, while the end of the nationwide color alert system will be a benefit for you people down in Baltimore and elsewhere, it won't make much difference up here. New York is so full of paranoia that it's been on perpetual Orange alert even when the rest of the nation's on Yellow. I wouldn't expect this to change if nationwide alerts are discontinued. This means, alas, that subway photographers will face ongoing harrassment.
http://www.snitchreport.com/kids/
Please do not extend this wonderful priveledge to me. I already have 67 people in the "Joke" rule who insist on forwarding every damn joke that arrives in their inbox. More I do not need.
Don't worry, I won't pass any of them along.:)
I disagree. Being a buffoon doesn't necessarily limit one in the political arena. I can cite numerous examples.
"The [military] academies are really important for a lot of reasons. Obviously, what you learn on the football field is even more important since we're still at war."
-- Washington, D.C., May 16, 2003
"I've been to war. I've raised twins. If I had a choice, I'd rather go to war."
-- Dubya doing a sterling job of belittling war and parenting at the same time, while also backhandedly manufacturing a war record for himself out of thin air, Jan. 27, 2002
Ya just CAN'T make stuff like this up. Gore may have been a schmoe, but THIS guy's a corker. Watch him get re-elected. America loves politicos that are dumber than THEY are. :)
For the last very rainy week, the Verrazano has lost ALL of its cops at the toll plaza. Traffic flow has greatly improved at 0430, since the random lane closures are not happening. Apparently, terrorists don't operate in the rain.
If there were a revenue service B Division train ahead of the A Division equipment (which is obviously not in revenue service), I would think that there could a major safety problem.
How is this resolved? Are all revenue trains cleared from the route before the A Division equipment is moved?
Bill "Newkirk"
It was retired from revenue service when assigned to the #7 when used as an escort.
"The Flushing R-36s and single R-33s were the only LAHT cars passed over during the first round of silver-and-blue repainting except for the majority of R-1/9s still around."
Some Flushing cars received the silver/blue treatment, but not the entire fleet. The white paint scheme came next as a dare for grafitti vandals. I believe that scheme started on the #7 and spread to mainline.
Bill "Newkirk"
Just in!
Remember "Trucker Caps?" Those foam-fronted, mesh-sided gimme caps that used to be so popular? Well, they're BAAAAACK!! (In case you care!)
Check them out on my site at
http://nycsubwayline.com
Let me know what you think!!
subway grrl
Do you like this style hat, or are you just giving me a hard time?
subway grrl
IMHO, I favor the Baseball caps OVER Trucker Caps. ANYday.
68 people posted only once.
The most prolific poster was Chapter 11 Choo Choo with 724 posts. Filling out the top 5 are Flatbush41, David J. Greenberger, SelkirkTMO and CPCTC with 603, 564, 554 and 462 posts respectively.
If the link doesn't work, that means I haven't set it up yet, try again later.
He asks for all posts for the month and then sorts the massive resulting text file using (IIRC) MS Word.
Peace,
ANDEE
(needed to be said, please note that I *didn't* mention that elusive station out near Euclid)
Peace,
ANDEE
Can't wait to hear the reviews ... still busy doing my raindance for the Snediker steelwork, so it's hard to type right now.
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
Does your official source have a date for the escalators at Court St/Borough Hall, so we don’t have to walk up when we go to the opening?
How about a groundbreaking for the next EIS for the SAS, let alone the first shovel which I will NEVER see, not even my future grandchildren will see either.
I asked about the escalators because construction/rehabilitation/asbestos removal has at least started, so that I would expect some progress, however glacial the pace.
Imagine a groundbreaking ceremony for this on October 27th, 2004 ... it would be a great way to commemorate the past and bridge to the future.
Uh oh - I sense a marketing campaign coming on :)
--Mark
Also, count on the R-46 (Rockwell HPT-2) and arnine trucks to be gone from the platform. A newsletter showed one of them being picked up by a crane for removal.
Also this sad note: Remember that mini R-10 mockup called the "Safety Special" ? From what I heard, it was destroyed.
Bill "Newkirk"
You mean the R-12,15,17 1nd 33 ?
Why would they cannibalize them ? They just might bring them down there on their own power. They did so before the Museum opened in July 1976.
Bill "Newkirk"
Yes, they are gone, only one truck remains.
Peace,
ANDEE
--Mark
Now who's the brah who told me July 19th??
>;P
Peace,
ANDEE
Unfortunately I will be in New Zealand then (8-( .
The Snediker el. side is scheduled to be abandoned while a new track connection from Sutter to Broadway Junction, Manhattan bound take place. This will for the first time, run both directions of the L line together and share the same platform at Atlantic Ave. Currently two platforms are used at Atlantic Ave station, you know how far apart they are.
Robert
I'm beginning to think that Selkirk's rain dance or God being a BMT fan is the cause of the Snediker curse. It's the ghost of William Menden, refusing to see his Atantic Ave "el" complex partially dismantled.
Bill "Newkirk"
God loves the old alignment. Proff.
God loves the old alignment. Proff.
Maybe so..........
Maybe Unca Heypaul can pursuade Randy Kennedy to take a trip upstate to check out a genuine raindance for a story. Maybe a seance on the abandoned railroad tracks or something. Give him a few mosquitos to take home perhaps. I'm having fun creating a myth, and all I want to stop all this foolishness is a little handle time. Heh.
LOL. I just want to see how long this goes on before the new L connection finally takes place hehe; look the sun is out now, amazing.
It's going to be a huge shame though to see that historic steel get cut once the connection is in place and yes, we really did do a rain dance. Of course, I'm not a child anymore and don't REALLY believe that would have ANY effect. But I'm STILL loving it. =)
Everyone, enjoy the old alignment while you can. Seeing how TPTB have mucked up the rest of the system, they'll probably stick timers on the new alignment in short order so trains will run slower on it with CBTC than on the old one.
Unless I'm totally wrong, CBTC signaling won't have timers. The software, in conjunction with information it receives, will specify a speed (if ATO) or a maximum speed (if manually operated) at all times.
Technically true but the effect of CBTC and conventional timers is the same. Conventional timers require that the time interval that a train passes between two points must be greater than a certain value. This is equivalent to specifying a maximum speed.
Ah, but to make sure that the "greater than" gets satisfied, first the timers are set conservatively in case there is some error, and secondly the T/Os go even slower so that they don't go into BIE in case of slight misjudgment. The result is that if NYCT really wants a train to be going no more than 30 mph, it usually ends up going 20 mph.
I'm hoping that with CBTC the train will really go 30 in such a case.
I'm hoping that with CBTC the train will really go 30 in such a case.
So, CBTC will not by itself make the trains go faster. It is hoped that CBTC's installation will make the NYCT reform some of its sloppy operating practices.
CBTC will bring another problem. The T/O's speedometer display is different from the CBTC's speedometer. There will be differences - especially because of the damping that the TA placed on the visual display. I think the T/O's will go a lot slower than the maximum posted speed, after the first couple of BIE's due to the differences in the two speedometer systems. Timers are in place only at certain key places, CBTC posts maximum speed throughout the run. My guess is that the T/O's will no longer be able to wrap it up between timed sections but will approach their job as if the entire run were in a timer section.
Back when REAL trains ran, your "operator" could tell EXACTLY what speed they were doing without ever taking their eyeballs off the steel. :(
I have no real knowledge of how it will work, but I sure hope you're wrong. I hope that CBTC PREVENTS the train from going more than the desired maximum speed, rather than putting it into BIE if the T/O goes over that speed.
But there are of course limitless possibiltiies for writing bad software, or good software that adheres to bad requirements.
No EL ... no EL ... no EL ... no EL ... heh.
I was in New York on Tuesday, 3 June, and had enough time to go from 1st Avenue to Canarsie (for pizza, naturally, for lunch) and back to Broadway Junction, so I got to ride through the eastern part of the complex, maybe for the last time. Then back to Broadway and a 'J' running express west of Myrtle to Marcy and the Bridge.
It really doesn't look like there's much left to do--a few short girders and some rail seem to be all that's needed. Considering that it rained the day they finished the Brooklyn to Culver connection back in 1954, it's hard to figure why the work isn't finished..
How long did it take to tear down the northeern half at Queensborough Plaza? I remember looking at it in amazement when I was a kid and then all of a sudden it was gone.
BTW, somebody mentioned an 8th Avenue-bound train as 'westbound'--did the old BMT designation of that direction as 'northbound' end when the IND absorbed the BMT? What about 'J' trains going to Broad Street--are they still 'northbound'? At Parsons, are arriving 'J' trains southbound while arriving 'E' are northbound?
Ed Alfonsin
Potsdam, New York
Broad St on the J is the south terminal [heading southbound], Jamaica Center on both the E and the J/Z is the north terminal.
Broad St on the J is the south terminal [heading southbound], Jamaica Center on both the E and the J/Z is the north terminal.
If that's so, when were BMT 'northbound' trains changed to 'southbound'? At the Chrystie opening?
Nassau Street used to be a great spot to watch things like a Brighton Special in the evening, prior to Chrystie, which was BMT-southbound toward the Tunnel, while a train from Jamaica on the same track bound for Broad Street was BMT-northbound. Culver locals bound for Chambers were BMT-northbound while Jamaica-bound trains were BMT-southbound on the same track.
When did that change?
Ed Alfonsin
Potsdam, New York
I don't know when exactly but what I do know is that the Broad St terminal is considered the southern terminal now since the J doesn't go further south.
Sorry, couldn’t resist!
:-P
--Mark
Image Taken from: www.nycrail.com
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
They can make me shit like a goose. They work better than Ex-Lax.
But I do like the Nathan's atmosphere, by the beach and everything. It's special because of where it is and not what it is. I will never forget Coney Island Beach. Someday I'll take my girlfriend there (although I doubt she would appreciate it -- girls from the praries or the mountains don't like city stuff and processed meats).
AEM7
2. She has a first-class host, doesn't she?
3. Coney Island is a first-class place. It really is. The processed meats are a lot more expensive to get to at Magic Mountain, and Coney Island isn't as pretentious (and you have the Aquarium, the boardwalk, etc. etc.)
4. And, lastly, your girlfriend is a first-class girlfriend, isn't she?
So don't sweat it. It'll be fine.
------------------------
(I made it a policy never to go out with or marry somebody with no people skills)
Yeah, we've been meaning to go to New York, especially with the $10 Chinatown bus it's really very tempting. So far, I have always taken the Federal, but it helps that someone else had been paying the bills (Yes, business travel). They are always amazed when I show up with a ticket stub for not a Delta Shuttle, not an Acela Express, but THE SHORELINER!!!
4. And, lastly, your girlfriend is a first-class girlfriend, isn't she?
So you have worked out why I haven't had time to go on subtalk? :-)
AEM7902
Peace,
ANDEE
If you go into the dining area in the back, make sure your hands are covered in chalk because everything in there is coated in a fine layer of grease.
(www.ruttshut.com)
#3 West End Jeff
The Ballot
New York-
R32
R33
R36
R38
R40
R40M
R42
R44
R46
R62
R62A
R68
R68A
R142A
R143
Boston-
Blue Line-0600
Red Line-01500/01600
01700
01800
Orange Line-01200
Green Line-Boeing
Type 7
Type 8
Philadelphia-
M-4
Kawasaki Broad St. B-IV
ABB/ASEA Rt. 100 car
Kawasaki Subway-Surface car
Washington-
Rohr
Breda
CAF
Chicago-
2200
2400
2600
3200
LA Metro-
Blue Line LRV
Green Line LRV
Red Line Breda Heavy Rail car
Other (write-in)
MTA NYC Subway
R32/38
R44/46
R68A
R110B*
R143*
WMATA
CAF Cars
*=My Special Favorite Cars
~AcelaExpress2005 - R160
R36
Boston-
Blue Line-0600
Philadelphia-
Kawasaki Broad St. B-IV
Washington-
Rohr
Breda
CAF
3 way tie
Chicago-
I've only been on the
3200
I can't exactly pick a favorite out of these though. They each bring something different.
R36
No argument from here. From a aesthetic view point, I am rather partial to the R46.
Washington-
Rohr
Breda
CAF
3 way tie-
No tie for me. The Rohrs in there original configuration as delivered back in 1974. They could execrate to cruising speed very quick.
John
NYC - R38, 40{slants}, 42, 44, 46, 68/68a
NJ - PATCO and PATH cars, NJT LRT cars (NCS and HBLRT)
Philly - M4 MFSE, B4 Broad st, N5 Norristown, and all of the Kawasaki trolley cars
WASHINGTON - All of the Metro cars
BALTIMORE - Metro and Light Rail cars
Never been to Boston or Chicago, but would love to ride their cars.
Waiting to ride the diesel LRT cars on the SJLRTS.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Nah, I'm a CA&E fan through and through. I like the North Shore too, but as far as I'm concerned those CA&E wood cars would win against the 'Liner in speed, reliability, attractiveness, and opulence any day. And I still say that third rail is better than overhead for high-speed operation. :-)
Frank Hicks
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
It could be a while. Every time a motor on the 'Liner is repaired, another one blows up - and another 8-12 months is needed to drop that motor, send it in, get it rebuilt, and reinstall it. Money is always needed. The work is getting done, and I believe they may be running it again late this year with the most recently rebuilt motor, but it's still low on the dependability scale.
Frank Hicks
Frankly, I'd settle for a train of 4000s on the mainline. My main goal is to ride on the Green Hornet around the loop sometime.
R32
R40
R42
R68
R143
til next time
Boston? Never been there. But I plan to this summer, hopefully.
Philly? Dunno. I've only been once, and rode 2 types of car, and have absolutely no idea what they were. I liked the first one's front-row railfan window seat, but didn't care for the 2nd (no RFW at all!)
D.C.? Dunno that one either. Same as above, but didn't even appreciate this one's RFW (I was nowhere near the front or rear of the train, so at the time I didn't even know they had them! That whole trip was a disaster anyway)
Chicago? Never been there either. Amtrak's too expensive, local commuter RRs take too long, and airplanes scare me, so I don't think I'll ever have the pleasure of visiting Chicago's "L".
LA Metro? Never been there, but I like the look of the Red Line's cars over the other two.
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
R38's have 3 piece side signs too as well as the remaining Redbirds. My vote goes to the R32 as well as my favorite car in the subways, second place goes to the R33/36 WF.
bridge train
#1015
#1008
Then:
R42
R68A
R40
Tossup between the R-1/9s and R-10s
R-32s
R-38s
Slants
Chicago:
2000s Actually tolerable in the State St. subway. Must have been better insulated.
Operationally from a C/Rs point of view I thought the R32 were tops. And the CI based R32s seemed to have extra umph to the doors.
R-32: The other trains in my life...scared me to death when I little before they were GOH. The day that I saw them on the E back in 1991, I freaked out. They soon became cars that I learned to appreciate and respect. I learned about the Railfan Window and SMEE operation from these cars. Beautiful design, great acceleration, excellent A/C.
R-40S: It's all about the Slant! I remember when they used run up and down the A! Plus, the child friendly railfan window is great for all the little kids. On the other hand, the R-40M/R-42 can go to Hell!
R-68A: Not as radical as the Metropolitan units, but they're rather good looking.
R-36 WF: The best looking of the Redbird fleet.
R-143: This looks 10x better than the R-142s. I love the black rounded front, and wished the design could have been used on M-7s. I wish that they'd have coloured bullets.
New Jersey Transit
Kinki-Sharyo LRVs: Cute low-floor LRVs! I also love their A/C traction whines when they start up. I love how they have railfan windows that give a view of T/O's cab and the view ahead. Plus, the can reach 60 mph! A lot better looking than the old PCCs.
PATH
PA-4: The only good PATH car. PATH's car aren't ugly, but their cars aren't too interesting.
I haven't done much railfanning outside of NYC to compare cars from other cities, but I think I may be seeing MARTA this summer! :-)
Yeah, that amazed me also. All the times I rode it though, there was no competition for the RFW. I think it's gonna take some time before the local railfan mentality solidifies. And it is a great view. Definitely, the best view of the T/O and the tracks ahead in the NYC metro area. Irrationally, I have a feeling the the Central Rail Road of New Jersey would've approved of the latest trains running down its R.O.W.
-Comfortable seats (when they aren't vandalized or have something spilled on them).
-Amazing acceleration and braking. The trains normally reach 50 mph and above between the stations, which are only a few blocks apart.
-A huge railfan window with a seat right in front of it. You don't have to stand there peering out a little square like you have to in NYC.
Anyway, mine are:
MARTA CQ312
one
two
three
Sao Paulo Metro Series 5700
one
two
London Underground Central Line
one
two
three
Chicago 2200 Series
one
two
Please mind the gap between the train and the traction motor!
Mark
Mark
Toronto TTC T1: The brushed aluminum bodies and the nostalgically classsy TTC log make them look like a brand new Lionel train set opened on a Christmas morning many decades ago. Also, with the rear-facing railfan seat, your face is right against the glass for great views.
PATCO's current Budd cars: They're so old, and the style so dated, but they are in excellent shape considering they've been in service since 1969. The cockpit is very curious, separated from the passengers not by a locknig door but merely a curtain. This plus huge railfan windows makes for a great ride if you get the railfan seat.
Mark
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
John
1) Is the fare $1.50 and not $2 and do they accept MetroCard as well as the token?
2) If they don't accept MetroCard, I assume I can't transfer from it to the subway without paying another fare.
3) What does it do? Does it run over the river on its own bridge or something?
4) How far is it from Roosevelt Island F train?
The fare is $2. Token only. The token is the same as the old NYCT token that used to cost $1.50, so if you have an extra one lying around, you can use it.
Note that the Manhattan booth only sells one token at a time, and the RI end has no booth, but machines, and the machines don't accept anything greater than a $1 bill.
2) If they don't accept MetroCard, I assume I can't transfer from it to the subway without paying another fare.
Correct
3) What does it do? Does it run over the river on its own bridge or something?
It runs over the river on its own set of cables that hang on towers on either side. There is no other structure.
4) How far is it from Roosevelt Island F train?
The equivalent of 3 city blocks.
Cables:
The track cables are 1 13/16" (45.5mm) inches in diameter and have an ultimate strength of 504,980 pounds; three times greater than the operating tension of 162,600 pounds. The haul cable is 1 5/8" (41mm) inches in diameter and has an ultimate strength of 280,620 pounds, which is 5.5 times greater than the maximum operating tension of 50,680 pounds. The counter rope is 1 13/32 inches (36mm) in diameter and has an ultimate strength of 213,650 pounds, which is 5.4 times greater than the maximum operating tension of 39,800 pounds. The auxiliary cable used to drive the rescue cabins (used only in the event of an emergency) is 13/16" (20mm) inches in diameter and has an ultimate strength of 60,350 pounds, which is 3.77 times greater than the maximum operating tension of 16,000 pounds.
Counter-Cables:
All cables are kept under the constant tension by the use of counterweights in a pit under the manhattan station. This prevents changes in tension due to temperature changes or gradual cable stretch. The auxiliary cable weighs 26,000 lbs, the haul cable weighs 76,500 lbs, and the tract cable counterweights weigh 296,000 lbs.
Motor:
The haul rope is powered by a 10 foot, 4 inch diameter bullwheel which is driven by a 900 horsepower direct current motor through a gear box. Direct current power is supplied by an A.C. motor driving a D.C. generator.
Brakes:
One of two independent sets of spring-applied disc brakes can be used to stop the bullwheel and, in turn, the cabins, upon demand or upon malfunction of the control. Another type of brake, the track rope brake, is mounted on the wheel carriage of each cabin and stops the cabin by clamping onto the track cables. This brake is applied by the cabin attendant or automatically in case of haul cable failure.
Control:
The trip is initiated by the cabin attendant via audio frequency voltages induced inductively on the haul cable (which is electrically insulated). Two audio frequencies are sent from each cabin continuously during operation. Different commands use coded combinations of two frequencies out of a possible six. If the control room receives more or less than two frequencies from a cabin, or if the two coded frequencies are not a recognized command, the cabins automatically stop. Cabin attendants can also manually slow down or stop the tram at any point. The trip will not start unless the doors in both cabins are closed and locked; no electric signal can open doors while in transit.
Rescue:
Upon power outage, the cabins may be driven back to the stations by a hydraulic drive powered by a diesel engine. In case the cabin cannot be moved because of mechanical or electrical failure, two 15-passenger rescue cabins powered by the diesel-hydraulic drive can be installed on the track cables and moved to the stranded cabins. Also, passengers may be individually lowered to the ground or water through a trap door in the cabins by use of a special cable and pulley device stored on board.
Tram opening date: May, 1976
Total trips, as of November 16, 1999: 1,664,000
Approximate number of passengers since opening: 30,000,000
Capacity of gondola: 125 persons
Number of trips per day - weekday: 120
Number of trips per day - weekend: 100
Cost per ride: $2.00
Cost of construction, 1976: $5 million
Distance from water at highest point: 250 feet
Distance from station to station: 3,100 feet
Average time of trip: 4 1/2 minutes
Top speed of tram: 16 miles per hour
What a treasure, thanks Larry.
A hole, surrounded by water, into which you pour money.
Medford? It would take up the whole south side lot at Ronkonkoma! Not to mention that bridge clearance for the trailer would be a little tight.
You may have to take out a second mortgage just to refuel !
Bill "Newkirk"
I wonder how large an aircraft you could land on it? If small passenger aircraft could use it, moor it on the Hudson River off W34th St or something and businessmen will love it!
If you can get a 30 knot wind over the bow, a Cessna, whose landing speed is about 45-55 knots, could touch down on the deck and easily stop within just a few feet! Takeoff though, in an airplane not suited for the catapult, would be a bit tricky, but do-able: Start at the end of the deck, set flaps for take-off, rev up the engine to max RPM while holding the brake, then release and pray that you are at V2 by the time your wheels roll off the bow (you might drop a few feet toward the water and hopefully by then you are legitimately above your stall speed.
It's happened before...
But seriously, we're going to takeover the world one day. And because ruling the world is so expensive, we saved money by getting good deal on a used Aircraft Carrier back in the 50s. We are even getting a decent resale value for it.
You think so? Peter hasn't paid the money yet. He may be intending to knock down the price a few bucks, or maybe insist on a tank of fuel before he takes delivery.
Tom
Chris C. Shaffer
I believe I'll be attending the event as well...
-Stef
(if the train will be longer, than maybe there will be Mainliners in it instead of those awful flushing cars)
oh.
Thanks,
-Dan
-Dan
Posted by djf179 on Thu Jun 5 21:53:15 2003, in response to Re: The GO for the MOD trips is out!, posted by Stef on Thu Jun 5 09:49:21 2003.
Well then the TA cyber police can come and get me.
IRT, June 7: Westchester Yard to Grand Central Shuttle (track 1); via Lex to Livonia Yard; via 7th Avenue line to 239th Street Yard and lunch stop. To E180 and change ends for Dyre line. Then via Lex to Brooklyn Bridge, loop to Track 4 where excursion ends. Train returns to Westchester Yard.
IND/BMT, June 8: Coney Island Yard to Chambers Street track J1. To Broad Street and then via W line to 9th Ave lower. Then north to Ditmars via W line. South via W to Lex, change ends, then via R/F line to 179th Street and lunch. 179 to Jamaica Yard, then via G to 4th Ave then via F to Ave X and CI Yard. Leave CI Yard to Stillwell Ave and Brighton line to Whitehall Street and end of excursion. Train returns to Coney Island Yard.
Both GO's state that "stops for photographs or other reasons will be made at the discretion of the RTO Supervisor In-Charge."
Not responsible for last minute changes.
Now I guess I'll have to give myself 30 days in the street ;-)
AEM7902
If you have one of those new crappy digital monitors, well nee-ner, you can't see the flag. Serves you ritue for havin' too new a monitor.
AEM7
If you have one of those new crappy digital monitors, well nee-ner, you can't see the flag. Serves you ritue for havin' too new a monitor. Didn't know I had one. I guess when you say what I have, that's suddenly the case.
Want fun, go the business school's computer lab. At Drexel the business school's computer labs draw from the idiot Business and Information Science schools instead of the Computer Science and Engineering schools like they should (it's a Job program for lazy Biz students). This means you can leave the monitor on, turn down the contrast and brightness and then get up and move, leaving the business student and crappy MIS guy to figure out what was wrong with the monitor. The one time I did this the guy even said something to the effect of 'I thought somebody might have turned down the Brightness and Contrast down, but I can't find the controls.' I had to leave because I was gonna crack up right there!
Not really. The older ones you can turn it up until it lights up the whole room. The new Energy Star crap won't even let you turn it up so you can read the text. I have a DELL 14" monitor here, it is so crappy, but I lost my old analogue monitor in a move... well at least it doesn't flicker like my old one.
Want fun, go the business school's computer lab. At Drexel the business school's computer labs draw from the idiot Business and Information Science schools...
Do you ever see whatshisface the architect guy oh yeah David Cole there?
AEM7
Peace,
ANDEE
She looks like she may be "mystical".....
By the way, none of your photos seem too dark for me. I guess it all depends on the computers people are using. The flag is perfectly clear.
Can hardly see the girl. Why didn't you zoom in? Anyway I didn't think she looked like anything spectacular, too thin, and too cosmopolitan. I suppose it takes all sorts.
Ok guys. I must apologize for this in advance. I do a bit of 3D graphics work and have my monitor calibrated for this. Unfortunately they look good here and I have no way of telling how its going to look for you guys.
If someone wants to take picture #1 which is partially in the shade, and adjust it and give me the settings used, I'll gladly apply them to future photos.
First, an interesting visitor at Philadelphia's Race St Engine Facility, an NJT ALP-46.
Second, a MARC HHP-8 forelornely awaiting the call to service at Amtrak's Penn Station: Baltimore.
Third, a vintage PRR Position Light Pedistal signal giving me a CLEAR signal through PAUL interlocking, MP 95.2.
Fourth, Amtrak ACELA express powercar #2014 pulling even with MARC GP40WH-2 #57 as it departs northbound. Beauty contest anyone?
Enjoy, I will post full sets of images from both trips as soon as I can process the images.
DB 185 class at the European Railway Server
AEM7
DB 101-class with “Fussball-land” advertising
Now if you wanna smear the HHP-8/Acela, then by all means trash the Froggie crap. In my little world, they're the equivilant to X995, the Frog loco that Amtrak passed on to get the AEM7, and Amtrak SHOULD have passed on the Acela/HHP-8 POS!
BTW, has anyone ever seen a HHP-8 with those doors over the HEP recepticles closed? Maybe they're broke too :)
As for the last picture, as I am college-age, I will say that the MARC engine is an ugly duckling, while the Acela (ignoring the yaw damper issues for now) looks like a hot sorority girl.
GREAT PICS!
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
I'm college age, too. Have you seen a sorority girl up close? My experience suggests they look nothing like an HHP-8 or an Acela Express.
The MARC engine *is* ugly. I'd prefer a P-42 anyday. Even better, take an AEM-7... you can't beat that thing for looks or power.
AEM7902
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
The ALP-46's maximum is 7100 HP, though it's continuous is really 1000 HP less. The thing being, AC traction and better control and truck technology gives them an edge in the TE department - 70,000lbs or so Vs the 50,000 lbs or so of the ALP-44. On paper, an ALP-46 or an HHP-8 would be an identically performing replacement to a GG-1, but likely the newer locomotives would beat out the GG-1 - they've got better wheelslip control, better adhesion, and can make full power at almost any speed , something the GG-1 couldn't do. But then, in the 30's, IGBTs didn't exist, and the GG-1's control system does allow a remarkable amount of control.
Oddly though, they've all got pretty close to the same axle loadings, and all three have fully suspended traction motors. I wonder what the rail forces on the three are like and how they compare? The GG-1 was known for good tracking, I've always wondered if it is close to or better than current electrics.
Incidently, the HHP-8 outweighs the ALP-46 by 11 tons, but meets the same standards and offers effectively equal performance.The ALP's 100 ton weight matches it's earlier cousins, but the punch of AC traction and computer control makes all the difference. ABB is big into power semiconductors and AC inverters, and the technology probbably transferred over to their rail equipment..
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
If I didn't know any better, I would believe that PRR signal was winking fondly and slyly at you...:0)
Interesting to see the Acela Express trainsets minus their power cars (at Race Street). Certainly indicates that if a superior power car is ever constructed, it could be added to the consists at a moment’s notice.
As for the HHP-8s (which also have been losing those ill-fated roof shrouds), the one in the Race Street facility photograph looks as though it is looking upon its better with somewhat of a degree of jealousy, this being the ALP-46, derived from the DB 101-class. (The DB 101-class is geared for 140-mph operation in Germany; NJT cut this down to 100 mph, however.)
Yes; and these main springs self-destructed after a mere 30,000 miles or so. Like I was saying, it is a good sign that a new power car at least can be added-on if necessary.
I also thought that was true, until somebody in the know told me that the entire train is designed as a structure system using finite element analysis. When an Acela gets into a wreck, the coach bodies are supposed to lock together and form essentially a large bar of steel. If you look at the car ends, they have more than just anticlimbers, but entire structure parts designed to rest against each other and lock together. Thus, replacing the powercar would require a design that satisfies all the structure parameters retroactively. My guess is that if there is a problem related to weight distribution or vibration or structures on the power car, they have very little choice but to tweak the existing powercar because what is possible to do structurally on the powercar is constrained by the requirements of the next coach along, structurally speaking.
I mean from a Redbird you can pass an R-62 on the Flushing while passing over AE's, HHP-8's, ALP-44's, ALP-46's, AEM-7AC's in Phaze V, AEM-7's in Phaze III and phaze IV, Arrow III's, Comets IB/II/IIM/III/IV/V in sunnyside with M-1 trains running paralell with M-7 trains and DE/DM-30's down in HAROLD.
Think about how Penn Station has improved. Before 1995 6 classes of locomotive operated into Penn, not counting the occasional turbo. Today we see 15.
If you think diversity is good, now is the time to railfan British Rail. I just got the latest issue of RAIL magazine, and they keep talking about retro repaints and one-of-a-kind locomotives that are being trialled, or modified, etc.
I think that with the F-units gone, railfanning will never be the same again. Recently I saw a fotograf of an F-unit in MBTA colors. It was quite an experience. The F-40s and GP-40MC these days aren't really that much fun.
Mind you, on the up side, I found Boston & Maine BUDD CARS still laying in the yard, numbered MBTX 100093 or something like that, used for MOW duties. It's been pretty well vandalized. You can see it if you take the Orange Line to Community College and get near the wye there. This was last Thurs. I took pics from the Orange Line subway car but don't know whether they would turn out.
AEM7
If GP is Geep, then MP is Meep. Mike is talking about the MP/P/T 72/75 cars that died a grimy death during their last years on the LIRR.
Mark
What were those called? Scoots?
So, I guess MP15 = Meeps =
They were hauling COMMUTER RAINS with THAT THING? So what does the 15 stand for? 15-mph? Looks like it...
Reminds me of Dearborn Sta in Chicago, with the C&WI commuter "runs". AEM7
....and no one was wondering why there was a GP38 instead of an M1 at Island Park on the Long Beach Branch?
Well, actually I figured the second one with poor MP15 #171 would get more attention. Actually, the story had a happy ending, 171 was all fixed up, and served passengers for many more years:
Well, here's the story. A nice warm May monday morning, 171 was on the front of a Speonk westbound and had just made it's stop at the Bellport station. AT the same time, a truck carrying concrete cesspool forms got hung up at the Orchard Road grade crossing in Bellport. The gates started coming down, and the truck driver jumped out of his truck. (I don't know if the engineer of 171 was hurt). The train smashed into the truck and demolished it. Luckily, the train had just stopped at Bellport, because otherwise it the train had skipped Bellport, as many trains do, the train would have been going much faster, and it would have been so much worse. Considering the whole truck was full of concrete, it's amazing that 171 wasn't damaged worse. I'd hate to think what would have happened today with a cab controlled bi-level westbound in the same situation that 171 was in. Here's a few more photos, and what was left of the truck. The train always wins:
I was just glad that the Meep wasn't running with the cab forward.
This tells what the line was in those days, including settling the issue that there was no scheduled express service on the structure duting the BofT era.
I suspect this was the case on the Culver pre-IND.
Trolleys on the street and big truck rigs operate on line-of-sight--I don't really think having el trains do the same is that amazing--or dangerous. Of course, signal control is better.
-- Ed Sachs
I do remember prior to Christie Street, during the week, alternate D trains were turned at Church Avenue. When the F started running on the Culver in November 1967 they did not turn them at Church Avenue any more.
The oldest I got to ride was the Q's on the lower Myrtle in the 60's, also got to enjoy the Culver and other "gone" lines. But since I came from the IRT borough, got seriously shortchanged on the history of the BMT borough. Wasn't until the last ten years or so that I finally got to discover some of the richness of what once was.
One of the reasons for Unca Selkirk's raindance. :)
Thanks for the kind words, Chris! I think I should point out that we are dealing with two Karl B's here, Bernstein and Burkhardt. Bernstein wrote the Culver, and I wrote the gate cars and some of the others.
http://www.brooklynrail.com/brooklyncitystreetcar.html
Bob D.
PS- Hope this is interesting.
It is much easier on the hardware to copy and paste. :-)
Tom
However, the SAS will be built extremely straight with high radius curves where curves are needed at all. As such, we can expect the following:
- On leaving a station, accelerate at 3 mph per second to 45 mph.
- On arriving at a station, decelerate at an average 3 mph per second to 0. This is not a particularly rapid braking deceleration.
- Spend 30 seconds in each station. There are no GCTs here with massive crowds. Maybe 54th-57th will take slightly longer, but other stations should take less.
The acceleration and deceleration "wastes" 15 seconds total per stop relative to being able to continue at 45 mph. Therefore, total length of trip = 8.5 miles at 45 mph, plus 45 seconds for each of the 15 stations on route.
Total trip time, 125th to Hannover Sq.: 23 minutes.
#4 train scheduled time, 125th to Bowling Green: 23 minutes.
:0)
Very few people break that way and there is a delay to get to fs. the newer equipment have dynamic and air at high speeds so that might help.
Very few people break that way and there is a delay to get to fs. the newer equipment have dynamic and air at high speeds so that might help.
I don't think so.
I frequently observe 2/3 T/Os coming southbound into 14th St at 40 mph and not hitting the brakes until they're 40% of the way into the station.
That comes to approximately 4 mph/sec deceleration.
Maybe I'm messing up some calculation or observation but if so I don't see where.
No one who actually tries it both ways will choose the Lex merely because an express is available. They'll choose the line that offers the best overall commute. Walking time would most likely dominate over the time difference—if any—between Lex express and SAS.
Still, the SAS will not be taking people very far. People may get off the Lex or MetroNorth at 125th to got to the far east side in Midtown. I doubt they will do so to go all the way downtown.
Chicken and egg in reverse.
If the SAS is a failure and doesn't relieve congestion on the Lex, then people will change from the 6 to the SAS to go all the way downtown from 125th, just to avoid the horrible slowness on the 4/5 (the 4/5 in no way achieve their 23 minute schedule in current AM rush hours).
If the SAS is a success and relieves crowding on the Lex, so that the 4/5 can once again make it from 125th to Bowling Green in 23 minutes, then 6 riders will take the 4/5 downtown rather than the SAS.
This reminds one of Yogi Berra's saying about a club, that no one goes there any more because it's too crowded.
Yeah.....uh, maybe not. Life sometimes consists of a whole lot of minor victories and failures. Sure, the stats indicate a minor difference in trip time. Yet, there's always that tinge of "...damn it..." in my mind if I chose to take a local and by the first or second local stop the express rumbles on by as we're hittin' the brakes for the stop. Especially if I'm headed for one of the express stops.
Piddlin stuff. But there's always that minor tinge of "...hot damn..." in my mind if I chose to take an express and by the first or second local station we rumble on by the local as we head down the tracks. Ker Ching! One fer the good guys! Yeah, it's all illusion. What the hell.
I don't think so.
I frequently observe 2/3 T/Os coming southbound into 14th St at 40 mph and not hitting the brakes until they're 40% of the way into the station.
That comes to approximately 4 mph/sec deceleration.
Maybe I'm messing up some calculation or observation but if so I don't see where.
Well R62A's in particular tend to decelerate slightly faster than most rolling stock, there are some places all over the system where T/O's can roll into stations at 35-40mph and still not overshoot the platform, depends on the T/O also.
Not according to the specifications, they don't. According to the specifications, they decelerate at the same rate as other NYCT cars.
David
My guess is that trains are not travelling at 40 mph. How did you determine the 40 mph?
42 mph between 23rd and 18th St. based on length of time to pass from 23rd St entrance to 18th St entrance.
Definitely observe that no braking occurs between time the train leaves the south end of the 18th St station and getting 200' into the 14th St station.
Some slight slowdown could be occurring in those last 4 blocks but certainly not much. That's why I said 40 mph, not 42 mph. I feel very confident that the speed is still over 35 mph when the brakes are applied, which would then require a deceleration of 3 mph/sec.
You are assuming that the train does not decrease speed for the first 200 feet. This will take 3.4 seconds at 40 mph, leaving 22.6 seconds for braking. This is equivalent to a braking rate of 40/22.6 = 1.77 mph/sec. However, this would imply a travel distance of 664 feet.
I'd take a stopwatch and measure how long it takes the first 4 cars to enter the station. My guess is that it will take substantially longer than the 3.4 seconds that a 40 mph speed would imply. It's a difficult measurement to make with reaction time. Also, I'd guess that wind resistance slowed the train down from when you took your speed measurement at 18th St.
I certainly agree that 4/5 trains don't enter Union Square at anything approaching 40 mph. There's a timer just below 23rd St.
The #4 scheduled to leave 125 St at 6:54 is scheduled to arrive at Bowling Green at 7:17.
The #4 scheduled to leave 125 St at 8:55 is scheduled to arrive at Bowling Green at 9:27.
The scheduled journey time increases from 23 minutes to 32 minutes from beginning to end of the peak period.
If so, why would they limit trains to only 40 mph max speed??? It would seem to me like a good time to break the only bad thing about the NYC subway, the low speeds.
If the new Shabang happens, and since its NYC, they would build a 4 track local & express line most likely, and the express trains could get up to say 70 mph between some stations.
The SAS would have new tracks, tunnels and trains, except that the northern part of the SAS would be shared with trains from the existing Broadway line. The SAS is to be built to the same standards as the existing network of lettered trains.
If so, why would they limit trains to only 40 mph max speed??? It would seem to me like a good time to break the only bad thing about the NYC subway, the low speeds.
The SAS is to be a compromise between a local and an express line, having stations about every ten blocks.
If the new Shabang happens, and since its NYC, they would build a 4 track local & express line most likely, and the express trains could get up to say 70 mph between some stations.
There are to be only two tracks, so all trains will travel at the same compromise speed.
See the the "Planning Studies" section of the mta.info web site for the latest plans.
Anyway, when I got off at Maverick to trasnfer to buses, I saw there was a big panel in Maverick suspended above the escalator. It's like an NX panel, except without the buttons. So it shows with LED where the trains are, and how fast they are going (the LED lights up in quick succession).
Anyway I was impressed. If this isn't mentioned on the nycsubway Blue Line Section, Dave you should probably just copy and paste some of this post just in case people wanted to see Blue Line signalling in action.
AEM7
AEM7
Peace,
ANDEE
Airtrain isn't running yet.
AirTran and AirTrain are different things.
(1) Did I pick the right place, if I could have laid-over anywhere between New York and Washington, I picked Baltimore? (Now I just remembered, damn, I should have picked Wilmington, DE).
(2) Given that I picked Baltimore, what is there to see? Should I just wait at the station for trains to pass thru, or should I walk somewhere for a spectacular view?
I think the reason I picked Baltimore is just in case I miss my train, I could still at least get into DC by Commuter Rail. I am kicking myself in the boots now because I really needed to be at Wilmington. Maybe I can convince Amtrak to change my tickets.
AEM7902
OMG you picked Bmore? Anything's better than Bmore and its crappy Maryland MTA. The subway system only has like 200 cars and is only 15.5 miles long and only has 14 stations. And then when the cars accelerate from a dead stop, it makes this stupid BOOP BOOP beeping noise.
(2) Given that I picked Baltimore, what is there to see? Should I just wait at the station for trains to pass thru, or should I walk somewhere for a spectacular view?
Crap buses missing parts of their bumpers, Stop requested push strips ripped off or graffitied over with markers, ripped seats, non-working signs, missing fleet # stickers, slow-as-hell-eingines on their Flxibles, everything rattling, seats not screwed in....and the list goes on...
About the only thing good they have is their light rail. The north end of it is really interesting b/c it squirrels through many 90 degree turns within business parks
Have fun,
Baltimore's a beautiful city, just pathetic when it comes to TRUE rail transit.
Mark
Webshots "Around Baltimore" album
Webshots "Around Baltimore 2" album
In order to keep the spirit of transit and SubTalk alive, two SubTalkers should be allowed to board the ark.
The question is, Which Two?
Suggestions would be appreciated!
Don’t forget two rats from the Montague tunnel!
Gimme the old Audacious class Ark Royal the IVth! F-4Ks, Buccaneers, Fireflys and the like, actual power projection, not Harriers (ie IR missile deathtraps, center mounted engine and all) with Sidewinders, but true interceptors, not a pound for air to ground (ignore what the US did with them :])!
Hopefully with the Lockheed Martin JSFs your CVHs will finally get the bite that they desperately need need. And I kinda like the CV(F) concepts you guys have, so long as you avoid the STOL and straight deck Kutznesov ideas, let see a true carrier from the RN!
I don’t believe that the British Royal Navy does something as confusing as having two ships of the same name. Did they get the photo wrong?
John
I think all the Guided Missile Cruisers of the US Ticonderoga class, other than CG-51 Thomas S Gates, are named for battles, and most of the escort carriers from world war II were similarly named, so all those are at least the second ship to be named that.
It's just like the MTA recycling numbers so that they don't have to have car numbers running off into the tens of thousands. It takes work to come up with new names for navy ships, so it's sometimes easiest to come up with an old ships name. I'm just hoping that CVN-77, the next Nimitz class Carrier isn't stuck with such a name a George Bush, or that the next Wasp Class LHD isn't named Trent Lott (but with it's 1.5 billion dollar sticker, double that of the last LHDs, and nearly triple the average cost for the other 7 ships, would be appropriate).
Git ole' BMT into tha BoogieDown Bronx groove!
Peace,
ANDEE
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
And seeing as the capacity's two, no cop can fit on to ticket me for lying sprawled across both seats!
General Introduction
This section covers my fascination with trains, how it evolved and how it led to the ambitious transit project
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Transit Project
This chapter will describe the focus of the project itself. It points out the goal of providing more subway coverage for the city as well as providing service to the suburbs. There are descriptions of current problems the current subway system faces and possible solutions that are implemented in the alternate reality of the transit project.
Chapter 2: Expasnion of the Current Routes
This chapter focuses on the extension of the current routes in both the A and B Divisions of the current system, which are all affected in some way by the larger system that is presented here. The chapter also describes the use and need of additional route markers and lines which were discontinued that continue to play a role in transit operation. Also included are ROW's of selected rail lines that now feature subway routings.
Chapter 2 was the result of three original documents that I've produced for last year's railfan audience that has been merged together into one document.
Chapter 3: Trunk Lines
This chapter gets into the heart of the project, by listing all the trunk lines of this much larger alternate subway system. Included are 2nd Avenue line, the IND Second System and many other original lines, a few are based on or are variations of proposed lines that railfans on Subtalk have posted in the past in various threads. This is chapter is one of the longer chapters in the project and one of the original documents I have produced for last year's group of railfans. Every line and possible connection is included, covering all five boroughs, and surburban counties in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.This chapter includes an Appendix, which is also of extended length covering details of information in regard to the trunk lines. Many interesting aspects of transit operation are found in the Chapter 3 Appendix, which is divided into five smaller appendices. A comprehensive listing of river tunnels, shuttle routes, track connections between the A and B Divsions as well as to commuter and freight trackeage and other intriguing things are found in the Appendix. Note that any remaining general transit information is included in Appendix A at the end of the project. (see below) Chapter 3 now includes a introduction in regard to the context of the document.
This appendix, which was another original document for last year's railfan audience will be mailed with Chapter 3.
Chapter 4: The Route Markers and Routing Information
This chapter lists all the route markers that are used in the transit project and markers not used. Following the table of route markers are routes themselves, with listings of terminals, trunk lines, operation times, rolling stock each route uses and the yards each route uses.
Chapter 5: Rolling Stock, Yards and Equipment--Part 1, 2 and 3
Chapter 5 also delves into the heart of the project by providing a comprehensive lists of rolling stock used in the transit project. This Chapter primarily consists of tables that lists all the cars used and that are in service. Each car class has been expanded to at least twice its size. This chapter is one of the longest in the project, and because I found that composing this all this information added up over time, the chapter is divided into three parts. The first part is completed, the other two I'm still working on while I'm completing Chapter 4. What you may find when reading this chapter is the overwhelming number of cars used, but I've got around the capacity issues somewhat by introducing a system of car transference from one yard to another--which will all be explained in this chapter. As I'm certain every railfan has a favorite car--real or fictional--you will be sure to find it in this chapter.
Subway yards are listed in this chapter also, and there are a lot of them.
Like Chapter 3, this chapter also features a brief introduction and an Appendix at the end. The Chapter 5 Appendix covers prewar cars listed for both the IRT and BMT and additional general information about rolling stock that wasn't covered in the main chapter and the chaining codes used for the additional trunk lines.
Chapter 6: Station Design and Architecture
This chapter covers some intriguing designs of underground station design. Some elevated and grade/cut/embankment stations are covered too. Also covered are a more detailed expansion of the IND color coded station tile system and more creative designs on the moaics motifs and wall signs on the IRT and BMT.
Chapter 7: A Fictional History of the New York City
(later Metro Area) Subway System
This chapter, aslo covers the heart of the project and supports one of the main points of the project: subway development in New York under different circumstances, different attitudes, a different spin on politics, finances and social concerns. Chapter 7 will be entirely in a fictional context using realistic facts and events for support and as a foundation to illustrate transit development in another reality.
Chapter 8: Commuter Rail and Light Rail--Further Development and Expansion of the LIRR, Metro North, NJ Transit and the new Light Rail System
Though the prime objective of this project is the subway, the project does not leave out commuter rail. As part of mass transit system, I felt it was integral to include further development of the three commuter rail systems in the Metro Area to supplement subway expansion to the suburbs in the form of more transfers and more inter-regional traveling options. The inclusion of commuter rail in the project also provides a single large mass transit entity consisting of subway and commuter rail designed to cover the entire New York City Metropolitan Area within a 75 mile radius. It is set up so that the subways serve inner zone areas (NYC, neighboring cities in Westcheter, and New Jersey and the immediate suburbs outside these regions) and commuter rail serves the inner and outer zones (outer zones being distant suburbs and more remote areas) The inclusion of the light rail system is simply the expansion of the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail System, which is expanded entirely to reach many regions--first and foremost developed to the system that NJ Transit is working towards--see the NJ Transit site for all the planned extensions of the light rail system--and providing an additional link between NY and NJ via original routings.
Chapter 9: Expanded New York City Subway System--smaller versions
This chapter provides other additional scenarios of the subway expansion in the city. I'm not sure yet of how many scenarios I'm going to include in this chapter, but there will be two included, which I can tell you right now.
(1) The first scenario is simply an extension of the current system using only past proposals the MTA, the TA and the Board of Transportation has made. Notably included is the full development of the IND Second System--both 1929 and 1939 plans. This system is confined within the borders of the city and except of one route to Jersey City, offers no extensions to the suburbs.
(2) The second scenario is an expansion of the first, but a scaled down version of the main scenario that this project fouces on. It is simply a modest expansion of subway service into Nassau, Westchester and New Jersey, covering only the immdediate Metropolitan Area.
Appendix A: Miscellaneous Items regarding Transit Operations
This Appendix describes/lists information that wasn't covered in the Chapter 3 Appendix or in Chatpers 7 or 8.
Appendix B: List of Stations of the Extended NYC Transit subways
This is appendix lists all the stations that "exist" in the project. They are classified by trunk line. Current stations are also listed.
(1) Question and Answer section
This section focuses on questions you may have about stuff that you may not be clear on, or have in the back of your mind, that I've thought of ahead of time. This document is half completed, and since the questions covered thus far are only about the first five chapters, I may likely send the first half of this document after Chapter 5, to see if it answers any questions that you may have.
(2) Feedback--What Do You Think? Comments, Suggestions, etc.
This section is simply a feedback section where you can freely comment only any aspect of transit operations of this project. It lists various questions of what you think about the material you read. The interesting part of this section is that it includes questions that lists scenarios where you decide how you would best handle the situation or event.
I'm still working on this document as well, but like the Question and Answer document, I'm thinking of dividing it into two parts and mail the first part to you after Chapter 5.
Other documents included in the project are:
1. A list of active towers--includes current ones and ones in operation on the "new" trunk lines. This will also be included at the end of the project.
2. A table of route markers from 1967 when the Christie Street Connector opened. This table also lists ficitional routings that existed at that time, and also provided two additional locations of BMT and IND merger, other than Christie Street. This table will be sent during the second and third parts of Chapter 5 or afterwards.
3. A historical chronology of ficitional routes that dates back from the Dual Contracts era through the 1990's. This is considered a prelude to Chapter 7, and will be likely be sent after Chapter 5.
4. A chronology of the ficitional routes in the order as I've conceived them. This covers routings created over a six year period. This will be send along with the historical chronology previously mentioned.
Chapters 6 to 9 I haven't started yet, but I will be working on them through the summer. I hope to have the remainder of the text portion of this project completed by mid-October.
The above listed respondees have already received chapters 1 and 2, and I eagerly await their feedback, as I continue to work on the last part of Chapter 4. There is still time to request your copy, as I would like to share this with as many railfans as possible. Weekly posting of this thread will continue for the remainder of May and through mid-June.
Rembember you can email me privately by clicking on my handle, with your request or to ask questions.
For those who responded, thank you for your interest and taking the time out to be a part of this, I appreciate it very much.
Dwayne Crosland/Xtrainexp.
Newsday story
URL: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lirr0607,0,4593361.story?coll=ny-linews-headlines
Hmm, back to the merger of Long Island Railroad and Metro-North Railroad into the horribly-named MTA Rail Road, which was announced some months back on the MTA website some months back.
Still claiming that merging MNCW and LIRR will save $30 million? Or is this just another ploy to conceal funds. Back when this was announced, I did not trust it, nor do I today. Looks like they will blow more than double of their claimed savings on the legal process alone…
Neither are IRT and BMT/IND trains. But you have a single management structure for the subways, not a president of the A division and a president of the B division. In theory you could do the same with MNCR and LIRR.
(I don't mean this as a snide question.)
Additionally, given that NCS is 45-minute validaiton systemand HBLR is 90-minute, does anyone know what SNJLRT might be, again given the distance involved?
Different companies operate the NCS, HBLRT and SNJLRT. The NCS is operated by NJT Bus Operations Inc. (as it has been since NJT’s formation); the HBLRT by 21st Century Rail Corporation (the DBOM company thereof); and SNJLRT will be operated by a new consortium that will include Bombardier among other companies (its own DBOM). NJTROI is not involved in any of the light-rail operations.
I would have to assume that SNJLRT’s DBOM operators will set their own rules as to validation times, permitted transfer rules between itself and bus, itself and commuter rail, etc. As far as any of that goes, the biggest concern is to get the system up and running already so that it has a chance to prove itself…however, concerns like manipulating the time-share waiver (a huge stumbling-block that the FRA instituted back in 1999—before that, the LRVs and freights could operate on the same track at the same times of day) to permit LRV operation from 6 am to Midnight (the current waiver only permits LRV operation from 6 am to 10 pm), among other problems, are holding up the debut yet again. :-(
Now I feel even worse for these guys. Is anyone else going to write to the MTA in support of them?
David
Bet you a box of the wolrds choicest donuts, that he WASN'T PLAYING ELEVATOR MUSIC on that thing!
AEM7
Maybe the agent didn't want to commit the felony of perjury.
You think there weren't silly tickets under Dinkins?
There always are, and there always will be.
With a police force of over 35,000, and untold parking and sanitation officers, some will always use bad judgement. Besides, in this case the officer apologized, suggesting that maybe he didn't know the guy was doing a good deed while double parked at the time he started writing the ticket.
Officers are not allowed to junk a ticket once they start writing it, to make bribery harder.
Evidently the penalty for bribery and/or the chances of being caught are too low.
What insanity? The traffic agent was supposed to be psychic and know that the double parker was aiding someone??
Lets not forget all the Good Bloomberg is doing like
Completly transforming the school system to put children first no carear buerocrats and politicains
Completly overhauling the city's zonning laws to make sense with todays times including downtown brooklyn, Coney Island, flushing, West Side of manhattan. These are changes that will show dividends down the road.
Let not let the local Democratic Machine that has run this city into the toilet suceed in Bashing Blooberg. The fact is the Labor Union Fat Cat heads are running scared. they have resorted to running tv ads to try to make the Mayor look bad. The ad the Teachers union is spending $1 MILLION in union dues is a perfect example. They are falsly claiming that Bloomberg is adding more high paid buerocrats and firing teachers. The opposite is true. The only classroom staff that is getting canned is 2000 teachers aids who aid teachers in name only. They are actually uneducated assistants that teachers and prinicplas have no control over. Some are helpful, most are not. the money would be better spent on raising the teachers salaries to attract and retain certified teachers.
But if he fights it, he'll get it squashed.
One bit of solace that the hero in question can take is in the following:
NYPD Deputy Chief Michael Collins said Rosenblum can get the ticket waived if his case is convincing enough. “There are administrative processes available to those who may have been issued summonses in error or for those who may have a legitimate reason for violating these regulations,” Collins said.
Undoubtedly, Mr. Rosenblum has a litany of witnesses, plus the victim, plus will also have doctor’s reports from the hospital that would corroborate the victim’s condition. Bring the issue to court…
Parking court operates in the evenings too. They will also accept notarized letters as evidence.
Perhaps we ought to have a free market, where each person can sign the letter for a fee, and the state would trust the letter to the extent determined by the fee you paid...
AEM7
It gives credence that the person who signed the document is really who they say they are. And if they say in writing that they swear to the statement, then they are committing a crime if they are lying. Again, this gives the statement more credence.
Note that a notary does not attest to the veracity of a claim or to testimony you make - only to the veracity of your identity (signature) while making it.
- The person signing it affirms that the information is true.
- The Notary Public verifies that the person who is signing it is actually the person whose name is on it.
Chip
- The person signing it affirms that the information is true.
- The Notary Public verifies that the person who is signing it is actually the person whose name is on it. <<<
Actually the Notary only does the second function. This is necessary on documents like the transfer of real property, since many people will look at the recorded documents of transfer and rely on them. Without a Notary, anyone could sign John Smith on a deed purporting to sell John Smith's property. The Notary checks the ID, writes in a book what ID he saw, such as a passport or driver's licence, and the number, and in some cases they are placing a fingerprint of the person in the Notary Book also. (As digital photography becomes more common, a picture will probably be stored.) If some time in the future, John Smith claims the signature is not his, it is possible to go back to the Notary's book and see an exemplar of John Smith's signature on the date the document was signed, the driver's licence number or Passport number of the picture ID supplied, and best of all a fingerprint of the person who signed.
The Notary makes absolutely no warranty as to the truthfulness of the document, and has no reason to read it. It is possible that the person who's signature is being notarized has not even read the document either. This is often the case with witnesses to a will. The witnesses see the testator sign the will, then sign that they have witnessed the testator signing, and a Notary attests that the witnesses are who they say they are. The will is then given back to the testator to be put away until his death, with no one but the testator knowing what it contains.
Tom
AEM7
They are appointed for a fixed term by the Secretary of State of the state after application and examination, and as such are minor officers of the state. It probably requires citizenship.
Tom
We gave up hereditary positions after a bit of unpleasantness with King George III (it was in all the papers), and since 1865 we have found that appointing people who volunteer seems to work a bit better in the long run than appointing people who do not want to do the job.
Tom
Get away - King George VI was a great king - and he neither had any expectation of becoming king nor particularly wanted to.
For those who think I'm freaking nuts ... google it:
http://www.google.com/search?q=george+bush+windsor
Village idiot rules, film at 11. :)
And as for those pesky "rulers" ... mine's 36 inches, that's about as deep as it gets out here in the woods. Let them run their colored flags up and down the pole all they want, we've got our OWN solution to homeland security up here. If you don't want corn squeezin's, we shoot ya. Heh.
Have a great ride, bro! Always nice to ride cars that tend to STAY fixed. Arnines are living testimony to the philosophy that keeping things SIMPLE and having EXPERIENCED people at the handles is all you need to run a subway. Everything else gets in the way. :)
Listen, strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords is no basis for a system of government......... And what do you burn apart from witches? More witches!!! - Monty Python
But it's the ultimate wet t-shirt contest!
A good deal less so than having to go in person to an actual court and swear before a judge.
The American position of notary is just a nice short cut. It saves a lot of personal appearances in court for relatively minor matters. Notaries don't have huge power. All they are saying is: I certify (at risk of losing my job if I'm wrong or going to jail if I'm flat out lying) that I've taken reasonable steps to verify the identity of the person who signed this paper.
Let me correct my previous post somewhat. A Notary can administer oaths, so someone wanting to make an affidavit, a signed sworn statement under oath, could go to a Notary who would attest that he administered the oath, and that therefore this was a sworn statement. To the extent this is what Chip meant by the first duty of a Notary, he is correct, but the Notary makes no warranty of the truthfulness of what is in the document, only the affiant does that.
Tom
This may sound like a stupid question, but what if the witnesses think it's a will they saw, but it's not? If they never looked inside, they could see the testator signed a document whose cover says one thing, but whose material inside is something completely different (eg a fraud). Since they never looked, what exactly would they be witnessing?
They are witnessing that the person who signed the document is who s/he says s/he is. Nothing more. The document could be a shopping list for all they know.
That makes sense - spend more money to fight it than you would to just pay it... If the city government were really sincere they should have made a statement to the effect of - "based on the story in the Daily News the city is cancelling the ticket"... But that would be too fair.
The city can't do that. The city has no way to verify the story in the Daily News. Although, if the issue went to court and I was the judge, I would just order the city to cancel the ticket and write a judgment to the effect of "don't waste my time". Good thing I am not studying law or trying to become a judge.
"No good deed goes unpunished" is a common saying on railroad crewbases. I suspect at transit crewbases too. Ron is giving us a real-life example of that expression, suggesting that crewbase isn't really such a weird place to work after all. AEM7
:0)
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
MTA NYC Subway BVE Website - Catch the Next Wave in NYC Subway
Robert
R32 - Sea Beach Express
IIRC there was a phone number you could call for information. I'm sure there's still time to mail in for tickets.
WHAT !! You mean the IRT Smee trip has been scratched ?
I wonder if they will honor my SMEE trip ticket on the R1/9 trip on 6/29 ?
Bill "Newkirk"
I wonder if they will honor my SMEE trip ticket on the R1/9 trip on 6/29 ?
Not a chance - the SMEE trip is the 29th :). The only thing cancelled is whatever was keeping GP38 Chris from going on the 28th.
.... They DON'T SELL seats, brah..
There may be a CAPACITY LIMIT, but they don't sell SEATS
(asif anyone aboard a museum train is in THEIR SEAT the entire rizzide)
Photos available in the Newest Images
-Dave
That's why every time I hear that 1689 has come out to play unexpected at Branford, it tickles me to no end with delight. When trains TURN WHEELS, it keeps them from getting crusty - and suffer problems such as this. But in answer to your question - depending on how much slide the rails allowed, there SHOULD have been a thump at least ... but then that's also pretty normal with those older cars, question is the DEGREE of thump and whether they got a sufficient rolling brake test before wrapping ... but like I said, not my place to judge. When I rolled out 1689, made sure to give her a proper standing and rolling since I didn't want to see any harm come to her.
The R-15 blew a gasket and remained at Corona.
The R-17 got a stuck axle while it was being xferred, wouldn't turn, and was left with 8" flat spots. It apparently set off small track fires along the way. It was left at Times Sq (on the short storage track past the station) for the workers to perform some on the spot repairs.
The remaining Cars, the R-12 and the R-33 were on the move and could not cross over to the BMT because of a GO on the R and W lines, leaving them stranded. That's what I call bad luck!
6609's wheels have to be changed out as a result of the damage.
Whether or not something will be ready in 3 weeks, one can only hope for the best. This is a window of opportunity for the shop do the necessary repairs and try to get them on the road.
-Stef
FIRST a video of that very consist ROLLING past BMT Times Sqr.
(from April 2003)
SECOND a report some 2 nights ago seeing the SAME consist ROLLING
somewhere along Sunnyside Yard (?) in motion...
And suddenly the consist WONT roll??
I LOVE LOVE LOVE Redbirds as much as the next brah... but if I were
to pay $35 tacos, I'd sure hope to get the MUSEUM consist....
WHAT did they do with it at the W'chester Yard during overnight prep???
My sympathies to ALL, especially the crew and those who have to fix whatever happened.
Mebbe the wheel and I think alike.
From the looks of DP's pictures... I'd have saved me $35.
DID IT ATLEAST TAKE THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE LOOP?????
Railfanning is a true "all weather" activity. Only trick is you have to be a bit more careful on wet or slippery rail, but anyone who goes through school car learns how to do that. Still a damned shame that the original consist "broke" but chances are just as good that it would have happened in dry weather as well - only difference is the hung wheel might have been a BIT more noticeable on a rolling brake test ... that in turn would have only resulted in LESS "flat" ... it would still have had to be ABD'd anyway though.
We have one more set of trips, they can try to pull it off the next go around.
Perhaps being a static display all these years hasn't been good for those 4 Cars.
-Stef
Here's hoping all can be gotten back into shape for the next event. If not, here's hoping that once they DO get fixed up that they get MOVED every now and then.
Never say never. The SMEEs could be on the road for the next excursion....
-Stef
I thought 6688's levers were pretty cool, though.
You're supposed to have your face out the window when working indoors, so it's a matter of feeling your way on the panel.
-Stef
-Stef
-Stef
-Stef
I do not think the SMEE trip was a disappointment at all. Non-stop rides on Redbirds (I don't care if they're painted pink with blue polkadots) on the IRT mainlines in any weather is a treat.
And you just have to come prepared qhwn the weather is not good. I really did bring the RainEx with me. That stuff WORKS!! The rain was pelting the railfan window on the way up to 239th St yard, but I didn't see it pooling through my camera. (I have yet to play the ride back).
And yes, we did do the City Hall Loop, but we were not permitted onto the platform to take pictures. We pulled into the station and stopped for a while.
--Mark
I never knew that Shuttle track 4 is only accessible from the Lex. Going down that passageway and having Thurston trying to find August Belmont's trap door was a great way to start the trip.
Its also interesting to see some of the neighborhoods from the elevated portions and how they've changed over the years.
Also its a fun day to hang with people you know and meeting other Sub-talkers. I was sat with Thurston and Redbird R33, who is a historical encyclopedia of the system. On a personal note, my high school friend and his son ("DaWheelFlange) made the trip and hanging with him was great....Of course when the train was s/b between GCT and 14th, he said "remember when we did this on the way to Stuyvesant?". The answer was "all too well".
The conclusion to a great meal is a great dessert. Master Chef Bill Wall and staff out did themselves by letting us into the City Hall loop. I was on the platform of 9328 and got great shots of the arch over the staircase. Turning out the lights in the train so the incandesant lights on the station could show off the magnificence of the tiles was "icing on the cake".
GREAT JOB TO MR. "WALL-MART" AND CREW !!!!!!!!
PS- can we get that cute T/O to qualify on the R-17 at Branford ?
BTW, track 2 doesn't exist, it was removed to permit a platform.
I saw ONE T/O in those images.... and it was a MALE.
--Mark
yes
What is an SMEE?
AEM7
Search the archives for SMEE in the subject there have been a bunch of huge threads in the past couple months.
-Stef
Some was fooling with the signs....
2. Condition of the cars-my goodness. They couldn't even put in new windows or spruce the cars up? They just sat in 239 St yard doing nothing for a few weeks they were OOS?
The train is no longer in revenue service. Changing glass is not a priority. We were riding Work Motors. As you stated, they were in 239th St for the last few weeks. They are supposed to be getting the yellow paint treatment in the coming weeks.
-Stef
R30 Lincoln-who was the only 1 who I saw wearing the SubTalk name tag
That's a shame.
I'm glad that I was also wearing a SubTalk badge; I met several Subtalkers (and Bustalkers) who saw it as I was walking through the train, and they introduced themselves and provided pleasant conversation.
I could feel gyped, but I guess the MOD is a good cause. And I did get to see the Livonia el route, which I had never been on.
Also for those that didn't talk to the staff, they had already put in a whole day with almost no sleep before the trip started ... that is some of the crew members (got to rembember the lurkers here & not push their buttons). So, the staffs at both yards & the organizers did put in a lot of time trying to get the fleets ready. All the cars in question are better off for that & that should make those of us who care about the future of these cars very happy.
I always appreciate their efforts, and I know there are several MTA insiders who care just as much as we do about the museum fleet.
They got my contribution, and I have no regrets. I certainly understand that these things happen with nostalgia equipment, and that it was out of their control.
My decision to bail was about me, not them. I was mostly bummed about the inhospitable weather.
Sorry to seem offended. I wasn't. Just disappointed, but passing no blame.
I'm going to have a good memory of the last passenger run of these World's Fair singles. The Red Birds as a group will be all gone soon. I didn't go on the Red Bird trip that went on the B Division, now I kind of wish that I had.
BTW, I was realy looking forward to riding the Museum IRT fleet too.
I guess this just means there will be absolutely no excuse for me NOT to visit Branford this year for Autumn in New York. :O)
There's one excuse: there is no more Autumn in New York! In its place, we have rapid transit weekends the third weekend of every month until September. There's no excuse for missing those :).
This month (6/21 & 6/22) we feature Operators Lou from Brooklyn, the BMTman, Anon-e-mouse, Sparky and myself (some will be going Ding Ding while some will be going Honk Honk)
We kept the "Be a Motorman" program and added the requirement for you to pay a "step Up" fare of five cents to board the El cars when they meet the trolley service twice each day Sat. and Sun.
"In addition, our Guest Operator program will be available on these weekends. For just $35, you'll be given a mini-course in the operation of a selected trolley or subway car, then it will be your turn to take the controls! (under supervision, of course). The fee also includes one year's membership at the ASSOCIATE level and a certificate."
Let's clarify..
Do YOU SELECT the trolley/subway car... or is it SELECTED FOR you?
Do you think the one-year membership makes any difference?? Our BAM cost is a little higher, and only this season, the trustees decided to include a membership for our Be A Motorman participants. Some of us are very opposed to that...
We've been running this promotion in various ways and with
various names since 1999. Our "yield" is fairly high, i.e.
a large number of guest operators not only retain their membership
but also become more actively involved. I can think of at least
a half-dozen active operators who joined this way.
Including, I believe, at least two of the operators who will be there on the next Rapid Transit weekend... myself included. (Lou and I joined at Autumn in New York in 1999.)
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Big Lou & I hosted the two SubTalk Gatherings at Branford, ironically
both days were rainy and still yielded 25 NEW MEMBERS for Branford and all current members contributed to the cost of these non-museum sponsored "Charters". A 26th member from SubTalk, joined the museum on members day, 2003 having been unable to attend in March.
Currently, we are offering the "Guest Operator" program on the third
weekend of the month thru September. Besides at Seashores BAM, they
select the car and it isn't a Subway Car. >>GG<<
8-)~ Sparky
Also, Rockhill has had "member days" in the past where members of other museums come and operate our cars (under supervision, of course). Does Branford have anything similar?
Re: reciprocal admissions policy, just go to our ticket booth & show you ID. But better call or e-mail someone there in advance.
Yes, Branford honors all Passes from current ARM Member Museums.
NYTM, is on a one-on-one basis, at the discretion of the Supervisor
of the Day. There are times, that NYTM has refused to honor my
Branford Pass, the same as another "Trolley Museum".
>>>"Also, Rockhill has had "member days" in the past where members of other museums come and operate our cars (under supervision, of course). Does Branford have anything similar?"<<<
Branford hosted a contingent of RTY members in December, 2001 at which time,
they operated JTC 357 & Union Railway 316.
This was between our regular Santa Runs that Saturday, as I was the Dispatcher.
8-) ~ Sparky
PS-I'm a RTY Member also besides, BERA, SERY & TMNY. And am currently in Training at RTY. BTW, are you a qualified RTY operator?
I was there a day I almost didn't get in because the person at the entrance didn't know what BERA was :-( She did know the BMTman & that's how I got in ;-)
My experience was with the YL at the gate at NYTM, we honor passes of Science Museums, but then another passed by and recognized me from Branford, not by my pass and the ingress was granted.
As Jeff H. stated, it is supposed to be reciprocal privileges for ARM
Member Museums, but NOT ALL RECOGNIZE THIS. :-[
8-) ~ Sparky
Sounding redundant, but I repeat: "it is supposed to be reciprocal privileges for ARM Member Museums,
but NOT ALL RECOGNIZE THIS. :-["
8-) ~ Sparky
You make a good point though, the R-33ML cars could have been used as well. 6 Cars are operating on the Rail Adhesion Train at the moment.
I don't believe there are any R-26s/28s/29s are available for use right now.
-Stef
Chuck Greene
I was specifically looking for you when I walked through the train, but it was late in the trip and you had already bailed.
I think I saw Thurston and Rob from Toronto, but they were busy in conversations with our fellow fans, and I wasn't exactly sure if I recognized them. I thought I'd say hello later on, but when I got off at New Lots, I made the choice to head home, since I was still in my home borough, and never got the chance. Oh well. I have had some good trips with those guys (last labor day in Toronto, and later on the HBLR/NCS) in the past, and I'm sure I'll see you all again.
--Mark
Of course they won't complain about standing behind him all that time...
Prof. Feinman has nice hair.
lol.
--Mark
Note to some smelly railfans: you're allowed, nay, encouraged to put on clean clothes and bathe the morning of a trip.
Note to some smelly railfans: you're allowed, nay, encouraged to put on clean clothes and bathe the morning of a trip.
Gawd ... some things never change.
Jim D.
Yeah.....I gotta admit, us railfans ain't Beau Brummels, that's for sure. Railfanning is probably one of the last of the "classic" endeavors for guys who at one time would've joined science clubs, rocket clubs, etc. Read old rail mags from the `30s and up; the dialogues in them are refreshingly familiar. We, uh, transcend generations.
There are some of us who have a special place in our harts for those World's Fair R-33 Singles. Granted I was looking forward to riding the museum fleet of Arch Roofs, but this was an acceptable set of stand ins.
Just think of what we got: Red Birds, that vanishing breed, and this set is already out of passenger service. They probably will never again have this kind of runs through the system ... I'm talking about doing 40-50 up the 7th Ave or the same or a little more down the Lex.
I would also say that the group onboard seemed to be enjoying the ride (I counted about 3 dozen SubTalkers).
I didn't want to give up my position at the railfan window (five people in front of me, but I could see out) when the announcement was made. Later I walked back. SubTalkers that I remember seeing are Thurston, R30, Robert King, Mark W, Stef, and Larry Redbird R33.
Twelve of my photos of the trip are on my Webshots "Around New York" album (the bottom 9 on the linked page, and three on page 4.
-Stef
I don't expect to get such railfan window access on Sunday's trip, but I'm still eagerly looking forward to it.
Bob
And for those who aren't familiar with Arnines, you'll get to see (and hear) why I loved working them so much.
They're not fussy like them IRT jobbies. KICK 'em and they love ya. They're INTO that kinda stuff. :)
Kev,
I didn't see your response until Monday afternoon. However, I remarked to the person next to me on the R7A on Sunday that I loved the sound, that it reminded me of my first subway love, the Philly Broad Street Subway BMT clones.
The REASON why I loved the Arnines, and went out of my way to get one no matter WHAT showed up for the "interval" is that I got to KNOW and HEAR them ... I couldn't possibly go wrong. AFTEr the Arnines came the "Whirrrrrrrr" whereupon you had to spot the STEEL blowing past you cab window as a gauge. Having a note (even if I'm TONE DEAF, not my fault, I hung out with David Peel) was a GUARANTEED reference. Today, in the world of useless speedos and nonsense indications, all that made it EASY to run trains and live by GT's is GONE. :(
But Arnines told you PRECISELY "How'm I doing?" ... NO QUESTION. :(
--Mark
From Seashore: Bill, Doug & Conrad
From NCS: Bill
From Electric City: Stephen
PCC & trolley lover: Jan L.
The infamous Dennis Regar
Plus I recognized several from the ERA & UTC
And some TA friends that I won't name.
"Bay Pkway" ??
Jeesh.
Except that the northbound J/M/Z, not available from that staircase, also goes to Brooklyn.
Here in BOS, several signs downtown still read "RED LINE TO HARVARD", for example there is one in Downtown Crossing, presumably they forgot to change when it was extended to Alewife.
The BR Southern Region or whatever it's now called would be a good comparison. Just their solution seems to be to put up no signs.
Now that I come to think of it, the LUL doesn't really have "best routings" -- say to get to Waterloo from Kings Cross or Euston, there are a number of different routings, equally fast and just as many transfers. They just sign by the name of the line and not by destination, so that means if you don't know the route map then you're screwed. Say on transfers to the Northern Line they don't really sign for the neighborhood the lines go through, they just sign it "Northern Line via Bank".
So the appropriate sign would have been "J/M/Z via Bay Pkwy".
AEM7
The Northern Line is unique in that it has two branches in Central London, so it’s important to know which one you’re getting on if you’re coming from Stockwell, say.
I often think they should simplify the service a bit - they could certainly increase frequencies that way, especially if they remove the abysmally designed merge at Kennington.
How about:
15tph Morden to Edgware via Bank
15tph Morden to Barnet via Bank
15tph Kennington to Golder's Green via Charing X
10tph Kennington to East Finchley via Charing X
5tph Kennington to Mill Hill East via Charing X
Is there provision for turning trains though?
The track layout at Kennington from West to East is:
NB Ch X, Island Platform, NB Bank, SB Bank, Island Platform, SB Ch X
Just south of the platform ends there are switches to allow trains on the outer pair of tracks (Charing X) in the station to use the Bank tracks South of the station. Beyond this the SB Charing X loops and becoms NB Charing X. South of the switches from the Charing X lines, a third track splits between the two Bank tracks - this is a relay siding.
What follows is that any Charing X train running to Morden takes up a slot on the Bank Branch as well. Morden needs 30tph. As the Northern Line is overcrowded and it has a 25% surplus of trains, it would make sense to run all Morden trains on the Bank Branch so that service can be increased.
AEM7
Do I have it right?
Though I agree that if Morden needs 30tph and the two branches of the Northern Line going through Central London need more than 30tph, then some trains must be turned at Kennington.
This raises two more questions:
1. Are there any other parts of the Underground where trains can loop? (Apart from Heathrow where the stations are on a loop)
2. What happens at Camden Town (been to Camden Lock, but never to the station)? Are there four tracks and sufficient switch capacity to prevent blocking with >30tph going through, and merges/diverges?
John
What happens at Camden Town (been to Camden Lock, but never to the station)? Are there four tracks and sufficient switch capacity to prevent blocking with >30tph going through, and merges/diverges?
Camden Town's the answer - the huge flying junction South of the station allows trains from both the Charing X Branch and the Bank Branch to serve both the Barnet Branch and the Edgware Branch without getting in eachother's way. Now this one's a toughy to draw - I think I might have a go in the morning!
Are there any other parts of the Underground where trains can loop? (Apart from Heathrow where the stations are on a loop)
The Circle Line ;-)
The only other pieces of track which have the loop effect (ie getting the train the wrong way round on the line - trains have A and D ends which are normally a certain way round depending on which way is North on the line, unless there's a loop, triangular bit of track, or if it's on the Bakerloo Line) are the triangular sections, such as Rickmansworth-Croxley-Moor Park, Gloucester Rd-High St Kensington-Earl's Court, and of course the one around Aldgate.
If you send me the Camden Town layout, I can put it somewhere I can post it.
As far as te “triangular bits” go, I don’t know any trains that do the reverse shuffle to turn themselves round on a regular basis.
You are correct that it was 3:30am when I posted that - I was about to go to bed. Theoretically I suppose it's afternoon now, as it's now 12:30 - oh well... it's Sunday!
If you send me the Camden Town layout, I can put it somewhere I can post it.
I'm e-mailing you it now.
As far as te “triangular bits” go, I don’t know any trains that do the reverse shuffle to turn themselves round on a regular basis.
There are a few. If you look at the Metropolitan-beyond-Rickmansworth timetable, you will find:
Mondays to Fridays SB
0521 Chesham to Watford
Saturdays SB
0521 Chesham to Watford
I believe there are also trains in the early am which run Rickmansworth to Watford and in the late pm that run Watford to Rickmansworth, but obviously these are not in the public timetable.
Trains do not normally use Earl's Court to turn as Earl's Court is one of the busiest stations around. In emergency, IINM District Line trains can go from Gloucester Rd to Hi Ken to Earl's Court, but that's not normal service by any means.
A couple of Circle Line trains every day continue to Whitechapel and do the triangle thing. This is because the Circle Line wears the wheels much harder on one side of the train than the other (think - the curves have a rather predominant direction), so they turn the trains from time to time to even out the wheel wear.
I tried a dirty quick sketch while you were asleep.:-)
I see you're a better artist than me! (And you resisted the temptation to continue the Charing X tracks a quarter kilometre further South...)
Anyway - Camden Town - nice junction, cramped station.
The plan to rebuild Camden Town station (the passengers' part, not the trains' part) seems to be getting closer to fruition - it was features on www.thetube.com just a week or so ago. It is a shame in a way, since it is a historic station, but the huge growth of Camden Town as a tourist area has rendered it totally inadequate for the crowds it has to take.
I see it as less of a shame for the station and more for the destruction the new station will wreak on the surrounding area. Re-opening South Kentish Town might have been a better alternative.
Central Line at the east end, the name escapes me right now.
AEM7
Lucky you. They had some classic ones at least at first - the best was that the announcer on the District Line hadn't been told that the "i" in Plaistow is silent. It led to a quite a few complaints about it saying "Playstow" not "Plarstow". Rather in the same vein is the Northern Line one saying "Hi-gut" when everyone in Highgate says "Hi-gayt". But anything's better than some of the dreadful "Mythagah" style ones there used to be!
On the other hand, I miss the old manual announcements at Birmingham New Street. They had some pace to them: "The trennow approaching platform 10b is the sevn-fifty-threeter Redditch, callinat FivewaysYooniversitySellyOakBournville, King'sNortoNorfieldLongbridge, BarntGreenAlv-e-churchanRedditch!" The pauses were always the same - after Bournville and Longbridge and despite crucnching all the words together as quickly as possible, they still sounded the "e" in Alvechurch! The new computerised ones are much clearer, but they really lack something. Plus when they're bored someone seems to have a fixation with playing the no smoking and don't feed the pigeons announcements!
"Wotfawed tryin' coaling at Finchlee Rawed, Harro-on-the-Heel, Mu-ar Paak"
Interesting - a Fast Watford - they normally only get Semis and Stoppers!
Why the :-(? There's nothing at Watford (Met) anyway - you're a good mile out of town there!
BTW, are they still thinking of connecting the Watford branch to Watford Jct. via Croxley Green? The last time I mentionned this, someone (most likely you) said it was still in the studies.
Please don't be offended by this -- but I was led to believe in Japanese culture, if you make a mistake, you would *feel* that you are ashamed of yourself; as a train operator, if you make a mistake, the whole crewbase would be ashamed. Is this still true in your case? Obviously, you have lived outside Japan for a number of years, and I was wondering if (a) the Japanese culture description I've had is correct, and (b) if you still subscribe to that culture from a personal perspective.
I know that the whole "Fast Watford" mistake is not a big deal -- I still make mistakes trying to recall all the stops on the MBTA Red Line and I ride it every day. Still I wanted to know how Japanese-American immigrants feel about "mistakes" in general. Maybe this aversion to mistake culture is what makes Kawasaki build good railcars.
AEM7
I was led to believe in Japanese culture, if you make a mistake, you would *feel* that you are ashamed of yourself
Aren't you when you do? It really depends on what type of mistake it was.
as a train operator, if you make a mistake, the whole crewbase would be ashamed
Would be responsible, not ashamed. I'm not sure if this still applies, though. The head of that crewbase and the person directly responsible would certainly be punished in some way. It works more or less like in the US.
Is this still true in your case?
Not really. Unless I am the supervising person of the crewbase.
I was wondering if (a) the Japanese culture description I've had is correct
The concept of a group taking responsability for a fault practiced by its member is not sole to Japan. In many countries around the world, you would not only kill your enemy but its family and servants. That's part of human history. OTOH, what you mean there is probably about a tradition in Japan from the 17th-18th century which is almost dead but still occasionally practiced. It was originally a law imposed to prevent crimes. If the whole group was held responsible, chances were that someone in the group would try to prevent the crime to be committed by another member of the group. That was the idea. It worked to some point back then, but now that it is rare in big cities that neighbours would even talk to each other, let alone invite each other to their house, it doesn't work the way it used to and it hasn't been in a written law since the 19th century. The current law was supervised by the US GHQ after WWII which added things like narcotics prohibiton, the abandonment of any type of army and no paticipation to any war. (so, don't blame us if Japan only sent money, not military forces to Iraq in the first Gulf War). Of course, by the time of the Korea war, the US needed some help and admitted the formation of the Self-Defense Force, which is really an army but needed a new pretext, not to conflict with the law. Some people are, still to this day complaining that the SDF is against the law, although the situation with North Korea is quickly changing things. A new law just passed a few weeks ago and South Korea and China are not happy about it, but think it's inevitable under the current situation.
and (b) if you still subscribe to that culture from a personal perspective.
Personally, a big NO. France, where I was raised, has just the opposite mentallity. "You're on your own". But as I grew older, I learnt to know people who think that way, and as long as it doesn't directly involves me, it's Ok. I'm not sure if they still educate children like that anymore, but in my time, it still applied and I really hated it. Why take responsibilty for things I didn't do? Why should I behave like others when I'm different? Why should I apologize when I did what I thought it was right and was right? Somehow, that Japanese way of thinking is more often seen in the US than in France. Think of a trial in a small US town, where all the juries know each other. Will the defendant always get a fair trial? Jury system works in large cities but not very well in small towns. I live in NYC and love its diversity. Although Parisians are notorious for being rude, but hey, so are New Yorkers. When I came here in 1987, I felt right at home. The American version of Paris. I can do whatever I want (as long as I don't mess with common sense which by the way doesn't include recent Bloomberg moves ).
I know that the whole "Fast Watford" mistake is not a big deal
It's not:-). Mistakes like that are not to be ashamed of. People forget things as they become older and that type of mistake doesn't hurt anyone much. OTOH, the Manhattan Bridge issue, whoever was responsible should really get more than the axe (Ah, finally a transit topic).
Still I wanted to know how Japanese-American immigrants feel about "mistakes" in general.
I'm probably the wrong guy to ask. Besides, from what I hear on the news, that type of mentality about mistakes will soon be gone from Japan.
Maybe this aversion to mistake culture is what makes Kawasaki build good railcars.
I think that Japanese and German companies make good trains and cars. But so did the US companies when they were proud about them and felt mistakes to be ashamed of. Think the durable R32 versus R44 or 46. Then again, Ferraris and Lanborghinis are great cars too and so are Citroen DSs and TGVs too, although they may not be practical in all environments.
BTW, Japan has the largest numbers of EMUs in the world and most of them are great. OTOH, Japan was never able to build a decent high power electric locomotive. Something they could learn from the others.
As I think this is going OT, I don't know if I would respond to further comments.
Cheers,
Wado
Yep - that great British logic which goes close your national stadium then make all trains stop there... hmmm...
BTW, are they still thinking of connecting the Watford branch to Watford Jct. via Croxley Green?
What I last heard was that they were trying to think of some way of rigging the cost/benefit analysis in its favour. There's the small problem that so few people ride that far out (as attested to by the pisspoor train frequencies). It'd probably do Watford as a town a lot of good for High St station to get Met service, but seeing as Watford doesn't have any money, I can't see how they're going to get it. :-(
For a long time, the tube map had Hainault as a terminus, with a shuttle between Hainault and Woodford. There was a break in the red line with a terminus indicator.
Has the service pattern changed?
John
I was sorry to see it go, but I’m sure that the three people who used it daily found alternative transport. :-)
John
If only it had finally reached Chelmsford.
I was sorry to see it go, but I’m sure that the three people who used it daily found alternative transport. :-)
Aldwych was a far greater loss. Ye gods I hate the buses on Kingsway!
I like that alignment too! The only difficult bit would be Russell Square to Holborn. At Holborn, the SB can pass alongside the Piccadilly Line and use the existing platform. The NB platform, however, isn't a hell of a lot of use (in fact, not many people know it's even there as it's been disused since 1917). With the Central line above the Piccadilly Line, the NB would have to go under the Piccadilly Line at Holborn. If the NB was that deep, it would make sense for the SB to go under the Piccadilly at Russell Square too. That would make a couple of really deep stations, but it should work.
and head SW from Waterloo (spoilt for choice).
The obvious thing to do IMHO would be, once Eurostar relocates to St Pancras, take over tracks 1 and 2 at Vauxhall and kill Waterloo International (or alternatively take over tracks 3 and 4 and give the International station to the Windsor Lines). Then add an eighth track from Nine Elms Junction (1m78c) to West London Junction (3m17c) and then have one or other pair of tracks on the Windsor Lines at Clapham Junction. After Wandsworth Town, the line can ramp up into East Putney (District) and either track share with the District from there to Wimbledon or reconfigure the District to terminate at East Putney.
Convert Platforms 3 and 4 at Wimbledon into through roads, and add an extra pair of tracks alongside the South Western Main Line from Wimbledon (7m19c) to Raynes Park (8m34c). Then double track the dive-under and take over the Chessington and Epsom branches.
A possible service pattern could be:
6tph Epsom to Watford Junction
6tph Chessington South to Harrow & Wealdstone
12tph Clapham Junction to Highbury and Islington (using a new curve at Primrose Hill to head East onto the NLL)
Instant Cross-London for a fraction of the price of the JLE.
It would be a relatively cheap way of creating a good N-S link and extra capacity on the Waterloo Slow Lines.
Phase II of the "Kingsway Line" might be harder to stomach: Transfer all Met services from Rickmansworth westwards to Crossrail, and add a branch to the Met at Preston Road heading for Watford Junction. Now people from Watford and Bushey have a fast service to London and a big increase in the choice of destinations.
How are you going to get them there? Looks to me as if you'd need some nifty footwork in the Neasden-Harlesden area involving the West London Line. Which might be hard to do, since that carries freight. I assumed, also, that CrossRail was going to be overhead-wire AC electricifcation, not LU-type third and fourth rail.
"and add a branch to the Met at Preston Road heading for Watford Junction. Now people from Watford and Bushey have a fast service to London and a big increase in the choice of destinations"
Now that is the kind of idea that could happen, since it wouldn't cost that much, needing just a curve where the two lines cross. Presumably it is dependent on the first idea, though, as you'd need track capacity going into Baker Street & Aldgate for your new Watford Junction trains, and you would need to get rid of the Rickmansworth-Amersham journeys off the Metropolitan to free up that capacity.
Which is a shame, since the Crossrail isn't going to get built in the foreseeable future.
But James's idea of linking up Croxley and Croxley Green, also not too expensive since it just needs a bridge across the A412, on the other hand, could also get you Watford Junction to Metropolitan line trains by a different route..... Send the Watford (Met) trains via Watford High Street (for Watford town centre) to Watford Junction (for main line connections), and close Watford (Met) which is said to be the sixth quietest station on LU.
Its amazing how even a cheap, obvious plan such as the Croxley link can get stalled under a mire of feasibility studies and inertia. The timescale for the ELX is also boggling. In the time taken to prevaricate about it, they could have bult all of it.
I believe it's still in the plans. Aylesbury via HW was removed though. A Heathrow Local is a good idea too - hope it's less of a rip-off than Heathrow Express.
Its amazing how even a cheap, obvious plan such as the Croxley link can get stalled under a mire of feasibility studies and inertia.
The process really needs simplifying. It does ridiculous things to both costs and timescales.
The original proposal was to use the Dudding Hill Freight Line. This, however, was rejected in favour of a tunnel to Neasden (just North of where the HW line diverges).
I assumed, also, that CrossRail was going to be overhead-wire AC electricifcation, not LU-type third and fourth rail.
It will be. I'm amazed Aylesbury and Chesham are economical.
Now that is the kind of idea that could happen, since it wouldn't cost that much, needing just a curve where the two lines cross. Presumably it is dependent on the first idea, though, as you'd need track capacity going into Baker Street & Aldgate for your new Watford Junction trains
Aldgate probably has capacity issues. Baker Street certainly doesn't - the Met peaks out at 16tph.
Which is a shame, since the Crossrail isn't going to get built in the foreseeable future.
Hear hear.
and close Watford (Met) which is said to be the sixth quietest station on LU.
The obvious question - what are the first to fifth quietest?
My guesses: Shoreditch, Grange Hill, Roding Valley, Gants Hill, Chesham.
Blake Hall, North Weald, Ongar, Charing X (Jubilee) and of course Aldwych (James). Watford (Met) comes next and from then on, Stroud Green, Crouch End, Cranley Gdns, Muswell Hill, Alexandra Palace, Brockley Hill, Elstree South and Bushey Heath, unless I'm missing something. :-)
This Aldwych James thing seems to be sticking - how does one change one's handle on here?
and from then on, Stroud Green, Crouch End, Cranley Gdns, Muswell Hill, Alexandra Palace, Brockley Hill, Elstree South and Bushey Heath, unless I'm missing something. :-)
Mill Hill (The Hale).
Get a new handle or email a request to Monsieur Pirmann directly, I guess. The Feedback form didn't work for me for another issue, as he probably gets too many requests from it. You can call me "Sprague-Thompson Wado" or "1938 stock Wado", if you'd like to do so, although I think "MP73 Wado" would be the most appropriate. for some not so explicable reasons. :-)
Mill Hill (The Hale).
ThamesLink trains run there (aka Mill Hill Broadway) often enough, don't they? Not so quiet, I'd say. I didn't inculde Highgate(Archway) upper level and Edgeware for the same reason.
BTW, I organised an unauthorized walking tour of the Al Pal branch with my classmates when I was 14. Pretty much of the right-of-way was there as far as Muswell Hill.
It sounds perfectly explicable to like the cars on line 6! ;-) It's such a gorgeous ride round from Denfert to Nation.
ThamesLink trains run there (aka Mill Hill Broadway) often enough, don't they?
Pity the Northern Line doesn't quite get there - that would be a pretty useful transfer!
BTW, I organised an unauthorized walking tour of the Al Pal branch with my classmates when I was 14. Pretty much of the right-of-way was there as far as Muswell Hill.
That branch would probably be one of the nicest parts of the Underground if it were open today (Okay, ridership would be tiny, but it'd just be such a great line). I believe the terminal the terminal at Ally Pally's still there too and that there are only a couple of obstructions on the entire line back to Highgate.
James: Pity the Northern Line doesn't quite get there - that would be a pretty useful transfer!
Me: Although Mill Hill Broadway and Mill Hill (for The Hale) were pretty close to each other, they wre not actually the same station. There was no track junction. The Great Northern Railway's single track crossed underneath the Midland Railway's four tracks. Mill Hill Broadway's basic offpeak service is a 15-minute frequency (4 tph) now, incidentally.
Wado: BTW, I organised an unauthorized walking tour of the Al Pal branch with my classmates when I was 14. Pretty much of the right-of-way was there as far as Muswell Hill.
Me: Actually Muswell Hill is a fairly significant residential area, and could have generated a fair traffic if it had ever had tube frequency of service. The GNR never gave it a decent service, and London Transport put on a very frequent bus service (up to 30 bph) to Finsbury Park (with through tickets on to the tube) which took all the traffic that there was. Unfortunately on icy days the buses couldn't get up the hill (8-) .
Pity it wasn’t built!
John
Plans were to build a new station building connecting the two. LNER's Edgeware was not at the same location as the Northern's station either.
A friend of mine used to live near Mill Hill Broadway and we used to make fun of it. He was the only one in our class who had a season ticket marked "Mill Hill East - Camden Town". "Is there still service there?" "Is it run by steam trains?" type of jokes.
I think I have read that Roding Valley is the least used station currently open. I'd also think Grange Hill, and possibly Theydon Bois Barkingside and Fairlop, also on the eastern end of the Central Line, would be on the lis. Strange that the busiest line has the quietest stations! Gants Hill, on the other hand, is situated underneath a major interchange on Eastern Avenue, so is unlikely to be all that quiet. Could be Shoreditch, as it is only open rush hours and Sunday mornings, but that depends whether Petticoat Lane Market brings it lots of traffic on Sunday mornings. It will disappear with the building of the East London Line extension, anyway.
That would be fun - another flyover at Wimbledon! It would probably need two more platforms on the North side of Sutton station to terminate these trains. I don't know if there'd be space for this. Even better would be splitting the service so that 6tph can recapture the current Tramlink line to West Croydon (and then maybe put in a little tunnel to East Croydon).
Transfer all Met services from Rickmansworth westwards to Crossrail
Personally, as long as this removes the via Amersham services from Marylebone so more via High Wycombe services can run (particularly those running to Birmingham and Kidderminster), I'd be happy with this! (Although I'd miss a fast Met!)
add a branch to the Met at Preston Road heading for Watford Junction. Now people from Watford and Bushey have a fast service to London and a big increase in the choice of destinations.
Nice one! The only problem is that any service continuing South (East) of Baker Street would be really very limited - I think only the 2tph Amersham currently has. So really it's trading Euston for Baker Street - a definite improvement as far as connections go, but still right out on the edge of it.
James:
That would be fun - another flyover at Wimbledon! It would probably need two more platforms on the North side of Sutton station to terminate these trains. I don't know if there'd be space for this. Even better would be splitting the service so that 6tph can recapture the current Tramlink line to West Croydon (and then maybe put in a little tunnel to East Croydon).
Me: Why one earth recapture the Wimbledon-Croydon line? It was a failure as heavy rail and is a success as light rail. The cost of a 10-minute service of heavy rail couldn't be sustained, whereas a 10-minute service of light rail can be (and is, currently). If it ain't broke don't fix it. On the other hand, the Wimbledon-Sutton line is also a failure as heavy rail, and something needs to be done to it: The East London Line extension will take over the Streatham-Haydons Road-Wimbledon line and thus disable the current operation which goes round the circle, Streatham-Wimbledon-Sutton-Streatham.
An opportunity to: (1) do what was originally intended 80 years ago and make Wimbledon-Sutton part of the District Line (with a transfer connection to the Northern at Morden too); (2) or extend the ELL extension through Wimbledon station - no expensive flyover needed -and then down to Sutton (that would have the amusing effect of putting the Undergroud on platforms 1-4 and 9-10 at Wimbledon station, with national rail sandwiched in between on platforms 5-8); (3) or - my favourite - convert the Wimbledon-Sutton line into light rail, doubling the number of stations with a new one in between each pair of current ones, and a ten-minute service; preferably with the walking transfer to Morden put in too. It worked for one failing line out of Wimbledon, why no try it for the other? Divide platforms 9 & 10 at Wimbledon into terminal platforms at both ends - the north ends (longer) for terminating ELL trains, and the south ends (shorter) for terminating Tramlinks on both the Croydon and the Sutton line.
I think (3) has the best cost-benefit - minimizing new construction and maximising increase of service. But then, I like light rail and James doesn't (8-) .
I like the trams in Leipzig! They really work with East German patterns of car ownership.
I don't really get what a tram has over a bus - to me the only differences are trams having ugly OHLE, lower adhesion to the road, and costing several times as much both for the vehicles and the track.
Haing said that, I wouldn't mind them putting trams back on the streets of Birmingham - put them somewhere the railway doesn't go - say replace the 56, 57, 57A, 58, 58A, 59A, 590 buses on the Coventry Road - what I object to there is them putting them on the former main line to Birkenhead. Not only do I see tramification there as a retrograde step, but also they can do things like enforce the biggest bottleneck in Britain at Birmingham New Street.
Croydon I just see as plain unnecessary. They had an existing system operated poorly, so they conflate sensible operations with tramification and claim that the trams themselves are the success.
I would agree with you if you were talking about purely on-street systems. The successful new LR systems have extensive off-street sections, usually using disused or underused railway RoW, which makes them a much superior proposition to a bus. Their running costs, however, are lower than heavy rail, and (for a given level of passenger usage) they can therefore support a more frequent service. Furthermore, people like them better than buses, so they are more likely to use a tram than a bus - leading to a pro-public transport virtuous cycle, rather than the vicious cycle of decining use and declining srvcies that we usually find with buses.
"Croydon I just see as plain unnecessary. They had an existing system operated poorly, so they conflate sensible operations with tramification and claim that the trams themselves are the success."
I measure success by the fact that lots of people use them. Have you got a better definition? The arguments for the Croydon tram system were: (1) New Addington was the largest residential area in the whole of London without any form of rail transport (like Co-op City!). (2) Although Croydon has good train services into central London, Croydon itself is now a major centre of employment and its rail links with adjoining areas were poor - Tramlink provides a direct connection with Beckenham (and hence Bromley by connection) and, via connections at Elmers End, with Lewisham and Hayes. (3) As I noted before, the heavy-rail link with Wimbledon was a failure while the light-rail that has replaced it is a success, due to (a) more frequent service and (b) more stations to provide closer service to residential areas. The fact that the area it goes through has become one of South London's major areas for big new shopping sheds (including IKEA) doesn't do any harm either, of course.
Yay! (They don't call me Aldwych James for nothing... now how do I put that into my handle?)
The really crappy thing about the Kingsway route is that it won't use the tunnel which was built for trams in the first place!
The Uxbridge Road route also seems pointless. Why not put bus conductors back on the 207?
Conductorless buses are an unfunny joke. It seems to have become one of the main arguments for trams that you don't sit around whilst people pay and the driver fumbles with change. Build more AEC Routemasters!
If the Uxbridge Road is so busy anyway, a tube would be nice... I doubt it needs it though.
Why do I tell this story?
Well, first, if these had been pay-as-you-enter buses, we would still be there today waiting to get on. Second, that's a lot of people so maybe some sort of heavy rail is required.
What ARE these philistines thinking? Are they trying to encourage or discourage ridership? Oh - I forgot - if they make them use their cars, the mayor gets a £5 fare off them!
Second, that's a lot of people so maybe some sort of heavy rail is required.
Almost definitely. And if this were any other country, it would have happened at least a decade or two ago.
James: What ARE these philistines thinking? Are they trying to encourage or discourage ridership? Oh - I forgot - if they make them use their cars, the mayor gets a £5 fare off them!
Me: Interestingly, I read in this morning's paper that there is a potential finacial problem in London now - because the congestion charge has been too successful. More people have switched from cars to public transport than expected, so the congestion charge is not raising as much money as expected, so there is a hole in the budget.......
Max: Second, that's a lot of people so maybe some sort of heavy rail is required.
James: Almost definitely. And if this were any other country, it would have happened at least a decade or two ago
Me: You are being far too optimistic about other countries. As NYC knows (re SAS) it is very difficult and very expensive to get a new heavy rail line built through an already built-up area. Even the Paris RER used existing rail lines in part. London has had two completely new tube lines built across central London in the last 40 years. Cities getting completely new subway systems (like Warsaw) are mostly getting them very slowly.
I think the reason that the subways were built in the first place is that the major costs were the engineering and construction and they didn’t have to deal (either side of the Atlantic) with the rest.
When New York’s subways were built, there was a lot of it that was still pretty open, but you can’t tell me that the Central Line was built under green fields (at least in the middle!)
John
For SAS, several hundred million for studies, $16 billion for construction. So roughly 2% for studies.
And the "studies" include a fair amount of detailed engineering like taking core samples to figure out what construction techniques work for what parts of the route.
Only at Blake Hall - now if WWII hadn't happened, we'd've put an housing estate there!
I don't think that the solution to London's traffic problems is to break lines into Central London, and connect them to Croydon instead.
We should call him Aldwych James, like Sea Beach Fred. You don't need to get a bus, you just *walk* down Kingsway - it is only a few hundred yards from Holborn station to Aldwych station, which is why so few people bothered to change on to the shuttle, which is why it closed. If you're coming from other directions, Temple station is only a few yards away from Aldwych to the south. It is also a pleasant walk from Covent Garden station - which James wants to close even though it is very heavily used!
Lol! Nah, that would never do, taking the name of a deep tube station... however, I might do it - I feel rather left out of the changing handles game...
You don't need to get a bus, you just *walk* down Kingsway
Can't do that - I'm lazy. More often than not I'm thinking - what does this bus do next - Waterloo Bridge or the Strand - and I'm invariably wrong and end up somewhere in South London!
It is also a pleasant walk from Covent Garden station
The streets round there confuse me :-S I've only once managed to find Drury Lane - and then I walked all the way to the British Museum! Most of the time I somehow end up in Trafalgar Square, regardless of which way I think I'm going!
Last time I tried to get to Covent Garden (the actual plaza), I got off the train at Embankment, walked up the side of Charing Cross Station onto the Strand then picked a side street at random walked up it and actually found it! More than I've ever managed from Covent Garden station! Methinks my sense of direction must malfunction round there!
ROTFLMAO!!
And the Shakespeare Theatre is not too far away either (if it's still there). As close as my tongue to cheek.
I don't remember when it became "peak only" but when I was living in London (78-79), it was still an all day service, albeit a mere shuttle. I was given the opportunity to open the doors at the two intermediate stations, when I railfanned there. One of them closed soon afterwards.
At least not since LNER days.
The station that closed before the others was Blake Hall, the quietest station on the whole system - hardly surprising as there was barely a building within half a mile of it.
London should have spread out to reach there, like it was looking like it would. Thanks to our greenbelt legislation, that didn't happen and we ended up with stagnant cities, dormitory towns dependent on the automobile and a general decline in support for the railways. Other victims include any chance of the Northern Line going to Ally Pally or Bushey and the Mill Hill East Branch being a silly little stub. Thank you, Clement Attlee.
"The Greenbelt is a Labour achievement and I intend to build on it."
- the Rt Hon John Prescott MP, Deputy Prime Minister.
At least North Weald actually is a village (North Weald Bassett) and Ongar is a small town.
I believe there's a half-decent bus service to Ongar now, but I've never got that far out.
I think this pattern came in with new 1992 stock and the ATO. Previously, off-peak Woodford-Hainault was a three-car shuttle, and the map showed Hainault (like Epping) as two termini back to back. In reality, Hainault always was a physically through station.
There are even one or two which run that route, terminate at Grange Hill and run straight into Hainault Depot, not platforming at Hainault station.
They don't run trains all the way round the loop, since that would make the trains change ends.
I don't get why that's such a problem on the Central Line. It happens all the time on the Northern and Circle Lines.
Chigwellians can't get home after a night out in London except by getting a taxi
You can get a bus from Chigwell to Buckhurst Hill, Gants Hill or Ilford (167) and from Grange Hill to Gants Hill or Ilford (462). Roding Valley's cut off after 8, but it's not too far from Buckhurst Hill.
See diagram
AEM7902
I don't see the benefits being worth the costs however, even though the costs are low.
AEM7
It looks like the Camden Town junction is well-designed, with no blocking unless two trains for the same destination arrive simultaneously.
I guess Kennington needs a redesign if they need to run more trains. Can’t see it happening. I can believe South London NIMBYs would block that.
Kennington:
Camden Town:
…and that’s my comments for now, as I have to go do some training dives.
John
I disagree with James' drawing of how Kennington should have been built. If you look carefully at my solution, it only requires one flyover, that's the Kennington loop over the main line. My solution effectively turns the siding into a relay terminal for the two inside tracks arriving from Bank into Kennington, so CharingX to Morden trains could be switched into Morden tracks at the same time as an arriving Bank train which would be terminated and switched into the siding. By designing it as a relay terminal rather than a simple platform terminal, it allows more turning operations per hour -- almost the same capacity as a loopback, because, while one train has proceeded into the turnback siding to turn around, another Bank train could be arriving and dumping paxs on the platforms.
James's solution uses 3 flyovers. Mine uses 1 flyover. Mine's cheaper.
AEM7
A loopback should be faster for turning a train than a relay pocket, unless there is a driver waiting at the terminus at the other end of the train. Train walk-through time, especially on LT where the driver has to unlock every door must take some time!
John
The other slow thing about train walkthrough time on the Underground is specific to short-turn terminals, such as Kennington on the Northern and Plaistow, Barking, Upminster, Tower Hill and Parson's Green on the District. As you walk through the train, you will get three to five moronic passengers asking you why the train is not going to Upminster/Morden/Wimbledon.
OK, I didn't know that the driver had to unlock every door. But on the loopback versus relay, the question here is not the amount of time it TAKES, but the number of TPH it could handle per hour. A loopback can handle as many TPH as the signalling would practically allow, which is about 30 tph. A station platform could handle about 15 tph, because the driver needs something like 8 minutes to turn around the train, but with two platforms and a scissor crossover, the first train to arrive could be turning while the 2nd train arrives into the other platform 4 mins later, and by the time 3rd train arrives, the first train has just pulled out beyond the scissors crossover. Minimum headway is thus 4 mins = 15tph. Now if you add the relay track at the end, you can have five trains in the works: (1) first train arrives, (2) first train pulls into the relay siding as the 2nd train arrives into dock at platform, (3) first train has now reached the other platform, while the 2nd train finish dumping passengers, (4) 1st train has now picked up passengers as the 2nd train pull into siding and the 3rd train arrives and dock, (4) by the time the 3rd train leaves, the 2nd train has docked at platform and the 4th train has finished dumping passengers, etc etc. So you have three train in the relay at any one time, and if it takes 8 mins to turn train around then you can achieve an effective headway of 2.6666 minutes = about 20 tph. With double tail track you might be able to get 24 tph. Okay, it's not quite 30, but the difference between a loopback at 30tph and two tail tracks at 24tph is beginning to look minimal.
AEM7
Are you talking specifically about the example under discussion in London, or are you talking in general?
If the latter, you numbers for terminals are low.
The 8th Ave L terminal (no tail tracks) could handle 24 tph. See post 508091.
The TSQ 7 terminal (has tail tracks) can handle 30 tph or more.
Both are 2 track terminals.
Fair enough, but the main driver for terminal capacity is basically how long it takes for the driver to walk from one end of the train to another, and how many people could be doing that walk at once. TSQ has people on both ends of the train, right? If you have 2 platforms and no tail tracks, then at most 2 people could be doing the walking, so if it takes 8 mins to walk from one end to another your effective maximum headway would be 4 mins. If you have 1 tail tracks, you could have three people walking at the same time, so effective headway would be 8 divided by 3. Unfortunately, if you have 2 tail tracks, there is a conflict that prevents you from getting true 2 mins headway. But if you make the tail tracks twice as long, you could send two trains down and make them crossover in different places, so you might just get 2 mins headway if you're very lucky.
Whichever way, if you put tail tracks in, you can almost match the capacity of a loopback, and I was suggesting that in the London example it's cheaper to put in the tail tracks instead of building flyovers so trains from the inside tracks could reach the turnback.
AEM7
Okay, I'm a doofus, I really don't know what I am talking about on the subject of terminal design. AEM7
Take a look at the numbers in post 508396. Now assume that NYCT used training/management techniques to get the outlier numbers down nearer to the averages. It shouldn't really have taken 1 guy 60 seconds to get the train into the station when everyone else can do it in 42. Also, there is no reason every train couldn't depart within 5 seconds after the previous train has arrived and stopped, as long as the C/R closes the doors in time.
Now you see how a 2-track terminal with tail tracks can do 30 tph. Obviously, at TSQ T/Os are dropping back.
1. At 5 feet per second, it only takes 2 minutes to walk to the other end of the train. So even at TSQ on the 7, there is time for the T/O to get to the other end before the train has to leave again.
2. However, as James points out, busy terminals use stepping/dropping back.
3. The T/O deserves a rest room break from time to time. One more reason for dropping back and not taking out the train you brought in.
Wouldn't he just radio in for a PNR then?
PNR - Physical Needs Relief, aka "Physical" or Shit Relief.
I suppose US railroads don't have extra staff to run your train 3 stops and back whilst you use the lavatory / have a cigarette / just generally escape the boredom of the Bakerloo Line.
On Amtrak, the crew just use the passenger toilets.
I dno't know about transit properties -- seems to me that the transit properties would actually have a better case for actual formalized PNB, since transit properites have no toilet onboard the vehicles and no toilets for passenger use at stations, either.
AEM7
In the U.S. in general, rest breaks are scheduled, since the worker is considered part of the machine that is the corporation, and expected to train his bodily functions to the needs of the employer. Emergency rest breaks can be taken, but are frowned upon by management.
Tom
You consider a 20% reduction of throughput minimal? I'm afraid I will have to look elsewhere when hiring an engineer. :-)
Tom
Why else would drivers "step back" at busy termini like Brixton and Aldgate?
"Step backs" are used even in termini where one can walk on the platform like Aldgate. W & C line has used double step backs for quite a long time and I believe Aldgate too.
There is the other option: start running the Southern Region as if it were an Underground and upgrade the lines in the places where they hinder such high frequency service.
My local station was North Dulwich, which always had a surprisingly good service, but London Bridge is not a good destination (JLE improves matters, but is very slow to get anywhere in my experience).
To get anywhere, it was always over the footbridge to get to the South Eastern platforms, then yet another change at Charing Cross, although at least that terminal is within walking disatance of useful destinations.
Not much faster than a 176 bus (plus one seat ride) and the fastest (and safest) way to get to town was 185 to Oval, then the Northern Line.
South Central always was and always will be a mess. In fact, I detect a worrying trend back to infrequent - trains - from - everywhere - to - everywhere - else philosophy. Its called "increased journey opportunities" by idiot consultants and planners who don't actually have to use the services. Rather than give people dependable simple core services with easy interchange, the preference is for a spiders web. Great for train spotters and gadget freaks, but useless for anyone who actually wants to get anywhere on time. It didn't work for Southern South Central, nor Virgin Cross Country, and it won't work for Thameslink 2000 or the East London Line.
Sorry to rant, but 20 years of Southern South Central turned me into a bitter and twisted young man!
Max: My local station was North Dulwich, which always had a surprisingly good service, but London Bridge is not a good destination (JLE improves matters, but is very slow to get anywhere in my experience).
Me: The firm East London Line extension proposals would make two Southern lines into Underground lines by linking them up to the EL line and then running them through to Finsbury Park. The two lines in question are the South London (which is the one Max's North Dulwich station is on) with a basic midday offpeak frequency of 10 minutes all-stations London Bridge-Tulse Hill, and the main London Bridge to Brighton line, with a similar 10-minute all-stations frequency from London Bridge as far as Sydenham. So they both have an almost subway-like frequency already.
BUT There's a snag which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere - If these stop being national rail lines and become Underground services, their trains will go to Canada Water, Whitechapel, and then Finsbury Park, passing central London well to its east. How will the passengers reach the West End? They currently use these lines to London Bridge and then the Jubilee Line. They'll have their holy grail of an Underground service, sure, but they have to go way out to the east in order to connect with the Jubilee or District lines to come west again. They will *lose* their connection to London Bridge!
Is it definite that services will be withdrawn along the lines in any case? I would hope so, because every flat junction is a source of unreliability, but suspect that some sort of bizarre hybrid will be created instead. Probably an hourly service from London Bridge to East Croydon via each of Thornton Heath and Crystal Palace, along with a half hourly South London Line service. This will then lead to the impossibility of placing a 15 minute London Bridge service on top of a 10 minute ELL service
The material on thetube.com does not make this clear, nor does it make it clear whether the East London Line service to New Cross, for connection to the Connex lines, will remain. If we assume that the South London line and Forest Hill line ELL services will each run every ten minutes, that would give a five -minute ELL service overall, and I'm not sure any more than that is needed. But the Connex connection shouldn't be lost.
If the national rail services to London Bridge survive on the same tracks as the Underground (as between Harrow & Wealdstone and Queens Park on the Bakerloo) it may be that their frequencies will be altered - in the Bakerloo example, the Underground is every ten minutes and the national rail service every 20 minutes. That might work in the ELL cases too.
Anyway, at least they built the swish new interchange station at Canada Water already!
There are of course a couple of slightly weird ways to get somewhere more useful than London Bridge:
- ride an outbound train one stop to Tulse Hill for Thameslink to Blackfriars, City TL, Farringdon etc.
- change at Peckham Rye - some of the Victoria trains are across the platform from the London Bridge trains.
In fact, I detect a worrying trend back to infrequent - trains - from - everywhere - to - everywhere - else philosophy. Its called "increased journey opportunities" by idiot consultants and planners who don't actually have to use the services. Rather than give people dependable simple core services with easy interchange, the preference is for a spiders web. Great for train spotters and gadget freaks, but useless for anyone who actually wants to get anywhere on time. It didn't work for Southern South Central, nor Virgin Cross Country, and it won't work for Thameslink 2000 or the East London Line.
I couldn't agree more. The only part of the Southern Region which seems to have any semblance of sense in service is the South Western. Even then you get jackassed skips of stops which save practically no time (like half the Epsom trains skipping Raynes Pk, Motspur Pk, Stoneleigh, and Ewell West), the South Central infection South of Leatherhead where both Waterloo and Victoria trains serve both Dorking and Guildford, and bizarre little capacity jamming routes like West Croydon to Guildford.
The South Eastern gives a semblance of being a sensible railway. It has 6 tracks East of North Kent East Junction (2 Greenwich, 2 Slow, 2 Fast), 7 tracks from North Kent East Junction to London Bridge, 6 platforms at London Bridge, and 6 tracks beyond London Bridge to the terminals (2 Cannon St, 4 Charing X). This makes it look like a railway that could run 72-90tph. Even with the short section of 2 tracks on the Charing X Lines suggests 48-60tph. Unfortunately, the tracks between London Bridge and North Kent East Junction seem to have been given their directionality by a loony and there is a South Central-ish insistence on a running several services to both Cannon St and Charing X. Once you factor 5 of the 7 tracks also being crossed by 4tph of Thameslink, it is pretty clear that this is a really rather inefficient operation.
I think I'll leave the Chatham Lines for the moment...
Anyway these "idiot consultants and planners" seem to have been around a very long time! I really hope there's some way of getting rid of them and finally getting sensible service patterns!
Quite a few lines on all three divisions of the Southern (the present South West, South Central, and Connex) have services frequent enough that you don't need to consult a timetable (10 or 15 minutes). Where there are skip-stops these are usually on a 30-minute cycle and presumably represent relatively light offpeak traffic at the skipped stations. Major suburban centres like (say) Croydon, Wimbledon, Richmond, Putney, Bromley, Lewisham, etc., have pretty frequent services into central London (every ten minutes or better offpeak). Peak hours, of course, are a different matter - track capacity and availability of rolling stock restrict the possible frequencies and many Southern services are grossly overcrowded.
....there is a South Central-ish insistence on a running several services to both Cannon St and Charing X.....
That is the consequence of Borough Market Junction. You can't run all the trains into Charing Cross because there are only two tracks into Caring X and four into Cannon Street - in the 19th century The City was a more important destination that the West End. So one weekdays (especially in the peaks) a lot of trains *have* to go into Cannon Street. You could either send all of one line's service into Cannon Street and all of another's into Charing Cross - for the sake of simplicity - or send alternate trains from both lines into Cannon Street and alternate trains from both into Charing Cross. For many years the latter option has been chosen, and travellers to and from southeast London are used to it. True, it is confusing for non-regular travellers, but how many actually go to palces like Bexleyheath or Hither Green? Incidentally, a couple of tph from Dartford now go to Victoria, as well.....
I don't consult timetables anyway. I just go to Waterloo and if I can see a train on the departure boards to where I'm going, I'll get it. Otherwise I'll get the first train to Clapham Junction and see if I have more luck there. The only reason I use timetables is not to miss the last train and end up stranded somewhere.
Where there are skip-stops these are usually on a 30-minute cycle and presumably represent relatively light offpeak traffic at the skipped stations.
And why does nobody use Ewell West? Because everyone drives / rides the bus to Epsom where twice as many trains to Waterloo stop. Talk about vicious circle.
You could either send all of one line's service into Cannon Street and all of another's into Charing Cross - for the sake of simplicity - or send alternate trains from both lines into Cannon Street and alternate trains from both into Charing Cross.
I suppose it makes no difference seeing the really dumb track layout at North Kent East Junction hugely constrains capacity. If that were not the case, it would be the specific moves of non-Greenwich trains to Cannon St and Greenwich trains to Charing X that would eat the capacity up.
For many years the latter option has been chosen, and travellers to and from southeast London are used to it.
People being used to it isn't really that big a deal. That argument would defend the bizzarre routings South Central has. If South Eastern really wanted to give good frequencies, it could be done.
Major suburban centres like (say) Croydon, Wimbledon, Richmond, Putney, Bromley, Lewisham, etc., have pretty frequent services into central London
And I've ridden trains to three of those. I think you can guess which.
True, it is confusing for non-regular travellers, but how many actually go to palces like Bexleyheath or Hither Green?
You did pick a couple of really useless stops for anyone who doesn't live there, but you do have a point. Apart from Greenwich and Margate, I can't think of many South Eastern stops that tourists would want to go to anyway (and Margate's Chatham really). Hmmm... I could start on the "the South Western's better because it goes to Richmond, Kingston, Hampton Court, Windsor, Epsom, Portsmouth...", but I'll resist the temptation to be really partisan on this one!
Incidentally, a couple of tph from Dartford now go to Victoria, as well.....
I've seen - and not with the cleverest routing either. They cross over the Charing X to Hayes trains at grade then merge with the Bexleyheath branch. Higher frequencies could be obtained with these routings:
Charing X - Bexleyheath - Dartford
Victoria (E) - Hayes
Charing X fast - Hayes
Victoria (E) - Hither Green - Dartford
I guess I just wish all the lines were as neat as the South Western.
The response was that there were insufficient users of Roding Valley to justify a new station.
By the way, is there any particular reason why South Eastern trains to Victoria can't be routed onto the South London Line at Denmark Hill? Then Clapham etc. could be served, but without needing the dedicated SLL service.
A classic example of the dubious use of statistics to justify intransigence.
By the way, is there any particular reason why South Eastern trains to Victoria can't be routed onto the South London Line at Denmark Hill?
The problem happens when you reach Battersea Park. The South London "Atlantic" tracks merge into tracks E and F (Brighton Slow). The Chatham tracks however, for no good reason, go from 2 tracks to 4 (A, B, C and D). What would make a lot of sense would be to connect the SLL to tracks C and D over the Grosvenor Bridge. What obstructs this is really just history: tracks A to D were Chatham tracks, E to H were Brighton. History has continued in the franchising effort - now tracks A to D are Connex and E to H are GoVia and Gatwick Express.
The real problem with the current timetable is that, as it consists of:
- 10tph via Charing X to Morden
- 10tph via Charing X to Kennington
- 20tph via Bank to Morden
the Charing X Branch can be completely regular - every 3 minutes. The Bank Branch however, to fit the Charing X trains in South of Kennington has to run alternate big (4 minute) and small (2 minute) gaps. Of course more people congregate in stations in the big gaps, making the train run late and screwing up the schedule.
From my personal observations, the Bank branch seems fine with 20tph - it's the Charing X branch that's seriously short of trains (try boarding at Tottenham Court Road between 4 and 7 pm. However, it causes problems at Camden Town if both branches don't run the same frequency. So if you run more trains on the Charing X Branch, you must run the same amount more trains down the Bank Branch. With any more trains on the Bank Branch, Charing X to Morden service would start causing problems - an extra 4tph on each branch would cut it to 6tph and that would be a nightmare at Kennington to fit in anyway. Therefore, I see the best way of improving service frequency on the Charing Cross Branch and service reliability on the Bank Branch is to discontinue through service from Charing X to Morden, at least at Peak Times.
Not always. Tell me the best way from Epsom to London - via Sutton to Victoria or via Worcester Park to Waterloo? Or if I were going to the City should I change at Sutton for Thameslink?
Also try Portsmouth & Southsea to London - via Eastleigh to Waterloo or via Chichester, Horsham and Three Bridges to Victoria. Interestingly neither runs on the Portsmouth Line (London Bridge to Horsham via Tulse Hill and Epsom).
Also IINM Brighton used to have service via Elmer's End and East Grinstead LL.
Now that I come to think of it, the LUL doesn't really have "best routings" -- say to get to Waterloo from Kings Cross or Euston, there are a number of different routings, equally fast and just as many transfers.
Experience of that one proves that the Victoria Line to Oxford Circus then the Bakerloo Line is best because of the cross platform transfer at Oxford Circus.
They just sign by the name of the line and not by destination, so that means if you don't know the route map then you're screwed. Say on transfers to the Northern Line they don't really sign for the neighborhood the lines go through, they just sign it "Northern Line via Bank".
I really never thought about it like that!
James: Experiennce of that one proves that the Victoria Line to Oxford Circus then the Bakerloo Line is best because of the cross platform transfer at Oxford Circus.
Me: Why does LUL leave it up to us to find out by experience? That cross-platform interchange (like the ones at Euston and Highbury & Islington) was deliberately designed for convenience when the Victoria Line was built, so why have they never publicised "The way from Kings Cross to Waterloo is via Oxford Circus", which isn't intuitive?
AEM7: They just sign by the name of the line and not by destination, so that means if you don't know the route map then you're screwed. Say on transfers to the Northern Line they don't really sign for the neighborhood the lines go through, they just sign it "Northern Line via Bank".
James: I really never thought about it like that!
Me: To be fair, the tube map can be seen just about everywhere (even in people's pocket diaries in the UK, often) and it is very easy to get a free one at any station. In fact, the main reason why tourists mostly use the Underground rather than buses or national rail is the fact that Harry Beck's map (or rather its successor) makes it all so easy to understand. Except for the Northern Line, of course, which my wife still can't understand despite many years of business trips to London.
I really don't know - perhaps it's because they don't want any more people packing onto the Vic. Certainly it would help loadings if people rode the Northern Line to Bank then the Drain to Waterloo, despite the transfer at Bank being nowhere near as easy.
In fact, the main reason why tourists mostly use the Underground rather than buses or national rail is the fact that Harry Beck's map (or rather its successor) makes it all so easy to understand.
The bus map is really not very well designed - it's difficult to follow the routings on it. I only know where a very few routes go (2, 18, 27, 205, 453 in Central London and K9, 65, 371, 406, 418, 471 on the outskirts) - anything else and I'm pawing over quadrant maps, which aren't exactly the easiest things to use!
Except for the Northern Line, of course, which my wife still can't understand despite many years of business trips to London.
I suppose that's the only weird one in the centre. Most tourists are okay if they think of it as two lines - they'l rarely be going North of Euston or South of London Bridge or Waterloo, so it really doesn't matter to them. The only unfamiliar people I can see it confusing are people going to the cricket at the Oval (and I'd use Vauxhall station anyway to beat the crowds).
That's no good because the word "via" refers to a thoroughfare (eg. 6th Ave, Queens Blvd, Grand Concourse) or line (eg. Culver, West End, Sea Beach) that a train runs along. Even though Bay Pkway is a thoroughfare, no trains run "along" it. In this case it's only a station and part time terminal.
"Via" is used in places in Boston to refer to a transfer station; e.g., at North Station, there are signs on the outbound track to the effect of, "B-Boston College C-Cleveland Circle via Government Center." I stood on the platform for half an hour one night before translating that to mean, "The B and C don't run here, stupid; take a D or E to Government Center and transfer."
"Via Bay Parkway" would be inappropriate in this instance. Bay Pkwy is the M's terminus, not an intermediate stop, and the J/Z don't go anywhere near it. IMO, simply moving J/M/Z above the text and adding "to" would solve the problem. Changing it to "Downtown & Bath Beach" wouldn't hurt, either.
I think that sign with Bay Parkway on it would confuse more people than it would help.
It should say Exit (whatever street the exit is for, and "Transfer JMZ TO Broad Street and Bay Parkway"
"THE J AND M PLATFORM IS CLOSED FROM 1 AM FRIDAY TO 5 AM MONDAY. FOR CONTINUING SERVICE, TAKE THE 4 OR 5 TO BROOKLYN BRIDGE-CITY HALL FOR J AND M CONNECTIONS"
Double DUH! Station platforms closed on Fridays? I can actually catch an M train on Saturday or Saturday. This sign has been up since the 1990 J line cutback to Canal St (later extended to Chambers in 1994)
DUH! Is this OUR transit system or what?
That's a good one. I'm sure all the JMZers destined for the Wall Street area must love having "weekend" service to Chambers on Fridays......
It's amazing that these sign people don't pay attention to what they are doing. No one noticed that since the early 90's?
Anyhow, hats off to the SubDivision "C" crew for pulling a train of SMEE's together at the "llth hour".
-Stef
Who did you execute for the privilege?
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
Fortunately, there was no trouble from the conductors, and on the way back, the T/C asked "where are you going?" as he saw the blank tickets.
This is a very rare occurrence I'm sure, but how often are the TVM's maintained?
The printers are dot-matrix of some description, with a sophisticated feed mechanism so they can take all the various kinds of ticket stock (individual tickets, weeklys/monthlys, PATH cards & blank paper for receipts). Part of the reason for the size of the machines is the space required to hold the rolls.
I think the machines are serviced daily, but even so, you can get blank tickets if there is a problem with the printer ribbon: if it gets stuck, the printer can literally wear a hole in it. OTOH, the most usual failure mode is going grey, which is less of a problem than an ink-jet, which gives up entirely. And you do have the reverse braille proof of printing!
John
Imagine a train in the style or R142 painted metalic red on the outside.
i hate seen trains all steel! (although is better because they last longer and no extra cost to paint them)
AEM7
Many District Line trains from the F stock onwards were delivered in Aluminium or Steel. However, when the graffiti "artists" came along, the trains looked really shappy after being cleaned, so they painted them. Just wait for some real Bronx Art!
The subway is run to transport people. If you want to ride redbirds, go to a museum.
I am all for making the cars aesthetically more pleasing, but I've always found the Redbirds to be the ugliest cars in the system. Making new cars look like them would be a step backward.
Anyway, yes, I am back. Was back for at least a month. Many reasons why I returned.
With airconditioning, with decent lighting. FAST!
: ) Elias
SOUTH OF PENN STATION, alex.
wayne
I will be out of town for all but 2 of the next 22 days. My website, www.orenstransitpage.com will not be updated during that time, nor will I be posting here or will I be able to read e-mails except possibly on the two days I will be at home. In the event that you send me an e-mail and it is bounced back to you, please save it and resend it again in July, or send it to my AOL address if you know it.
Talk to you all in a few weeks, hopefully with new pictures and stories to tell.
Sincerely,
Oren H.
P.S. My website (link above) was just updated this past week with photos of the WMATA bus and rail rodeos as well as other DC area pictures. Check it out! You have awhile before the next update which should be big!
Now that I know about the breakers, next time I'll know what happened.
And Unca Mark, if you're reading this, don't forget the four-quadrant cap slap before throwing the drum switch. Foamers on board, y'know. Heh.
I learned that the hard way that morning in the yard.....LOL
-Mark
-Mark
But looks like you made it, no reports of foamers walking the plank into thin air. You've gotta try harder NEXT TIME. Heh.
Being a conductor or motorman was a SKILLED position, where we were largely treated with respect by management so long as we demonstrated our professionalism every day. What IRKS me about the "nowagogo EmTeeYay" is that they seem to think that orangutans can do the job now and mistreat their skilled workforce accordingly. As I've often said to folks, take the civil service test, DO schoolcar, DO "the people's duties" out on the road, THEN come back here and whine. :)
Seriously, a lot of crews would buy me LUNCH in order to swap an interval with them so they could trade their Arnine for a 32. Some of the guys were even willing to take out a 16 or a 27/30 consist JUST to get away from them. Arnines were an ACQUIRED taste and a number of the folks would threaten to punch out supervision if they were made to take one out. I'd just smile, raise my hand and end up falling back or jumping ahead from my assigned interval just to take them out.
-Stef
AEM7
What an incredibly < cough> stupid < /cough> idea. Wait, that wasn't proper HTML! Uh-oh! o_O
DOH!!!
The race should happen on Christmas Day, because hopefully shutting down part of the subway wouldn't disrupt too many people that day. Plus it would be better than the junk they show on TV on Christmas Day.
Nah.. Larry's raza.
I lost all my cookies last night and I wanted to make sure that my super-secret password was working before I made a long post.
Larry, RedbirdR33
138 Street/3 Av (6)
149 Street/3 Av (2)(4)(5)
156 Street/3 Av
161 Street/3 Av
166 Street/3 Av
169 Street/3 Av
Claremont Parkway/3 Av
174 Street/3 Av
Tremont Av(177 Street)/3 Av
180 Street/3 Av
183 Street/3 Av
Fordham Road/3 Av
Bedford Park Blvd-200 Street/Webster Av
204 Street/Webster Av
Gun Hill Road(210 Street)/Webster Av
Woodlawn-233 Street/Webster Av
2. Lafayette Ave Line
Extend the line to the Bronx from 125th Street and 2nd Avenue
stops at
138 Street/3 Av (6)
149 Street/3 Av (2)(5)
Longwood Av/Southern Blvd (6)
Hunts Point Avenue/Lafayette Ave
Drake St/Lafayette Ave
Colgate Av/Lafayette Ave
Metcalf Av/Lafayette Ave
Soundview Av/Lafayette Ave
White Plains Road/Lafayette Ave(Near Bruckner Plaza)
Castle Hill Av/Lafayette Ave
Zerega Ave/Lafayette Ave(provides access near Home Depot)
Brush Av/Lafayette Ave
E 177 Street/Lafayette Ave
E Tremont Avenue/Lafayette Ave
Dean Avenue/Lafayette Ave
cost aside these are much better options that sending it to the Concourse line as some of these areas don't even have bus service(like Home Depot, near a BUS facility, yet no bus service)
Why continue via Webster after Gun Hill Rd, I say it would be better to extend the line via Gun Hill going east to lets say Co-op City. On option #2, I don't see a line going via Lafayette Av if it were to be a east-west Bronx line but it does provide a good alternate to the Bx8 & Bx40/42.
If you extend northwards, your first two stops on both routes, on Third Avenue at 138 Street and 149 Street ("the Hub") seem quite reasonable. They are not too close together and they do provide good connections to the #2, #5 and #6 IRT lines. The Hub is already a busy station with good bus connections, and it would make a good subway terminal.
Beyond the Hub, I doubt that there would be enough additional ridership to justify building a new subway, costing billions.
Are there any existing rail rights of way that could be converted to subway use? If so that could reduce the cost dramatically.
The NYW&B from 133rd to E180th?
How does this differ from the Amtrak ROW for much of the way?
I believe that for a lot of the way they are one and the same, with the trackways formerly used by the NYW&B now abandoned. However, it may be that the NYW&B no longer runs through at the point where it diverged at E. 177th Street.
:0)
It probably wouldn't be if they could demonstrate something along the lines of the following:
- we need somewhere to store the extra rolling stock for this line
- the cheapest site is 2 miles across the City Boundary
- if we're going to run tracks out there anyway, we might as well let people board there.
The six cars were 9330-9331-9333-9328-9332-9329. The trip left Grand Central and ran to New Lots Avenue where we were again dissapointed in that due to unforseen circumstances we would not be able to vist the Livonia Avenue Yard. We then ran from New Lots via the 7 Avenue Line to the East 239 Street Yard where we broke for lunch. Enroute we made a short vist into the East 180 Street Yard. Next we ran from East 239 Street to Dyre Avenue via East 180 Street and then south to Grand Central were I bailed out. The trip itself was continuing on to Broklyn Bridge.
There were many pluses to the trip. A chance to ride a solid train of R-33's, some good fast runs on the Broadway-7 Avenue, Lexington Avenue and Dyre Avenue Lines and the vist to the 239 Street Yard which is always of interest.
Sub-talk was well represented. Thurston,Hartbus,R-30,Churchbob,Mark W,Trevor Logan, On the Juice and many others were there. BMT Man made a cameo appearance at Junius Street during a photo stop and was almost shanghi-ed to The Bronx when the doors closed. He was let off at Franklin Avenue.
Hopefully the IRT museum cars will be ready by Sunday, June 29.
To those of you going on tomorrows trip I hope that you have a good time.
Best Wishes, Larry, RedbirdR33
the 17 also had problems which slowed the R12 and R33WF down so that they could not make the trip its still at times square
WHAT is still at times square?
SHAME it happened... but I'm not all COZY with leaving her out there...
Feels like you go into town, and your FERRARI gets a flat and you
can't tow her back home with ya....
I just hope she makes it back to safe haven.
You're missing muh point, brah.
Plain english..I HOPE SHE GETS BACK TO SAFE HAVEN AND ISN'T
HARMED NOR VAN***IZED WHILE SITTING AT TIMES SQUARE.
Kapisce? ;w
Hope to all glory
I wonder if Gene Hackman and Fernando Rey are playing cat-and-mouse on 6609 right now....
Didn't know this was an option... I might just go next IRT time.
Glad I waited out this time.
I went over to Corona yesterday over at the overpass and I actually saw the trainset in question! I was able to see the World's Fair car, in blue scheme and all! A great photo op, I imagine!
One problem, though. I could only get tickets for the Sunday, June 29th game between the Mets and Yankees at the Stadium. I would like to get tickets for Friday and Saturday's game if I can. Do any of you know anyone who can get them, has influence to get them, and maybe the Red Sox July 4th game. Let me know. I will pay decent money for the tickets.
Aside from that I hope to take in the sights and do a lot of railfanning, especially when my Sea Beach gives me the big greeting she always does when I hit town. Let me know how many of you can join me and Bob for a day or two or three. You know where I will be staying, and if Bob gets in a day or so later or leaves earlier than I do you can bunk with me at the hotel. I got two beds for my room.
Presumably the Nassau St Line.
R-32.
John
Oh yeah they had 1 door open letting in 30 people at a time, there were hundreds of kids outside waiting to get in, so the whole thing ran late. I didn't get out until a quarter after 12 (it was supposed to start at 8:15!).
To keep this on-topic, them starting late (and ending late) was why I missed the train.
If ridership increases, the TA may choose to run an additional service such as the J, Z, W or V through to Brooklyn. But it could also choose to just add trains to the lines as they are, especially since "the community" always protests and objects everytime something is proposed to change. Why not just leave things as they are, and make service adjustments that do not require public hearings?
Nope, the service pattern put in place this February could last unless and until the Second Avenue Subway is extended to Brooklyn. Twenty years to never, in other words.
However, one thing that I think should be done is to make the C a 10-car line, or run it to JFK Airport on weekdays once construction at Howard Beach is done.
What else can be done with 200 extra cars? Extend the G train back to 6 R46 cars on weekdays, while running more R32 sets on the F or R to replace the lost R46 sets.
Also, I would consider running C trains to 190 Street, so that customers would be able to access the GWB.
This is what I would do for the B division:
A: Same
B: Same
C: 190 Street to JFK Airport
D: Same
E: Same
F: More R32 sets
G: 6-car trains
J: Same, but utilizing express track to Bway Jct, with Z running local in peak direction
L: More service
M: Same
N: More service
Q: Run an extra train by using the layup past 57 Street.
R: Same
Z: Local to the J from Myrtle to Bway Jct during rush hours.
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
I have been wrong about DeKalb Avenue before, but this is the situation as I see it.
DeKalb Avenue station has six tracks but only four platforms. The platform-less "bypass" tracks belong to the Fourth Avenue express line, but instead of using them most Fourth Avenue express trains currently switch to the local tracks to stop at DeKalb Avenue, resulting in a chokepoint on the local tracks south of DeKalb Avenue.
The MTA hearing announcement does not say whether the new D and N express services via the Manhattan Bridge will stop at DeKalb Avenue, but the unofficial draft map showed that they would use the bypass tracks.
If fully used, the bypass tracks would allow more trains to run, by eliminating the chokepoint, and it would simplify operation, but some people would be deprived of a convenient cross-platform transfer at DeKalb Avenue.
Without using the bypass tracks, all B, D, N and Q trains would have to share the same (outer) platforms at DeKalb Avenue, which would be too many trains for two tracks. The other two (inner) platforms are only connected to the Montague Tunnel. That is why I think that the D and N trains will use the bypass tracks, not stopping at DeKalb Avenue.
This issue should be raised at the hearing.
No.
Currently, all trains that run express both south and north of Pacific (i.e., via bridge and 4th Avenue express) bypass DeKalb. Only the N, which runs local north of Pacific (i.e., via tunnel), runs express on 4th Avenue but stops at DeKalb. That doesn't create a bottleneck.
The MTA hearing announcement does not say whether the new D and N express services via the Manhattan Bridge will stop at DeKalb Avenue, but the unofficial draft map showed that they would use the bypass tracks.
On weekdays, they will certainly use the bypass. There's no need for them to stop at DeKalb, since all necessary transfers can be made at Pacific between the D and N and at Atlantic between the B and Q. More importantly, there's no room for them on the local tracks during rush hours.
On weekends, I expect that the D will stop at DeKalb, to permit transfers from the Q. All transfers to the N can be done at Pacific or Canal, so it will probably continue to bypass.
I agree. And DeKalb isn't a bottleneck until you get past, say, 72 trains per hour. I believe it was designed for 90, but probably has had its capacity reduced by the same safety modifications that have slowed the system down elsewhere.
As for the extra cars, remember there are not 21-22 tph via the Montigue Tunnel and 27 tph via the Manhattan Bridge. The N relocation will move 8 tph from the tunnel to the bridge, but a news article said there will be 40 tph on the bridge, not 35. So there will be five more trains per hour on the BMT southern divison.
Off peak, I have been convinced that during non-rush hours the C should replace the A at Lefferts with all As going at least as far as Howard Beach. Since this only affects the non-rush hours, it would not require more trains.
Unless they make Nostrand and Utica local stops I can't see adding cars to the C. Everyone who can takes the A, and everyone who can't changes to the A ASAP, so the A is crowded (though not Lex-like) and the C is not. Better to add more As.
From the SubTalk archives, five years ago you complained that the approval procedure for new construction had become so cumbersome that they decided to repair Manhattan Bridge rather than replace it.
Realistically, is there any chance that the public hearing procedure could be short-circuited, or must this be accepted as a political fact of life in a democratic society?
It may be possible to expand it somehow, so the people involved are not just cranks who show up to get their name in the newspaper. Perhaps market research companies could be hired to bring in randomly selected people, provide them with detailed information, and solicit their views. I think that has actually been tried. But it costs money.
For small decisions, they should just get rid of the hearings.
For big decisions, a referendum on election day (when hundreds of thousands show up) could be used.
I can see lots of changes in Brooklyn in the next 10 years. All these will benefit some communities at the expense of others, so there will be nasty hearings. But I believe they will all have an overall net benefit to the city. No capital improvements are required, and only moderate increases in rolling stock.
- A/C restructuring to allow more trains to JFK/HB.
- Culver express service.
- M goes to midtown (where 3/4 of its riders want to be) and W extended to Bay Parkway. Also provides an uncrowded downtown to LIRR service with 4 minute headways through the Montague.
- E and F switch southern terminals once SAS is built to 86th St. This allow UES riders a cross-platform transfer at Lex/63rd to a non-Lex train to Lower Manhattan. Also allows merging M with C rather than with V.
- Half of L trains short turn at Broadway Jct.
- Increase IRT service to Brooklyn by replacing 5s at Flatbush with more 2s. Send 5s to Utica and New Lots.
- West End express service.
- Super J express: 5 Js, 5 Zs, 5 super-Js that skip all but the joint J/Z stops from Jamaica to Broadway Jct. If you run them at times 0, 3, and 10 respectively, the super-J can save 5 minute over the J and Z skip-stop.
- The Sea Beach and Brighton are already perfect as proposed and won't need changes.
Repeat broadcast at midnight. Email reminders can be set here:
http://dsc.discovery.com/schedule/episode.jsp?episode=3&cpi=67314&gid=9688&channel=DSC
Paul
I wound up on an MCI bus, number 7561, operating as a Rail Shuttle. Today 30th St station looked more like PABT (or the Philly bus terminal, but neither SEPTA or NJT stop there), with Rail Power Project Shuttles (it cool seeing Silverliners going into 30th St LL) and then NJT Rail Shuttles. Despite leaving 15 min late from 30th St, it still beat the train's scheduled time into Cherry Hill by almost 5 min. At Cherry Hill everyone got off and ran up on the platform, I headed for my car. I did get to see the train that pulled in, eastbound (which has me confused, where the heck did it come from, Trenton via SNJLRTS? or perhaps it just was the first one to get caught by the bridge, I dunno), the consist was cab car 5011, 5572(IIRC), 5558, and GP40PH-2B 4206 on the west end.
Oh well, just figured I'd give a quick heads up
BTW: I still have my Phl-Cherry Hill ticket on me, nobody collected it, the B/O on the shittle bus told me to give it to the conductor, but I got off at Cherry Hill, so no conductor to give it to. Oh well.
But I was there in mental imagery.
I sympathize with David Pirmann and Choo Choo and RIPTAHopeTunnel who bent over backwards
to make SUBTALK NAMETAGS... and from a previous post I sense that
"not too many" of us brahs wore the tags.... which would send a ID thread
south to scuba in south carolina..
(aka this thread wouldnt be necessary if we wore our brahmade tags)
:(
Battery breakers on (or control fades) and the field-shunting ON is the "Express sign" side of the breakers (UP - local is down) on the LEAD car ... A above middle C or bust!
I DID forget to mention one thing ... pay ATTENTION to the rolling brake test and make sure there's no drag. When you take a point for two seconds and let go, it should MAINTAIN speed since there's no dynamic leakage ... in coast, if it slows down on tangent, something ain't right. Bucking is normal at startup, but it should roll free. Wouldn't want to see any wheels start clunking ... not on THOSE. :(
But man ... you're in for a TREAT! As much fun as 1689 is, it's just ONE car. When they get together, they sing in HARMONY. :)
And later in the day decided to drive on over to Cajon Pass, where the trains were running at subway frequencies. In three horus, saw 30 trains. (I'm talking REAL trains, locomotives and freight cars....now subway trains.)
Sir, your pic has been blocked by Webspawner.
Incidentally, I wanted to begin a discussion about the four-quadrant gates that the MTA’s light-rail systems (LA’s MTA of course) have been installing at grade crossings around their system; have they indeed been increasing safety at grade-crossings by discouraging illegal entry of the crossing when trains approach? Such gates are common on the European mainland and on the Britain and Ireland; they work quite well. The US needs far more of them IMHO.
True. The LIRR gates at New Hyde Park are about as good at it gets.
PASADENA -- With pomp, speeches and golden spike lapel pins, local
residents and politicians on Saturday dedicated the Memorial Park
Station, a stop on the soon-to- open Metro Gold Line.
Builders and city officials anticipate the light-rail station, one of
six in town, will serve visitors to Old Pasadena's shops, restaurants
and attractions. The station is next to the Pasadena Senior Center
and walking distance to Pasadena City Hall.
"This is a proud and historic moment for the city of Pasadena,' Mayor
Bill Bogaard told about 300 people on Holly Street, closed for the
morning ceremony.
City Councilman Paul Little was among many speakers who recalled the
uphill climb the Gold Line faced after the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority shelved the light rail project indefinitely
in 1998.
"We're on the verge of doing what seemed impossible five years ago
opening on time and on budget,' Little said.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena, wrote the bill that created the Blue
Line Construction Authority when he was a state senator. "I think we
all realized what a tremendous asset light rail could be,' he said.
The congressman echoed by nearly every city, county and state
official who spoke pledged to continue efforts to extend the Gold
Line to Claremont. It's expected to cost $1 billion and take 10 years
to complete the 22.5-mile extension.
Other elected officials on hand for the celebration included state
Sen. Jack Scott, D-Pasadena; state Assemblywoman Carol Liu, D-
Pasadena; County Supervisor Mike Antonovich; and Pasadena City
Council members Chris Holden, Joyce Streator, Sid Tyler and Victor
Gordo.
"This has implications statewide,' said Scott, who as an assemblyman
five years ago sponsored the Construction Authority bill in the state
Assembly.
"We can't build enough freeways ... to solve the problem. We have to
turn to mass transit,' he said. As the former president of Pasadena
City College, Scott said he was particularly happy that students will
be able to use the Gold Line's Allen Avenue Station to get to campus.
On the construction portion alone, Gold Line contractors put in more
than 2 million hours of labor to build the 13.7- mile, Los Angeles to
Pasadena light rail, said Rick Thorpe, CEO of the Construction
Authority.
No specific opening date has been announced by the MTA, which will
operate the Gold Line. Thus far, the MTA will only say that service
will begin this summer.
But Thorpe dropped a hint. "I look forward to riding the system with
the rest of you at the end of July,' he told the audience, who
received tiny railroad-spike pins as a souvenir.
I was used to seeing them when I was in Europe in the early ‘60s, but they were all controlled by a gate man at the crossing. This ensured that no vehicle would be trapped between the gates. There is no way that anyone in this day and age in the U.S. is going to pay a gate tender. I realize that exit gates can be automatically timed to lower a short time after the entry gates, but U.S. railroads haven't wanted to foot the expense for the extra hardware, or the potential liability for trapped vehicles.
Tom
IMO, there are too many grade crossings in Japanese cities. Even central Tokyo still has enough of them to often cause accidents and delays.
Whoa, that sounds interesting. What types of railroad crossings are you talking about? For subways and commuter trains? Do you mean, in city areas similar to Manhattan streets? I'm trying to picture 34th Street or Wall Street with trains all running at grade. I really can't imagine it; how the traffic would be effected. I guess Tokyo didn't have the same mindset to eliminate the street-level r.o.w.s that New York did. Gotta go check out some pictures on the Net showing this...
Sorry for the late reply.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
They have an appointment in the paint booth soon... Time to get the yellow paint treatment.
-Stef
P.S. If this set hadn't been available, I think 6 R-33ML Cars at Unionpart Yard could have also been used. Currently, 8954-55, 8964-65, and 9070-71 operate on the Rail Adhesion Train, providing companionship for Car 8885.
-Stef
-Stef
I hope not! I'm looking forward to the museum cars.
The New 2004 Manhattan Bridge Service Brochure
The New N train timetable
The New B train timetable
The New M train timetable
The New W train timetable
The New Q train timetable
The New D train timetable
And of course
The new updated Feb 2004 subway maps with the Manhattan Bridge and other service changes.
Well pretty soon ebay will be offering old July 22, 2001 Manhattan Bridge Service change brochure and New W and Q line timetable for auction (I think). At least I won't needing more of these since I have them. Speaking of July 22, 2001 Manhattan Bridge brochure
When was the July 22, 2001 Manhattan Bridge brochure to available the public prior to the Northside closing? Is it before the hearing? or after the hearing? I'm asking, so I can get idea when TA will have the February 2004 available in station soon. Man, I dying to get my hands on those upcoming brochure. Well, maybe I oughta wait for the new N Q M B D W timetable after the Northside reopen-by then it should be available.
Ummm, forget "Is it before the hearing?"
Next Thursday is the hearing anyway.
The 2001 brochure was released a few weeks before the changes.
New timetables for all lines were released about two months ago.
I also have a copy of the Manhattan Bridge service change brochure. I got mine at DeKalb before and after the bridge flip-flop. I doubt they'll still have copies.
GO HERE! == http://www.iespell.com
Chuck Greene
People in glass houses...
I just could not resist.
Do they have a grammar checker too?
Mark
Download Ad-Aware if you care about that sort of thing. I still use plain-vanilla IE and I don't feel having been left out. I even have my JavaScript and ActiveX turned off...
AEM7
It skips the spyware and has extra features.
Just wakikng up to hopefully a decent day of railfanning on either the R1/9 or the Triplex (the substitute cars if the R1/9 fells victim to the Fan Trip curse like the SMEE's did yesterday). Ah yes when we leave Coney Island Yard we will see thje progress of Stillwell and tail up past the Cyclone and the view of the beach and the Boardwalk and WAIT! We will be on the Brighton Line, damm I hope we do NOT STOP at Newkirk so that the Mr. Sulu can do WARP speed 5 on the embankement. I don't care who has the RF window the whole day, just please let me get a part of the window on the last leg.
My camera is loaded and ready to go. See you there in 3 hours. YAWN! (Covers mouth)
So I will have to rely on the photos of you guys for my fix of this. All four of these trips weren't in the cards for me. Oh well.
Snap pictures, have fun, ride the arnies, and don't let the CHUD's get you while waiting to board.
Someone had emailed me pink copy of GO # 1564-03. When trainset pulled out of East 180th, I was in constant contact with 239th Car Desk. They were confused despite my instructions. We stopped by 239th RTO and disboarded. Thurston asked me where I'm going....'Car Desk...check in and check out.' My shop...lunch or toilet...check in and check out. Ms MJ looks at me strangely...only one of my crew knew what was going on. C/R on train asked me where I work and told him to look out the window. My home.
So maybe it was not the best of excursions...that we didn't travel the routes like 'Last of Redbird Excursions' to see and pic everything. Sounds like 'TWU bitchinns.' To the people who organised the excursion and the crew who ran the trip, the greatest of thanks from the last of the Redbird Techs. Bill Wall: I couldn't ask for a refund even though you caught me for the extra five bucks.
Can't eat Camilles six buck MOD hot dawgs. Six-fifty for big MikkyDees shake and fries....cheapassed Car Inspectors leave pennies in the Ronald MacDonald donation box.
BTW: I work these trips like duty days...up at 0430. Radios fully charged...everything RTG. Feed bag packed, trainman uniform and rainsuit...all necessary personal protection equipment so I don't get 'written up.' See you all in two hours. CI Peter
And what do people feel about the J/Z arrangement?
That argument can't be refuted by the personal experiences of any single rider. It can only be refuted by comprehensive data to the contrary, which is something Subtalkers can't provide.
"...skip to the..my darlin'"
:0)
As for the J/Z arrangement that one is better since it is express from Marcy-Myrtle then skip stops all the way to Jamaica Center and the ab stops are spaced more evenly than the 1/9.
How are they spaced more evenly? On both the 1/9 and the J/Z there is never a case where one train skips two consecutive stops in the skip-stop territory. The 1 has equal stops as the 9 and the J has equal stops as the Z. Do you mean population wise it is spaced out bad, that I can't tell you due to lack of experience and sufficient info.
Its not supposed to do that. The ab stops [stations where BOTH trains stop] on the 1/9 are spaced better than the 1/9. Look, the 1/9 has to make 3 stops in a row, 168, 181 & 191 St. Population wise it does pose a problem [like Dyckman St when 1 trains bypass it] but I don't have ridership info to make it a definite answer overall.
Happened to me on Monday. I waited almost 10 minutes before a 1 showed up at 225th and it sounded its horn and didn't stop. First I thought it was a battery run, but then I checked my watch at it was after three in the afternoon, so it was rush hour time. Five more minutes went by before the next train, a 9, came and stopped.
Based on the statistics in this thread, and David's excellent analysis, skip stop doesn't work because of waiting times at the one-train stations, and most of the ridership is upper Manhattan, as opposed to Lenox and the Bronx. I would think it would make sense to have a one-seat express ride to lower Manhttan and Brooklyn available to the majority of riders.
The majority of riders north of 96 St are Broadway riders, per the statistics in Stephen Bauman's post under "Is the 3 train necessary?"
Why not accommodate the majority with the possiblility of a one-seat express ride to midtown, downtown and Brooklyn?
The problem is that Bronx-Lenox service must access the express tracks, if only briefly, before switching to the local tracks. Therefore, you would have the Rogers Junction problem: three services passing through the same choke point. The MTA schedules suggest that there are about 35tph southbound during the a.m. rush on the 1/2/3/9 entering 96th St. I don't think your service pattern could support that many trains. That's why the trains coming from 242/VCP must be locals.
If the junction north of 96th were rebuilt, no doubt a different service pattern would obtain. There is no rational logic for 148th and 145th Sts to be express stops, but the way that junction is built practically compels it. Unfortunately, I don't think a redesign of the tracks north of 96th is even remotely on the table. They'd rebuild Rogers first, and even that is probably years away.
And, while nobody's proposed actual service levels for these swapped services, local service between 96th and 42nd cannot afford to be reduced one iota. The five local stations in that span are (by far) the five busiest local stations on the line, with more fare registrations than the entire line north of 137th.
They had no problem running locals out of 145-Lenox and 137th and expresses out of Van Cortland and 180th St before 1959. It's all in the timing.
I can just imagine that shuttle bus operation!
Tens of thousands of people do cross platform transfers every day. It is not a big hardship. Think of 125th, 96th, Roosevelt, Dekalb. So probably do the majority of riders going from Flatbush to the Lex.
If you just replace 5s to Flatbush with 2s and 3s, and run the 5s to New Lots, there is no need to fix the Rogers junction.
Nah don't hold your breath on that, we won't know if Rogers Junction is on the renovation plans. If they were to redesign the 96 St switches they should of done so during the Lenox rehab in 1998, too bad north of 96 via Broadway has no island platforms would of been so much easier to implement express service over this skip stop stuff. The major hurdle of building switches north of 96 is that the 2/3 goes downward right after but I think there might be enough room to do so but it will be very close.
His math is sound - it doesn't work.
And what do people feel about the J/Z arrangement?
It does work as it beats the E train downtown, therefore it relieves crowding on QB.
Comments and reanalyses (using more up-to-date and more accurate data) are welcome.
Two notes:
The link to the SubTalk archives doesn't work, since the archives were reworked at some point after I made that post. The new link is http://talk.nycsubway.org/cgi-bin/subtalk.cgi?read=276621.
Later in the thread someone pointed out that 181st was closed for rehab for part of 1999, deflating the fare registrations there and inflating them at 191st and 168th. I don't think that alters my ultimate conclusion, but it might.
What I find most puzzling are 145th and 157th, which, by their registration counts, have no business being skip-stop stations, especially since their passengers don't gain anything from skip-stop.
The J/Z is a different story. Skip-stop there, which saves more time to begin with, is a deliberate attempt to draw Jamaica-to-downtown passengers off the E.
If the residents of Riverdale and their elected representatives made a big fuss, while the people further south who get virtually zero time savings and half the trains didn't talk, the MTA might have decided that this is what the community as a whole wants.
The general public might not have realized that when "9" service was proposed, it meant renumbering half of 1 trains as 9s. They may have thought there would be just as many 1s as before, and new trains called 9s. In that case, those at stations about to be skipped by half the trains may not have realized that the proposal was for them to lose half their service.
Relatively few people realize what a big disparity there is in frequency of different lines.
Skip-stop service on the Jamaica Ave El started in 1959. Prior to that time only #15 Jamaica Expresses went to 168th St. Skip-stop service also brought #14 locals to 168th St. Peak service was 10 tph on each for a combined 20 tph, when skip-stop started. Prior peak service with only #15 expresses was 11 tph. By contrast, today's peak service combined service levels are 12 tph or 6 tph on each.
Baaaaaaaa ... baaaaaaaa ... baaaaaaaaa ...
This was true for the all-stops stations north of 137th. Until 1989, many trains turned around at 137th.
No one loses.
The TA can no longer turn trains at 137th because its rules for clearing out trains thoroughly make that impossible. So they have to double the trains north of 137th. To give the illusion of a real express, they offer skip stop.
So, people north of 137th are no worse off than before (excpet for the handlful who need to go from a 1 station to a 9 station or vice versa).
However, they would be EVEN better off on the whole if NYCT had just made all the longer trains pure locals.
The question I'm asking is, once the money is being spent to run all trains to 242nd, does it make more sense to have all trains make all stops than to run skip-stop? It would seem that the answer is yes.
My impression is that, when skip-stop was being designed, it was thought that it would save much more time than it actually does.
Furthermore, I've suggested that it might be time to reconsider a return to the pre-1989 service pattern, or something similar, so that service south of 137th, where the majority of the ridership is, isn't constrained by the terminal capacity at 242nd.
But in the current litigation and safety-conscious environment, how is NYCT going to clear out all the passengers at 137th without affecting the train behind?
The fumigation policy is a union-management problem not a litigation/safety problem.
Are you sure? If so, it could just be solved by having a switchman available to get on at the back of the train. Train stops at 137th, switchman gets on, T/O brings train into relay, switchman brings it to southbound platform when the schedule demands it, new T/O gets on in front, T/O in back gets rest room break. No need for T/O to walk the length of the train and risk the wrath of nasty passengers.
Yes, this costs money, but far less than sending all those trains up to 242nd St.
I've taken poetic license. The TA hasn't literally fumigated cars since the R11 days.
I thought the issue was that they want to make sure all pax have exited the train—and not left any suspicious packages behind—before continuing onto non-revenue tracks.
This is a relatively new policy, within the last few years. Prior to that, only trains that were going out of service were subjected to such scrutiny. Personnel would try to make sure that all passengers were off trains, prior to a relay. However, there would not be a thorough time consuming searches for stowaways. If a passenger found himself marooned for 10 to 15 minutes - so be it. It wasn't any big deal in the days before PA systems on either the train or the station.
Up here, we'd just put a gun in their face, saying "off the damned train." Compliance up here with the law reaches near 100%. Of course, in Noo Yawk, that option doesn't exist ... but if the Daily Snooze published horror stories of geese that didn't take flight FAST enough for a few days, I'm sure we could have 1968 compliance with "This is 137th Street, LAST STOP, EVERYBODY OFF" just like it worked for 60+ years prior.
I hadn't realized that the 1/9 balance works out nearly similar to the pre-137 days ... maybe it isn't so bad as it once was, but I can assure you - at rush hour, there were a good number of trains on upper Broadway - at rush, maybe every THIRD train was a 137 turnaround. And off hours, I can see there would be an improvement. Then again, with the 137 turnarounds done away with, they may have kept the OLD 242 schedules which would result in LESS service, particularly in Madhattan ...
They could run in service from 137th NB platform to 145th SB platform then step back.
I'm not convinced it's the best one. Many many more passengers use 103rd, 110th, and 116th than the stations north of 137th; it seems logical to give more service to the stations that demand more service. I'd estimate that those three stations should be getting at least 12-15 tph. If alternate trains run express, then the local tracks south of 96th need to carry at least 24-30 tph. Those stations will have less service than they do today if total service is less than 40(!) tph.
Perhaps more trains can run local than express. For instance, run 30 tph total, 20 locals terminating at 137th (or 10 at 137th and 10 at Dyckman) and 10 expresses going through to 242nd. That would grant enough service to all stations, except arguably the transfer point at 168th, but it would bring out the politicians in Washington Heights and Riverdale en masse. It would also lead to uneven spacing between 96th and 137th, and the potential merging delays at 96th and 137th would probably eliminate all time savings.
So I think the best arrangement is simply to run all trains local, with some terminating at 137th, or perhaps Dyckman (or maybe even both). It's not a glamorous solution but I think it's the best one. The 1 moves pretty fast for a local, many passengers have the A express as an alternate option, and most of those who don't can still transfer to it at 168th if they wish.
As for quickly turning at 137th, an army of platform conductors should do the trick. That's not cheap, but it's surely cheaper than running extraneous service, and it would permit service improvements where they're needed.
I'm afraid that Dyckman also suffers from the fumigation policy, as does 96th St.
I think the only way to have a decent, effective express run is to remove the trains from the platforms. Why they absolutely refuse to use express track from Myrtle Av. to B'way Junction, I have no idea. The express track under B'way ( Manhattan ) is interrupted deep underground around 168th St.. I rode the J train express, and it took the middle from Marcy Av. to Myrtle Av. , only to take the crossover to the local track and start that 'skip-stop' crap. Why couldn't it take middle all the way to B'way Junction? This would give the trains some space to stretch their legs. The run up until there was pretty quick, only to get cut short. The skip-stop scheme on the Jamaica line may have changed since when I rode; extending it beyond B'way Junction. There's no express track beyond the junction - of course - but I think it might be worth their while to add on to the tunnel under B'way in Inwood in order to add an express track.
R-32.
I believe the problem is that the Queens-bound M train has to cross over both the express track and the Manhattan-bound local track at Myrtle Avenue. This means that all three tracks are blocked as an M train passes through Myrtle Ave on its way to Central Ave. Switching delays would be introduced if the unused express track east of Myrtle Ave were put back into service. For it to be practical, they would probably have to rebuild the station with a flying junction, which is the way it should have been designed in the first place.
The express track under B'way ( Manhattan ) is interrupted deep underground around 168th St. ... I think it might be worth their while to add on to the tunnel under B'way in Inwood in order to add an express track.
I think you're confusing two separate lines. Broadway Junction is in Brooklyn. Inwood is in Manhattan.
The issue is that, for skip-stop to work, the two variants of the line (J and Z, in this case) have to be identical outside the skip-stop area. The options for Myrtle - BJct are both local, both express, and both skip-stop. Obviously, they can't both go express unless another line is there to fill in on the local track.
(I'll again mention the service pattern that came to me a month or two ago by accident: run the V as a Broadway-Brooklyn local to Canarsie and terminate the L at Broadway Junction. This will presumably not be an option once CBTC is up and running, unless CBTC can be temporarily disabled on part of the line, but if it were implemented, then the J/Z could run express all the way.)
Not true. The original Jamaica Ave El skip stop service had the #15 Jamaica Exp operate express between Bway-Jct and Essex St to Broad St, while the #14 Bway-Bklyn Local ran local from Bway-Jct to Canal St. There were additional #14 locals between Canarsie/Atlantic Ave and Canal St. #10 Myrtle Ave trains ran express between Myrtle Ave and Essex St to Chambers St.
#3 West End Jeff
In what way? If you ride to/from an all-stop station, then obviously skip-stop hasn't done you any harm. Depending on which station it is, your ride is perhaps 1-3 minutes faster than it otherwise would have been. On the other hand, if you ride to/from a skip-stop destination, then on average 50% of the trains that go by are of no use to you.
David's analysis—which suggests that the cost to the skip-stop passangers outweighs the benefit to the all-stop passengers—is pretty compelling, and I haven't seen anyone offer a counter-argument.
There are additional costs for implementing a terminal. There are dispatchers, asst. dispatchers, etc. There is also the need for crew quarters, maintenance for that, etc.
Several years ago before Guiliani's panic attack about trains travelling under City Hall and when passengers could ignore last stop warnings, I suggested that Lex local service could be greatly expanded on the cheap by running additional trains between Brooklyn Bridge and 59th St. Several union representatives, at least I thought they were union representatives, assured me that such a new terminal would require a staff of thousands in addition to the T/O's and C/R's. Well it was close to 10. :-)
There are additional costs for implementing a terminal.
If David is correct, then the MTA should just eliminate the #9, and run twice as many rush-hour #1 trains as full locals, without introducing a new terminal.
I think one thing that is being missed in this discussion is that whilst skip-stop might not shorten average passenger journey times, it does shorten train journey times. And that means fewer trains and fewer operational staff are needed when compared to the same level of non-skip-stop service. Thus the above suggestion would cost more.
Which might explain the TA's motivation.
On the other hand, I'm not sure how big the savings or extra costs (depending on which way you look at it) are in practice.
URL: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/90612p-82266c.html
Given the number of enforcement agents in NYC, and that a certain percentage are lazy people who will write bad tickets so that they can spend the rest of the day eating donuts, the News will never run out of material.
The truth is these silly summons have been writen year after year for as long as anyone can remeber
Until the NYPD institutes handheld ticketing devices where it can accuratly gauge how many tickets per hour, per vehicle and the types of tickets issued. This practice of lazy traffic agents and police officer issuing a bunch of tickets for minor offenses so they can go sit in a donut shot won't end
Fox 5 (I know they are the trash of the trash of tv news) followed a team of traffic agent in queens last summer. Lets just say these agents including the supervisor did more newpaer reading then traffic enforcing. One guy was even doing homework for a college class he was taking
But if you want to park in a commercial space on an NYC street, then I guess you must comply with NYC laws. I also believe that magnetic signs are not permitted. The whole idea being you cannot be a commercial vehicle when it suits you to be a commercial vehicle, and to be a passenger vehicle when it suits you to be a passenger vehicle.
You wanna park in a commercial space on a city street, you cannot later pull off your sign and sneak onto the parkway.
Now here in North Dakota, the ubiquitous pickup truck is never classified as a commercial vehicle, it has regular passenger plates on it. I do not think that this would amuse the state police on the Southern State Parkway, now would it? Nor would it amuse the traffic officers in NYC.
Elias
Logically, only one of the two tickets can be sustained. Either it is a commercial vehicle with substandard lettering and therefore entitled to use the loading zone, or it not a commercial vehicle illegally parked, but then the size of the lettering is unimportant.
Tom
If I conduct a transaction in one state, then relocate to another state, the validity of a judgment from the first state's courts in the second state's legal system means that the party to my transaction could, in theory, file a frivolous lawsuit in the first state, and then figure there's a good chance I'll offer to settle if the airline tickets, hotel rooms and other expenses exceed the value of the suit. Especially true in small claims, where I'd have to hire someone to represent me.
Old Tom, if I am wrong, please correct me...
Because I'm put of town and he's not.
If I conduct a transaction in one state, then relocate to another state, the validity of a judgment from the first state's courts in the second state's legal system means that the party to my transaction could, in theory, file a frivolous lawsuit in the first state, and then figure there's a good chance I'll offer to settle if the airline tickets, hotel rooms and other expenses exceed the value of the suit. Especially true in small claims, where I'd have to hire someone to represent me.
Old Tom, if I am wrong, please correct me...
States accept one another's registrations. That should mean that the pickup, with regular passenger plates issued by North Dakota, would be treated as a passenger vehicle while in New York.
Except of course, on the parkways, where if very clearly requires: "Passenger Cars"
Here in North Dakota, you can get your drivers license at 15, you want that kid driving in NYC.... I don't think so!
We probably don't want anyone with 30 years experience driving only in North Dakota driving in NYC either, but like the 15 year old with a valid licence, NYC cannot stop him.
Tom
My understanding is that states need not recognize other state's drivers' licenses until the holder is 18. That's what I was told when I went on a cross-country trip with my parents at age 17.
All states recognize a driver's home state unrestricted drivers' licence, but not a learner's permit or "junior" licence which allows driving only at certain hours or accompanied by an adult.
Tom
Not entirely true. North Carolina does not recognize a license that does not have a photograph unless accompanied by a valid passport or other government-issued ID that carries a photograph and the same information. This includes non-recognition of licenses that do not have a photo, even if issued by other US jurisdictions. This law went into effect about ten or fifteen years ago after a driver from another jurisdiction was stopped seven or eight times on I-95 and presented a series of licenses, none of which were his and none of which had photos, to the various officers. He was caught when he was stopped by one of the same officers on his return trip through the state and presented a different license.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
I am sorry, you are wrong. North Carolina specifically allows anyone 16 years and older with a valid license from their home state or country to operate a motor vehicle on North Carolina roads. In fact, North Carolina goes so far as to issue licenses without pictures to NC residents who can prove that taking a photograph would violate the license holder's religious convictions.
Tom
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Train in Vain
In case I screwed up the link (my first try), here's the site: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/546.htm
Ron, I think I've studied this enough to say that I agree with David Gunn. If you look at North American Transportation in Figures (at www.bts.gov) and look under Chapter 8, you'll see even for corridors like New York-Washington (CMSA's), the intercity train achieves a 2% market share while the airlines achieve 6%. That leaves 92% for the highways. This is because most people are travelling from Long Island suburbs to Maryland suburbs, and not New York to Washington.
AEM7
Now, I'm also in favor of making more the highways toll roads...
Michael
Washington, DC
That statement makes no sense.
Economic efficiency is not the same as profitability.
AEM7
I think there’s a market for the 400-500 mile trips: Boston-NY-Washington, even NY-Chicago, but it requires investment in passenger grade rail, so that trains don’t meander at 40 miles per hour!
John
Yeahh. This same editorial appeared in the Times also. I especially took note of Mr. Will’s blatant error in this regard:
Nowhere in America are there the conditions that make Japan’s high-speed trains profitable: dense population, negligible air service, very high gas prices to discourage driving. In 2000, Americans took 665 million plane trips and 22.5 million Amtrak trips.
More fallacies promulgated by the anti-rail lobbies. JR has not been profitable on its Shikansen system. JAL and ANA are not out of business insofar as intra-Japan trips. The plane trips noted there (from three years ago) were most likely more loss-generating than the Amtrak trips noted on there; and indeed, how many more passengers would have used Amtrak if the trains were far faster and the timekeeping more reliable? The population density argument does not apply to airplanes, which fly eight miles over the land; besides, since much of HSR is point-to-point travel anyway, why does that have to be such a factor?
The bottom line is that the government has not been even-handed in regards to its transportation infrastructure investment. Somehow, railroads have to be unique versus highways and aviation. Gunn will do the best he can in the face of such thinking, but in the end, nothing good will come of it, I am sorry to say.
And you KNOW DeLay and Armey won't mess with TEXAS' free ride at Amtrak's expense. Fortunately GUNN is smart enough to figure this out. His choice as "Rail Czar" was a wise one. He knows where the bones are buried and which switch to turn in the cabinet to wake up the engine. :)
With the hairlines stuffing up transit time by another hour and change, plus all the hassle of even GOING to an airport, Hamtrack IS the way to get there - same for a good number of other "city pairs." Since the airline industry has cratered, Amtrak is a significant piece of the puzzle now. At least as far as megalopolis congressfish go. And if THEY ride the train for fear of flying, that's a GOOD THING as Martha Stewart sez. :)
Actually, those are facts, and your eyes are glazed over with the railfan romance. The only part of Shinkansen that ever made back its capital cost were the Tokyo-Osaka, and only because the old Tokaido Main Line (narrow gauge) needed capacity relief. The rest of the Shinkansen system... well, was a waste of money!
AEM7
I have to wonder who rides Amtrak's long-haul routes. I did a couple of quick checks. Suppose you're traveling from New York to Chicago on July 31st. The one-way Amtrak fare is $122, and the trip takes 20 1/2 hours. The one-way airfare on AirTran is $123. Here's another example. Amtrak from New York to Orlando on July 31st would cost you $170, and the trip takes 24 1/4 hours. The one-way fare on Delta is $75. A sleeper berth is not included in either of the above Amtrak fares.
I'm sure there are examples to the contrary, but at these prices it's no surprise that most people would choose air. I chose July 31st, by the way, to compare advance-booking fares. Amtrak is probably more compelling if you book at the last minute—but not compelling enough!
I'd bet you have a lot of elderly people on the trains. You have to be retired to have that kind of time. But if you are retired, and time doesn't matter, isn't the train more pleasant?
I *much* prefer using a cell modem on a TRAIN than "please turn off all electronic devices" on some damned plane. I suppose it all depends on individual realities, but if you NEED to do BUSINESS, a TRAIN is FAR superior to a plane (if it has an AC outlet) as far as business goes. Idle time in a train seat CAN be put to good use when travelling.
What may have been the reality in the "face to face" business days has DRASTICALLY changed ... as long as I can do my email and downloads while on a TRAIN, every negative *BUSINESS* reality is meaningless. Unless the internet goes away in a valley somewhere and doesn't come back for a while on "roam."
Amtrak REALIZES this and is now equipping certain trains with satellite broadband service in business class. REALITY is that nice TRAIN RIDE is now my OFFICE! :)
Damned CONGRESS can't figure this out? :(
I don't think there are enough people who share your point of view —e.g., are willing to take an overnight 20-hour train ride from NY to CHI, when for the same price they could be there by air in a few hours.
Obviously somebody rides these trains, but they could never be compelling for a large number of travelers unless they were a lot faster, or a lot cheaper, than they are today.
For *BUSINESS* ... (as long as there's an internet connection) then the TRAIN is CHEAPER ... *MUCH* cheaper! I can travel a day or two early, come back a day or two late (I've even done this to CALIFORNIA and saved BIG) so long as I can do my work while I'm ON A TRAIN! (the latter being the MAJOR part of the success of the equation)
Folks need to stop thinking in terms of republican DOOM ... the possibilities are ENDLESS ... if Amtrak were more entrepreneurial (and GUNN stands a chance at this) ... set off a space in a car or car portion for "live teleconferencing" as an option and add that car where pre-booked ... videoconferencing is the ONLY hole remaining, and let's be real - thanks to the MIRACLE of fifty-dollar web cams, if Amtrak just assured AC outlets and internet connectivity ON the train, the airlines would be blown out of the air as *THE* advantage for business travel, both short and LONG.
Seriously, here at PRIVACY SOFTWARE (my email address is the work company) we *VALUE* the train and use it to the max because it just WORKS for US ... every way imaginable. :)
Amtrak's long-distance routes may carry very few passengers, but these days people aren't flying either. I would imagine that a significant percentage of travelers today perfer to drive on what by any standards are lengthy trips, such as New York-Chicago and New York-Orlando. In other words, Amtrak's real competition is not the airline industry, but the private motor vehicle.
Amtrak's problems are decades old, and are not just a post-9/11 phenomenon. That much is not debatable.
What is debatable is whether the current air travel downturn is cyclical or secular. I believe it is the former.
To put it in economic terms, there has been a big shift in the supply curve for air travel. An enormous new cost has emerged -- the potential use of airplanes in terrorism -- that was not understood to exist before.
Were this entire cost put on the customer, air travel would be attractive to far fewer people. As it is, the potential for a nuclear power plant accident, this cost has been absorbed by the government and by the potentially uncompensated future victims. Were it not for that subsidy, air travel would decline even more than it has.
In additional, with the loses the airline industry has suffered in the past five years, all past profits have been offset. If effect, air transportation has been subsidized by stock and bondholders who have lost money.
Given that optimism about the future of air travel has diminished, many airlines may have difficulty financing their capital costs, like rail and transit after 1930. With so many existing airplanes idled, this will have little effect in the short run. But as airplanes need to be replaced, higher prices will be needed to cover future capital expenditures. This will shift the demand curve.
Add in the increased pricing power of businesses, who were cross subsidizing others, and many trips for many people that had been air trips will, I believe, become something else, permanently. Will people take trains from New York to San Francisco? No. But I believe a share of the market may potentially shift between air and bus/drive/rail, unless the government increases its subsidies for air transportation.
Maybe the regulators were right. Cheap flights seem to have been a temporary boon generated by stockholders and bondholders who lost money, businesses who subsidized the leisure traveler, and low fuel prices. Absent these, fare revenues seem insufficient to support the industry even with a decline in quality and cut in pay.
"Wherever you go, there you ARE." ... Seriously ... contemplate the previous words. You can be AT your desk, or "AT YOUR DESK" on a TRAIN. As LONG as you have "connectivity" then you're AT WORK, as surely as I have been, and even was, during my last trip to BRANFORD ... if you're CONNECTED, and your job DEPENDS on rendering services "on the net" ... then WHEREVER you are, you're *IN* your office and *ON DUTY* ...
Amtrak can kick BUTT if they can assure CONSTANT wiring, AND do the "we're a hotel thing, may I wipe your BUTT for you, sit" to business travellers. Spend it in a "Hampton INN" or spend it on a TRAIN. *****HMMMMMMMMM*****
Mark
If you were designing the system de novo, that would probably be the case. With the system we have, in which most airports are not directly connected to a rail network, it's practically hopeless without a staggering investment.
Mark
We are indeed, but could we stop doing that while we spend 20 or 30 years building rail infrastructure that we lack? I don't think so.
AEM7
The other interesting observation about that operation is that Amtrak and MBTA do not share their North Sta-South Sta moves. Maybe there is a limit on the number of cars, but it would be more efficient to have Amtrak move some stock for MBTA when it's doing it (almost daily) move of Downeaster equipment, and vice versa, n'est pas? All it takes is a few more shoves at North Sta. MBTA also appears to move its equipment daily -- I couldn't understand why. Seems to make sense to have North and South station run as separate terminals each with its dedicated fleet, and moving equipment only for periodic maintenance (you would think these moves only need to occur twice a week, not twice a day as has been happening recently).
AEM7
Liability is governed by the AAR interchange rules. Presumably, same things happen when freight railroad interchange cars, and they seem to be able to deal with it. Union is more likely, but until June 30, Amtrak would still operate Boston's commuter rail, and it's the same union, in fact I happen to know that the crew can cross-bid (as in if you are qualified on the Amtrak Attleboro line, you can bid to work the MBTA Providence Local if you so wish). I don't have the answer, but I suspect the process of coordination is just more trouble than it's worth -- at the max, you save about $200 per move -- and trying to coordinate the moves could easily chew up more than $200's worth of management time.
I think railfanning is just inherently a boring thing to talk about, so what if you saw NYCTA XXX or MBTA XXX today? No one cares. People just like to argue, and there's not really much to argue when you post that you saw a particular consist today.
I deny that you saw that consist today! Don't you DARE tell me you saw a consist today. Why, all your posts consist of imaginary consists, which are inCONSISTent with posts about consists. I CONSISTently ask you not to post such rubble, and you only inCONSISTently comply.
There, is that argumentative enough?
:0)
So who's who?
I'll start looking for the whole fleet to be in service sometime after the NYC Second Avenue Subway is completed.
The above statements are based on what was publicly reported in the Boston Metro.
The paragraph below is opinion:
More hidden costs of ADA compliance. Not only is ADA an unfunded Federal mandate, it is also an unrealistic mandate in terms of engineering in many ways. It is simply not possible to make some of the engineering systems we rely on daily easily accessible for a person with disabilities. Paratransit is a high-subsidy item; ADA compliance also makes capital schemes unrealistically expensive. The more resources spent on ADA compliance, the less resources there is available for able-bodied people.
AEM7
I thinkt that a major difference here is that these systems were built from the ground up (or on existing RR ROW with its more precice track profile). Putting new cars on the Boston is impossible. The ROW was not designed for axelless - conventional truckless operation, and it depended on the more forgiving suspension of a conventional trolley car.
Now to make Boston ADA complient, (short of replacing all of the track) would be to build conventional high level trolley cars, and then also build high level platforms, either with a ramp, or with a small all weather lift of some sort.
Elias
They already replaced most of the track, and put in track bracers in areas with tight curves to make sure the track gauge is very well adhered. They also did the semi-high-platform thing; Park St. went from 3" above-rail-height to 6" ARH, and conversions are ongoing in other places (just so a wheelchair can slide right from the platform into the train).
Still, the damn things are derailing. The axleless design has not been trialled anywhere else, it's not surprising that its tracking qualities are not known. The other lo-floor LRV's have just the door section low-floor; the flexible section still has to be reached via steps.
Whatever the problem was, it was waay too much money to spend to achieve ADA compliance, especially when it's not Federal money. As a Mass. tax payer, I think I have every right to complain and it's not all Breda's fault.
AEM7
So that was why they went through and fixed the track -- tightened up the track to fit the spec that was written in the contract. But the damn cars are still derailing -- yes, Breda's fault.
But then, Breda can't help it if it's being asked to build something which has never been built before. NASA doesn't go chastise Lockheed Martin when their shuttle explodes, because L-M doesn't have that much experience in building shuttles. In this case, Breda had little experience building American railcars, and no experience building split-axle railcars period. I'm not at all surprised they didn't get it to work.
If it weren't for the whole ADA lo-floor nonsense, MBTA would have bought more Kinki's and we'd have no problems.
2. Whether some of us should ride in the back of the bus--that is either stay home or ride alone in some overpriced schedule it next week shuttle van. It is of course the same equity/equal treatment under law issue. The ADA may be the only thing Dole got right--BECAUSE he is disabled!
BTW, my first experience of listening in to RR radio traffic was courtesy of a blind railfan on an illfated steam trip in 68.
I'd sure hope so, since the shuttles were built by Rockwell, now owned by Boeing.
Blaming ADA for a badly manufactured transit vehicle is like blaming installation of seatbelts for a car that breaks down on the highway. It's the height of idiocy.
It was waay too much money to give Breda for a faulty design. ADA had nothing to do with it. ADA doesn't mandate how you address a problem, only that you address it. How that gets done is up to the competence (or incompetence) of the engineer.
More hidden costs of ADA compliance. Not only is ADA an unfunded Federal mandate, it is also an unrealistic mandate in terms of engineering in many ways. It is simply not possible to make some of the engineering systems we rely on daily easily accessible for a person with disabilities. Paratransit is a high-subsidy item; ADA compliance also makes capital schemes unrealistically expensive. The more resources spent on ADA compliance, the less resources there is available for able-bodied people.
The question is whether taxpayers would rather help a disabled person onto the train or spend uneconomical sums on allowing him to get on without assistance.
That is not really the question at all. The real question is whether the disabled person is to be treated as a full fledged member of society or a burden on society to be reluctantly tolerated. The ADA allows either assistance devices such as the lifts on high floor buses or design that allows entry without steps. The goal is to allow as many as possible to use regular public transportation rather than having a separate transportation system for the disabled. The purpose is to allow the maximum number of people possible to enter the mainstream of society.
Tom
By the same token, we ought to mandate that automakers create devices that blind people could drive on the highways; we ought to mandate that publishers make books available to people who could not read English; we ought to mandate that all services offered must allow people from all walks of society to parttake, including the mentally ill; we ought to mandate that educational institutions must include students who are mentally retarded or have other forms of learning difficulties. This way, marginalized people could once again be included in the mainstream of society.
Besides the fact that there must be a willingness-to-pay to create the devices needed (i.e. artificial eyes, artificial brains, and artificial sanity control devices), there are obviously no problems with this proposal. It will create the all-inclusive, utopian society.
AEM7
Nothing like using an extreme situation to ridicule what is being done. Perhaps we should have buses that have ropes hanging from extensions from the roofline so able bodied passengers could grab hold as they pass by and shinny up the rope then swing into an open window. This would make buses much more efficient since they would only have to slow down to pick up able bodied passengers rather than coming to a complete stop.
You see nothing wrong with spending enough money to make public transportation safe and comfortable for someone with your physical ability, but consider it waste to accommodate anyone less physically fit than you are. Of course public transportation is not going to be modified to accept every disability no matter how severe, but largely because of the ADA reasonable changes have been made to accommodate those who had been relegated to spending their lives as shut ins due to loss of mobility.
Tom
They are LOW for people in Wheel Chairs. There is not one tall phone for tall people to read. The instruction cards are incomprehensible, and I have to get down on my knees to read the instructions, which of course are NOT NORMAL, as they will not accept phone cards, or dial 1-800 numbers or allow collect calls. The sign says something about 35c, but that is not the real cost, the real cost is 50c and so it collects your 35c and *then* disconnects you, keeping the 35c. But like I say, you have to get down on your hands and knees to read this sign.
Elias
:0)
Not at all. There is no reluctance in physically helping someone when it's cheaper than billions of dollars worth of engineering works. And there are places where you could never make all trains accessible without someone giving a hand - consider between Rayner's Lane and Uxbridge on the London Underground.
The ADA allows either assistance devices such as the lifts
We are trying to run a rapid transit railroad, not a personal ambulance service. Sorry if that upsets a load of wet liberals. Why should the masses be inconvenienced for the convenience of a few?
The goal is to allow as many as possible to use regular public transportation rather than having a separate transportation system for the disabled.
There are easier ways of getting people off the roads. Raising fuel duty for instance.
The purpose is to allow the maximum number of people possible to enter the mainstream of society.
And the effect is increased well-being for an unfortunate few and a total nuisance for everyone else. On a utilitarian level, it simply does not work.
Or alternatively provide a steady stream of income which you can invest in public transport.
The fact that one station cannot be made accessible does not make the effort worthless at another station.
"We are trying to run a rapid transit railroad, not a personal ambulance service. Sorry if that upsets a load of wet liberals. Why should the masses be inconvenienced for the convenience of a few?"
Do you have any family members who are obese? Diabetic, with consequences like vision loss? War veterans who are disabled? Anyone in a wheelchair, or who needs a cane to walk? How about someone recovering from a broken leg? Small children in strollers, or people with shopping bags?
It is truly fortunate that people who run transit systems are not as profoundly ignorant on this subject.
I know plenty of obese people. They stand well to the right on the escalator and no-one even notices.
How about someone recovering from a broken leg?
My father has broken both legs on different occasions. On both occasions, he used standard buses with no problem.
Small children in strollers,
These I see as the most annoying thing. The children don't pay a fare, but the mother will still take up 3 seats with a stroller, then take a fourth herself. Infants who are below fare-paying age should be carried on one's lap according to the standard conditions of carriage and strollers folded and put in the luggage rack. I would not object to this if a quadruple fare were levied upon the mother, but as it is not, I see this as the worst abuse on public transport in the rush hour. As it theoretically breaches the conditions of carriage (infants occupying seats when fare paying passengers are standing), I would encourage bus companies to start issuing penalty tickets to people who persist in this infraction.
or people with shopping bags?
Can put them in the luggage rack. If you need help, call for assistance.
Anyone in a wheelchair, or who needs a cane to walk?
Can call for assistance. Staff are most happy to help. At staffed stations, the station staff will help, at unstaffed stations the guard will. Many large stations (eg Birmingham New Street) specifically employ people with the job title of porter.
It is truly fortunate that people who run transit systems are not as profoundly ignorant on this subject.
No, they realise it is cheaper to let your staff help than build various contraptions which theoretically mean they don't need to.
Not even that. Out here we have a separate transportation system for the disabled and it works quite well. Well, ok, let me be honest. It isn't really a separate transportation system: The transportation system here for anybody is you call up the bus company, and they send a bus to your door, pick you up (wheel chair and all if needed) and transport you to your destination. There of course may be some scheduling issues as the dispatcher makes up his schedules on the fly. Usually you will tell him where you are and when you have to be where, and he will say when he will come and get you, and that you will be to your destination on time or an hour or so early depending on what is happening on this fine morning.
Oh yeah... the fare is a heck of a lot more than $2.00.... I think the elder and handicap fare is 5 or 6$ and the regular fare is $12 or something (albe it that is round trip).
Elias
You are confusing us. Which is it, a separate system or the only public transportation? If there is no fixed route scheduled service then a price differential does not make it a separate system. (I don't think I have ever seen a low floor buckboard or surrey.) :-)
Tom
It is the only transportation system. (Other than using your own car... or a horse) [do they even have handicapped accessible horses?], but they only run these handicapped accessible mini-buses, and the only people who are told about the system and how to use is are those already in the social services system.
So while it is a public transit system, the public doesn't know about it or use it.
Your Taxing Dollars at Work!
Elias
Utter ignorant hogwash. There are enough examples of ADA-compliant systems (actually a 1974 transportation law mandated access to transit long before ADA) that work well in the global sense that your opinion is disproved even before you wrote it.
I attribute your ADA postings to your youth (you're, what, 22 or 23?), lack of experience and professional maturity, lack of perspective. Nothing that can't be fixed with a little time.
You're back on that crap again?
I attribute your closed-mindedness and arrogance to your advanced age.
I acknowledge that the ADA legislation only got passed because many people lost their leg in Vietnam and were intelligent enough to be politically active, plus there are lots of blind people who are finding it harder and harder to depend on the people they know since people have in general stopped caring and stopped going out of their way to help someone with a physical disability. But I also take the view that if you sign up for military service then it's not really a shock that you got your legs blown off. The U.S. isn't desparate to the extent that anyone who is able-bodied needs to go fight "the enemy". If those people lost their legs actually defending New York City or Washington D.C., I might feel differently.
I truly hope this ADA nonsense would die when the older liberals vanish, and the incoming "Y-generation" realizes that some kind of efficiency is needed, whatever the social ideals. The ADA issue really is a throwback from the brotherly-love days of the 1960s and really should have been killed in the 1980s as people optimized for efficiency. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of young liberals who seem to have no understanding of fiscal responsibility and doesn't realize that shit costs money to build. They have probably never been taught fiscal responsibility because they used their parents credit card and never had to pay it off. I really dislike these younger liberals -- but still, they are part of the society and their opinion just as valid as mine.
Right now, they're winning the ADA battle, because the legislation persists. People like me ought to write to their senators, although I don't expect that we would be heard. It does seem that in this country at least, it has become politically popular to spend the money on stuff that 1% of the population actually needs and 50% of the population agrees is necessary, rather than to spend money on things that say 20% of the population actually needs and but only that 20% agrees it is necessary. I suppose it's what we call coalition building in political sciences, and you can see why I don't, for my life, want to get involved in public office either here or in England. Public office positions are really about how you disguise irrational biases -- either liberal or conservative biases.
And if you decide to spend enough time observing, learning, and working with those people, you will have a better understanding of it too. That requires, of course, that you keep your mouth shut and your ears and eyes open. Hopefully this is something you will be learning how to do at your job and at school.
" and if Ron only understood how many extra subway lines he would get if it weren't for the ADA and the NEPA legislations, he would not be talking the way he does."
I do undeerstand it. Keenly. It is why I say the things I do.
"I acknowledge that the ADA legislation only got passed because many people lost their leg in Vietnam and were intelligent enough to be politically active, plus there are lots of blind people who are finding it harder and harder to depend on the people they know since people have in general stopped caring and stopped going out of their way to help someone with a physical disability. But I also take the view that if you sign up for military service then it's not really a shock that you got your legs blown off. The U.S. isn't desparate to the extent that anyone who is able-bodied needs to go fight "the enemy". If those people lost their legs actually defending New York City or Washington D.C., I might feel differently."
So not only do you not understand the origins of ADA (and the 1974 transit law that preceded it) but you don't understand the relationship between the US military and the public it serves.
"The only thing that's blocking ADA from being struck down is this stupid liberal pride -- that everybody should be treated equally."
It's that same idea that keeps the Civil Rights Act from being struck down too.
" Right now, they're winning the ADA battle, because the legislation persists. People like me ought to write to their senators, although I don't expect that we would be heard. It does seem that in this country at least, it has become politically popular to spend the money on stuff that 1% of the population actually needs and 50% of the population agrees is necessary, rather than to spend money on things that say 20% of the population actually needs and but only that 20% agrees it is necessary."
ADA is supported heartily by a strong majority of voters. In fact, a conservative, Republican President signed it into law.
Your view is not shared by the vast majority of Americans. In fact, your view is opposed by a majority of conservatives, never mind liberals. You are even out of step with your own ideological movement.
Adolf Hitler and others have proposed, over the decades, eliminating all forms of social welfare or assistance to the handicapped because they ostensibly handicapped the entire nation. Hitler also proposed killing off the mentally and physically handicapped to free up resources for the greater nation. This idea, thoroughly discredited by economists across the spectrum, is really just a more extreme extension of your idea.
There was probably a selection bias. After all, what mainstream economist would agree with Hitler? It would end their career. It is clear that a small subset of the Handicapped do exert a significant drain on socal resources providing little in return, usually though their demand of medical care. However, extermination is redundent as a simple efficiency increasing re-allocation of medical care will yield the same end result.
Anyway, the problem with the current disabled issue is that people refuse to acknowledge that yes, people are indeed different. The ADA is not around so that the disabled can pretend that they aren't. If they think there is some sort of stigma about being disabled we need to change society, not engage in some grand illusion to make everyone appear the same. If the most efficient way to make a station accessable is to hire some burly guy named Bruno to carry the immobile up and down the stairs then so be it. Citizens have a right to use public transport, they do not have a right to demand certain luxuries.
That was not the case in the 1930's - even in America.
"However, extermination is redundent as a simple efficiency increasing re-allocation of medical care will yield the same end result."
Efficiently and effectively stated. The American Nazi Party would no doubt want you to speak at their next convention. Maybe you could even charge a speaker's fee.
"Anyway, the problem with the current disabled issue is that people refuse to acknowledge that yes, people are indeed different. "
On the contrary, that has been acknowledged. That is why ADA was passed by Congress and signed by the President.
"Citizens have a right to use public transport, they do not have a right to demand certain luxuries."
Agreed! That is why ADA was passsed - to defend the rights of the disabled to reasonable access to public services, like transit, employment and the like.
I guess maybe you forgot about all of the other things mike wrote, on account of your old age and senility.
Unfortunately, no one has ever come up with a para-transit system which allows a person in a wheelchair to say goodbye to his able bodied friends as they board a bus or subway, and then meet them at their destination as they get off the public transportation. Virtually all para-transit systems are advance reservation (usually 24 hours) systems, with very "soft" pickup times, sometimes leaving the rider waiting an hour or more for the expected ride. Your second option, the strong guy to safely haul a 300 lb. person up into the car on every trolley would be an acceptable, but not very cost effective way to comply with the ADA, not much different than B/Os using hydraulic lifts to load wheelchairs and their occupants onto buses.
Tom
Given the problems with the Type 8's, would it not be a more efficient use of money to use the lifts on the platform to a HF car? How many times a day do they actually get used?
Chip
While it would be nice to have LF cars that worked, is it not better to have a system in place where the cars aren't constantly jumping off the tracks? I know that I'd rather be on a car that gets me where I need to go rather than one that derails on a somewhat regular basis.
Yes, you may want to blame the carbuilder. But the company bought the stuff and now their stuck with it. And it doesn't work.
We've heard this sad, constant story many, many times. It always comes out the same way.
In, out. In, out. In, out.
It's been three years. How long will this go on?
How exactly is YOUR life impeded by a gimp who wants to ride the same way you do?
Yup, those god-damned liberals trying to follow the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Do you think blacks should be treated differently from whites, too?
The costs of replacing transit with some other system that took care of disabled people is really very low
Is that so? According to the NTD, a sample of transit systems show that paratransit is more expensive per unlinked passenger trip:
NYCT:
Bus- $1.61
Rail- 1.25
Demand Response- 38.04
MARTA
Bus- 2.06
Rail- 1.51
Demand Response- 53.94
WMATA
Bus- 2.28
Rail- 1.87
Demand Response- 71.48
Fortunately, people like you do not have senators. Now if we could only get homeland security to crack down on foreigners with un-American ideas.... :-)
Tom
All the problems with the Type 8's are Breda's fault.
Look at MUNI and GCRTA. Both bought LRV's from Breda, both had myrads of problems with the cars, both control, trucks, motors, fittings.
MUNI has had derailments with their Bredas. GCRTA got theirs to work consistantly only due to diligant work by their own shop forces. It took them two years (living with PCC's that were literally falling apart) to get a fleet that was dependable.
I thing the track record speaks for itself - Breda can't built a decent LRV for US service.
Are the problems as simple as that? The D Stock in London when delivered had rather innovative bogies which would have worked fine had it not been for the abysmal quality of some of our track shaking them to pieces. Could that sort of problem lie behind the Breda cars not working?
MUNI has had derailments with their Bredas. GCRTA got theirs to work consistantly only due to diligant work by their own shop forces. It took them two years (living with PCC's that were literally falling apart) to get a fleet that was dependable.
Well, in a way the problem was of MUNI's own making as they built their new tunnel with a stub terminal not a loop and thus made all their existing equipment useless.
It's the carbuilder's job to build a bogie that will run on the tracks that are already there. AEM7
Unless the customer has specified otherwise, and the manufacturer has complied with the customer's request. Then a malfunction is the customer's fault, assuming that the customer knew of the consequences.
Also, does anyone know if their standard railcars are having as many problems as their Type-8s. (Last I heard, 80 railcars may not have been accepted). All I can say is that while Bombardier may have problems with their equipment, at least they (along with Kawasaki and Alsthom) can fix their problems.)
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
So how are they going to do that ? I can just see it now, a Type 8 set derails on a sharp curve along that route & takes out a dozen parked cars yuck ! Or wanders into the lane of the on coming traffic ... double yuck !
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
I do know that entry at Stillwell is free on a MetroCard that was used for entry within the prior two hours and which hasn't already had its transfer used up. (I discovered this by accident a few weeks ago.) Since the F shuttle bus doesn't charge a fare, that means that you can take the SB F to Avenue X, transfer to the shuttle bus to Stillwell, and transfer there to the W, all for a single fare.
I don't know what the arrangements are at Brighton Beach or Avenue X, nor if the B68 allows a three-legged transfer. Unfortunately, none of this information is advertised to the public; we're supposed to figure it out by trial and error.
-Stef
-Stef
Yesterday we got Dave’s photos around 4pm. Today none of the usual suspects has posted anything and it’s after 8!
The R-9 was a no-show unfortunately.
R1 Car#100 R4 car#4--? R7A car 1575
I see no pics. I would have expected Brian W to have a couple of hundred on his web site even though the trip finished late…
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
Thanks,
John
For more track photos of European rail, click here.
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
AEM7
That's not a very difficult feat in any case. :-)
Tom
You're joking.
Yeah, just earlier today I got into an argument with a British guy about how British taxes are too high. He was from the South East, so he had no idea what I meant. I meant that up north we pay the same taxes and have NO public services, whereas at the South they mooch of us Northerners and they think that the U.S. sucks because there's no national health insurance. I don't know how you Birminghamians (or West Midlanders) feel about it, but I'm sure bitter about the British and European governments taking money away from my paycheck and giving me nothing to show for it.
AEM7
Too true. All that's happened since 1945 is that they ran out of money and tore down the El in Liverpool.
I don't know how you Birminghamians (or West Midlanders) feel about it, but I'm sure bitter about the British and European governments taking money away from my paycheck and giving me nothing to show for it.
I'd be happy if they paid for a couple of suburban rail tunnels in Central Birmingham so that more local lines in the West Midlands could reopen and I could have a 10 to 20 minute journey to the city instead of anything up to an hour.
I don't know if you know Birmingham at all, but I'd run the tunnels on the following alignments:
- from the former Central Goods Branch (this diverges from the Western Suburban Line at Five Ways) into a tunnel at Granville St, then under the Mailbox development, Severn St, New St Station, Temple St, Temple Row West, then curving cross-block to end up under Barwick St, Snow Hill Station, Colmore Circus, cutting the corner onto Steelhouse Lane, Aston Street, Lister St, then emerging out of the tunnel onto the former Windsor St Goods alignment which joins the ex-GJR line South of Aston Station. This would be 2 tracks with stations at Mailbox, New Street BR, Snow Hill BR, and Aston University.
- under the lines through New Street Station from Ladywood Middleway to Churchill Road, with spurs at the Eastern end emerging at Duddeston Station and at St Andrew's St on the Camp Hill Line. A second pair of tracks would run between these from St Vincent St (no portal) to a portal on the Tame Valley Line South of Saltley Viaduct. Stations would be at Saint Vincent, New Street BR, Moor Street BR, Curzon Street, and Adderley Park.
This would be about 4 miles of new tunnel in total and would practically solve the capacity problems in the West Midlands (okay, track quadrupling on the WCML would help too!). If only our government could find money to invest on the City of Birmingham as easily as it could to send a load of troops to the Gulf...
But that's where you're wrong. They take most of your paycheck and give you what they decide that you want. Whether or not you actually want the things that they're giving you is another matter.
:)
Hmmm... that's strange, I don't remember us voting for that. Oh wait - we didn't, and our government's so convinced that we'd vote no, there's not going to be a referendum in the foreseeable future.
Sorry - we're keeping the Pound.
Useless but vaguely interesting fact: English, Welsh and Scottish Pound Coins have different inscriptions on the sides:
- English: Decus et Tutamen (Latin "an ornament and a safeguard" a quote from Virgil, Aeneid, 5.262)
- Scottish: Nemo me Impune Lacessit (Latin "no-one provokes me with impunity" the Motto of the Order of the Thistle)
- Welsh: Pleidiol Wyf I'm Gwlad (Welsh "True am I to my country" a quote from Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau)
Seriously, the pound? Hasn’t been a first class currency since Harold Wislon [© Private Eye] devalued it. Keep the pound in your pocket (and these days it seems to weigh a pound), because it’s not worth anything outside it.
Britain keeps doing things like this and it pisses me off!
John
I really don't see it ever happening. Becoming the 51st State of the USA is about as likely. I don't think I'm alone in liking Europe, but hating the Euro, the ERM, the ECB, the Stability and Growth Pact, the CAP, the CFP and all the other econocrap spewing forth from Brussels.
Seriously, the pound? Hasn’t been a first class currency since Harold Wislon [© Private Eye] devalued it.
I don't normally defend Labourites, but Wilson was right to devalue and equally right that the pound in your pocket was still worth the same - the only difference was that it made Britain more competitive abroad.
I'd move back to Edinburgh if that happened.
...the other econocrap spewing forth from Brussels.
It's not crap, I don't think -- the economic analysis they have done is mostly sound. The problem is that their policy assumptions of what people wanted is wrong.
...still worth the same - the only difference was that it made Britain more competitive abroad.
I also don't know if that is true. That is only true if Britain did not rely on imported raw materials and other imported products. These days, with Far East making electronics, and with Britain buying most things it needs (like fude, water, and railcars) from companies abroad, I am not sure a devalued Pound would be a good idea. I believe the import/export pattern in the days of Wilson is similar. Not that I understand his reasons for doing so. Care to explain?
AEM7 (never took GSCE history)
Well, we always have bought quite a lot of food abroad, so no real change there. Water??? That's one thing we *do* have enough of, with our rainfall! And the new orders of cars for the London Underground will be built at Derby Works, which was in England last time I rode past it on a train, about a month ago. Yes, it now belongs to Bombardier and previously belonged to Adtranz, but it's the same works that the Midland Railway built in the first place!
Except we used to own most of "abroad" ;-)
That's one thing we *do* have enough of, with our rainfall!
Funny how Yorkshire Water still manage to need hosepipe bans.
Yes, it now belongs to Bombardier and previously belonged to Adtranz, but it's the same works that the Midland Railway built in the first place!
Heh! So when we finally renationalise the railways, we can nationalise Bombardier! *rubs hands in glee*
John
Still cheaper than it is here.
What they have “done about it” is ongoing, namely using low-cylinder-capacity four-cylinder cars with manual transmissions. If you use an automatic transmission car, you’re regarded as either better-off than the rest or somewhat extravagant.
Regular petrol in Ireland is 95 octane, btw.
They wouldn't be if we actually had a decent railway network still. Unfortunately, very little has been spent on the railways since about 1939.
Although of course as railfans we'd all like to see more spent on rail transit, that statement is not true.
London and around: Completion of the pre-war schemes for expansion of the Central and Northern lines, in the 1940s. The construction of the Victoria Line in its entirety, the Jubilee Line (except for Baker Street-Stanmore which was there already) and the Heathrow extension of the Piccadilly Line. Electrification north of Rickmansworth on the Metropolitan line. The construction of the entire Docklands LR system. Electrification and modernisation of almost all of the erstwhile Southern Railway (at 1939 only the lines actually in greater London plus the Brighton line were electrified; most of the lines in Kent and the lines to Southampton and Bournemouth were more recent). Electrification of most of the suburban lines north of the Thames (the former Great Northern, Great Eastern, and Midland lines, and the London and North Western other than the third-rail DC lines). Many individual station reconstructions - some of them very large like Birminghham New Street and Birmingham International - resignalling projects, etc.
Other parts of the UK: The entire Glasgow suburban network renovated and electrified, including reopening of undergraound sections long closed; the Tyne and Wear metro (which is a proper metro, not on-street light rail); the West Coast main line electrification in the 1960s (yes, it needs, and is getting albeit rather slowly a further update now); the East Coast main line electrification.
And, of course, the Channel Tunnel! Come on -- "very little spent"??
I wish! Well, at least I can buy a one-day travelcard from Birmingham Snow Hill (when I've ridden the 35 to the train) or Solihull (when I've ridden the A6 to the train - this usually causes problems when I'm returning late at night as the last A6 leaves Solihull at 1817).
I should add two observations:
1) UndergrounD needs to put together a coherent "state of good repair" reinvestment similar to what NYC has done since 1982. This has been sorely lacking, and even London transport officials have freely acknowledged it. This is to protect the existing infrastructure
2) London south of the Thames still has pitifully little subway service, though Subtalkers have pointed out that commuter rail covers it pretty well. Is that affordable to the residents there (lower income)?
The contoversial PPP (part-privatisation) is intended to remedy this problem. Time will tell whether it will.
"2) London south of the Thames still has pitifully little subway service, though Subtalkers have pointed out that commuter rail covers it pretty well. Is that affordable to the residents there (lower income)?"
The reason for this is the competition between the then-private Underground group and Southern Railway in the 1920s; the powerful Southern blocked expansion of the tube, even building itself the Wimbledon-St Helier-Sutton line to block the Underground from extending the District (from Wimbledon) and Northern (from Morden) to Sutton by that route. Result: feeder bus services have always been operated to Morden, and the Wimbledon-Sutton line is very little used!
Now, zonal Travelcards (both the season-ticket sort for commuters and the one-day sort like FunPasses) are valid on all services (bus, Tube, DLR, Croydon trams, and national rail) within Greater London, so regular passengers on national rail and on the underground pay the same for a given number of zones. The fares are equally unaffordable on both systems (8-( . Individual trip tickets have different fares on national rail from the tube, but you cannot assume that national rail will be dearer. On a recent peak-hour journey to Ealing Broadway, I found it was cheaper to get the Underground to Paddington and then national rail to Ealing Broadway than to get the Underground all the way from Kings Cross. In the offpeak, a one-day Travelcard would have been cheaper than either, and I could have used either route.
The Underground needs a few new lines built and soon. The crowding on the Central, Northern (Charing X) and Victoria Lines is getting silly. Last time I used Tottenham Court Road, they were holding the crowds at the top of the escalators so that people didn't get pushed off the platforms.
Is that affordable to the residents there (lower income)?
As Fytton says, it costs exactly the same in most cases (ie your travelcard's valid on real trains too). The place where it gets a bit more expensive is once you hit the Greater London boundary. Even then it's not too bad.
It isn't going to happen. The PPP (public-private partnership) proposals, now nearly to fruition (next month, I think), don't provide for new tube lines being built across central London.
What *is* proposed, of course, is Thameslink 2000 (which they had better rename Thameslink 2020) and CrossRail, which if they ever get built would be the London equivalent of Paris's RER, north-south and east-west routes respectively, taking suburban trains across the centre with a small number of stops, as a kind of super-subway.
So far as actual undergound lines are concerned the only really likely one is the East London Line extension from Whitechapel to Finsbury Park, using some of the old North London Railway's disused right-of-way north of Broad Street. Nice to have, but hardly crucial to the solution of London's main transport problems. The one that has been on the list for many decades, but never happens, is the Hackney-Chelsea line - which if built would sort-of relieve the Victoria line, but not do anything much for James's other two problem lines. Personally I find the Piccadilly Line pretty unbearable in peak hours too. Nowadays I try to use the subsurface lines if I can -they may be crowded but at least the trains are not so claustrophobically small.
Yes, well PPP is a dumb idea anyway. The only way it works is if the fares go up 30-40%.
If we can afford a few billion for a war in a country we aren't too interested in, we can afford a few billion for our railways in our own country which we are meant to be interested in.
What *is* proposed, of course, is Thameslink 2000 (which they had better rename Thameslink 2020) and CrossRail
Both of these are good ideas. Thameslink 2000, although not the best designed project ever, will address Thameslink's overcrowding. Crossrail might do a little for the Central Line, but it looks like majority new journeys and relieving the less full Circle/H&C Lines to me.
So far as actual undergound lines are concerned the only really likely one is the East London Line extension from Whitechapel to Finsbury Park, using some of the old North London Railway's disused right-of-way north of Broad Street. Nice to have, but hardly crucial to the solution of London's main transport problems.
Quite. It's all very well spending money on minor lines like that, but it does nothing for the really heavily used parts of the Underground.
The one that has been on the list for many decades, but never happens, is the Hackney-Chelsea line - which if built would sort-of relieve the Victoria line, but not do anything much for James's other two problem lines.
It really does more for the District than anything, which is a bit bizarre seeing as the District is the least crowded line on the Underground as it passes through Central London, both on passengers/train capacity and on total passengers. However, the Hackney bit would help out the Victoria Line, so can't complain!
Personally I find the Piccadilly Line pretty unbearable in peak hours too.
That might have something to do with LU cutting service on the Piccadilly Line from 30tph to 24tph for staffing reasons whilst ridership rose.
There really need to be three new lines on the Underground - a SW-NE one (like Chelney), a W-E one (like Fleet) and a N-S one (hmmm... I think there's a bit of tunnel under Kingsway that might help here...). PPP can't fund them and Government doesn't have the political will to. I don't know where the money will come from, but it is really not sensible to continue like this.
For once we agree (we do about Iraq too, it seems, but that's OT and I haven't got involved on SubTalk on that one)
"Thameslink 2000, although not the best designed project ever, will address Thameslink's overcrowding"
I'm not sure that's all it is meant to do. The idea is to increase its capacity from 8 to 24 tph, so that more lines north and south of the Thames can be joined to it; this in turn takes more N-S cross-London passengers off the Underground altogether and gives them a one-seat ride. And incidentally, compared with the deep tube lines, and many Southern suburban lines, Thameslink isn't *that* overcrowded.
"Crossrail might do a little for the Central Line"
With stations at Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road and Liverpool Street, more than a little, I'd have thought. Depends if we can get Londoners into the NY "transfer on to an express at the earliest opportunity" mindset, which could be tricky.
The worst place for overcrowding that I've found is Charing X Station at about 6pm. Everyone going anywhere on a line out of London Bridge seems to pile on the train for 2 stops.
The things which don't impress me about Thameslink 2000 are:
- the rather higglety-pigglety choice of lines at the Southern end to connect to it
- it still would have to merge with Charing X trains limiting Charing X capacity
- the design of Blackfriars station proposed isn't very good for passengers or maximising train paths
- the lack of a station at Walworth on the Holborn Line when they'd already be adding local stations at Southwark and Camberwell
However, it's a basically good idea, and taking over the local services on the Great Northern Lines will help a great deal.
With stations at Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road and Liverpool Street, more than a little, I'd have thought.
The problem is the I want to go to Holborn, Oxford Circus, Bank etc mentality. IINM, Oxford Circus is the busiest station on the Underground, so many people will still want the train that stops there. The three stops on Oxford St may actually even have the effect of increasing overloading on the Central Line as people on lines into Paddington ride Crossrail and transfer onto the Central Line instead of going to Pad and using the H&C Line. I suspect it will have a slightly beneficial effect, but there are factors working both ways.
"This is a Northern Line train to Alexandra Palace..."
"This is a Northern Line train to Bushey via East Finchley..."
AFAIK, they didn't get there.
Electrification north of Rickmansworth on the Metropolitan line.
Only because they were planning on closing Marylebone. If that hadn't been the plan, I doubt there would be Fast trains or Amersham/Chesham service on the Met today.
Electrification of most of the suburban lines north of the Thames (the former Great Northern, Great Eastern, and Midland lines, and the London and North Western other than the third-rail DC lines).
Certainly the LNWR electrification was aimed at getting the Euston - New Street time below that of Paddington - Snow Hill, so that in 1967 they could get away with killing the Paddington - Birkenhead trains. They still had a lot of complaints, particularly from Salopians.
some of them very large like Birminghham New Street
That was really a grandiose selling of air rights above the station. The result was the Pallasades Shopping Centre.
And, of course, the Channel Tunnel! Come on -- "very little spent"??
Which the government set up the South Sea Company to do.
You pick out some neat examples, but compare West Midlands local sevices before the War to today. If you want similar evidence of lack of investment and closures, look at Liverpool, the West Riding of Yorkshire, South Wales, the South-Western Line to Exeter, the Somerset & Dorset... indeed anywhere except the examples you cite. Probably the worst cases of service cuts were the Great Western Line to Birkenhead and the Great Central Line to Manchester, along with the useful spur between the two at Woodford Halse to Banbury, which would allow a range of Cross-Country services which did not eat up capacity at Birmingham New Street. In terms of actual main line expansion, CTRL will be practically the first new Main Line since the Great Central Extension to London!
Even Thameslink was originally done on the cheap, and it's only now that they're finally getting round to upgrades to the line we knew were needed in 1988. Those would not happen were the line not in London.
Upgrades to the Great Western Main Line will not be funded, because there is a bizarre focus on the West Coast Main Line, with attempts to screw over the Birmingham - Coventry local service in the process because they don't want to fund track quadrupling from Grand Junction to Birmingham International (which would require extensive works to widen cuttings and embankments), neither do they want to admit that the alignment via Solihull is better as it was originally designed as at least 4 tracks out as far as Lapworth in deepest Warwickshire, it is a more modern line and the mileage via High Wycombe is actually shorter than any route from Birmingham to Euston.
There is no doubt our railway has gone to pot. I see the start as the Second World War. Others may place that at the Beeching Report. Others may blame privatisation. Whatever the timeframe, there is no doubt our railway needs a lot of work to bring it up to standard. Maybe, as I write this from Birmingham, I am biased by the particularly poor quality of the railways in the Midlands, but I do not see that this in any way reduces the problems whilst I sit on buses which move at under 5mph.
If only we had spent as much on our railways as we had building motorways.
Now THERE'S a familiar refrain! Yeah....blame it on the cowboy mindsight. You know....a horse for every cowpoke, to ride off into the sunset with....the automobile just appeals too much to that side of "us". "Us" meaning most of the world.
To me, what's really unfortunate is how deeply the automobile culture is embedded into our national economy. When changes finally happen...it's gonna be wrenching.
As applies to the automobile culture, it is in large part to the last factor. The prime reason why we are wedded to the automobile is that the automobile industry used their economic power to make it so.
Those of us who watched the auto interests destroy our rail transit know this.
Those of us who watched the auto interests destroy our rail transit know this <<<
It is much too simple to blame the loss of rail transit on the evil automobile interests. Wide spread automobile ownership was the desire of the American people. Two things brought it about. Henry Ford's ability to make automobiles cheap enough for working people to buy them, and wide open spaces in so much of the country that there was plenty of room for more and more roads and more and more automobiles. Americans like the sense of freedom (real or imagined) that automobile ownership brings. The ability to go where one wants when one wants to go there. In Europe, automobiles remained luxury items into the ‘60s (partly due to two big wars), and the high taxes on gasoline reflect the idea that only the well to do will own automobiles, and therefore much more is spent on public transportation than roads, and the cities are more conducive to living without an automobile.
In short, to quote Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
Tom
Not in LA. The local rail lines were bought by a subsidiary company of General Motors (Named National Bus Lines?? National City Lines??), which substituted buses. Result: short term, lots of GMC buses were sold; long term, public transportation in general fell from favour and more GM cars were sold.
"In Europe...[snip].....much more is spent on public transportation than roads"
I wish this was true, but it ain't. Road expenditure predominates.
NCL was formed by General Motors, Firestone Tire & Rubber, ESSO (Standard Oil of New Jersey) and Mack Truck. Guess what they want to sell?
Only indirectly, through the bus farebox, or whenever I get a taxi (last time was when I arrived back at Birmingham Snow Hill at 0034 and the buses had finished for the night). I don't get how bus fares are really relatively low here - Birmingham and London are both £1 (approx $1.50) and Leicester has just annoyingly upped the stage 1 to 5 fare to £1.05 (approx $1.60).
Non è vero!
France hasn't been a superpower since the Seven Years War.
Hey WAIT A MINIUTE! I *am* a greedy Republican Capitalist!
Spend Spend Spend, what a spendy way to build a railroad.
Of course if I could just get a few venture capitalists, and a GREEN LIGHT from the greedy govenment NIMBYs, I could build a even better passenger rails system in this country, one that could SHUT DOWN the air lines east of the Mississippi.
Here, would you like a hit off my pipe.
:^) Elias
The Germans like their beer better. Do you think they’re doing it the wrong way?
Frankly I prefer American rail lines because they have character and history. They aren't sanitized modern-for-the-sake-of-modern and also provide for freight service which is as if not more important environmentally than passenger service.
Frankly I prefer American rail lines because they have character and history
That “character and history” you refer to is called deferred maintenance, and it is this country’s shame that the states punished the railroads unduly via taxes and the ICC via excessive regulations to force the railroads into taking such measures. The USA once had the fastest varnish on the face of the earth, but not any more.
They aren't sanitized modern-for-the-sake-of-modern
What do you mean by this?? Germany’s railroads are not modern for the “sake of being modern” either. They are indeed modern to provide the fastest passenger and freight service possible.
and also provide for freight service which is as if not more important environmentally than passenger service.
What do you mean “also provide”?? Freight is the primary concern of the vast majority of US railroads, at the expense of passenger service 99 percent of the time. Whatever varnish does run on most of these lines operates at speeds that make the Germans and other countries laugh us to scorn. We have nothing to be proud of in that regard. You think that Germany doesn’t operate freight? To be sure, they do. Look at this page to see some German freights in action, all electric-motor hauled. We used to have traction like that, but the political state of this country forced the railroads to throw all that away…
I am not sure your comments are fair. While I am not advocating either preserving history for the sake of it, or deferred maintenance, I do believe in optimal maintenance. I recently wrote a paper on railcar maintenance, and based on my findings that many U.S. transit properties over-maintain their equipment (at least based on what is economically sensible from an asset utilization perspective). The paper is in review, so I cannot post it here; I will try to post it once it is published (February 2004).
I believe that CSX is entirely correct (at least from an economic standpoint) to downgrade the maintenance of the Conrail mainline to the current levels. When you run a business where you do not have any confidence in the rates or the profitability of the operation, you should really not be doing any real capital maintenance. Whether the government's decision to put the railroad in this position through regulation and deregulation is debatable, but it suffices to say that the fact that DB is apparently in a state-of-good-repair does not in any way suggest that they are operating either (1) in the most economically efficient way to move freight, or (2) making the best possible returns from their assets.
They are indeed modern to provide the fastest passenger and freight service possible.
Some simple demand studies will tell you that providing the fastest service possible is not economically efficient nor necessarily desirable. There is a reason that the Concorde has been retired and no new builds are planned.
...Whatever varnish does run on most of these lines operates at speeds that make the Germans and other countries laugh us to scorn.
Whatever speeds and prestige Germans do achieve, it cannot claim to have the railroad that is most suited to moving coal. The U.S. railroad system as adapted from being a general purpose transportation system to one that is devoted to moving bulk commodities efficiently. Not only does coal service make money, the U.S. also has the best technology and best plant in that respect. That alone contribute a large extent to the cheap price of electricity over on this side of the Atlantic.
all electric-motor hauled. We used to have traction like that, but the political state of this country forced the railroads to throw all that away
The main driving factor behind the de-electrification in this country's railroad is the cheap price of gas and the expense of electrifying many route miles at low train densities. If you think electrification is the solution for this country, you obviously do not understand the differences in economic geography between here and Europe. If you are interested, you should refer to this paper:
Vertical Integration v.s. Infrastructure Separation: Different Optimums for Different Settings?
Although this is not specifically about traction technology, the background covering the contrast in economic geography between the U.S. and Europe is common to both points.
AEM7
I am not sure your comments are fair. While I am not advocating either preserving history for the sake of it, or deferred maintenance, I do believe in optimal maintenance. I recently wrote a paper on railcar maintenance, and based on my findings that many U.S. transit properties over-maintain their equipment (at least based on what is economically sensible from an asset utilization perspective). The paper is in review, so I cannot post it here; I will try to post it once it is published (February 2004).
Would that be on FRA-controlled railroads or FTA-controlled “transit” railroads? The FRA does indeed have very strict inspection requirements for commuter railroad equipment, especially multiple-unit trains, which have to undergo full inspection every three months as do individual locomotives.
And do other countries under-maintain? Believe me, the NYCTA does not over-maintain its plant nor rolling stock.
I believe that CSX is entirely correct (at least from an economic standpoint) to downgrade the maintenance of the Conrail mainline to the current levels. When you run a business where you do not have any confidence in the rates or the profitability of the operation, you should really not be doing any real capital maintenance. Whether the government's decision to put the railroad in this position through regulation and deregulation is debatable, but it suffices to say that the fact that DB is apparently in a state-of-good-repair does not in any way suggest that they are operating either (1) in the most economically efficient way to move freight, or (2) making the best possible returns from their assets.
DB, unlike CSX, does appear to be funded quite liberally by the German government, hence the new flashy plant, and does not appear to be under as heavy a mandate to produce profit after profit. As for privately-operated railroads, consider that some states (New York most notably) still tax railroad plant quite heavily. The method that state uses (as did others in the past) was to impose heavier taxes due to number of tracks on right-of-way (which is why some four-track mains are single-tracked nowadays) and even due to weight of rail used, which most companies use discretion on as to the stresses their loads put on the plant. CSX does not face this to the degree that Conrail did, especially in certain states, but nor does it make as good an effort as Conrail did during its latter years to improve plant.
Whatever speeds and prestige Germans do achieve, it cannot claim to have the railroad that is most suited to moving coal
I would say that their current efforts are not wasted, nonetheless. This photo shows a heavy coal train in Germany; the power is EMD. As for efficiencies, I cannot speak for that, but consider that Germany has far more electrified railway than the USA (although the loco here is diesel, most likely traveling to non-electrified territory)—the coal, to be sure, goes to generate that catenary’s power. However, comparing bulk freight and varnish is still comparing apples and oranges.
The U.S. railroad system as adapted from being a general purpose transportation system to one that is devoted to moving bulk commodities efficiently
The re-adaptation thereof was due to ICC regulations, plant taxation by states, plus the government support of the interstate highways for trucks to operate on. Therefore, the railroads were forced to economize or let the competition using the government-subsidized infrastructure kill them.
Not only does coal service make money, the U.S. also has the best technology and best plant in that respect. That alone contribute a large extent to the cheap price of electricity over on this side of the Atlantic
Hmm, and I thought that it was using 110V versus 220V that was the chief component in our cheaper electric rates…? All the other aspects that the freight railroads are involved in (intermodal, container transport, UPS express, food-commodity transport) are also money-makers, but note that the trains thereof actually run slower than in the past. You might want to take a look at the Black Mesa & Lake Powell short-line in Arizona (not quite a short line, being 78 miles in length), who have totally eschewed diesel traction, being dedicated to hauling coal from the Peabody Coal Company’s Black Mesa Mines to the Navajo Generating Station in Page, AZ…their preference for all-electric traction (generated by the power plant, of course, at 50kV) gives them a self-sufficient edge over using diesels. Certainly a unique situation, but not one dictated by the federal government or the locomotive manufacturers.
The main driving factor behind the de-electrification in this country's railroad is the cheap price of gas and the expense of electrifying many route miles at low train densities. If you think electrification is the solution for this country, you obviously do not understand the differences in economic geography between here and Europe
That is three-decades-old thinking. That is also thinking that is detrimental to any resurrection of higher-speed varnish in this country, only benefitting the airlines, highway/aviation lobbies and car companies, thereby making it biased. What freight main lines are low-density nowadays? Not too many—and whatever ones are low-density are even being abandoned. I daresay that the density of freight traffic in the USA on main lines would still warrant long-range electrification. Bulk shipments, even carload freight, do not fluctuate that much nor have they, even despite the vagaries of business and agriculture.
Just skimming over that paper, it appears to be a study into how to set conditions as to prevent open-access on private lines in the US and preserve the status-quo of freight rail; meanwhile, more merger talk is happening a year after that was written (BNSF with KCS and NS, CSX with UP, creating transcon monopolies that would make the authors of the antitrust laws turn over in their graves). While studies like that are being concocted, the highway and aviation situation in the US will continue to reach critical mass and the railroads will continue to suffer on the varnish end of things. The mistaken premise that high-speed passenger rail in the US must suffer for the benefit of private freight railroads is dead and won’t get resurrected by flawed and biased studies. And I still won’t be able to take a train from where I live to New York City, nor take a train to Indianapolis to visit my sister…
That was the Central Ohio Coal's Muskingum Mine line, in eastern Ohio. There were two of them, basically the missing link between the E44 and E60C, part of the E60's electronics in an E44 frame. They were equipped for automated operation, with nobody in the cab and the train operated from a central control center. The E50s were there to service the 'Big Muskie' walking dragline. The world's largest dragline, and at one time the largest moving land object. Oddly enough they never carried a load from the Big Muskie, they only carried the coal that the Dragline uncovered, never any of the overburden that the dragline dug up.
Sadly Big Muskie was scrapped last year, I guess they were trying to save it, too bad really, would have been a truely impressive monument. At least they saved the 220 cu yd bucket, bigger than most single family houses.
Oh yeah, and Texas Utilities's Martin Lake facility had something called the E25B, a 4000hp electric(GE's nomenclature has just flown out the window), built in 1976. Navaho Mines had an E60 operation, with 50kvAC operation (IIRC), and very very tall catenary, to clear the chutes for loading coal. Finally Desert Western had some of NdeM's old E60Cs on a similar 25kv operation out in the desert somewhere.
The european rail system isn't better because of all its hi-speed passenger lines, just different. Some would even say that the American freight oriented system provides greater economic benefit than Europe's passenger system.
BTW, when I mean "character" I don't mean deferred maintainence, but the fact that American railroads don't feel the need to totally rebuild RoW's, but recognize the engineering mastry of existing RoW's and then utilize it in new ways reducing overall costs.
What would be nice would be if the mainlines in the US were properly maintained, with 25kv electrification, GM10Bs and E80s pulling US length freight trains, and sensible MUs (like Arrows, Siverliners, Flexliners, or M1s) running on fully cab singled lines, with ALP46s or AEM7ACs handling the long distance passenger service at 100mph on the same track. Branchlines would be both conventional freight service (GP40 and some 20 cars), and passenger service with something like DB class 650 cars, again cab signaled to keep the trains apart. Intermediate services would be DMU Flexliner or Colorado Railcar, and conventional diesel hauled mainline running.
Perhaps the US should take over all railroad track, on-track dispatching and such as they do for the airlines and highways, that seems to be the only way to get funding out of the government. Railroads would pay a fee to run their trains over the track, with passenger service provided by an Amtrak-type operation massively expanded. At the same time Toll all roads in the US, lower airline subsidys and forcibly merge Greyhound and Peter Pan into the expanded Amtrak, with the bus lines providing collector service for Amtrak lines. I realize this would create many seat rides, but hopefully people wouldn't mind, least until the 650's get out to them.
Oh well, I can dream, right?
That was tried here during World War One and it was a disaster. More recently the UK and France have had similar nightmares regarding infrastructure seperation and have lead to the loss of billions of dollars and worsening track conditions.
I got my freight statistics from a destination freedom article sometime back.
Well hell. Whatever the rational for it is....every year there ARE more railroad tracks being used by passenger vehicles. Whether it's LRT, "Metro", commuter or people-mover. The total is inching up. (Search for "transit" in Googles' news search beta.) This seems significant to me.
Even if the ROWs of the 20s were the greatest engineering feat known to man (and they weren't, by far), they will still need to be rebuilt with the superior technology of today soon.
Trust me, I'm currently rebuilding a viaduct in downtown Atlanta (I love my job title, Assistant Project Engineer) where we are working next to and around active CSX and NS tracks. While I have zero experience with railroad construction, I am well aware of the fact that road and railroad design and construction are nearly the same thing. Today's ROWs are more superior because we have laser guided surveying to make sure that we are working within a 0.1% tolerance of the design specs. The drainage an be accurately modeled to show how the water will affect the structure. The materials used are tested on site and we make samples to take the the Lab in order for them to do further stress testing. All this couldn't be done back in your "golden era." And I have taken many looks around the CSX tracks, and it's pretty obvious that the newer tracks have better drainage because of the absence of standing water, while the older tracks sit in puddles just waiting to be washed away one day. BTW, those older tracks are currently OOS and are due for replacement at some point after we are finished with the project.
Besides, YOU know the REAL reason why many ROWs haven't been rebuilt. The railroads don't want to close down the tracks in order to rebuild them, as that would cost them lots of money in suspended service. That's why many tracks and switches aren't replaced until after a train wreck. How funny is it that you want us to believe that the railroads simply have an "appreciation" for older shit when they (and you) are well aware that newer ROWs can handle faster and heavier loads.
You should consider the fact that drainage systems will tend to get clogged if left extant for decades upon decades. Even the new fangled systems will look kinda shabby 30-40 years down the track. So that might not be a good indice of the quality of engineering of the older line. Or, conversely, maybe there were environmental changes that altered the fit of the trackbed to the location. The water table rose, or sunk, or there's been flooding, or whatever.
What money
Look at that spider-web of catenary overhead…now don’t tell me that the US ought not have stuff like that.
Possibly. In general the places the Germans have built new lines are where the existing lines are too geographically constrained to provide a fast service. But I'm sure there is a big element of hubris winning over economics too.
or better yet, enhansed freight service.
Unlikely. Just as decent intercity passenger service economics are defeated by low population density in the US, the short distances in european countries defeat decent freight service economics. I don't think (m)any US railroads would even bother bidding for inter-modal traffic on a journey as short as the length of Germany, for example.
John
57 Street-7th Avenue
Manhattan
Brighton Beach
And all Brighton trains were running express southbound up to Kings Hwy., while all northbound trains were running local from Brighton Beach to Prospect Park.
Any comments?
The new rollsign was on the bottom side curtain, and the new route sign there.
I think I have seen that train too. I think there is another one that only has one old sign curtain while the rest are "new."
After we arrived at 2:35, we were told to come back at 3:35, but there was a problem with one of the cars and it wasn't ready until 4:20. Already late, we strolled into Jamaica Yard, changed ends and headed back on the QBL local track and on to the G line. Our next stop was Bedford_Nostrand on the G line, we were supposed to enter the middle track so a G train can go ahead of us and we follow it to the next stop. Some people could take the G to their favorite place, Smith-9th st, take pictures of the MOD train, and hop back in there, NOT! There was NO ONE at the Bedford-Nostrand tower so we canceled the Smith=9th stop and headed on the Culver express track after the 4th Ave switch. We stopped at Church Ave as scheduled, and allowed people to take the next F train to any stop between Ditmas and Ave P for the runby. After a 10 min. wait for the line up north of KH, we got there, picked up almost everyone, (two to three people took pictures knowing that they will never get back on. The fun begins when at Ave X we go the line up to go INSIDE CI yard, loop through the yard and exit via. Sea Beach side towards Stillwell. At Stillwell, I see the new platform at Tracks 1 and 2 (the N platform) going up and we also saw the renovations at West 8th st. I started to foam BIG TIME cause it was the Brighton line we finally came up. Already past 7:00, we made an unscheduled stop at Ocean parkway, for a photo stop, knowing we will not go back to that station until 2004. I wanted to stay to the bitter end but it was late and I elected to disembark at Kings Highway. Some other Subtalkers like Dtrain22, David Greenberger, and Choo Choo (who didn't know that I was a David also.) took a Q local to Beverley Road, I said my goodbyes at my favorite place to do a runby, Avenue H. Then after taking my pics, I went home. Thanks to all the Subtalkers who were there, it's an honor to meet our Webmaster, Dave and if I left out anyone on this long list, please send a post and my apologies if I do
Enjoy!
R68 Q 2704
Excursion Train, in order from work motor
Work motor train #894
R4 484
R1 100
R7A 1575
Subtalkers (not in any order)
Webmaster David Pirmann
Chapter 11 Choo Choo
David J. Greenberger
R30
John "Sparky GG" S. and Mrs. Sparky
Bill "Jamaica Center" from Maspeth
Incognito
Dtrain22
Peggy Darlington
Bill "Newkirk"
Howard Fein
Ride on Rules
Mark W. (his only stint on the MOD trips)
Mark Feinman
On the Juice
And yours truly.
I had a great time, thanks to all making today a success under the circumstances.
So 894 was the fourth car, eh?
Or door triggers. That's the devices between the cars the conductors open and close doors. Door triggers were are R 1-9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 cars. Also for honorable mention, the D-Types.
Bill "Newkirk"
That wasn't a broken switch! It was a broken Murphy Tower operator! I'll let Bill from Maspeth fill in the details and I hope he does.
Anyhow, I'm checking in. I just got back after also riding the single tracking on the (N). We took the (W) north out of New Utretcht, and SAW THE MUSEUM TRAIN S/B @ 9 Av and it looked like it was heading for the lower level!!! Mark W, et al, please confirm if this is true or not. Thanks.
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
My answer:
Does the lower level lead to Coney Island Yard?
We did not go into the lower level at all
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
Why didn't we go to LL 9th Ave. ?
Bill "Newkirk"
*I only assume it was because they did not read the G.O., and I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, because, you know, I'm a nice guy. But, it also could have been caused by sheer stupidity and/or laziness.
There was a supeceding GO on the Astoria Line which is why we couldn't go there either.
I for one thought the center track ride on the West End under power of Arnines wasn't a disappointment at all!
--mark
Astoria was scratched to save time. The GO there (which had the 60th Street tube closed entirely) ended early yesterday morning.
Not much of an excuse. He should have known we were coming, and been prepared for the movement.
Going to 9th Avenue Lower Level was one of the things that was really pressing me to come on this trip. I tried my best to come, and really would have been disappointed to hear that we weren't going there.
9th Ave and Worth Street are the only two abandoned stations I have not visited in person. I really wanted to add the "9" mongram to my collection of abandoned stations.
--Mark
--Mark
Here we start "book'n" up the Brighton!
THE END
And THAT was what was SO AMAZING about this trip...that we were riding on cars that have been OOS, even siting static for over 25 years, and that were now running, and at fast speeds too. We didn't just stick to a wimpy 15mph. I'm sure we consistently did over 30mph (which is fast for the NYC subway, wink wink) and maybe hit 40 once or twice, but maybe not. I am just so happy to have been able to ride and photograph these cars before they go back into storage for 25 more years.
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
--Mark
When we first started out of 179th sb, I was in 484, and I clearly heard the diesel wind up so it was working then. But after Jamaica Yard it was on the rear. At the beginning of the trip someone said that when the diesel was at the front, it would be helping power the train, but when it was in the back, it would be just rolling along. But you're saying that even when it was in the front, we were just pushing it?
--Mark
--Mark
Damned shame though that a diesel had to accompany them and that four cars weren't in "good working order" for the trip. I also realize that beggars can't be choosers. But one of these days, you've got to make it up to Branford to visit 1689 and see one of those in near MINT *operating* condition. And if you're a GOOD boy, might even let ya RUN it. :)
Listen, they took three cars that had been sitting in a museum for 25 years and made them run! I think that's good enough!
It just tells me that the museum collection is not being funded adequately in order to preserve its rich heritage and only makes me that much more determined to see to it that the happy and lively one at Branford is taken care of since I've operated it recently. But Arnines are a very personal thing to me - one of my few "fetishes." :)
Hope she's OK after the "surgery" ...
It doesn't really matter if you're a good boy or not. Just sign up for a membership on a rapid transit day that the car is out!!! :)
--Mark
Heh heh. Each of the "good" underground photos I posted was preceeded by about 8 "bad" photos taken at the same time. When the doors opened at the photo stop, I was one of the first to get out and take photos, but I took them just holding the camera and firing. Once more people showed up, I would move to a bench, column, or platform floor and rest my camera against that to keep it steady. THOSE were the photos that came out. All of my free-standing photos did not come out. They were blurry and out of focus. Additionally, all those underground photos were of stationary trains. My main problem is with taking underground photos of moving trains. All in all, I took 285 photos. I only posted about 20. I have between 20-40 more that are decent and that I will upload eventually. The rest are garbage. But that comes with the territory.
---Chapter 11 Choo Choo
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
I leave all the moving about for the younger SubTalkers and sit
back relax and enjoy the ride. Choo Choo "Brian" you have youth,
exuberance & stamina besides a small physic so thanks for the
photo report.
Kool D, you like my Polish Ladies from the Point, EH. >>GG<<
8-) ~ Sparky
You really don't want to know about the Puerto Rican woman I met after taking the Ave H runby. She broke my heart by telling me later she was married. But (LOL) I admit, I was distracted by a pair of Patriot Missiles so that's why the conversation took place.
Heh... I wasn't planning on wearing one :^)
No.
I've got about 49 that hang around the neck. You want me to bring them next time?
Um, YES!
Those would have really helped on Sunday. Weren't you up on the whole thread where we were discussing about having no luck getting the plastic badge holders?
8-) ~ Sparky
I have various name tags for my association with the Shore Line
Trolley Museum, but did not substitute any for my SubTalk name tag.
>>>"(Trevor for example)."<<<
Oh, I didn't know that we were required to be present in full uniform
to attend the MOD Trips. [That's Foaming 1.01] >>GG<<
8-) ~ Sparky
--Mark
I might just take the Brooklyn run again. We'll see. CI Peter
8-) ~ Sparky
PS- It was a loud and roubust Good Morning for the other conductor
on 1575. HMM >>GG<<
8-)~ Sparky
Got me thinking if there was any excuse i could come up with to fly to NY at the end of the month to "see my parents." :)
8-) ~ Sparky
By the way, I am not going to second guess as to why #1575 was chosen to be at one end of that fantrip train, although it is amusing that that car had previously installed long ago seal beam headlights on its front, whereas #100 and #484 never had them in the first place. However, you will notice that #484 had one temporary, portable seal beam wired to each tail light box.
-William A. Padron
8-) ~ Sparky
Yes, many people found that out the hard way.
That destination curtain on 1575 looks as if it came straight out of an R-16. OTOH it appears that 1575's other bulkhead destination curtain is an IND one. I saw a Wash. Hts sign in one of the photos of 1575 with 100 showing, although I couldn't tell if it said 207th or 168th St.
Looking at 1575, it's easy to see why so many people are fooled into thinking it's an R-10.
Also, in my previous posts I've forgotten to thank the shop forces at Corona and 207th for all the hard work they did to get these cars back into somewhat working order. Thanks!
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
No Subtalk group shot?
John
(shakes head and prepares to write a check to Branford in GRATITUDE)
Of course when it ended up on the Eastern division, some sick puppy in the yards kept putting it on the nose and I heard tales of some motormen being quite confused by it. I personally would have preferred to see a real Arnine on the nose and nothing in tow. Damned shame that one of the cars dropped out before the trip, four cars shouldn't have suffered any gapping problems.
The shoe fuse spectacle wasn't unusual in the old days, you'd just strike the car and continue your run. Mind ya, I'm DELIRIOUSLY HAPPY to see that they made it on the road at ALL given the realities, but I would have been rather disappointed personally.
Hope everybody had some fun, got some whiffs of GENUINE Arnine blue smoke and got to hear the music of the train itself in a tunnel where it's best appreciated. But man ... damned shame it needed a diesel at all.
Four cars should have made it - Concourse yard and the Stillwell layup often handled four car sets on off-hours and I can't imagine that they would have made the ladders longer on the gaps than they used to be. Sorry to hear that one of them never shaped up and 1575 (ever wonder why that one got drilled into the middle of a consist usually? you wanna HEAR your motors and 1575 had a habit of dropping them so I've been told) did its usual ritual suicide.
But man, tying up a work motor ... well ... that just HURTS. :(
Only needed one once myself on the Manny B, but we had some serious air problems on that run and with four cars cut out, that was the only way it was going to come down. Reverse move too.
That's what Bill Wall said. He said the diesel was his tow truck. Didn't want to lay down and tie up the line being it was an excursion.
now if #491 didn't develope a hot box, we would have been four arnines strong. Hope they have a spare truck they can change out to run four cars on 6/28. Repairing that truck may take some time since it's an oddball. Today's crews are experieinced on trucks with journal bearings, but brasses ?
Bill "Newkirk"
Yeah, you know me personally too and know how serious my own affliction is with those cars ... they were the majority of my time with the TA and by the time I left, I knew them better than most of the car inspectors and mechanics did. If the LININGS went though, that should have been spotted on a teardown (assuming it went to that level, I expect not) since they're easy enough to spot with the axles out. Then again, the wheel shop has changed DRASTICALLY since the days when wheels were ground OFF the axle, not on a rail-mounted cutter like today. That's when the defect would have been spotted and fixed.
The one thing I learned through Branford is that laying up cars on static display is nice, but RUNNING them and RIDING them is just SO much better. Here's hoping that when we have an economy again, the Transit Museum can be funded to a level where one by one, they can be REALLY restored to their former glory. Like the D types, they're an essential piece of history, and deserve to be treated as such. Same for the REST of the collection.
Maybe they should have brought 1689 down to the city and lashed 'er up with her sister cars. It would have been a joyful reunion. to say the least.:)
Those trolley guys need something to talk about. A subway car makes a great converastion piece at the local Trolley Museum.
-Stef
BLESSING FOR A HAPPY MARRIAGE TO 1689 AND 5466 IN BRANFORD!
:-( ~ Sparky
8-) ~ Sparky
--Mark
That it is. >>GG<<
8-) ~ Sparky
As for #1689, it will simply stay as it is at Branford, where it does get to move around on its own in more ways than one. Just imagine the huge shipping costs just transferring the car to and from Connecticut, and then perhaps prepping #1689 for just only one fantrip possible, would have made that idea quite prohibitive.
-William A. Padron
I was joking about bringing 1689 down to the city. Yes, the cost would have been prohibitive.
That car was FABLED when I went to work for the TA ... we were WARNED about it NOT being an Arten in schoolcar, and how it was a "pookah" and not to be confused. Back when it ran on the D (though it ended up on the F before I saw it) it was drilled in the 4 car or 7 car position on a 10 car train so neither motorman nor conductor would be SCROOD by it apperaing to be a 10 (or not) ... but it was a KVETCH to train crews since it had fluorescent lights, minifans and all signs of a 10 until you went into the broom closet ... inside, it revealed its transgendered "angle-cork" ... (gotta keep this out of NetNanny) ...
But yeah, that puppy *HAD* to travel with its true Arnine heritage since "vaginoplasty" failed with it. It STILL has H2A's, and that's a kickstand in MY book. Never DID ride with any other car class than the OTHER Arnines. Flubes and all, STILL an Arnine through and through. :)
Why would playing conductor on 1575 pose problems? Did it have the same door control breakers in the cabs?
However, I used to constantly get that car on the BMT Eastern Division lines during my high school years, most notably on the defunct "K" 6th Avenue route as well as on the "LL" line mainly along 14th Street in Manhattan. Prior to being a museum car, #1575's exterior was quite dirty and became an eyesore. Its repainting was, as first seen by me in the Transit Museum's first month of operation (July 1976), was such an eye opener.
Even though #1575 is classified as an R-7A in the AMUE packinging group, the car does have to this day one very noticeable item (not including side roll signs and a few glass interior lighting lenses) that was salvaged from a geniune R-10. Perhaps being involved under repairs a long time ago, one of #1575's original end storm doors with the squared edged window frame groove was removed and replaced with an R-10 type storm door (in the aqua blue/white) with its known curved edged design.
-William A. Padron
-William A. Padron
One thing I always wondered about was why they didn't just pull the destination curtains out, mechanism and all, when the R-7/9s went over to the Eastern Division.
They completely phucked up that car in every way imaginable. It'll NEVER move again. 117 *AC* volt rewiring, all sorts of junk thrown in there and it got de-chassis'd as well. Cutting a wire to light up sidesigns was normal for the NYS Museum ... once again, after THIS horror (as one who did the Arnines) I never got over the shock of what Rockefeller's morons DID to that car. That's WHY I appreciate Branford so much.
I know I toot my horn about the R-10s a lot, but the R-1/9s were equally special to me. 1689 is my favorite car in Shoreline's collection, and I'm sure it's yours, too.
As I've said TOO often, there's a REASON why I'm a member of BRANFORD. It's the *ONLY* transit museum I've given money to, and 1689 is ***THE*** reason. Not that I don't appreciate everything ELSE there, but it was 1689 that put the very little money I had where my keyboard is. :)
There's something to be said about an IND oldtimer that's still operable and in good shape.:)
Phuck you. Heh. I'm in BETTER shape NOW than I was under the thumb of moron politicos and their bad seed (like Al D'Amato and the MTA now). Yeha, a GUY hasn't HAD the capacoty to shed tears until they've walked into 1801 (or worse, had a FRIEND at the mseum who cried WITH YOU over what the ba$tards did to Arnine number 1801 ... scrapped in Albany and the flotsom is ON DISPLAY!!!!) Boo-hoo literally ... they PHUCKED it up ... and no WAY in Hades 1802 will ever release brake and move. Those ba$tard$ threw AWAY all they chopped out the car.
No STANDS ... no UNDERCAR AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nothing. Just plexiglass "don't breathe on the stuffed dummies on the seats, move along - in door 1 and out door 3, goodbye ... DON'T TOUCH our ABORTION, you don't know WHAT a NYC subway car (my lovelies) IS, so look, stop, and go away ... don't mind that guy with e chainsaw behind the curtain. Words cannot DESCRIBE my hatred and contempt for the "NYS MUSEUM" ... may it BURN. :(
But yeah, they PHUCKED 1801. :(
But I' toast ... no offense inetnded if I don't answer mesasages for 12-18 hours while I 'compensate sleep' ... in case no one's noticed the hours I keep - when I visit HERE, I'm at work with soemthing ELSE going on, so I read subtalk and do my thing during the brutally LONG downloads on "dialup" ... "Bruno's Tech Valley" here so 33K baud is doing DAMNED good in "republican deregaulated friend of Paturkey WorldCON networking" and "Verizon crank-a-phone SLIC CO's" ...
My apologies, I'm TOAST ... above just proved it. ":)
I know - it's gotta be green-green.
The side destination signs also lit up back in '80. That was one of the first things Eddie took care of after 1689 arrived. He said something about a fuse for that curcuit being removed along with the light bulbs when that car ran on the Eastern Division, but you have the cab breaker. Was there a fuse as well?
The fans worked back in '80 as well. 1689 sat outdoors back then, and while Eddie was keeping busy, he'd turn them on and leave the doors open for ventilation. Naturally I HAD to try out the doors back then, and had a field day.
So I heard from RCI's ... FWIW ... no reason to argue with Eddie though, he done GOOD with 1689. Unca Selkirk SALUTES! Hoo-hah ...
-Stef
Looks like everyone had a great time. Seems like many snags also, but I guess that's to be expected. I wish I could have made it, but I was "drowning" my sorrows at a graduation party yesterday.
Thanks, as usual, for sharing your photos, it eases the pain a little.
The officer stationed near the tunnel would have a hard time calling for backup and placing 200+ people under arrest for trespassing.
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
What were they doing anyway?
-Stef
-Stef
--Mark
---Chapter 11 Choo Choo
YMMV, HTH, HAND
Hmmm, I try to keep my compressed/resized photos around 100k. But you do have a good point about broadband and the monitors. So maybe I will start allowing my photos to reach 200k. Thanks.
---Chapter 11 Choo Choo
That's how I do it. I take mine at 2272x1704 (4MP) using raw mode (these average about 3.5 MB). Many of the pictures I post aren't even resized that much, but cropped. By taking at the largest size you can get a lot more, and clip what you don't want.
For example,
This picture had a lot of space around it, the sky, the tracks, etc. I resized it slightly, and threw out what I didn't want.
This result is the photo I put up on my website:
I resized it, then got rid of some of the extra space. Had I taken the picture at a lower mode, it wouldn't have been possible to keep a decent sized picture and get rid of the extra stuff.
That was HILARIOUS, especially when we were on the QB and the Crosstown. At 71/Continental, 74/Roosevelt, and Queens Plaza, the passengers were confused as hell, and quite a few people attempted to board our train, thinking it was in service.
Also at Coney Island I loved the looks on people's faces looking up at us in shock and envy.
...179th st for our lunch stop.
That was a disaster, the only thing there was Burger King (my favorite, but WAY too crowded) and Dunkin' Donuts.
We stopped at Church Ave as scheduled, and allowed people to take the next F train to any stop between Ditmas and Ave P for the runby.
Somebody allegedly was sitting on the edge of the platform at Bay Parkway. And those who were at Avenue P unfortunately didn't even get a shot, since the middle track was occupied by a gap train.
The fun begins when at Ave X we go the line up to go INSIDE CI yard, loop through the yard and exit via. Sea Beach side towards Stillwell.
That was the best part! I was leaning my head out the window the entire time, looking both ways to dodge signals and getting pics of CI Yard and some of the wierd stuff like a Slant-R40 (M) train, and R40/M (Q) trains, as well as an OOS R-68.
it's an honor to meet our Webmaster, Dave
Where was he? I can't believe I was on a train with this guy for 8 hours and didn't even run into him. Anyone here know what he looks like?
Also a lot of fun was all the "interesting" sounds that the train made (I was riding the R7A the entre time). I especially enjoyed when the lights went off every time the 3rd rail changed sides, so that when we went up Fourth Ave the lights went out every time we came ino a station, adding to the look of confusion on the passengers' faces. We also went BIE once approaching the West End and when we were coming back to 4th Ave over the switch the train made some kind of "BLOP" noise and I was actually scared I thought the consist went bad or something. Also in the tunnel the lights kept going on/off at random and there were parts where the only light was the signals in the tunnel and the dim tunnel lighting.
I can't BELIEVE I ran out of photos. I had to actually do "quality control" (i.e. delete anything that didn't come out) on the platform at Avenue I, something I normally do at home afterwards. I even had to delete some perfectly good shots to make room for CI Yard and the Brighton. I now have 106 quality photos waiting to upload (probably won't be done until just days before the next trip!).
I had a lot of fun and can't wait until the next 2 trips. The only credible disappointment was not visiting 9th Ave LL, although that was almost made up for by the look on people's faces as we went by on the West End.
Doesn't seem like you did anything wrong. Nor do I blame the motorman for being a bit edgy - it can't be the nicest thing to hit someone with your train.
For a good long while, subtalk managed to make crews feel a bit more comfortable with, and understanding of "buffs" (that's what they were called in MY day with the TA, and we were warned to be WARY of them - be sure the doors are locked, be sure you don't leave your bag of tricks on the platform and never EVER EVER let them have handle time). :)
But geez louise ... on "spot the foamer" events, *PLEASE* don't act like a moron ... we're not doing very well as far as collective image with crews, and stupid human tricks only REINFORCE the negative stink of us on transit property. As a "group" we REALLY need to start cleaning up our collective act.
--Mark
It made the ride up 4th Avenue quite fun. Too bad they seemed to have fixed it during the stop at 179th.
I was listening to my scanner, and heard the W behind us reporting smoke in the tunnel. The dispatcher said the fire deparment was called.
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
--Mark
It always amazes me that people would just jump on any train that pulls into the station, no matter how bizzare the train is. I'm sure many people asked, "Is this train going to [fill in a station]?". And very confused and serious about it.
I love that. That is the best part of fan trips like this...the confused look on people's faces. The best fan trip I was ever on was on the LIRR and we got to ride in open gondola cars. The look of people's faces at grade crossings and stations we past was priceless:
I found you photos interesting, but a little dark for my taste. I did save one for my own use, the one on the platform with the diesel & two employees (I know who one of them is, but am NOT going to say his name because of the TA lurkers).
You are added to our list.
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
Towards the end of the trip, the "other C/R", who wasn't really the real C/R, asked everyone in our car to vote for who we wanted to be the C/R, him or Mark W. He asked about Mark W. first, and I was the ONLY ONE to raise my hand. Then he asked about himself and EVERYONE ELSE raised their hands. True story.
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
Nobody let anyone hang out of windows. The windows were open and some people made some poor choices. No... Not poor choices but stupid choices. He was lucky. The people I saw out the window were told that if they did it again they were off the train.
Funny, nobody told mehead wasn't out the window, just my camera, and even that wasn't far out enough to avoid having half the picture be of the windowsill. The only time I actually stuck my head out the window was when we were standing still. I was thinking about trying to take a pic of an approaching (F) train but since I couldn't reach out far enough the train would've had to come too close (and to try it like that would be pretty stupid).
Funny, nobody told me. that. Although technically my head wasn't out the window, just my camera, and even that wasn't far out enough to avoid having half the picture be of the windowsill. The only time I actually stuck my head out the window was when we were standing still. I was thinking about trying to take a pic of an approaching (F) train but since I couldn't reach out far enough the train would've had to come too close (and to try it like that would be pretty stupid).
I have some photos of me assuming the position between 100 and 484 at the Transit Museum when they still let you do that sort of thing. The first words out of my mouth once I got up onto the step plates were, "Man, I always wanted to do this!"
I spent most of the trip in 100, the car that most resembled a 'classic' 1/9 with its battleship gray interior and ceiling fans. While 1575 brings back nice memories of the R10s (especially the caged fans), their seats had all gone from wicker to grey fiberglass by the time I came along. And I don't remember ANY car having the bright lime interior and domed ceiling lights that 484 had. Luckily, air ventilation was excellent when we were in motion, even though the fans in 1575 were inoperative.
Once we got going, speed was very good- especially on the 4th Avenue express and through 60th tube. It was very disappointing to have to run on the local tracks both ways in Queens, but I would imagine tight express headways and the switches around 36th made running express undoable. One of my cornerstone childhood subway memories was banging and groaning through the Northern express cutoff, then speeding through the 65th straightaway. There was an amusing throwback to a few months bracketing 1975 and '76 when the 1/9s and 46s co-existed: at least twice as we ran local, a 46 ran express past us. 'Course the 46 no longer has the blue stripe, roll signs or a pink F at the end, and I'm no longer in high school.
The brief interlude at the Jamaica yard leads somewhat made up for running local and the long delay at 179th. One civilian did actually board the train at 179th, apparently thinking it was an F. Even if you didn't ride the subway regularly, wouldn't your suspicions be aroused at the sight of a train full of wicker seats, ceiling fans and camcorder-laden passengers? As so many others have stated, half the fun was surveying the facial expressions of the passengers on the platforms. When we paused at Queens Plaza, someone actually started looking at her map!
It was the usual fun crowd- that conductor was a riot! Saw old friends Sparky, Sid, Bill Newkirk, Peggy, Daves Pirmann and Greenberger, Marks Feinberg and W, and chuchubob. Got to meet Chapter 11, Kool-D and Trevor, among others. (Dennis Riga was stalking the crowd as usual, talking out loud to no one in particular.) Everyone was very friendly and courteous, and I witnessed no arguing over hogging seats, windows or photo ops. Considering the long delays and the fact that there was only three cars, everyone maintained good humor and temper. From what I've read, that hasn't always been the case on some previous fan trips.
There was a bizarre incident right before Kew Gardens outbound. Some fellow closed the doors of 100 and 1575 and stood between them, possibly appearing to relieve himself into the tunnel(?!). The train was stopped at the platform so he and a few others could exit. There were murmerings that he was a stowaway who boarded at a photo stop. (If so, there needs to be better security out of respect for all those who paid $35.) Someone set up a makeship souvenir shop in 484, spreading a binder full of photos on a seat and even sticking Mastercard and Visa signs on the window! Maybe legal, but a mite tacky, wouldn't you think? I just hope he's not reading this.
It was wonderful to hear those traction motors again (once the diesel engine quieted down) and smell those nice musty smells again. As fun as it is to ride 1689 back and forth to Short Beach, this was the REAL thing.
Actually EYE hope he does ! We had three selling stuff on the SMEE trip.
8-( ~ Sparky
Dante,
Email me privately, I'll give you a vendor, whom may have what you
are looking for. He was on Sunday's trip, but I doubt he was peddling. >>GG<<
8\) ~ Sparky
I was not intent on peddling anything on the MOD train. Oh well!
You don't want to know.
He's become somewhat of a running gag among veteran Subtalkers. He may or may not be a banned Subtalker himself. I'm not sure. He's about 50, mustache, longish but thinning grey hair parted down the middle. Some say he works for Amtrak.
You'll find Dennis on every fantrip and Busfest. He seems to walk around randomly approaching and talking to people who don't know him (or pretend they don't know him). Quite a few times on yesterday's trip, he would stand in the middle of the car and address whoever was there. Some people had a "Who's this guy and who the devil is he TALKING to?" look on their faces.
He's often heard arguing train trivia in a voice that reminds me of Joe Pesci. I figure he'll soon say "You think I'm FUNNY?"
These are my observations, however inaccurate they may be. If anyone knows more about Mr. Riga- including whether I'm spelling his name right- feel free to chime in.
Add Veteran Branfordites to that list, but I'll give him credit for
one think, when he does visit the site, he does physically excercise
himself in "enviromental services". That is when he not telling you
he is the recreation of "August Belmont" or whatever state of mind he in.
But don't worry, he's harmless. It just something you take with the job,
when volunteering at a Trolley Museum. Dennis Reega, Joe C AKA "Headlights" or
"Hellgate", it comes with the territory, along with the foamers >>GG<<
8-) ~ Sparky
He will ask you the same almost idotic question every time you run into him. Don't let him know your birthday, he knows how to use a telephone directory and you get what we jokenly refer to as "a Birthday Wake-Up Call"
Our Director of Public Affairs (no, NOT that kind) has the odd ability to ber able to duplicate Chuckie's voice, which usually breaks up anybody in the Dispatcher's Office.
8-) ~ Sparky
Well not completely. He does get his hands dirty some times in the shop, and needs to be closely supervised then ... just ask our friends at that museum located in Brooklyn.
He also does know a lot of facts, but doesn't always have them correct.
Oh, you mean he's the "Master of MisQuotes" sidekick. >>GG<<
8-) Sparky
So the consist was an R-7A, R-1, R-4 and a R-77. >>GG<<
8-) ~ Sparky
You can add chuchubob to the list of subtalkers on the trip. We spoke several times, having met when you were scrounging tape for your nametag on the mezzanine level at Chambers.
I've been too busy to get through my photos so far, but I put my pix from Stillwell Terminal on my Webshots Around New York album.
Bob
On the next two trips, please remind me so that I can add your name to my reports. If Flatbush41 does attend the 6/29 SMEE (or Redbird) trip, he might do the report when he gets back home so you will meet him also.
8-) ~ Sparky
8-)~ Sparky
This was the same way back in the early 1990's when the Neptune Ave viaduct, tracks and switches had to be rebuilt. The N was terminating at 86th st for about under two years, IIRC.
I had with me, and showed to a few people on Sunday's trip, my first NY Subway map, which I picked up in 1961 on my first subway ride outside Camden/Philly.
I just got the rest of my photos of the R1/9 trip up onto my Webshots "Around New York 2" album, with links here.
I appreciate being informed of typos, mistakes, and manifestations of ignorance. Thanks for pointing out the lint.
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
PS, thanks for the nametags Brian, I left the house in a bit of a rush, and forgot my nametag holder. Turns out the train was late anyway, and I could've gone back to pick it up.
Soon, someone else will post a meaningful, long description. I'm a little too exhausted right now for that.
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
IF ONLY we had more of a collective cooperation,
people wouldn't be missing eachother nor having to
describe themselves by color clothing which I'm sure
others wore/dressed similarly... (SIGH)
Hell of an effort, brah... My hat's off to ya!
Even thought it was Sunday, I got a good idea of how the tower operated. The model board was futty integrated with the VALLEY CTC machine, not typical "billboard" Model-14 style board. Trains entering the territory would cause the machine to ring a bell. Most operations consisted of re-clearing the signals on the local track for the hourly SEPTA R5 locals as well as occacional Amtrak Keystones and LD trains. Operator OVERBROOK must note the passing, engine number and car count of each passing train. There is also frequent talking with the HBG line dispatcher and adjacent ZOO and PAOLI towers. The most complicated movement was when both E/B and W/B R5 locals pulled in the station. The E/B local was held in the platform "pocket" while the E/B Amtrak Pennsylvanian was crossed over from track #2 from ZOO to track #4 to make station stop at Ardmore. I was out on the platform for this and I almost got all three trains in frame.
The tower is really cool with all the glass covered relays in the locking room and the rubust Model-14 in the op room. The tower had many ammenities such as a bathroom, microwave, fax, crew lockers, refrigerator, hot plate and toaster oven. The tower also has its own working airhorn and there is a chineese place 50 feet from the tower so occacional snacks are not a problem.
The CTC machine is really neat in that when you "code" a change in status all the relays clicking sounds like the plinko game from the Price is Right. Coding takes about 5 seconds before the changes enter into effect. The Operator demonstrated how the signal locking timers work and how the Model-14 works. The A-5 pneumatic switches were really responsive with about a 1-2 second throw time and you could even throw them back and forth in rapid succession without moving the level through its full travel. Such a move is used to free the switch from debris, ice or snow and is NOT something that can be done on an electric switch.
I'll post photos next week after my Boston trip. It was a great tour and I hope to go back. It is a shame that towers are disappearing from the American rail scene. They are certainly a facinating place that oppitomize the heart of railroading.
Personally, if I was pissing between cars, I don't think I would worry about someone seeing me. Maybe I am just an exhibitionist.
AEM7
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
--Mark
A He? GIRLS have to umm..... squat down... coughcough. :(
I told you so.
- Charles Darwin
- Charles Darwin
How dare you say that!
How do you know that she hasn't reproduced?
Who knows how many MALE Darwin winners reproduced, often without payment of their child support (to whit: Most Darwin WINNERS' last words were "Hey Bubba, watch THIS sheet! Yee-blam.") ...
Takes two ... but I don't blame ya ... porcines can orgasm for a half hour. Sometimes ya forget things in da heet of da moment. (grin)
Supposedly, years ago, an inebriated homeless guy (what we used to regularly call a "bum") took a leak on the tracks at a subway station. His "charred remains" are allegedly on display at a New York forensics museum.
There's a big thread you can find if you search the archives.
Kinda like my ex-girlfriend. If your gonna cheat on me, atleast have the decency to not do it in front of me. Stripping in front of a car full of people with your boyfriend sitting right next to you doesn't make him feel too good.
Sorry to get off topic, but I was just wishing it was my ex. But it's not, because she only makes enough money to live at home, drop out of college, and spend every penny she has and all her time smoking crack and shooting Heroin. And to think she was perfectly clean, didn't even smoke cigarettes, the first 2 year I knew her.
I mean atleast go to a park or somewhere with a little bit of cover like behind a tree. But on a moving train, that sooner or later would have most likely approached a crowded station anyway, comon! Instead you could have just exited at the last station the train stopped at, went up to any of the numerous public restrooms and then came back down and jumped the turnstiles. Atleast that would have been more honorable and still made you a minor scum bag in my book.
Wrong.
AGAIN THOUGH ... do NOT do it on a subway car. The chances are MARGINAL (do you KNOW how "lucky" you REALLY ARE?) that you could be ELECTROCUTED by an unintentional "wind direction" and DIE doing so. If ya GOTTA GO, you should have thought about that before you left. And while I'm NOT trying to disgust train crews by suggesting this - either do it ON the platform of a stop, or do it IN the car - at least if anything drips, it'll spark against the carbody and not YOU. :(
It's been up for a long time ... I think the site is serious, not a parody, but I'm not entirely sure.
either do it ON the platform of a stop, or do it IN the car
Please, don't give the skells any ideas.
But since I ain't female, that's my LAST comment on that subject. My only point in bringing it up is to see how women here react (or don't) to the link ... as far as the tightasses go, well ... they're probably growing hair on their palms and going blind anyway. :)
Mark
But there are many REAL situations (for those NOT of the republican pursuasion who do not have their "18 pack" handy for soiling) where being able to "aim" can be useful. If it IS useful. Dunno myself, but leave it open to those who have a better idea of "how it works" than I do ...
Just don't do it near 600 volts, PLEASE?
"By the way, contrary to what you may have been told by family and friends, a healthy person’s urine is STERILE as it leaves their body."
I've always thought urine was a collection of waste materials coming from the body.
Looking at the directions, a woman still has to unbutton her pants and pull them down to do #1 or #2. If she's waering a dress or a skirt that is something else. But a woman would have to pull down her pants in order to relieve herself.
It is, but not in the same way as products emitted by the colon. Urination is a means of eliminating meatobolically produced acid (and helping maintain body pH, which is neutral), and maintaining fluid balance. No bacteria are present in the urinary tract, unless you are suffering from an infection.
It is in the large intestine (colon) where bacteria process undigested food, assist you in nutrient absorption, nd produce feces. The other function of the intestines is to conserve water present in food.
Which is why, by the way, the manufacture of dry sausage involves wrapping meat in a membrane derived from animal intestines.
It is, but waste isn't always bad. Urine is mostly water anyway. Much of the remainder is urea (CH4N2O) which is relatively stable.
We were then told about our special Buster Brown shoes and why we shouldn't EVER get them wet ... as well as a "film strip (beep!)" on a particular piece of the male anatomy in a pickle jar (shaped remarkably like a PINK ORCHID) and why you don't want to whiz on the third rail.
Just DON'T ... better to wet your pants Tom Ridge style than do it between cars. :(
I think you are wrong. Check out www.restrooms.org/standing.html
I guess you have quite an effect on women. :-)
Tom
A-R44
D-R68
E-R32
F-R46
G-R46
J-R42
L-R42/R143
M-R143
Q/W-R68(A)
Wonder why the longer cars have the doors locked now?
One thing that I hope may happen is that the locking mechanisms that were used on the R44-68 B division cars are incorporated into the R160s (that way, the doors are locked, but could be unlocked in an emergency by the C/R). I doubt the R143s can be retrofitted, however.
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
Why do you want a useful form of access/egress to be eliminated because of a few idiots that misuse it?
As I see it, the person who died deserved it.
Have you NEVER done anything that you were very embarassed about afterwards, that could have had bad consequences if you had been unlucky?
I say FRY 'EM ALL! It's the REPUBLICAN thing to do, especially for those hosers under 18 years of age. FRY 'em ... seriously though, if the DOOR hadn't killed her, a 600 volt "climb up the stream" VERY well could have as well. And I wouldn't be a BIT surprised if it wasn't the door that got her instead of "whizzing on the third rail" ... that first low current jolt can make you involuntarily *LEAP* ...
Word needs to get out that whizzing AT ALL between cars (grounded solid) and that pesky wooden covered "unused track") is inviting explosion of your genitals. NO joke! If ya REALLY gotta go that bad, do it on the platform or INSIDE the car if you really have to. :(
And here I thought EVERYBODY in the city was already in their "absorptive undergarments" ... (yes joke)
:0)
Just NOT on the tracks ... it'd be different with catenary, but for KRIMMINY'S SAKE, anyone DUMB enough to whiz on a third rail really does deserve the hall of honors ... and YES, I'm quite sympathetic to the poor lady - she might have lost her balance and NOT have fried (only the ME knows for sure what happened, and it won't be posted here) ... but either way, you're just ASKING for electrocution if you even try. The PUBLIC needs to know this.
And yeah, America is a LOT more prudish since the Taliban came to power here ... she may really have been that emotionally concerned about modesty since she obviously didn't have a blue curtain handy. It's the AMERICAN thing to do ... THAT'S the reason why I feel for her emotionally. The current "regime" puts women up on a pedestal, so's they can look up her skirt. :(
You made a funny!
The LIRR's fleet of MP54's (and loco-hauled P54's) all had NOTHING to stop whatever left your body in the restroom before it hit the right-of-way. And if you looked before you whizzed, you'd see you were aiming directly ONTO the third rail!!!!
A few. A lot of these so called idiots think its a game. How many people I see stand on the platform for 5-10 minutes then when the train comes in start walking through cars.
Its dumb. As this and many other occasions have shown, its dangerous. I think locking these doors would prevent a good # of injuries.
All injuries caused by idiots.
Closing the doors however would make it impossible to escape a car in the event of a dangerous condition.
You would injure many to save the lives of a few.
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
I see on this board so much about the necessity of getting the end door unlocked automatically in an emergency, but I challenge anyone to point to any incident in the 99 year history of the subway where anyone needed doors to be unlocked automatically as opposed to having a conductor or rescuer come through the train opening the doors manually. The majority of the world's urban rail systems work quite well with locked end doors, and it could safely work in NYC also.
Tom
You move, you move them to the end of the train that will let them win (after instructions and agreement from "command" to evacuate in the FIRST place) and you just move car by car as you walk back into the car ahead which is already emptying out. Had to do a SERIOUS EVAC *once* in my short span, track fire under the 2nd car and my motorman got the first car into 34th/6th and we had to get everybody out PAST the fire under car two ... ARNINES. (what else?) and had to explain to folkd flipping out as the smoke got more and more dense as I walked them through the train that Arnines are 100% steel, the fire's UNDER the car and it won't get you ...
STILL, get down as low as you can, cover your nose with your shirt, and there's no smoke once you get past the next car ... hold your breath if you can, breathe through your shirt, we're ALL getting off this train safely as long as you don't flip out.
Needless to say, my experience in this ONE situation was a personal eye-opener. I wasn't the LEAST bit worried, but the GEESE were just phucking flipping out. That ONE incident was the largest amount of work (and tribulation of my OWN patience) that I've ever endured in my LIFE ... from there, it got EASIER over the years (wonder why I'm so twisted? heh) ...
Now if a small track fire (with ... "sniff ... sniff ... sniff ... sniff ... OH YEAH! I smell it TOO!" significance) got everybody worked up, I ***SHUDDER*** to think of how flipped out the geese would be if a conductor whipped on a "gas mask" in front of the geese and just how LONG they'd still have it on their face before somebody on THEIR car stabbed them to GET it. :(
Vote republican ... gack. :(
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
Apparently not.. as I remember another fellow (Pete Seligman) whom
died falling between cars (STANDING) on an incoming 5 express into BBridge
(the PR exec who'd gone out to "get some air")...
I've seen people climb OVER, UNDER and THROUGH these gates/springs
to board a departing train at (omit) Street in the Bronx...
Darwin wasn't awake those times.
Guilty as charged. Man, it's just real hard sometimes tryin' to get on a train. And the feeling is, you "gotta get THAT train or you won't make it....". So yeah, I've done it at times. I guess I aughta feel ashamed......
Then again, I also aughta be ashamed at how angry I got the other morning when I, gasp, had to pay a penalty fare on the LIRR from Central Islip to Farmingdale (making the total price $7.00) since I didn't have time to use the TVM. I grumbled at the conductor but really! So many times I've gotten free rides, you wouldn't see me hurrying through the train to find a conductor to punch my ticket. So now I'm bitching cause I have to pay the "penalty"?
What a phony I can be at times.....
.
Wow, eventhough I hardly ever walk between cars anyway, that makes it even more discouraging.
He was in the area between the two stairways at the rear of the manhattan bound platform. He was just finishing when the train doors opened.
Nasty stuff
this was circa 1992
Now on all cta L trains there is a big red stop sign and metal panel covering the door handle to cross between cars. It says that you should only cross during emergencies or if your a CTA employee. People just lift the handle and walk back and fourth freely anyway though. But if they fall then its there fault for ignoring the sign or not speaking English (I'm not sure if this ones in Espanol also).
People are just plain a$$holes sometimes though. This really doesn't bother me that much, but the smoking thing does. There are clearly marked signs at almost every station that say no smoking anywhere on CTA property and everybody ignores them. They should really give out the tickets and fine the people like the signs say. Especially for people like me that quit smoking less then a year ago, it really doesn't make me feel any better.
Bill "Newkirk"
It costs the same to ride from Trenton to Philly as it does from Trenton to Wilmington. There is no discount for buying NJT and SEPTA fare media together so the SEPTA ticket is like a regular one purchased at Trenton and it doesn't list the branch or the outlying destination, only PHILA30.
Or (rail gods forgive me) Greyhound runs non-stop express from Port Authority to Wilmington in 2 hours 15 minutes for $32.
See www.septa.com for more info.
Where on the system are there stations that should have free transfers between them and yet do not?
I'll start it off:
Queensboro Plaza (7) and Queens Plaza (E,V,R).
I realize that one station is elevated and the other isn't, but that shouldn't make a difference - see Roosevelt Avenue and 74th/Broadway on the same lines.
But out of system MetroCard transfers should be FREE, even for pay
per ride customers, not to use their one transfer for a subway to
subway out of fare control transfer. [Lexington & 63rd to Lexington &
60th or 59th Street a\o Court House Square to Court Square].
Other out of fare control transfer points Livonia Avenue L to Junius
Street 3/4 or Fulton Street G or Lafayette Avenue A\C and Atlantic
Avenue\Pacific Street Complex? IMO >>GG<<
8-) ~ Sparky
IMO, especially now that the Fun Pass is so pricey, two hours worth of unlimited free transfers should be available with each paid fare.
8-( ~ Sparky
It wouldn't need to be that long, not if they take out the entrance to Queensboro Plaza on the south side of Queens Boulevard. The northern exit should suffice. The southern exit could be connected right into the Queens Plaza exit on the SW corner of QB & Jackson Ave(?) which is very close. They could either build it right down the sidewalk or just elevate it slightly, or even dig a short tunnel at the point where the Queensboro Plaza exit hits the ground, right to the station.
I think not. By your proposal you would have all that alight at
Queensboro Plaza South, use the north exit. Most of the alighting
traffic is transfering to the numerous Surface Lines on Queens Plaza
South [B61; Q32, Q60, Q67, Q101, Q102, Q19A, Q39] and would have to
cross the heavily trafficed lanes of the Queensboro Bridge Approach
and Service Roads.
8-) ~ Sparky
* Jay Street (A/C/F) and Lawrence Street (M/N/R) - right under Transit headquarters?
* Lafayette Avenue (C) and Fulton Street (G)?
Actually, a physical transfer shouldn't even be necessary. A MetroCard-based transfer could be implemented very simply, by getting rid of all transfer privileges in favor of a "three-hour pass"; one use of a pay-per-ride card would give the user unlimited use of the entire transit system for three hours. (That would also solve the problem of people losing their bus transfers due to B/O's using incorrect destination signs.)
Interesting to note that some enterprising individual with some business savvy has opened a coffee stand in the point of a building on the pointed corner plot wedged between Lafayette and Mulberry Street, whose business, I imagine, depends solely on the people with unlimited ride cards taking advantage of this out-of-system transfer between the uptown 6 trains and the 6 Av. trains in the morning. I have made this transfer almost every day since the advent of the unlimited ride card, and I remember the corner before this breakfast nook was open when there was nothing there. This transfer is not a glitch in the system -- it follows all the rules of the service provided by using the unliited card. The fact that I reenter the system only minutes after exiting is irrelevant. The MTA is not losing any revenue by failing to charge me for the out-of-system nature of the transfer.
Why don't you do a little research, if you could limit the temptation to cheat. Walking at a moderate pace (not rushing to beat or crossing against a traffic light, not running up or down stairs, etc), see how long it takes to make the change in each direction. The timing is from platform to platform -- don't count how long you need to wait for the train
Do it for a few days and take the average, since the time required to transfer out of system will vary based on whether or not you catch the light. I'd be interested to hear.
(a) consists of 450 feet of addl. walking (4 ft/sec is slow, 5 ft/sec medium, 6 ft/sec is fast) on the level, plus a stairway up instead of down. This occurs because of the offset of #6 platforms.
(b) consists of an addl. flight up and down, plus waiting for the light to cross Lafayette, plus an addl 100 ft to get to the stairways. The light is green for 30 out of every 90 seconds, but it's not safe to cross unless 10 seconds of green are left. So your waiting time is 2/9 chance of 0 plus 7/9 chance of a random time between 0 and 70 seconds.
At 5'/sec plus 20 seconds to go up a flight or 10 to go down, I count a difference of 160 seconds that will remain no matter what, plus a difference of 50 to 120 seconds that the new passageway will eliminate.
So the lack of passageway is mostly a psychological barrier (except in the pouring rain). But I do believe it will change a lot of rider habits, so it's worthwhile.
He never got around to trying it. Somehow it was just too complicated for him.
Only to those passengers with unlimiteds. (Or has that been the premise of this entire thread? I've lost track by now.)
I don't think a majority of subway passengers use unlimiteds. Certainly, a minority of off-peak subway passengers use unlimiteds. The V doesn't run nights and weekends, making the Bleecker transfer particularly important then.
Why would you think his business depends only on commuters passing through? That is a thriving commercial and residential neighborhood. Among other things, there is a halfway decent reasonably priced car mechanic (not an easy combination to find in Manhattan) right there.
Granted, completely unscientific assessment on my part, though.
I already mentionned this in the other thread, it was free with a regular MetroCard when MetroCard was still blue. I believe it was the first MetroCard transfer to be introduced in the system. What I can't remember is when it started and how long it lasted.
It was blatantly unfair though, so it didn't last. But it wasn't blatantly unfair on May 15, 1997, so they should have reinstated it right there and then.
BTW, I don't think it was blatantly unfair. Why force people to commute one way with two fares when you can do it with one fare the other way?
This is why subway-bus transfers weren't implemented in 1995 when buses started accepting Metrocard.
Which impose again the usual questions.
"Why cash paying bus riders and single ride card subway riders don't get the subway-bus transfers?"
And about Bleecker/Broad/Laf, "Why charge $3 one way when the other way is only $1.50?"
In any case the latter matter seems like it would see a resolution soon.
"Why cash paying bus riders and single ride card subway riders don't get the subway-bus transfers?"
Since every bus accepts Metrocard, every bus user has the oppurtunity to use a Metrocard and get the transfer. That they choose not to is a completely different story.
"Why charge $3 [sic] one way when the other way is only $1.50? [sic]"
I guess I can ask "Why charge for a transfer at Livonia/Junius when a transfer at Broadway Junction is free?
Free transfers aren't available between every possible station set. It's an inconvenience, but would you rather the transfer at Bleecker not exist at all?
And the base fare is $2. Your statement should have read: "Why charge $4 one way when the other way is only $2?"
You need to buy more than two fares to get the transfer. I have seen cities that gives you discounts when you buy in bulk (5 fares, 10 fares or more) or gives you a Fun pass/weekly/monthly/annual type of deal, but have never seen so far transit systems that differenciates people who buy one fare and two fares for transfers (round trip deals are different). I always believed the only reason to this in New York, was to promote MetroCard. Now that the token is gone, they don't really need to do so.
I guess I can ask "Why charge for a transfer at Livonia/Junius when a transfer at Broadway Junction is free?
Unlike Bleecker St., transfers at Livonia/Junius are not currently free in both directions, which in turn means that you can make a round trip the same way, with the same fare. People using the Bleecker transfer don't have that option unless you have a Fun pass/Unlimited.
would you rather the transfer at Bleecker not exist at all?
No, but I'd still say it's poor planning and a rare case which I haven't seen anywhere else so far (it's ok if you want to say "NY is not like anywhere else"). Of course, I haven't visited each and every city in the world, so it may exist in other cities.
And the base fare is $2.
Do you really think I didn't know? I was just trying to make it sound like an alteration of your previous post, in which you said "to pay $3 when another segment gets the same priviledge for $1.50?
If people insist on writing cryptically, their point is often missed.
I'm one of 'em, and there are in fact quite a few of us. Most cross Lafayette at Houston. I usually walk up the downtown 6 plat to the Bleecker exit and cross Lafayette at Bleecker, especially if the weather is foul. Also, the exit stairs are less crowded there than at the Houston exit, and they face the right way.
I mentionned this in another thread that this is what I suggest to do, unless it's evening rush. I think it's logical, and I'm not surprised there are other people doing this. :-)
This reminded me of another issue.
It was harsh when they didn't have HEETs at Bleecker downtown and at the same time the only other entrance to the station was Houston/Bway. When I moved to the area, Bleecker downtown had a token booth open during morning rush and the 24 hour turnstyles were on Houston between Bway and Lafayette. When they changed the outside-fare zone, one had to walk to Bway, enter and walk back to Lafayette to get to the downtown 6. I usually ended up using the Prince St. N/R station instead. I was so glad they re-opened the Crosby St. entrance and later HEETs at Bleecker/Lafayette downtown. Forgive me if the opening order is wrong.
When did the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority sell its lines in "Manhatten?"
8-) ~ Sparky
All the command center could say after this was that we just had a 12-K9 and power has to be removed for the removel of the body. He also made shore that he told all the crews that the dags was causing problems since 10:00 that morning. What a day on the L from a small dog.
Robert
#3 West End Jeff
I remember the incident in 1991 which led to the current regulations reguarding dogs in tunnels. IIRC, a T/O on an A train near 145th St spotted a dog on the tracks, reported it to the command center, but was ordered to proceed. He ran the dog over and fatally wounded it. He had to have police protection due to the numerous death threats he received. I remember the front page headline on the Post: "No Way To Treat A Dog", featuring a picture of the dog's body underneath a sheet.
#3 West End Jeff
Elias
See, I haven't ridden on the LIRR in 20 years, but in the years when I did ride, I never counted less than 30 dogs in various states of decomposition on the tracks between Lynbrook and Jamaica.
Elias
I always knew the L would eventually go to the dawgs....
Robert
Fried????
Can u used any better term other than that word. Oh god that's gross.
Los Angeles Times story
URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-conductor9jun09,1,6513460.story?coll=la-headlines-california
(LA Times requires free registration)
Anyway, come visit this summer (and many apologies for the idiotic, childish whining from a few local morons, er, residents).
Times story
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/09/nyregion/09TOTT.html
If the EAS is accurate, the projct is to reach completion in 2006. It was filed in May, 2001, pre-9/11 hysteria, so the schedule may be delayed a bit.
I think it would be $10 or less for a whole day. I often park there myself. It isn't an expensive lot by any stretch. I just wish they'd connect the rooftop to the nearby 7 station. Hurts to have to go to street level and then back to the roof where I just was!
You could park in Jersey City near the Newport PATH station but it's not cheap there either.
For the cost of parking his car for a few days, anywhere that's remotely convenient, (if he's staying that long) he might as well take Amtrak.
Of course there are a myriad of NJT lots along the NEC as you come into NYC, Metropark might be a good idea, every time I've been there there have been spots in the garage.
1) Make the LIRR to Fulton Street Express splice at East New York. Abandon the LIRR west of there. Remove the elevated line on Atlantic Avenue.
2) Make Utica and Nostrand local stops. Trains on the express track run non-stop from East New York to Hoyt-Schemerhorn.
3) Connect the Fulton Local with the 6th Avenue line via a flying junction at Jay Street, as planned. Make the V train rather than the C the Fulton Street local -- 10 car trains, ten trains per hour, and run it to Lefferts. The additional service would balance the two additional stops.
4) Cut the A train from 18 to 15 trains per hour at peak, with all 15 running to Howard Beach or beyond.
5) Run the E train (15 tph) through to Brooklyn as the second express, returning to Jamaica. Merge the E with the A at 50th Street. Fix the interlocking on the Archer Avenue line, allowing all 15 QB E trains to turn at Jamaica.
6) Run the C train as the only local on 8th Avenue south of 59th Street, terminating at the WTC. Add C trains as needed.
7) Have the upper level E terminate on the LIRR level at Jamaica, for LIRR and Airtain passengers.
Both plans are big wins for suburban commuters, airport passengers from Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn, others traveling bewteen Lower Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn and Jamaica.
Both plans eliminate the possibility of running the V down the Culver for express service, and cap the capacity of the "A" train to accomodate future growth (though CBTC may get that capacity back someday). Both eliminate the possibility of using the additional Rutgers Tunnel capacity in the event of a future Manhattan Bridge outage.
This plan would lead to longer waits for those at Nostrand and Utica, but shorter waits and more service for everyone else on the Fulton/Lefferts/Rockaway lines. It would permit simpler merges and diverges, limiting delays. And the elevated could be removed on Atlantic Avenue, helping traffic.
Either plan would waste the new LIRR building at Atlantic Terminal.
I don't like it, but this is less offensive than the origninal.
Your proposal does the same, except it adds Nostrand, Utica, and the Lefferts branch to the list of local stations.
I'm still trying to figure out what the great problem is that we're trying so hard to solve.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, higher taxes are pushing brokerage jobs out of NYC - -
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/650.htm
They already have a very easy ride. If a transfer at Atlantic-Pacific isn't too much to ask of city residents, it also isn't too much to ask of Long Island residents. They can take any of three lines.
I have a novel idea. If we're going to be spending subway funds to improve someone's commute, why don't we use them to improve subway riders' commutes? Most of these proposal make some subway riders' commutes even worse than they are now.
If LIRR commuters wish to improve their commutes, they can pay for the improvements through increased LIRR fares.
The other side of the coin is that Long Islanders have been commuting to downtown for over 100 years under the current imperfect system.
The landscape has changed considerably over 100 years. There was no Penn Station or Grand Central then. Most of the subway system had yet to be built. Robert Moses hadn't built the city's bridges, tunnels, and expressways. You can say what you like about the idea of improving transit in Lower Manhattan, but the relevant comparison is to the options people have now, not to what they had a century ago.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, higher taxes are pushing brokerage jobs out of NYC.
That's not it. The brokerage industry has been leaking out of Lower Manhattan for decades. Automation has largely eliminated the need for physical presence. (At one time, the NYSE charter required all members to have a processing office below Chambers St!) What's worse, the events of 9/11 exposed the risk of having such a critical industry over-concentrated in one neighborhood. Those Wall Street firms that are still in Lower Manhattan were already looking for ways to reduce their geographic concentration risk before the tax increase was mooted.
Most observers have long agreed that, if Lower Manhattan is going to make a comeback, it will need to diversify the industries it appeals to, and also become more of a 24-hour community with a mix of residential, cultural, and business uses. There are just too many centrifugal forces pulling the brokerage industry out of Lower Manhattan.
The Brookfield proposal was an attempt to bring faster airport and LIRR service into Lower Manhattan relatively indexpensively. I say "relatively," because it would still cost billions—but a lot less than building a new East River tunnel. However, I think there are other ways of solving the problem without canibalizing subway service that is more valuable. My bet is that if any new LIRR/JFK service is implemented, it won't be the Brookfield proposal.
I do think it's worthwhile to replace the M to S Brooklyn with the 2004 W train, so that there's a relatively uncrowded train every 4 minutes from the R/W to Pacific.
Those trains run anyway, might as well concentrate them on 1 route to give reasonable headways.
Brookfield tenants get a totally indoors route to the LIRR once some sort of passageway is rebuilt to the R.
Good advice
--Mark
I have to disagree with you on this one to the extent that IF the police did not barge into her apartment then she would still be alive.. You see I am a firm believer in cause and effect - to me if A leads to B and B leads to C and C leads to D then A is responsible for it all. First of all the informant should be charged with murder and sent to jail for life. Then the police were negligent in not fully checking out the informant's story so the city should pay compensation... The bottom line is that no innocent person should ever have to suffer in any manner whatsoever - I'd rather see a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent person suffer.
As far as the NYPD is concerned I don't see any criminal liability but I can see how they can be found civily liable even though I disagree. It will never come to a civil trial as the city ALWAYS settles. If they are found civilly neglegent it would be on the wrong raid, not the flash grenade. I do think there is a civil case against the informant however the point is moot as it would be like getting blood from a stone.
Out here in the Wild West, the officer's declaration to obtain a warrant has to indicate that the CI is reliable and indicate what type of information he has provided in the past which has proved to be correct. A CI's first time statement without corroboration would never be the basis for a warrant. Unfortunately there has been at least one instance of police officers shading declarations to obtain a no knock night time warrant served by a team dressed in ninja suits which resulted in an innocent death when the homeowner believing it was a Manson type home invasion tried to defend his home and family with a hand gun.
Tom
Jeff I respect MOTORcycle riders (many ,from LI as a matter of fact, are close friends), but these kids who drive their "riceburners" througout here, day and night, are what he is talking about. If you don't live here, don't profess to know what is going on.
Peace,
ANDEE
Your "need" to drive is the result solely of the way you chose to arrange your life. You can't blame it on someone else or on fate. You choose to drive.
Most NYC residents get along just fine without cars. They choose not to drive.
I have as much a right to drive in the city as a pedestrian has to walk or a train passenger has to ride.
I'm not so sure about that.
A car takes up a lot more space than a pedestrian or a train passenger does. In a city where a small studio can rent for $1000 or more, that extra space is worth a lot of money -- money that motorists are never asked to pay, except on a fraction of the city's river crossings. The busiest highway lane in the city carries less traffic per day than the least busy subway track in the city does -- some subway tracks carry more in a single rush hour than that highway lane carries in an entire day. Cars are an incredibly inefficient way to get around this city, and we all pay for that inefficiency, especially city residents -- most of whom don't own cars.
Or do you mean that you have a legal right? Yes, you do. That is, assuming you obey all traffic laws. Like stopping for red lights (even ones that only turned red a second or two ago). Like yielding to pedestrians while turning. Like signaling before turning and changing lanes. Like only turning from the far right or left lane, unless otherwise marked. Like never driving or stopping in a bus lane or bus stop. Like never double parking. Like never honking, except in an emergency.
Now, I'm sure you obey all of these laws, but many drivers do not.
I will add that I would have much greater respect for the NYPD if these laws were enforced. I've never seen anyone ticketed for failing to yield to a pedestrian while turning, but I've had to jump back from NYPD vehicles (with sirens and lights off) numerous times while trying to legally cross the street with the walk signal.
Let me tell you what I saw around 12:30 this afternoon while on my lunch hour. A NYPD unit that had been westbound on W. 3rd turned right (southbound) onto Sixth Avenue, which of course is one way northbound. It had its lights on but siren off. It then made a quick right onto Carmine Street, going westbound on a one way eastbound street. The cops then made a quick right onto Bleeker and parked. What great emergency prompted this wrong-way driving? Slices of 'za at the pizzeria on the corner of Bleeker and Carmine.
Now, while these were short blocks on which the cops went the wrong way, the distance wasn't trivial, probably several hundred feet. Traffic was not heavy on Sixth or Carmine, but it wasn't light either, and the cops would know full well that the area's packed with pedestrians, who can't always be expected to look the "wrong" way for oncoming cars before stepping into the street.
My compass appears to be malfunctioning.
I meant left.
He has trouble describing anything turning left. :-)
Tom
Police officers are not exempt from the laws. When they exempt themselves, especially in ways that cause risk to others, they diminish the public's repsect.
I long for the day of ubiquitious nanoscale computing fabrics simply because that would enable sufficient computational power to build a workable "drive by wire" control network. Basically, to ensure compliance with everyday driving regulations. Remote power downs of law breaking drivers. Instant tickets. All that and more.
The moronic driving situation I encounter out here is gonna drive me back into Brooklyn again, sure as shootin'.
Drive-by-wire will work ONLY if:
- it guarantees the same short headways as the maniacal drive-by-neuron system does now;
- drivers can quickly take over in emergencies (hasn't happened on the Airbus);
- it won't attract so many more cars that it worsens the problem it was supposed to solve.
Drive-by-wire is the nineteen-fifties solution to moving people. Walking to mass transit (of whatever form) won't kill us, and there are good low-density transit solutions waiting to be applied to the suburbs.
What's the point of revving motors on cars and bikes, anyway? Macho-ness, and nothing more. I'm against Doomburg's ticket blitz but he definitely should do something about the incessant revving and horn honking.
www.forgotten-ny.com
P.S. I actually gave summonses for horn honking-not for danger.
Even worse are the rice burners. No other reason than to show off. "Hey look at me with all my stickers!" While we're at add those super bright headlights and foglights that actually are dangerous because they blind traffic in the other direction and pedestrians.
Then again I'd outlaw revving anything on 4 wheels with less than 400 cubes but that's me.
"The Los Angeles Times ran a story headlined, "Start Spreading the News, New York's Ticketing Today."
It came to the defense of that poor pregnant teenager who decided to take a rest on the subway steps:
"The police officer who cited her for briefly blocking a stairwell didn't seem to care that she was exhausted and reluctant to sit on a filthy subway bench."
Hello! There is no dirtier venue in this city than subway stairs, but the whining reporter ignored that this willful teenager was making it hard for subway riders to get to their destinations.
That's a no-no in the city that never sleeps, and the reason it never sleeps is because cars keep streaming in and out, with their horns blaring, brakes squealing and alarms going off."
Making it hard for subway rider's to get to thier destination's!? Say what!?!?!?!?!? Is he out of his damn mind or what!?All ya gotta do is walk down the stairs,making sure when you come down,you come down beside her.That's it.That's it!!It doesn't take rocket science to figure that out let alone it isn't to hard to do!And stop whining?HA! for God sake's people are getting ticketed for the stupidest crap we've ever heard of in our whole life and we should stop whining!? I like to see him get a ticket for everything he does in one day then we'll see if people really shouldn't whine or should.
Getting a ticket for crap like sitting on a milk crate or having to many words on an advertising board outside a restaurant is a sign of how pathetic this city has gotten since the terrorist attack's.Everyone has just gotten so damn paranoid,it's unbelieveable!Our President say's that we should continue living a normal life?How the hell are we supposed to do that when people keep reporting suspicious pakages left and right only for them to turn out to be absoultely NOTHING or seeing someone doing something that may look suspcious but it really isn't and the cops ticketing us for silly BS?
It's pathetic,it really is.We're not supposed to have let the terroist's win after what they did to us on 9/11 by going about our lives as normal even now almost 2 year's later?With the way everyone is acting these day's,I say they've won.
In any event it doesn't really matter to me - I can honestly say that I have NOT received a parking ticket in the last 5 years!! I accomplished that by NOT shopping or doing business with any store, or place of business that does not have a parking lot. I do most of my shopping in the Long Island or Westchester malls - and for clothing I will be spending lots of time in NJ now (heck - I go there to visit friends anyway so its no extra cost to stop at a mall on the way to their house). Books and software I buy online anyway...
As for taking public transit to do my shopping - NO WAY with these rules about taking up too much space - etc. Besides when I go shopping there's no way I can carry all the stuff home with me on a train or bus.
And as far as entertainment is concerned - My friends all smoke so now no-one wants to go out to dinner anymore either so I guess the restaurants won't be seeing any business from me or my friends... I won't go alone and they won't go if they can't smoke... As far as I am concerned the city deserves it if every bar and restaurant folds...
Actually you can still get a summons in a parking lot even though it's private property although the only summons you can get on private property is for parking in a handicapped spot. You also have to be careful if there is a sign stating "Parking for customers only, violators will be towed". Some of the tow companies that the store owners hire are very agressive and watch the lot with binoculars while hiding. The second someone leaves the lot or goes to another store not in the lot these guys will instantly show up, tow the car or boot the tire and charge outrageous rates to get the car back. The police cannot do anything about it, it is strictly a civil matter, if you think you were towed or booted in error you would have to sue or make a complaint to consumer affairs or the Better Bus. Bur.
I used to work in a Queens hospital and nurses were ticketed all the time because they could not always get out to move their cars and the hospital didn't have adequate parking. Well they used their leverage and a nursing shortage to force the administration to cave in - the hospital reimbursed them every time they got a ticket.
I actually pulled something similar to that once a long long time ago back in the day when tickets for expired meters were $25 - I had just purchased an expensive item and returned it to the store right away demanding a refund on the grounds that I had not budgeted for the ticket and now could not afford the purchase. The owner reimbursed me for the ticket just so he would not lose the sale :-)
If a tow company did that to me I would ask the store owner to reimburse me if he ever wanted to see me again.
"Parking for customers of XYZ store only" is interpreted by every reasonable person as meaning you definitely have to visit XYZ store, but not ONLY XYZ store.
By the way, as a public service announcement to all my friends at SubTalk:
Don't ever park in that parking lot by the marina on the Cross Island between Northern & Bell. YOU WILL GET TOWED!!! That lot is for marina members only. If you want to walk, skate, or jog on that great path you can park in that lot at the end of Bell by Fort Totten or on the street at the end of 35th Av by the lake and walking over the pedestrian bridge.
Thier were even some pretetor companies who would boot legally parked cars and drive people to the ATM to pay thier private fine
I believe the city concil passed another unenforced law to punish pretetory tow companies
There is one simple rule to follow when parking your car. If you don't know the spot is legal to park 100%, don't park thier. It saves alot of headaches
Most of those signs specifically state that parking is for customers only while patronizing that store. IMO, it's an extremely irresponsible practice; cold starts and short trips are when vehicles pollute the most.
Then you'll have to wait for Police Officer Steve GRABOWSKI and pay a small LARGE LATENESS PENALTY.
www.forgotten-ny.com
There is something to that. I think a store owner has a responsibility to provide suitable parking for his store even if it means he can't operate in a particular location. He also has a responsibility to provide a place for delivery trucks to make deliveries without parking illegally. If I drive someplace and there's no parking, I drive somewhere else or I make a note, skip it, and take the train next time. But I never park illegally; it's boorish, rude, and inconsiderate.
A store owner has a responsibility to provide exactly as much parking as he thinks would serve his business best -- no more and no less.
Most stores in Manhattan get by just fine with no parking at all. Their owners correctly conclude that the cost to provide parking in Manhattan would not be justified by the number of drive-up customers it would attract. In fact, parking lots deter walk-up customers unless they're particular unobtrusive.
Stores in good locations with either plenty of parking or ample foot traffic make the most money
Many people may not know but parking meters are actually good for busineses. It creates turnover of parking spaces that allow customers to get to stores, At a parking meter at least I know I am parked legally
Only if the police ticket people who feed the meter all day. It may happen in some places, but in lots of others, nobody checks to see that people actually move the vehicle after the maximum time has passed. Of course, sometimes the businesses themselves are the worst offenders in that regard. I know because I work at some of them.
It happens in Philadelphia. The meter maids pay close attention to cars, and use a combination of techniques to keep track. Feed the meter repeatedly, and you may wind up with a more costly ticket.
Business owners who take metered parking spots are hurting thier own business. If people can not find convient parking, people will show elsewhere.
Hey, If someone want to spend his/her day putting in quaters for people, good for them, they have no life.
I remember reading somewhere that a town arrested an old lady for feeding the meter. Apparrently thier is a statue against feeding a meter that someone elses car is parked in front of
It seems to be illegal in New York City. I was reading the traffic laws (available on Internet) last night and it does say that "any person" is prohibited from adding money to the meter past the maximum limit posted on the sign.
I guess that's one reason I like the subways; I HATE worrying about parking meters while I'm trying to get a job done at a client's location. Subway-- just get off, walk to where you're going, and just make sure you have an umbrella if it's a rainy day!
Business zoning is in multiple catagories but in Manhttan, it's storefront. Customers are pedestrian...they walk in off the street
and may have used mass transit or parked at a meter. I can take you to places in Manhattan where conglomerates like 'Home Depot' want to set up shop but zoning codes require parking facilities of prohibiive cost. On the other hand, conglomerates like Bradlees took over Mays on 14th Street without providing parking. As a vendor, I was a regular vistitor. As a Grand Juror, I met many of the people I had to check in with.......store was 'shoplifters Heavan.'
Business owners will often underestimate the number of parking places needed to save money...zoning boards will often screw up royally in excess. 'ToysR Us' by Kings Plaza in Brooklyn is a perfect example...small lot footprint half o which was assigned to 'handicapped parking. Go to a Home Depot and check out the handicapped spaces...chances are you'll never see em full of wheelchair customers carrying 4 X 12 sheets of sheetrock. Does NYC DOT make big bucks off parking meters Saturday on 13th Avenue in Brooklyn so why should you pay for a meter when businesses are closed?
My point is most NeuYorkers have no contact with zoning whatsoever and many business' could do better if there was parking so they could be competitive. I'd buy groceries in Food Emporium across the street
but they charge too much so I go to ShopRite in Mansfield, NJ. I'd buy out of pocket prescription eyeglasses from Kalmus' on 86th Street
but go to WalMart in E. Stroudsberg, Pa. I'd buy gasoline from BP off 241st in the Bronx but use Hess in Lodi, NJ. This goes on and on...NYC business' is locked into 'off the street'........#1 K-Mart in country is up by Co-op City (FreedomLand) with a huge parking lot and no mass transit. Business is....acsess. 'Build a stadium and they will come.' CI Peter
What are you talking about? That K-mart has a number of bus lines serving it. I take the bus there all the time.
Peace,
ANDEE
Three cheers for the mayor who was left with a sink full of dirty dishes by former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who spent the city's money - yours and mine - like a drunken sailor, leaving Bloomberg to clean up the mess and to dodge the brickbats of the whiners.
Waitasec, Mr. Dugan…are you now pretending that 9/11 never happened?!?!? How DARE you say that the ex-mayor spent money like a “drunken sailor”—perhaps you would prefer that he spent nothing in the wake of the attacks on the WTC??? How much money would Bloomberg have spent in that position, and would he have spent a dime of his own cash??? Bloomberg was not the mayor when the city was attacked—Giuliani was, and to attack the man like that is a disgrace, because he most assuredly did a fine job. As for “cleaning up the mess,” that was the job that Bloomberg took upon himself by getting himself elected Mayor—if anyone suddenly thinks that the big hole in the city’s budget could have been filled by the time of Rudy’s departure from office, then they are BSing the whole world.
Giuliani made several bad fiscal and managerial decisions during the boom in order to pander to different groups and enhance his own standing. He sucked money out of the future, and pushed costs off to the future.
Not he alone. So did Pataki, McCall, the state legislature, and Vallone. Each objected to the other's sell out. All the sell outs went through. Many corporations pulled many of the same shenanigans. Now the future is here for them, for New York City and New York State.
9/11 is a small part of the cause of the mess we are in now.
And Bush is pulling the same crap at the federal level.
Not all that small—I daresay that it is one of the major causes of investor pullout in the manufacturing and finance sectors. If Giuliani, for all his foibles, could have predicted what was in the future, he’d be more culpable. He is as human as the rest of us, but by saying that, I do not excuse his evident sins nor blow them up to the degree that Mr. Dugan has.
And Bush is pulling the same crap at the federal level
Bush has less of an excuse than Giuliani; his whole agenda is ongoing despite the whole 9/11 mess. To boot, he is the President (not officially recognized by some foreign powers), and as such is supposed to be more privy to national security matters.
Which foreign powers???
And by the way, what is that garbled subject?
Where's the R15 (as Steve B-8AVEXP) just said?
GLAD TO SEE the 6609 was removed from public TSQ.
But now for my question, what does 266 have on it? I saw that it had two large cylinders not unlike the old, huge CCTV camera housings that you still see occasionally. One was mounted on above the cab on the end opposite the pantograph, aimed downward at 45 degrees, while the other was located on the centerline, approximately halfway back the train, facing right along the longitudinal axis of the car. To me they really really look like cameras, but I suppose they could be nearly anything. Anyone know if 266 was involved in some kind of test? Perhaps, going off my original hypothesis, it was some kind of video making.
Thanks to anyone with any information
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
took 20 secounds to pull up an example
http://tickets.amtrak.com/Amtrak/sid=367A9D95FEEEA61A345B7E790A542530/availability?storefront=1003&pageID=main
I was on the second(?) diverted SB Q. The first one ran down the 4th Avenue local and West End (express, I think) to Bay Parkway, relayed, and returned to service NB as a local. The second one ran express on both, terminating with no advance warning at Bay Parkway.
Some Q's ended up on the Sea Beach, at least one running light down the express track. At one point, a NB Q with passengers passed through 36th on the express track without stopping(!), followed immediately by an empty Q on the local track. The local Q then entered service at Pacific and pulled out at the same time as the N across the platform, which proceeded to go through the DeKalb bypass and over the bridge.
There were some other unusual occurrences, like two consecutive NB M's at 36th and two consecutive NB N's in Manhattan.
To top it all off, when I got back into Manhattan, R trains were being diverted via 63rd. I don't know if any Q's turned at 42nd or if N/W service was disrupted.
Photos are forthcoming.
Two years ago I was on an orange Q that ran down the Culver to Kings Highway due to a stabbing at Grand:
Here are a few others I found roaming around the system:
What are they building at the S/E of the N/B plat do you know? The other day I was there and the tower was completely gone (not even a skeleton like you see now), and it looks like they're building something new.
The skeleton at Bay Parkway? I'm pretty sure it's been there for many months. Am I wrong? It's gotten in the way at more than one of my photography sessions.
I didn't notice the skeleton the other day. Maybe the one you saw before was the old frame and they ripped it down and replaced it with a new one. Unfortunately I got no pictures the other day at Bay Parkway when I noticed it.
I do remember thinking "the tower's gone."
Makes sense.
As I told the T/O, we all knew it was going to happen eventually.
Lets hope that the completed office project overhead solves the problem
The law specifies that a pet may be carried on the subway (or bus) as long as it is in a proper carrier. A handbag is not a proper carrier, since the dog could easily escape. A service animal, of course, need not be in a carrier, but must be wearing a proper harness.
David
Advice to all: think about what you're going to write before you write it -- and that includes responses to my post :-)
David
Not really. Your previous post could be easily interpreted as being intentional. The problem is really perception.
"I'll get you and your little dog"
Yes, I have had people with pets ejected.
That's the problem with some Subtalkers, they don't think rationally ;-).
Just the mental picture of this with a dog that is a Lab/Boxer mix brought a smile to my face. That would have to be one hell of a big bag.
Tom
***Disclaimer: I in no way condone the stuffing of any animal into a Gucci handbag or any other confining object.
Well, good advise but funny. AHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHHHAHAHAHAH AHOO HOOO HOOO HOOO...LOL! AHHHAHAHAHA OMG.. HEY GP38 CHRIS. DID YOU HEAR THIS? I think you and I have lost this much calories thanks to Chapter 11. He really is funny.
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAA HA HA HA..LOL. I'm sorry buddy, I really can't help myself on this laugh. Wait a min! U said shove its heads down inside the handbag. With what? With a wallet?..LOL..OMG. U r one funny dude. Thank u for making me loss 300 calories from this hardest laugh. LOL. Don't I won't tell my friends on this. You have my word. LOL.
The tosser is in custody. Thankfully, no one was hurt. I'm sure that there will be more on this later.
I haven't seen anything across the AP or the other wires yet - just mentioned on Fox.
Also, "It was not clear whether the grenade, one of two in the man's possession, was a live weapon."
The episode began about 8 p.m. with the robbery attempt at the Redskins store inside the station, touching off a pursuit that ended near First and G streets NE, where the man wrestled with a U.S. Capitol Police officer and the Amtrak officer. "In the altercation, the pin [on the grenade] was pulled and the Amtrak officer held it closed and secured" until a bomb disposal unit reached the area and took possession of the object, an Amtrak spokesman said.
That would be difficult to do inside a railroad station.
Tom
When the spoon comes off a grenade, there are never any "good" options. :0(
Sadly not our experience in London. That is why you won't find trash bins anywhere on British railway stations. Too easy to hide a bomb amongst the trash.
I had been planning on sending out part two of “Laying a Little Iron” this time, but the photos to accompany it have not yet been posted to the web site that is going to host them. And being that it has been almost a month since that last column went out, I figured I needed to get something out to all of you, so here we go.
A few years ago I took you on a tour through a standard locomotive cab which has often been referred to as the “Spartan” cab. Way back then I mentioned that we would take another tour again in the future, with next tour being through a super cab. Well that future has finally arrived and now it is time get around to it with today’s lesson.
There are a couple of interior versions of super cabs, one with the standard control stand and one with the desk top control stand. With these differences come some changes to the interior to get everything needed and required to fit in space provided. There is only so much room in there and every item must be placed accordingly.
While once an option chosen only by the Canadian railroads, the super cab made huge inroads onto the U.S. railroads beginning in the very late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Within a few short years, the super cab became the preferred choice of locomotive cab. Only two railroads, Illinois Central and Norfolk Southern continued to choose the standard cab for their locomotive orders by the mid 1990’s. The preference was so overwhelming that both Electro Motive Division of GM and General Electric made the super cab the standard and the standard cab the option on new locomotives.
When NS and CSX agreed to purchase and split Conrail, the very last order of SD70’s ordered for Conrail (which were to be assigned to NS after Conrail was split) would go to NS. This power came equipped with the standard cab. By the latter 1990’s even NS decided to go with the now standard, super cab on their new locomotive acquisitions. IC’s very last order of new locomotives (before their merger CN) was with ordered with the standard spartan cab. The IC 1039 has the distinction of being the very last locomotive ordered for and used in North America to be built with the standard Spartan cab.
By the end of the 90’s, both of the major locomotive builders dropped the standard spartan cab from their catalogs. Today, the super cab is it for all road switcher type of power.
For those not familiar with the Whisper Cab (an exclusive EMD option that is trademarked and copyrighted), this option had the cab isolated from the rest of the locomotive structure. It is separated from the rest of the car body using bushings to fill the gaps. If you look at a Whisper Cab locomotive, you will see what resembles weather stripping between the front of the cab and the nose and the back of the cab and the car body.
The cab is actually isolated from the rest of the locomotive, but attached using a special type of connection system. This system vastly reduces noise in the cab of the locomotive. Even with the throttle is run 8 and the locomotive under a dead pull, the noise level in the cab is very low and the crew can speak back and forth across the cab in normal tones. This system greatly reduces fatigue caused by the constant exposure to the high noise levels and the having to shout back and forth across the cab. Road noise from the track bed below is also greatly reduced. It is so quiet in the cab when the locomotive is idling it almost seems that the engine is dead.
Now when the windows are open, you can still get blasted out of the cab by the whistle. Surrounding noise from the outside (including the sounds of the prime mover revving and reverberating from overpasses and cars along side the locomotive) will enter the cab. The dynamic brake system is also somewhat noisier in the cab (even with the windows closed) but still quieter than the regular version.
The only real drawback from the on-board crew perspective is that the Whisper Cab units tend to ride rougher. Being that the cab is isolated from the rest of the car body, it will shake and wiggle more on rougher track. You can look at the front of the cab where it meets up with nose and readily observe the motion of the cab whereas the rest of the unit is more stable. Despite the excess motion and rougher ride, I’ll tolerate it in exchange for the quieter environment in which to work.
With this background complete, we will now begin our tour using the cab of CN 5718, a super cab, standard control stand equipped SD75I. The 5718 is part of the single biggest order of locomotives CN ever purchased. This particular locomotive was built in 1996 and carries frame number 959616-93. It features the Electro Motive Division option of the whisper cab; hence the “I” (for isolated cab) in the SD75 model description. We begin our tour by climbing the four steps on the front staircase up to the front catwalk. The front cab door opens from the right to the left. On General Electric super cab units, the door opens from left to right. This door overlaps when it closes instead of sealing flush. This is a safety feature in the event of a crash. The door will not be pushed inside the nose.
We head on in first encountering the storage area in the wide nose. To our left we observe a tool locker. Inside this locker are supplies needed for situations that may arise. There are tools like a hammer and chisel, a sleeve to use on a broken train line, cotter pins and some other items.
To the right is a rack that holds several extra air hoses. There is also a wrench used to change hoses, a flagging kit with fusees and a red flag, a stretcher (required by law in Canada), a switch broom for cleaning snow, a straw broom for sweeping out the cab and a chain. The sander relays for the number one set of trucks are also located on the right side.
There are also two lights, one at eye level and one on the floor. The top light is operated from a switch located inside the door while the bottom one is operated from a switch located on the control stand.
Another door (a steel one) leads us into the corridor inside the front of the cab itself. To our left is a cubbyhole that holds the microwave oven. A collective bargaining agreement in Canada requires a microwave oven on all trains with crews that operating in interdivisional service. The electrical system on locomotives is a 74V system and these ovens are useless in your house with a 110V system.
Below and to the left of the microwave is the event recorder. This item is required by law in the United States. Information about speed and other specific functions are recorded and able to be downloaded onto a disk for readout and review. I am planning on doing a piece about event recorders and will delve deeper into the use at that point.
On the right side of the corridor is the toilet. This is a rather cramped room with a free standing stainless steel toilet. A holder for a roll of toilet paper and a rack for holding supplies like crew packs are located in this room. There is also a pull down wash basin that drains whenever the basin is placed back into the storage position. There is also a garbage can mounted on the privacy door. A light switch is located outside to the left of the door leading into the toilet.
Along the right side of the three steps leading up into the cab itself, is a refrigerator. This handy item is another required by law in Canada. Drinking water is kept ice cold in here. Employee lunches are also frequently stored in the “fridge” as well.
As we climb the stairs we encounter the back side of the standard control stand to our left. On the kick panels of the stairs are vents which are part of the air circulation system of the cab. A walkway light is located next to the bottom step for safety and visibility.
At the top of the stairs we observe a seat directly in front of us. This is the third cab seat and is about right in the middle section of the cab and placed right in front of the high voltage cabinet. We swing around to our left and move into the Engineer’s side of the cab, which is actually the rights side of the locomotive as you are facing the front of the cab. Like in standard cab locomotives, this control stand is to the left side of the Engineer as they face forward.
After a vote by CN Locomotive Engineers several years ago, it was overwhelmingly decided to go with the standard control stand as opposed to the desk top variety that was installed in the SD50F, SD60F and Dash 8-40CW locomotives. Over 80% of the Engineers voted in favor of returning to the standard control stand. On all new CN locomotives obtained beginning with the Dash 9-44C and SD70I’s the standard control stand again became the standard.
On CN locomotives, the control stand is mounted in the bi-directional mode. In this manner, the control stand is mounted parallel to the right side cab wall as opposed to being mounted at an angle towards the front of the locomotive and facing the Engineer. In this bi-directional mount, the controls are easier to operate when operating the unit long hood forward or backwards as it is often referred.
We tour the control stand beginning with the upper left hand corner. First on the tour is the Control Display Unit (CDU). This box, mounted in the dash so to speak, is often referred to as the head of train device. It is linked with the end of train device and displays information to the Engineer such as tail end air pressure, whether the rear car is moving or stopped, and if the highly visible marker light is being displayed among other information. It also has controls for the Engineer to use to link up and arm the tail end box to the head end box for two way operation and also the dump switch for placing the tail end of the train into emergency. Pulse (now Wabtec) CDU’s designed for Canada are set up slightly different than those used in the U.S. The displays are different as there are only six information lights as opposed to the eight used on American models. The wiring hardware is also of a different pattern and they are not interchangeable with each other.
Just below the CDU is the radio. It is also mounted in the dash. It is the popular Motorola Spectra series radio with 97 channel capability. On the side of the control stand is the handset for the radio which is cradled in a plastic mount. It is connected to a jack in the control stand which is connected to the radio itself.
Below the radio is the rack with the automatic and independent brake valves. They are the WABCO 30CW schedule and often found on the desk top control stands. To make it work on the standard control stand, the unit is simply turned sideways with the automatic brake valve on top and the independent brake valve at the bottom. They still work exactly the same as designed though.
Below the brake valve rack are (from left to right) the rear headlight control switch and cab vent and heating control switch. While this locomotive is not equipped with air conditioning, those that are also have the A/C control on this switch. The rear headlight switch, like the front headlight switch has three settings; dim, medium and bright. Another switch we will observe in a moment controls the ditch lights in conjunction with the headlights.
Back up to the top and right of the CDU is the whistle handle. On these locomotives the whistle valve is not an air powered device but rather and electric switch. Whenever the whistle is sounded, the bell automatically turns on as well.
Right below the whistle handle is the bell. This is also an electric switch as opposed to being air powered. This switch has two buttons, one for on and one for off. Below the bell is the horn sequencer button. This button, when depressed, automatically sounds the whistle in the required, two longs, one short and one long sequence. On EMD built locomotives this sequencer does not calculate speed so it sounds in the exact same manner all the time. This means if you are moving at say 30 MPH, the sequence will sound completely well before you each the crossing and then repeat until you stop the sequencer. I prefer to sound the whistle the old fashioned way. The bell also is sounded when the sequencer is activated. Pressing the sequencer button again will stop the whistle and turn off the bell.
Next in line comes the alerter reset button, also known as the reset safety control. This must be depressed to acknowledge the alerter when it begins to flash and the alarm begins to sound, if you wait that long to acknowledge it. There is also a foot pedal to acknowledge the alerter as well. This pedal is placed directly in front of the control stand in the area below the throttle.
The manual sander and lead truck sander buttons are below the alerter reset. On these units both of these switches are buttons to be depressed and held. On some models there is either a toggle switch or a large knob. An attendant call button is just to the left of the sander buttons. On the newer CN power instead of this sounding a bell, it is an electronic beep that sounds exactly the same as the alarm sounded when a truck backs up. This beep is also what sounds when there is a locomotive failure.
Below all of this is the on/off switch and dimmer switch for the rear speedometer. Beginning with the SD75I model and the Dash 9-44C models, all new CN locomotives have an additional speedometer mounted on the high voltage cabinet behind the Engineer. This is a very handy item as it places a speedometer in the direction in which you are moving. This makes it much easier to observe your speed without being required to have to constantly turn around and look at the speedometer thus taking your eyes of the road constantly. That translates into a safer working environment.
Back to the control stand now; to the right of the above mentioned equipment are the gauges. There are two duplex gauges for the air and brake system. One is the gauge that reads equalizing reservoir and main reservoir pressure and the other reads brake pipe and locomotive brake cylinder pressure, all in pounds per square inch. To the right of these gauges in an air flow gauge that measures the flow of air pressure in cubic feet per minute through the brake pipe.
To the far right is the amp gauge. The grid on the right side of this gauge measures the amperage for traction to move the locomotive and the train. The left side of this gauge reads amperage being generated in dynamic braking.
There is a ledge below these gauges. This is the optimum spot to place a coffee cup, soda or water bottle and other items. Just below the ledge are the dynamic brake controller, throttle handle and reverser handle. Aside from their placement, the other way to tell their difference is the way they are positioned. They are the same style of handle, oval in shape. We will discuss these handles a little more in depth later.
There is a slow speed controller switch used in conjunction with the slow speed setting in the microprocessor. This switch increases or decreases the speed in increments of 0.1 MPH from a super slow speed of 0.1 up to 10 MPH. This feature is used for loading unit coal or rock trains where constant very slow speeds are required.
To the right of the throttle there is a red alarm silencer button used when an engine alarm is sounded. To quiet the alarm so it doesn’t drive you completely nuts, you depress this button. It silences the alarm and illuminates a lamp inside the button. The lamp reminds you of an alarm indicating some sort of mechanical or electrical problem with this or a trailing locomotive in the consist without having to listen to that constant beeping sound. The lamp stays illuminated until the problem is resolved or the offending unit is isolated to silence the alarm.
Below the alarm silencer are the ditch light control switches. There are two switches, one for the front and one for the rear ditch lights. These switches allow for the ditch lights to be turned off when the front or rear headlight of that unit are operated in the bright setting. Whenever the toggle switch for either switch is in the on position, that set of ditch lights will automatically illuminate when those headlights are turned on to the bright setting. The front headlight control switch is right below the ditch switch.
To the right of this group of switches starting from the top to the bottom of the far right side of the control stand are several clusters of sliding switches. They include the Engine Run, Generator Field, and Fuel Pump & Control switches, the Gauge Lights, Pilot Lights, Number Lights, the Ground Lights, Step Lights Front, and finally Step Lights Rear. On the far right side of the control stand (which faces the front of the cab) is the dimmer switch for the gauge lights. About a foot below the dimmer switch is a holder for the reverser handle when it is removed from its operating position.
Let’s jump over to the left side of the control stand on the actual left side of the stand itself. Below the radio handset holder is the regulating valve. This round, knobby valve is used to set the equalizing reservoir pressure. Below this valve right above the floor is the MU2A valve. This valve is used to cut in or cut out the independent brake valve.
In the very front of the locomotive is a shelf of sorts. This is the area above the front right cubby hole, the toilet on the left, the front entrance to the cab and below the front window. It comes in handy to place various items like crew packs.
Above the shelf and the front windows is what looks like a cabinet. From left to right on this cabinet we have the computer screen and its keypad. On this screen we have access to various locomotive functions and features. Instead of a traction motor cut out switch, we use the computer to cut them out. And with this system we can cut out individual traction motors instead of cutting them out in the pairs of 1 & 6, 2 & 4 or 3 & 5 as with the rotary style cut out switch.
This screen is also displays horsepower output, malfunctions and failures and dynamic brake output. Set up for the slow speed function is also achieved using this screen. There is also a mode to run locomotive loading tests and other features for the mechanical department. There are also several other functions available in this system including a fault archive which can track locomotive failures.
To the right of the screen is a grid of lights. This grid is broken into six, one inch squares. Each square has a specific indication. On this particular unit only four of the six are used; Wheel Slip, Pneumatic Control Switch (PCS Open), Slow Speed (illuminated when this system is engaged) and Brake Warning (when there is excessive current in the dynamic brake grid. While the others are white in color, the PCS square is red and the brake warning square is yellow.
To the right of the indicator light grid is the toggle switch and dimmer control for the Engineer’s reading lamp. The reading lamp is located on the underside of this cabinet. Another toggle switch operates the heaters in the windshield. A light next to this switch illuminates when the heaters are activated. The area where all these switches is located is set up with a system of latches and a hinge on the underside. This panel can be unlatched and swung open to allow for access to the inside of this area by mechanical forces.
Below the shelf and just to the right of the control stand is the rack with the speedometer. A dimmer switch is located to the right of it. The alerter indicator light and alarm is also located on this rack to the far right.
To the far right below the shelf is a table. This table even has a cup holder. A set of safety bars surround this table area.
On the right side of the cab are four windows. Two of them are sliding windows. Outside of the front slider is a full length rear view mirror. A full length mirror is also located on the Fireman’s side as well. Back on the Engineer’s side behind the rear slider is another mirror, about one fourth the size of the big one. It faces the front of the locomotive. When it is adjusted correctly, it allows you to observe the front steps on the Engineer’s side. It reflects back into the large mirror so you can easily observe what is happening so that you don’t have to hang your head out the window. With the design of the cab being what it is, you cannot see anybody boarding or detraining from the front of the locomotive. This mirror allows you to observe these activities making it an important safety feature.
Above the windows is the cab light. To the right of the cab light is a group of three knobs. These knobs operate the windshield wipers on the Engineer’s side. The top one operates the rear wiper, the middle knob operates the front center wipers and the bottom knob operates the front wiper directly in front of the Engineer. On the Fireman’s side is this exact same arrangement of cab light and windshield wiper controls.
There are three vents directly above the window frame, two of them with sliding louvers to adjust the air flow. Again, this same arrangement of vents is located on the Fireman’s side as well.
On the floor below the windows is another set of vents. These vents along with the ones above the window allow for sufficient air flow throughout the entire cab. There are additional vents arranged like this on the Fireman’s side of the cab as well.
We turn now directly behind the Engineer’s side of the cab and observe the high voltage cabinet (HVC). The door on the far left (as you face the cabinet) allows access to the battery box. There is the knife switch that connects the battery circuit. There are various circuit breakers inside this cabinet as well. On the outside of this cabinet door is the previously mentioned rear speedometer. This speedometer makes it much easier to monitor your speed when operating long hood forward or when you are backing up and facing the direction of the movement.
There is a holder that keeps a tag with a chain. This tag is marked “Handbrake Applied.” When you leave a locomotive unattended and apply the handbrake, this tag is removed from the holder and placed onto the control stand to warn the next Engineer of the handbrake being applied on this and possibly trailing units in the consist. The chain on the top of this tag allows it to be hung from the whistle handle.
Below the speedometer on the door below the battery box door is a holder for the locomotive work reports. These reports are required to be filled out by each Engineer that operates the locomotive. On CN these reports are known as 538-A reports. There is also another form called the F-1443 which is the daily inspection report which is also located in this holder. This form is required to be filled out in conjunction with performance of the daily inspection in addition to the daily inspection card that must be filled out.
To the right of the battery box door at the top of the high voltage cabinet is a set of switches and knobs. The switches (sliding switches like on the control stand) operate the dynamic brake cut out, dynamic brake circuit breaker, engine room lights, HVC lights and Fresh Air/Make Up Blower. One of the knobs operates the multiple unit headlight control and the other is the isolation switch. The isolation switch is used to take a unit “off line” isolating it from responding to the throttle or dynamic brake. It also silences the alarm resulting from a failure or problem on that particular locomotive. Also on this panel is the emergency fuel cut off button. A gauge located on this panel also measures battery charge.
There are several other doors located on the HVC. Several of them have holders of some sort or instructions badges for operating the EMDEC computer, draining the cooling system and toilet. One of the holders keeps a red tag that is marked “Do Not Start” and the other side reading “Leave Isolated.” This tag is hung from a hanger over the isolation switch to notify the Engineer to observe the instructions on whatever side of the tag is facing out.
The other holder is of clear plastic and arranged into four sections. One section holds the 31-0006 Yellow Card. This is the card required in Canada to verify the mandatory quarterly and periodic inspections required on locomotives. Another section hold the F6180-49A Blue Card, This is the U.S. counterpart to the yellow card. In the U.S. the blue card must be on display in a conspicuous location with the cab. The yellow card is not required to be displayed in the U.S but for logical reasons always kept on display. The third holder carries Federal Communications Commission form 410. This is the Certificate of Canadian Radio Station License and Permit for Operation in the U.S. The last section holds the daily inspection card. The daily inspection card must be filled out once each calendar day the locomotive is in service. The date, location, time and name or initials of the employee performing this inspection must be placed on this card.
Below the card holder rack is a case that holds paper towels or crew packs and moist towellettes. A garbage can is mounted on the floor to the right of the HVC below the Fireman’s side rear window.
Over to the Fireman’s side now; despite the fact there are no longer Fireman on the railroad, traditions die hard. I still call the left side of the cab by the traditional old name even though it is really now the Conductor’s side. At the front of the cab right behind the front shelf and in front of the seat is a desk. This desk provides the Conductor with a secure surface to write and perform other duties. This desk opens swinging up from front to rear. Inside the desk required forms, crew packs, rulebooks and other items may be stored. On all units assigned to Canada, a copy of the Canadian Railway Operating Rules and the supplement to it are kept on board and normally stored in the desk.
To the right of the desk top is a cup holder and hot plate (required by law in Canada). A coffee pot is part of the hot plate. Coffee can be brewed in this pot (there is a basket inside for this purpose). Below the hot plate is another radio handset for the Conductor’s use. An emergency brake valve handle is also located to the left of the handset.
Above the desk from left to right are a radio volume control that operates the volume for a speaker above the Conductor as well as their handset, the reading light toggle switch and dimmer switch, a speedometer dimmer switch, the speedometer and a switch to operate the lights inside the nose and corridor. The reading lamp is mounted to the underside of the cabinet above the Conductor’s desk.
Now we move to the right of the desk. Above the step are a group of red marker lights. These lights are tied into the headlights and ditch lights. There are four sets of lights arranged in groups of two. Whenever any set of headlights and/or ditch lights are illuminated, the corresponding marker lights will illuminate. An illuminated number light is also located here. The road number of the locomotive is posted here, in this case the 5718. The light inside of this is tied into the gauge lights on the control stand.
There is a cushion located at the bottom of this section mounted to the area right above the stairs. This cushion is provided so that taller employees do not whack their heads against the hard steel. Ya, it happens.
As we scan around the inside of the cab, we observe that it is painted a beige color which is very pleasing to the eyes. The ceiling is made up of a plastic fabric instead of steel. A fluorescent light is placed in the center of the ceiling to offer greatly improved interior lighting.
To the left of the illuminated road number is the statement “Fully Equipped CTC and FRA 223 Glazing” This same statement appears in French immediately below the road number.
The road number in decal form is located immediately above the computer screen.
There are three seats in the cab, the previously mentioned center seat as well as one for the Engineer and one for the Conductor. These seats use cloth fabric on them which makes them cooler in the summer. Their overall design also makes them more comfortable as there are two separate adjustments (on the Engineer and Conductor seats only) to move them forward and backward; one on the pedestal they are mounted on and one that allows them to truck forward and back where the pedestal is mounted on the cab wall. There is height adjustment, back adjustment, and bottom cushion adjustment to allow the pitch of the seat to be adjusted as well. All of the seats include armrests and also adjustable height footrests. These footrests can also be rotated (independently from the seat) to other positions.
There are four sun visors, two on each side of the cab that are fully adjustable.
The front windshield is two separate pieces, one on either side of the front center post of the cab. These windows, like the side and rear windows are made up of what is referred to as “missile resistant” glass. No, it won’t stop a Stinger missile from blasting through it, but they are designed to stop the projectiles or missiles thrown at us by those with a passion for trying to injure or kill railroaders. They also stop and resist smaller caliber weapon fire. Having been shot at several times in my career, I can testify to this fact. Like an automobile windshield they are made up of two separate pieces of glass (a different type than normally used in automobiles) with a sheet of plastic in between them. There is also a special coating on the exterior side of the glass as well.
With the type of heating and ventilating system common to these units, window heaters are part of this windshield system. There are no columns or vents for forced air to blow against the windows to provide defogging and defrosting. Unlike the rear window defroster on most automobiles though, this system doesn’t use a grid of wire strips all through the glass, just one single strip at the very top and bottom of each plate of glass. The front and rear windows are equipped with this system.
There are a total of six front wipers, arranged in groups of one and two on either side. There is directly in front of the Engineer and Conductor and a group of two on either side of the center portion of the windows. There are single wipers on both rear cab windows.
The control stand is painted a light brown with the section for the throttle, dynamic brake and reverser handle molded in black plastic.
The throttle and reverser handles are oval in shape. Aside from the difference in height placement (dynamic brake above the throttle handle) they are also mounted to designate their difference. The throttle is mounted with the wide spot of the oval sitting vertical. The throttle handle is mounted with wide spot of the oval horizontal. They also pull in opposite directions.
If you recall the CSX locomotive and cut of cars that got away in Ohio last year and ran for miles with nobody on board, you might recollect the “formal” explanation given on how this incident occurred. It was stated the Engineer accidentally pulled the wrong handle wanting to pull on the dynamic brake instead of the throttle. Among other reasons, with the fact the throttle and dynamic handles are mounted differently and pull in opposite directions I do not buy into this explanation at all.
One final note before we conclude today’s tour; every label and instructional sign or badge on this locomotive is written in both English and French. Being that CN has a significant operation in Quebec and this province is the corporate headquarters of our company are probably significant factors of this philosophy as well. If I recall correctly, most of the Canadian Pacific locomotives I have ever operated were all marked in English only.
As you can see, the super cabs, also known as Canadian cabs owing to their origin there can really be considered comfort cabs. For the most part, they have been well designed. CN and the locomotive builders worked closely together to achieve such a working environment. Over the years, modifications have been made. Comparing the earliest models to what has been produced in the past seven or eight years, today’s version is far superior. The nose has been redesigned, the placement and location of some of the interior features have been changed and the type of windows has also been changed.
The windows and the nose are two big changes that are readily visible to the trackside observer. The earlier super cab units had a four window arrangement in the front. This created three separate posts between the windows creating sort of an irritation factor. This was changed to a two window arrangement with a single post separating them and offering a clearer view for the crew on the locomotive. It also gives a feeling of more openness and less of the cramped feeling.
The shape of the nose has been modified as well. This offers a little more space inside as well as a little better visibility. This also allowed for a change in the front windows. The bottom right area of the Engineer’s window and the bottom left area of the Conductor’s window drop down lower than the rest of the window bottom allowing for better visibility. This gives it a look sort of like this:
________
I I
I___ I
\____I instead of just a rectangle.
There are two major drawbacks to the super cab units though. The first is the loss of about twenty feet of visibility immediately right in front of the locomotive. In exchange for the increased comfort and ergonomics of the cab though, I have learned to live with this impairment. The other is on units not equipped with air conditioning; these cabs can get extremely hot when it is very warm outside. The central ventilating system essentially re-circulates the already heated air in the cab. The sliding side windows do not allow for great air circulation inside the much larger cab area, so it does get and stay much hotter in there.
While some railroads with the super cab have not opted for some of the features CN locomotives have, they are still roomier and usually more comfortable than the old standard cabs.
And with that we conclude today’s tour. At some point we will tour the interior of a super cab unit equipped with the desk top control stand. Stay tuned. Watch your step as you detrain and have a good day.
And so it goes.
Tuch
Hot Times on the High Iron, ©2003 by JD Santucci
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
One thing for sure, it is NOT Los Angeles, all the Red Line cars are 500's up to about 604. Blue Line cars are 100 to the 160's, and the Green and Gold Line stuff is 200's.
Anyway, Todd Glickman, if you are free at some point from Wenesday at 4:00 to Friday at 12:30 maybe we could meet again and discuss stuff. It was really fun the last time.
R-12 #5760.....This car was used in the consist on the last run on the Bronx Third Ave "el".
R-15 #6239.....This was was used for the air condition test. The test was a failure as we all know.
R-17 #6609.....This one's a giveaway. Used in the Grand Central Shuttle scene of the French Connection.
R-33 #9306.....Not only, the first R-33 single unit, but this car was used in the Fifth Ave Association parade. #9306 was on a flat bed trailer with balloons near the roof line.
Bill "Newkirk"
This was 27 Years in the making....
When the cars go back home to Court St, they'll be stuffed and mounted for another two decades.
-Stef
:l
Be nice if the Railway Pres Soc and the Museum got together on that one and ran all the operational cars.
David
I'm still willing to bet 3352 ran on Day One, if it was on the property.
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
--Mark
--Mark
That's the BEST news I've heard all day! Thanks! I previously assumed they would be going back into mothball.
---Chapter 11 Choo Choo
--Mark
The other thing to consider is the SMEEs are at the back of the platform, everytime an excusrion comes up, all of the cars in front of it would have to be moved. That too costs money.
-Stef
Presumably they could rearrange the exhibits to have more frequently used cars in the front before the museum opens...
The Executive Director of the Transit Museum has the final say as to what happens with the equipment. She may prefer the equipment to remain at the station for the sake of serving as a static display. Who's in the business of entertaining railfans? I don't see many out there with that intent.
-Stef
That's it, I gotta see this movie before 6/29.
R-33 #9306.....Not only, the first R-33 single unit, but this car was used in the Fifth Ave Association parade. #9306 was on a flat bed trailer with balloons near the roof line.
-Stef
-Stef
Not to be confused with the Broadway local to 27 inches from the North Pole.
Everybody knows Santa's Workshop is at the North Pole. (Unlike 76th St, the Workshop exists, only true believers can see it.)
Only way you could see 76th Street is with a jackhammer and a dump truck.
Despite rational people who have PROFF, but never deliver it.
No, it's a depot on the West London Line. It's where Eurostars live.
Don't know... is 76th Street anywhere near Greenpoint? :-)
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
"That's it, I gotta see this movie before 6/29."
Are you serious ? You've never see the 1971 classic movie French Connection ? If you haven't, fasten you seat belts for the under the "el" chase scene !
Bill "Newkirk"
I think you may be referring to the 6800 series R-17's which were a ten car A/C set. Also a failure too.
Bill "Newkirk"
-Stef
P.S. Also, the look on the faces of customers on the platform as you pass them is priceless...
You think of everything don't u? Even got the customers in the act! LOL!
-Stef
And is the kiss why the expression on the lady in the middle of the bottom pic?
Not only were the people on the platform looking at me funny, but many of the MOD riders were looking at me funny :)
(Well, maybe your funny-looking.)
Seriously though, the reactions of the people on the platfrom are what makes it all worthwhile. I always love it when let's say a 5 is running as a 2, and you get the reactions. This is 10 times better!! The last photo is priceless.
Hey, Choo Choo took the picture AFTER I was being a naughty boy by blowing a kiss to the woman in the middle, laughing.
DUUUDE...
the first blonde in pic 1 is the one who shoulda woulda coulda shoulda damn gotten a kissy!!
Wao.
I know about the blonde in the first picture, but I was in a different car when Choo Choo took it. But evidently she would've deserved a Frenchie, easily.
--Mark
Mmmm heh heh Hey baby.
Quotes from Beavis and Butthead.
FIRST thing I said to that first blonde in the first pic.
Tho I did a spittake at the PINK Yawnkee hat...
--Mark
1. It was late and I didn't want to see anymore of Fred's pets since it was the 3rd time through the Montague Rat-nel and;
2. Had I stayed on, the entire train would have a monster on their hands when they got to Avenue H on the N/B express track and the T/O was not slowing down one bit.
Enough said LOL. Too bad you didn't go down the dip bypassing Avenue H that would of been a blast!
"THERE'S ANOTHER ONE!!!!"
GANGWAY!!!!!!!
Use raw mode and you could even brighten it up without creating too much bright noise.
Practice. Take your camera one day and just shoot. They way I found the best settings wasn't even with a train. I stood on the platform, adjusting settings and twisting slightly as I took a picture of a column sign. From there I learned the tolerance of the camera for movement at certain settings. You may look silly for a while but it works.
Or maybe she was getting ready to take it off for the camera.
I said it before, the looks on their faces are priceless.
-Stef
I would think so ... somehow, she just doesn't look like the Girls Gone Wild type.
Yup. Of course, the more unusual the equipment, the more surprised the customers are. Here is a picture from an earlier trip that you might find amusing...
P.S. - Dave, when is the next picture contest?
*********************************************************************
This fits in with all the US vs Europe debate.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df06092003.shtml#Passenger
Sqoo the passengers, we make money off the freight!
*********************************************************************
Now appearing in the 4th Destination Freedom in a row.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df06092003.shtml#Oregon
*********************************************************************
Yea! They live! Boy you just can't kill those old F40's!
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df06092003.shtml#Two
The R36WFs do not remotely have any of these things going for them, and so the only thing they could be used for is baggage, and still, the size and quality of construction of the R32s would make the R32s better candidaes for anything(not that there is any reason for this, as other retired coaches would still do a better job for this)
PS. The R36WF wasnt a very special fleet in any way. There is nothing about them that was not carried out better in either the R10, R32, or R62 fleet. These cars should have been torched/sunk a long time ago
Come now, that's a little extreme. G-d created all of the Redbirds, and he loves them equally :) I happen to like the ML better than the WF, but as the saying goes, "One WF in the hand is worth two ML in the bush."
*********************************************************************
Including one Subtalker is I remember correctly.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df06092003.shtml#All
Always enjoyed it.
Also in early August me and 2 of my friends are riding the Lake Shore Limited from Chicago to NYC. That is like an 18 hour ride and should really be fun. We were going to fly originally but since we are all in College and have a lot of time on Summer break, we though that an extra 2 days for traveling wasn't that big of a deal. Plus we saved $80 dollars each.
I have never been on either of those trains before so I am really looking forward to it. The longest Amtrak ride I have taken in the past was from Chicago to Portage, Wisconsin on the Empire Builder. It was fun, but a very quick trip, only 3 hours. I never got to eat in the dinning car or really sit back and relax.
Any highlights on any of my upcomming trips you guys could point out would be great.
*********************************************************************
Incluing about $200 from me.
httphttp://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df06092003.shtml#Amtrak
*********************************************************************
This is just one of the reasons that I am anti-cell phone. People just don't realize how much of a distraction they are. I think some new FRA regulations are in order.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df06092003.shtml#NTSB
*********************************************************************
They also claim that France won WW1 and WW2.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df06092003.shtml#Bombardier
*********************************************************************
Makes you think the Big Dig dug up some gold bullion.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df06092003.shtml#About
*********************************************************************
This unfortunately marks the end of a rare positive industry devolopment for railfans where we could see trains running about labeled NYC and PRR. Makes you wonder how this will affect the NS units as many are still labeled SOU and NW under the number. Will they change all the PRR sublabeled units to NS?
httphttp://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df06092003.shtml#CSX
*********************************************************************
RailAmerica, the Microsoft of Shortlines.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df06092003.shtml#RailAmerica
*********************************************************************
Shame all the vehiles are death traps.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df06092003.shtml#Germans
But a quick look at the European Stock List for Germany on the European Railway Server would show that there are Many Many private operators outside the usual DB trains. Certainly the private operators provide some variety from the Verkehrsrot (Traffic Red) that DB has. But my question is, certainly all those companies cannot all be getting massive subsidies from the government to run those lines, there must be some profit to be had in the business, or else there wouldn't be so many private railroads there. Do these operators actually make money off the passengers, or do they just collect subsidies and take whatever is left after operations are subtracted out as profit?
It's nice to see Dootlebug type local service hasn't died everywhere. The US probably could make great use of DMUs of the German's type, with DMU Dootlebugs and Busses providing feeder service for electrified commuter trains. This could work well for SEPTA, perhaps DMU (like a 650, or SNJLRTS car) operating with an FRA waiver up to New Hope from Willow Grove on the R2, with intermediate stops at real stations (not just bus shelters alongside a track), the schedules synchronized, so that the DMU leaves 5 min after the SEPTA train gets in, with through ticketing and such. This could also work on the R5 at lansdale, with DMUs running up to Quakertown or Coopersburg on a time-share similar to SNJLRTS (or I guess CRC's DMUs could be used).
Given the death-via-ignorance of the SVM, the R6 out of Norristown could be DMU'ed, for a fraction of the cost of SVM. It could run as a shuttle from Norristown TC out to Pottstown at the very least. This would almost have to be CRC DMU, since that is a heavily traveled freight line and in no way would NS just give it up to LRT ala SNJLRTS, also using FRA compatible DMUs would allow the line to run commuter equipment into the city if the Pennsy Schyukill river bridge off the R6 Cynwyd line were ever fixed, with a connection to the Reading R6 Norristown Line on the other side of the river, diesel hauled commuter equipment (or more CRC DMUs) could run right into the lower level of 30th St station.
I also had similar designs for Southern NJ, CRC DMUs could run the AC line, while SNJLRTS DMUs could operate more local, city services. Perhaps a CRC line running out to Pemberton from 30th St station, since it's line comes right off the AC line in Pennsauken. Perhaps at the most extreme the SNJLRTS could be cut back to a Camden and Trenton centric trolley type operation, with expanded service to other parts of the city via semi-reserved and street ROW, while CRC DMUs terminate at Walter Rand TC,or run into the city via the Delair bridge and 30th St. At the north end they could terminate right at the NEC station, with some track work.
Oh well, just an idea, still it's good to see not everyone has abandoned the Doodlebug, any other ideas for similar service in America?
Now please, 90% of my last point was in no way related to Germany, do you have anything relating to transit to comment on, or do you just have more racist prattering?
Perhaps Arcadia would be a candidate for a DMU or EMU type line similar to the kind described in D:F.
Now we can get back to transit issues and make certain that the Sea Beach gets back on the bridge next year and stays there. BTW, are you a New Yorker? I will be in town from the 27th of June to July 5.
I will be honest with you. I was trying to pull your chain a little with my post. No surprise there because there are a lot of people on Subtalk whose day is made when they pull my chain. All in a day's work.
I got tooken too - but it's OK, just as long as the chain being pulled isn't the one that causes a BIE, OK?
Subtalkers tend to do that, drive people to insanity to the point where they have to flame someone :-\.
Thanks for responding as you did, and thanks for diverting my attempted flaming.
And, by the way, I am Jewish, lost a grandfather to the Holocaust and my Dad fought the Nazis as a teenager in the south of France and then was a charter member of Haganah.
And in our family we deeply appreciate Konrad Adenauer and what the German government has done since the late 1940s to rejoin the civilized world.
So cut the crap, would you please?
Mark
*********************************************************************
No, this isn't just the elimination of London's Mail Rail subway system. RM is planning to eliminate all its mail contracts with EWS and other train operating companies. This is odd as Amtrak and the US Postal service have had quite a good relationship. It is also logical as even in europe the post offices are near the rail stations.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df06092003.shtml#British
Now that mail is machine sorted in large sorting centers, a truck is probably the right size to deliver mail to all but the largest destinations.
John
Whether that will actually happen, is of course an entirely different matter.
What did you expect? I don't think National Express Group know the meaning of on time. As long as they don't start cancelling the 2340 St Pancras' to Derby, I'll not be too bothered.
However, the decline in use of trains by Royal Mail long pre-dated Hatfield.
Our rail network's just not suited to it really. I think it's sad, but never mind.
What I'm wondering is now Royal Mail are vacting the space between Platform 12 at Birmingham New Street and Station Street, will they finally put an exit from Platform 12 straight out onto Station Street? It's a real pain walking up onto the bridge, into the main foyer between platforms 6 and 7, across the foyer, the taxi rank and the car park, then down a really scary staircase which the homeless seem to use as a combined dwelling and urinal, to get to a bus stop right by where your train's just let you off.
And Britain's motorways (on which the mail trucks run) aren't exactly free of congestion and delays either!
Especially when the army can't drive and cause huge pile-ups on the M1. I'm told the M69's hell today as a result. Sometimes I'm glad I don't drive.
There's no point in exaggerating - they are possibly the least bad of the major group of Train Operating Companies. My train home at night is very reliable - it's always ten minutes late (8-) ! But I really should stick with the train anyway - see below.
"Especially when the army can't drive and cause huge pile-ups on the M1. I'm told the M69's hell today as a result. Sometimes I'm glad I don't drive."
I'm driving instead of going by train this week - my wife's away so I thought I'd use her car - and guess what, I got caught in the jam behind that accident yesterday. The police got us all out backwards -driving the wrong way down the motorway - to release us. I was one of the lucky ones, I was only an hour or so late to work. Went home in the evening by the A1 instead. Even more one of the lucky ones, of course, in that I wasn't one of the five killed through the army's bad driving.
Just a little thought - if that had been a *train* crash with five killed, there would have been all kinds of political trouble, lots of careful investigations, etc., and Jersey Mike would have been telling us what crap trains we use in Europe. As it is, those people were killed on a *road*, so that's just business as usual. But hey, those people are just as dead as if it had been a train crash.
And there was another of those "Land-Rover driving down the bank on to a railway line" accidents yesterday. In Birmingham, no less. A train caught it a glancing blow; two men in the car were killed but there was no serious damage to the train (do you hear, Jersey Mike?), which wasn't derailed.
I see you carefully put in "major" so that Chiltern and LTS don't count!
I can never make my mind up which is worst: National "Express", Slowcoach, Last, or N'Arrive Pas. Actually, I quite like First and at least Stagecoach have a good line. So it's between Arriva and National Express - tough one!
I was one of the lucky ones, I was only an hour or so late to work.
Even more one of the lucky ones, of course, in that I wasn't one of the five killed through the army's bad driving.
Phew!
Went home in the evening by the A1 instead.
I see the A6 London Road through Leicester didn't tempt you! (Not surprised.)
A roads are surprisingly good now everyone uses the Motorways. When my dad's car broke down and we went to collect it from St Alban's (yippee, nice train ride there), we went back on the A5 and A45 to Birmingham - much nicer than the M1!
As it is, those people were killed on a *road*, so that's just business as usual.
It really shows what a good safety record railways have that it is such a shock when something goes wrong. Likewise it shows how dangerous road travel is comparatively.
And there was another of those "Land-Rover driving down the bank on to a railway line" accidents yesterday. In Birmingham, no less.
Right by the Rover Works at Longbridge (okay, Land Rovers are built at their Solihull plant, but it is really a home turf accident nonetheless).
It is a testament to how well Land Rovers are built that it managed to go straight through that wall to get onto the embankment.
A train caught it a glancing blow; two men in the car were killed but there was no serious damage to the train (do you hear, Jersey Mike?), which wasn't derailed.
Presumably it was a Class 323 - they're bloody good trains. Pity they didn't order more of them - they now have to operate the Walsall line with diesel Class 150s (yuck!) despite it having OHLE as they've run out of 323s. My only dislike about 323s is that they chose OHLE as the method of electrification instead of 3rd Rail - however, that's just my personal preference - I can see why they chose OHLE really.
And by the way, I believe it was a Virgin train which hit the Land Rover in Birmingham last night, not a Central Trains 323.
Tim
In my experience, they're perfectly decent. There was the comedy episode where they put huge First logos on every carriage and there were people walking up and down the train looking for Standard Class, but I've never had any problems - the train would turn up at Neath, usually on time, and drop me off at Cardiff Central, usually 5 minutes late.
and schedules are (thank goodness) back to normal [though failure to keep to the schedules has also returned to normal (8-( ].
What did you expect? I don't think National Express Group know the meaning of on time. As long as they don't start cancelling the 2340 St Pancras' to Derby, I'll not be too bothered.
However, the decline in use of trains by Royal Mail long pre-dated Hatfield.
Our rail network's just not suited to it really. I think it's sad, but never mind.
What I'm wondering is now Royal Mail are vacating the space between Platform 12 at Birmingham New Street and Station Street, will they finally put an exit from Platform 12 straight out onto Station Street? It's a real pain walking up onto the bridge, into the main foyer between platforms 7 and 8, across the foyer, the taxi rank and the car park, then down a really scary staircase which the homeless seem to use as a combined dwelling and urinal, to get to a bus stop right by where your train's just let you off.
And Britain's motorways (on which the mail trucks run) aren't exactly free of congestion and delays either!
Especially when the army can't drive and cause huge pile-ups on the M1. I'm told the M69's hell today as a result. Sometimes I'm glad I don't drive.
*********************************************************************
Hmm, it looks like Iraq will not only have universal medical coverage, but also a functional passenger rail network. Hmmm, something amiss here.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df06092003.shtml#Rail
Originally, when the British gave up the colony game and gave Iraq it's freedom, there were two separate rail systems. A standard gauge railroad from Baghdad north, and a meter gauge line from Baghdad south to Basra and so on. This of course meant that the cargo headed from Basra and vicinity to say Mosul or the Syrian border had to be transloaded at Baghdad, a hugely inefficient operation.
It was the soviets, undoubtedly not out of totally altruistic aims, an Iraq-Syria rail line would allow them to get stuff between the Mediterranean Sea and Persian Gulf, and thus between the Atlantic and Indian oceans without the problems of the Suez Canal, so much the better if they help build part of the link and get a bit of the freight for themselves. The Soviets extended the standard gauge line south from Baghdad all the way to Basra, allowing one train to run between Um Qasr, Iraq and Tartus, Syria. This saved some one thousand miles over rounding the Arabian penninsula and going through the Suez Canal (which assesses it's own considerable fee for passage, not to mention being easily controlled). It also avoided the politically unstable narrows at the southern end of the Red Sea between Djibouti and Yemen. At this point, in 1977, just 2 years before Saddam came to power, the Iraqi Railroads had 990 miles of rail, with 700 miles of that standard gauge.
In 1985 the rail system had expanded to some 1250 miles, with 930 miles of that standard gauge. They had some 440 locomotives, many of them US made EMD export locos hauling 1.25 billion tons of freight. But 1987 was a banner year for Saddam's railroads, for that was the year that three different extensions of the system opened. The first was a 160 mile line linking Kirkut and Al Hadithah at a cost of 850 million USD, and with no less than 30 bridges crossing the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. the line was expected to carry 1 million passengers and 3 million tons of freight annually, with expectations of a tripling of Passenger travel and a doubling of freight traffic on the line by the end of the century. Also opening that year were a 341 mile line between Baghdad and Qusaybah built by a Brazilian company, and an Indian company finished a line between Al Musayyib and Samarra. Iraq also had plans to replace the entire Mosul to Basra via Baghdad main line with a truely world class high speed freight and passenger line, and all lines feeding into a Baghdad terminal system that would efficiently handle terminating freight and passengers, as well as through freight. There were also hints that Saddam might have been looking into electrification for this line, as well as a TGV-type high speed operation, possibly to as far away as Kuwait City and Damascus, with joint running with the Kuwaitis and Syrians. Also discussed at length was connection with the Saudi and Turkish systems to make a Persian Gulf-Europe link for persian gulf oil, apparantly this was a hot item after the fall of the Soviet Union and the disolving of the Warsaw Pact, since now trains could run across Bulgaria and Yugoslavia to reach lucrative western European markets, and was even still discussed after Desert Storm I.
Do note that some of this was liberally plagerized from: www.1upinfo.com/country-guide-study/iraq/iraq59.html
It's not like I work for the NY Times or something, right? :)
Just to throw in an extra tidbit (if it has not been mentioned already) it was also reported on 60 Minutes some time ago that Bagdad had a rather extensive system of subway tunnels that were built by a California-based firm, tunnels which were allegedly strategic enough to pose a problem once the invasion began (turns out things happened too fast for that to materialize.) The entrance to these tunnels was the only mystery, though. But intelligence sources knew that the tunnels convered the entire city, implying that the system would be rather heavy duty and intensive.
Of course, now, all this is nothing more than speculation.
*********************************************************************
Whoops, here's the real one.
Hmm, it looks like Iraq will not only have universal medical coverage, but also a functional passenger rail network. Hmmm, something amiss here.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df06092003.shtml#Rail
Destination Freedom: A Pawtucket idea glows again
This has to be the best news I've heard all year. It comes as a surprise from the city of Pawtucket, which acquired the city's only movie theater by eminent domain to sell the property to Walgreen's, and RIPTA, who previously turned down using the station as a hub because it's too far from downtown Pawtucket. There is currently no connection between RIPTA buses and MBTA commuter rail on weekends, when the MBTA does not run to Providence.
Photos of Pawtucket-Central Falls Station, February, 2001
NY Post Article
2) Apparently signage once again is to be completely ignored. No reason to ask the C/R anything.
3) A little suspicious: He was at 42nd St and travelled all the way out to Howard Beach for medical attention? He couldn't go to the clerk?
(b) As frequently noted on this board, the fact that only *some* of the A trains go to JFK is confusing, even to New Yorkers. It is totally reasonable for a visitor to ask the conductor whether the train is going where he wants to go. Quite possibly, in his own country, conductors would be willing to tell him (in my country they do). Foreign visitors can't be expected to know NYCTA's local rules about what its staff are and are not expected to do.
(c) He was trying to get to JFK. Presumably he had a plane to catch. It was reasonable for him to make sure he had caught his plane, and then seek medical attention at the airport.
My experience is that destination signs are completely ignored by the TA. Perhaps, one sign said Far Rockaway while another said Lefferts.
All they wanted was an answer from the C/R. And they got a slammed window. I enjoy the abrupt ideosyncracy of NYC, but this is an MTA problem and needs to go away.
Bullshit.
When will conductors and the rest of the employees of the MTA (management included) realize that they are in the customer service business, not simply the moving metal boxes from point A to point B business?
There is no excuse for the rude and violent treatment of this fare-paying passenger.
While perhaps he should not get the amount of damages for which he is asking, if the incident went down anywhere near like how it was described, the passanger should win enough in this lawsuit to send a message, and if that C/R can be located, he should be fired immediately.
Sorry, but life's tough all over, and we all have to perform our jobs on a bad day, and we all have to deal with unknowledgable people in our various professions. We know this when we accept the offer of employment from our employers. In my business, if you can't take a reasonable few seconds out of your busy day to lend assistance to one of your customers, you don't last long. Even the few seconds to say, "I'm sorry, Sir, I have to get the train out. Please ask a Station Agent" is better than a temper tantrum.
If you don't like moving the "geese" from one place to another, by all means, find another job. If you are unable to for some reason, suck it up, serve your customers, and act like a grown-up, at least. It's what we all have to do. Being an MTA C/R does not make you special and immune from common courtesy.
While perhaps he should not get the amount of damages for which he is asking, if the incident went down anywhere near like how it was described, the passanger should win enough in this lawsuit to send a message, and if that C/R can be located, he should be fired immediately.
Here is a page from the 1917 Brooklyn Rapid Transit Co - Courtesy Code.... The MTA could learn from this...
Regardless if the vehicle is a streetcar or a subway train, courtesy pays off. It takes little effort to say "please".
How about this page from the BRT's November 1918 supplement:
SITUATION:
Train goes rocketing past Consumer's Park station without stopping.
WHAT TO SAY:
Pray!!
Nah - you just kiss your A** goodbye!!
Actually, that would be (per the BRT examples):
Please, Pray, Please!
By the way, isn't the C/R supposed to keep his window open and observe the platform as the train begins to move?
I'm not familiar with the training that C/R's get, but it really should include some lessons on how to treat customers. I know that C/Rs sometimes have to deal with rude riders....unfortunately, dealing with the occasional idiot is a part of any job in which you're exposed to a large number of people on a regular basis.....but IMHO the C/R needs to maintain a pleasant and helpful demeanor. How difficult is it to answer a person who has asked if the train goes to JFK? All he had to say was either "Yes" or "No, wait right here for the Far Rockaway train". Two seconds....that's all it would take.
Like most cities, New York has it's dangers. Asking a C/R a question shouldn't be one of them. I'd be interested in hearing about what sort of disciplinary action is taken against the C/R in this matter.
David
MTA management, most passengers, a lot of C/R's, and I would strongly disagree. In fact, good customer service is a core value in any conductor role, whether railroad or mass transit, and I have watched conductors do an incredibly good job of it, including one guy I have posted about a couple of times, an African-American gentleman on the L train 10 years ago who distinguished himself by not only handling the announcements well, but stepping out of his cab to lead an elderly woman by the arm to the staircase, assisting a mother with young children and still keeping the train on time. I managed to get his cap number and wrote a commendation letter to the TA. He was a role model for what a conductor is all about.
Maybe he lost it some other way (crossing between cars?) and a lawyer told him to do it this way. I could see someone more likely to loose their finger in a bulkhead door than in the C/Rs cab window.
And window slammed on his finger or not, a lot of the R44/46s have sharp edges on their windowsills. I could scan in my work gloves (when i find them) and show you how the palm is ripped apart from leaning on the windowsill.
Regardless of what really happened I'm sure this C/R is going a lot to answer for.
This fellow LEANED on the window, giving the impression the
train was STOPPED IN STATION and then the supposed C/R closed up
at the point s/he should have been looking up/down the platform for door closures...
Mhm?
But does that mean it happened at this person describes??
http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/sas/deis.htm
...and click on "Comparative Costs and Benefits." Here is the Reader's Digest summary:
The present SAS proposal grew out of an earlier study called Manhattan East Side Alternatives (MESA). That study proposed one of two build options: a Second Avenue subway from 125th St to 63rd St, connecting to the Broadway express tracks, which critics called the "stubway"; or, that plus a surface light rail transit loop on the Lower East Side. Community reaction was that the full-length SAS should be built, and here we are.
Because the SDEIS is supplemental, it apparently did not repeat the full cost-benefit analysis (from which, I am sure, some critics will draw sinister inferences). I believe it will be included in the FEIS.
Anyhow, the cost-benefit analysis in the MESA DEIS does show a positive payback for the options analyzed—to the extent you accept the underlying assumptions. Opponents of the SAS would no doubt say that the assumptions were twisted to make the project seem more worthwhile than it is. Proponents would point out additional benefits not counted in the analysis. So, go ahead and make of it what you will.
DEIS:
$3.5 billion cost ('97$)
309,000 riders
SDEIS
$12.6 billion cost ('02$)
591,000 riders
Or put another way, the southern part has less than half of the benefits for two-thirds the cost.
More than half of the benefit, assuming that your figures are correct, and assuming also that the benefit per rider is the same for Subway and Stubway.
I have looked at the MESA MIS/DEIS document at http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/sas/deis.htm and found the following estimates for the Build 1 Option (Stubway only, with no LRT).
(1) In Table S-1, the capital cost is given as (1997) $3.55 billion, near enough to your figure of (1997) $3.5 billion.
(2) In Table 20-1, the number of Second Avenue / Broadway passengers benefitting would be 115,272,000 trips annually = about 315,000 trips per day, but the total number of passengers benefitting on all lines would be 205,187,000 trips annually = about 560,000 trips per day. Your figure of 309,000 probably ignores benefits to riders of other lines.
But where exactly do your SDEIS figures come from?
"oakapple" said "Because the SDEIS is supplemental, it apparently did not repeat the full cost-benefit analysis". Considering the extent of the changes, that seems a surprising omission. Was he mistaken, or do you have access to other sources?
I also commend this page to you:
http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/ns/ns2004/pe_NY2ndAveSub.htm
I focus on the cost/ridership ratio because the feds do. And they are supposed to come up with $8.4 billion. This is an enormous amount of money, multiples more than any other project has ever received. Equivalent to the entire budget they have for projects across the country for over 5 years. They say:
"This year, this project has received a “low” rating for cost-effectiveness, which raises concerns about the merits of the project for Federal funding. FTA strongly encourages the sponsor to improve the cost-effectiveness of the project."
I am heartened to see the rumor that MTA is focusing on a two station phase I. This "stub-stubway" has an excellent chance to get funding.
The Big Dig has drawn even more heat (though, to be fair, that project is being built and is on the home stretch, more or less.
"I am heartened to see the rumor that MTA is focusing on a two station phase I. This "stub-stubway" has an excellent chance to get funding."
This is an approach I advocated for a long time, and one that state assembly staffers hav sometimes resisted. The Stubway itself was always considered to be the first phase of SAAS construction, and wisely so. That MTA is willing to open a subsection of that to revenue business will put "facts on the ground," in the form of an early Q-train extension. That will help get riders used to riding a train on Second Av and help keep up construction momentum. Good, I like it.
The FTA reporting is not inconsequential, but a high-profile projectlike this doesn't get funded based on an FTA rating (and the reports written by a Busg Administration agency are very political. They reflect what happens at the top of the hierarchy, and are by no means apolitical. If this were the Clinton Administration, maybe. Not Bush. You don't know how to interpret what you read.
What it comes down to is how effective you are at bringing home the bacon. We're bout to find out.
If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to work quite a bit harder and perfectly entitled to do, of course).
My real sentence: If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to work harder and do more than just rant - which you did here (and you're entitled to do).
What are your numbers?
No they don't. Conclusiond drawn from analyzing facts can help or hurt, and you haven't done any legitimate work here.
If you really think telling the feds "this is our Big Dig, therefore we get $8.4 billion" you've got more "legitimate work" to do. Start by studying transit finance, instead of highways.
Simon, let's say people see things your way and East Side Access, but not the Second Avenue Subway is built. Yes you'll say that isn't your way, but it's a fair compromise between building the whole thing and the Stubway, isn't it? How can you justify a two stop extension on a "cost-benefit" basis?
And let's say that the resulting increase in crowding leads to a dangerous condition.
What would a financial cost-benefit analysis say is the best way to get riders off the Lex, and which riders should have to go, in order to make room for people from Long Island?
That's not "my way." Don't blame me for East Side Access. It's a reality, and if the small band in government that back SAS keep pushing for all-or-nothing, it'll be the latter. I support the stubbed-stubway because it has a chance of happening.
If SAS is so obviously a top priority, why is the City focused on the West Side? If SAS is so key, why is the delegation energized about the freight tunnel? If SAS is essential to the regional system, why is New Jersey focused on ARC? Whip me, devil Bush, or that person behind the tree all you want. Your problem is with your elected officials. Talk to them.
The ESA EIS says it will dump 5,300 people on the southbound Lex during the morning rush. Will the stubbed-stubway take that many people off? If people are ready to stop dreaming and start dealing with reality, that's the question to focus on now.
Different projects, different issues, different constituencies, in some cases different pots of money (referring specifically to the West Side, though in some cases not). If Boston was so focused on the Big Dig, how did they manage to reopen the Old Colony commuter railroad line?
By not asking $8.4 billion for it.
OK. Now you're onto something. (BTW, The Big Dig costs much more than that).
NYC had the money to build a La Guardia Extension already. Read more broadly, it has the money to build something which is not a full-length subway. So they can build something on the Westside.
Lower Manhattan is getting private casualty insurance money, PA money, FEMA money to rebuild a lot of transit assets, including the Fulton Transit Center. So that's covered, and that's financially separate from other projects. So nobody has to worry that the 7 extension to Javits won't get built, or the first section of SAS won't get built, because lower Manhattan is in the way.
Whatever the total cost of a full-length SAS turns out to be as the contracts are signed, the project will demand money over a few Capital Plans, not just one.
The 63rd Street line was complete as of 2001, and its price tag included a 1300 foot extension of the existing ESA tunnel to the Sunnyside Yard. The ESA project has already substantial committed funding and signed contracts from the most recent Capital Plan.
None of these are trivial projects, but look at the size of NY's economy and population and compare it to Boston. SAS will not suck everything else dry, just as the Big Dig didn't suck everything else dry (I'm NOT saying the Big Dig doesn't deserve criticism for overruning its budget).
It would drain the national transit budget for 5 years, unless it has a special authorization in TEA-3. Which leads to the other problem, little official support. All the mo is with the freight tunnel.
Where, when????
It seems possible that a two-stop extension of the Broadway Express (Q train) could be cost-effective in its own right.
Those two stops, at 72nd and 86th Streets, are on the same latitude as the most crowded part of the Lexington line, and they would go quite some way towards achieving the main goals of relieving the Lexington line and better serving the east side.
The cost could be relatively low, given that (according to the track map on this site) the unused tunnel already exists from 57th Street & Seventh Avenue to the unused part of the station at Lexington and 63rd Street.
Sorry, not the case. They would, however, start attracting riders and help out, and, importantly, get people used tohaving SAS service - but the full value of the subway would only be realized when Harlem commuters were included.
Actually, at the moment there is none, because there is no SAS. when completed, Harlem commuters will disprove Mr. Fairthorne's hypothesis.
The 116th Street station in particular was requested to spur redevelopment in that specific area. As the station's construction begins, you will see developers setting up shop in short order.
Upzone the avenues in East Harlem and there will be plenty.
What development, there are currently NYCHA projects there?
Arti
If you're interested in specific details, contact the Manhattan Borough President's office at 1 Centre Street, 19th Floor. They deal with land use, zoning etc.
Arti
The projects are a deterrent to building on those sites; this may limit the market to middle income housing rather than high income housing. Rrent regulations make it difficult to vacate and replace tenements. This slows down the rate of redevelopment -- otherwise all the tenements on the UES would have been replaced all at once in the 1980s (or in the 1990s) rather than gradually.
Nonetheless, I would expect that a SAS, if constructed, would lead to a significant number of unsubsidized, market rate, middle income housing units being built. The market is that strong.
There is no SAS station planned near the existing 77th St Station. The census tracts show that there are 20,358 people living between 3rd Ave and the river between 74th and 79th Streets. The census tracts also show that there are 18,414 people residing between 3rd Ave and the river between 109th and 119th Streets.
Stephen's data no doubt explains why the original design had no station at 116th, which would have made 125th-106th the line's longest inter-station gap. Harlem spoke up, and there is now a station at 116th in the design.
Perhaps the right thing to measure is the weighted-average walking time to the nearest subway stop, and we don't have the data to calculate that. Comments in the SDEIS suggest that the MTA views 15 minutes as the dividing point between an acceptable and an unaccaptable walking distance to a subway station. This cutoff is obviously somewhat arbitrary; there are those who walk farther distances to the subway, and there are those for whom even a 10-minute walk is too far.
And highly selectively chosen ones, at that.
Start by studying transit finance, instead of highways.
The first thing you discover, upon embarking on such a study, is that highways are transit.
Which ones am I leaving out?
One could give many examples. But to begin with, the FTA web page you cited rated the SAS according to numerous criteria. It did indeed rate the SAS as "low" in cost-effectiveness (as the FTA is measuring it these days), but it rated the SAS "medium," "medium-high," or "high" in a number of others. You did not mention that.
Also, the MESA DEIS observed that the FTA's criteria tend to be biased in favor of extending mass transit into new areas, and against relief for growth in areas already served. This is, of course, a permissible policy choice—but certainly not the only way of looking at it. The MTA's view (and mine) is that the FTA's cost-effectiveness criteria tend to underestimate the benefits in a heavily urbanized area such as New York City.
Because it's moot. FTA says they aren't funding it, and with good reason. They can't commit every penny they have for 5 years for one project. So they can other nice things, but there is no $8.4 billion coming. Particularly when NY officials aren't even asking for it.
"FTA's criteria tend to be biased in favor of extending mass transit into new areas, and against relief for growth in areas already served."
I'd note that the Mayor of the City that would get this $8.4 billion windfall AGREES on this point. At any rate, my understanding is the FTA has bent on this. The problem remains the price tag (and lack of political support), which is why MTA is doing stubbed-stubway. Good for them. We may actually see it, and relatively soon.
You seem to be reading different stuff than the rest of us. Do you have a source you can refer us to? The SAS is currently on the FTA's list of recommended projects.
Particularly when NY officials aren't even asking for it.
To the contrary, it was because NY officials "asked for it" that the MESA proposal (stubway only, with or without LRT) was sent back to the drawing board for the full-length design.
(The only potential point of confusion I can think of, is that the SAS wasn't on the governor's list of 9/11 relief projects. This is perfectly understandable, as the SAS is not 9/11-related.)
The problem remains the price tag (and lack of political support), which is why MTA is doing stubbed-stubway.
It was political support that resulted in the MESA study being redone to encompass SAS from 125th St to Hanover Square. The MTA isn't doing "stubbed-stubway"—unless you're privy to documents we haven't seen. Please share them, by all means.
Again, the potential point of confusion is that the "stubbed-stubway" will likely be the first part of the SAS to open. Well, obviously they have to start somewhere. It only makes sense to open the line gradually as it is completed.
Silver and Fields did that. A few million for a study is no big deal. All you hear from those that count -- the delegation -- is freight tunnel.
Son of Stubway is what we are getting. Rhetoric will continue for the whole thing, but the cost-benefit ratio for the balance will go down after the best part is built. Maybe one day we'll get lucky and get the full stubway. I won't be holding my breath.
That would be a pleasant suprise. I predict that city residents will get nothing but a tax bill and more crowded trains. What we are getting is East Side Access, MetroNorth to Penn, and LIRR to Lower Manhattan. No cost-benefit required.
Effectively, this translates into support of cheaper light rail, because the Bush Administration figures "new start" momney is most likely spent for this. It reduces the pot the FTA has to deliver.
You forget Congress. They want to spread the money around for their various projects even more than the administration does. You get 10 light rail projects for the cost of a subway. Bush, Clinton, Bush, it really doesn't matter. Capitol Hill has full ownership of this one.
"Capitol Hill has full ownership of this one."
No, not even in its current makeup.
Actually, the facts lead to an opposite conclusion. You take 2+2 admake it 5. The fact that you consulted a math book to consider the number 2 doesn't make your post any more reasoned.
Give me an example.
Meanwhile here is a ridiculously simple (or simply ridiculous) calculation.
If the SAS were to cost $16 billion, paid for by a bond issue at 4.5%, the interest would be $720 million a year or $2 million per day.
Divided among the million or so riders per average day that could be expected to benefit, to a varying extent, including both SAS and Lexington riders, that would amount to $2.00 per ride for the interest only.
What about a portion of 900,000 riders coming in front Queens Blvd. who transfer to the Lex, who woud benefit from the reduced crowding? Did you count them?
My intention was to include riders on all lines who would benefit to a greater or lesser extent. Certainly a great many Lexington riders would benefit from having a more comfortable and faster ride. Probably more Lexington riders would benefit than SAS riders, but to a lesser extent. I did not pay special attention to Queens Blvd.
Of course a million is no more than a "guesstimate", but I don't think it's completely out of line. If anyone can point me to a better estimate, that will be of great interest.
Of course a million is no more than a "guesstimate", but I don't think it's completely out of line."
You started with an intuitively reasonable premise, but you need to continue working to fill in the details.
"If anyone can point me to a better estimate, that will be of great interest."
You can point yourself to it by continuing to do some serious homework with your own. You may find your guesstimate close, or you may find yourself reaching altered conclusions.
Thank you Ron. That's what I intend to do, and Simon has helped by pointed me in some interesting directions.
From the SAS SDEIS summary at http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/sas/sdeis/summary.pdf:
"More than 500,000 riders would use the Second Avenue Subway each day (with more than 70,000 in the AM peak hour alone), many of whom would switch from the Lexington Avenue Line. The remaining Lexington Avenue riders would benefit from reduced crowding, decreased travel time, and improved reliability." (p. S-15)
"PRELIMINARY PROJECT COSTS
The estimated cost to construct the full-length Second Avenue Subway and all of its ancillary facilities is $12.6 billion in 2002 dollars, or $16.8 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars." (p. S-16)
"Construction is expected to start in 2004, and last between 12 and 16 years, depending on the construction sequence developed." (p. S-16)
"Ridership modeling conducted for the project indicates that a new Second Avenue Subway would carry 70,200 AM peak hour riders and approximately 591,000 daily riders in 2020." (p. S-26)
"many bus riders would switch to faster subway alternatives. The largest ridership reduction (nearly 50 percent) would occur on the southbound M15 route, the route that most closely follows the alignment of the Second Avenue Subway." (p.S-29)
"This year, this project has received a “low” rating for cost-effectiveness, which raises concerns about the merits of the project for Federal funding. FTA strongly encourages the sponsor to improve the cost-effectiveness of the project."
And how can the sponsor improve the cost-effectiveness of the project?
It would be interesting to know the cost and ridership figures for the two-station extension of the Broadway Express (Q train).
By building it in a state with Republican Senators. Remember, the law was just changed (back to the way it had been) to say that only growth can justify expenditures in transportation. So if the principle benefit is an improved quality of life, the federal government will tax you but not fund you. Older areas of the country are expected to live with whatever they have, minus depreciation.
An alternate response might be to change projects go to where the money is. One possibility would be to extend existing lines into areas where none exist and significant numbers either use automobiles or ride buses to trains. These areas should not be difficult to find by either using census tract data or by listing the stations with large numbers of mixed mode riders.
There is at least one other possible benefit. Per mile operating costs for buses are significantly greater than trains. If such lines are built to where buses are sufficiently used and if the bus lines are eliminated or severly truncated, then total operating costs should decrease as a result and help finance NY's share of the capital costs.
Of course, it is one which also has political considerations (NIMBY, the personal desires of legislators with unequal power, etc.) - but your idea is very good nonetheless.
All of which means nothing. The award of large project funds is primarily a political process. This does not mean FTA staffers do not weigh in. But what you're citing is a Bush Administration philosophy translated into a technical report.
It is important to read information in its proper context. Simon consistently fails to do so. You don't have to repeat his mistakes.
You've yet to give a single example. "But this is our Big Dig!" doesn't cut it.
False statement. It will demand a portion of a few Capital Plans, but will not drain anything dry. Read my other post.
"More importantly, it lacks support. Instead of posting here, I'd recommend you write letters to those officials."
False statement again. SAS has overwhelming support, as strong in the city as the Big Dig had (if not more so). Boston is the state capitol, which helps it (can you imagine how MTA would benefit by having NYC be the state capitol).
Instead of posting nonsense here, do some real homework, and then we'll see.
I'm speaking of the federal transit budget.
"Instead of posting nonsense here, do some real homework, and then we'll see."
Desperate rhetoric. Condescension doesn't alter the fact that the delegation is more excited about the freight tunnel. If that changes, there's a chance for Full Length Stubway. Otherwise, we're lucky to get Son of Stubway
But when they actually start digging next year, I would tell the whiners "Shut up and be grateful." And keep monitoring the pols.
Nappy
Rescue extraction methods depend on circumstances. The principles of ATLS (Advanced Trauma Life Support) are followed regardless. Equipment may involve airbags if the person is trapped by the train, or cutting tools or whatever is required by the situation. Medical personnel want to stabilize vital signs and avoid injury to the spinal cord or brain if at all possible.
One of the most common rescue devices is a simple folding chair used to evacuate patients up multiple staircases.
Why do you always favor the most labor intensive method that produces results that are no better
A very minor reduction in safety
They is why in cab monitors make more sense. they increase safety becasue the T/O has a view until the train completly leaves the station
It is unfortunit that the TWU is opposed to any effeciency improvements. As I have mentioned it before, the union worker who is taking the hit with higher taxes on both thier homes and sales tax to preserve unneeded jobs.
A T/O or conductor currently employed by the MTA is uneffected by any effeciecy improvements if they are phased in over time. In fact they would bennifit by having a higher base salary for which the MTA would have to give in excahnge for the effiecy improvemnts
The same is true concerning station agents. Instead of spreading false safety issues, they should be negotiating with the MTA on a new role for existing agents and beter working conditions.
Both their homes? C'mon. Do you seriously believe even half of TWU 100 members own 2 homes?
FYI: my uncle drove a bus for the MTA for 22 years,
He owned a home both in brooklyn and the Poconos plus put 3 children through college
Many TWU workers especially bus drivers and train operators make a very healthy living including overtime and bennifits. The average hourly rate for a bus train operator including health bennifits, generous pension and paid overtime is more them many lawyers. Stop crying poverty
It is all a matter of proper money management.
Stop crying poverty
And I wasn't crying poverty.
Chapter 11 Choo Choo (Lyrics)
www.railfanwindow.com
Tho IIRC, the TSQ Shuttle takes a short pause and a nasty forward LURCH
as it leaves the station... he must have seen the pause movement
and thought it was his opening.....
Excellent work.
About 220 Redbirds last on the 7
:0)
"You mean, (sob) my puppy is going to die in six months???"
"No. Probably three."
220 Redbirds still on 7
The R-33 singles aren't equipped with air conditioning, but they have strong axiflow fans.
If 7 trains are 11 cars long, 10 of them are R-36's. If they're 10 cars long, they're all R-36's. You don't have to worry about baking.
Is this accounted for by the time lags as they bring new trains into service on the IRT main lines, transfer trains from the main lines to the #7, and then withdraw redbirds? Or are they really going to be six trains short?
URL: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/91160p-82835c.html
:0)
I understand that these infractions do exist but people haven't been ticketed for such offenses for a number of years so of course the people are going to be angry. On the cops & traffic agents, well they have productivity goals to meet so they have no choice but it is obvious the city is doing this to generate revenue it doesn't take rocket science to prove that. What about the RN who jumped out of his car to save a man from possibly choking to death on some cheese then got a ticket for double parking. The agent claims that she was unaware of what happened. Some of the stories the Daily News prints on the $illy Summons of the Day IMO is a good thing to show that some of these tickets [like the pregnant lady] are outright frivolous and stupid.
All opinions welcome.
Is it really that no one's been ticketed or just that no one's drawn atention to it until now?
A few years back the local news media with fewer shootings and fires to cover made it a point to suddently make a big deal about police shootings. They made it sound like it was a new occurance under guiliani. In fact police shootings were way down under guiliani
To make a long story short, the media chooses to cover stories in cycles to maximize the sales of newspapers. the union went to the Daily News and with a wink and a handshake a deal was done. You help me get reelected we will help you sell some newspapers plus give you exclusiives in the futurer
Don't take the local news media as objective reporters of the news. They are not. they are interested in ratings and selling newspapers.
They play on the publics ignorance and lack of attention span.
2/3 of the stories on the average newscast are little more then what was in the moring newspapers.
It's sad because with a little jurnalistic work, thier are plenty of important stories to report in this city
The media and the city concil are nothing more then the national enquirer LIVE!!!
Without being their you can not judge whether the police were quicktriggered on issuing tickets or the person was a causing an issue that someone requested police assistance
Last night I had some free time so I decided to take a ride through CI to see how the amusment parks were doing(I had to pick up some horse dung for my compost bin). Outside the housing projects thier were groups of teens and older vagrants hanging on corners, acting roudy and otherwise causing disorder in the neighborhood. If I was living there and had to get up in the morining I would call the police to report people loitering and being roudy. If the police get enough calls they come and ask the people to move on or write them a ticket.
Who's to say that the police were not asked by area residents to have a talk to the guy on the crate that was ticketed refused to move when the officer asked him. The neighbors may have reported him selling drugs. With the officer not seeing him actually sell drugs, the best the officer could do is ask him to move on. He refused, he was ticketed.
The traffic agent or police officer who wrote the ticket and did not know why the person double parked, he simply wrote the ticket because the person was double parked.
For cases like this is the reason we Courts to challenge tickets. It is in the courtroom where the RN can state why he was double parked. The courtroom is the proper place for this issue
"Some of the stories the Daily News prints on the $illy Summons of the Day IMO is a good thing to show that some of these tickets [like the pregnant lady] are outright frivolous and stupid"
The so called "pregnant lady" if you read all the articles on this subject is a teenage girl who got knocked up and was loitering on the stairway with a BUNCH of other teenagers. She was not the run of the mill preganant women who was too tired from being pregnant to climb the rest of the stairs as the story implied. There is more to the story then just her sitting on the stairs. The story did not mention if any of her non-pregnant freinds were also issued tickets.
Too make a long story short. She was doing more then just sitting as she claimed to get her name in the paper and become a minor celeb. Telling the whole story won't sell papers.
So now he has to lose a sick day or personal day, spend HIS postage arranging for a court date, and spend HIS money on gas parking or train fare to get to the court etc..... These courtrooms are a farce - most people pay the fines just so they don't lose more money by being forced to take a day off.
I have an easier solution - If you are a doctor or RN and see something happening on the street - don't risk a ticket - just keep on driving.
Although I still disagree with Voice on automation and token clerks, he is right on target when it comes to police matters.
One caveat to all this is that it seems to me New York is in dire need of money and very little slack will be given to those who trespess.
A worthwhile thing to note. Have you noticed the people receiving tickets? You have a Spanish woman caught sitting down, a Black man targeted for blocking turnsitles (the loose change incident at Burnside Ave/IRT) and today, we read two Spanish men working in a barbershop but get busted for loitering outside THEIR workplace.
Sad to say that you don't read or hear these assanine stories in Forest Hills, the Upper East Side or Park Slope (although the pregnant woman incident took place in the heart of a Bay Ridge subway station, she might have been targeted for race.) Ask yourselves this: If Caucasian people were loitering in front the same barbershop, would the police van stop for them? Similar scenario for the "victim" at Burnside, would he get a ticket for picking up loose change if he was white?
This is very sad indeed.
Rosenblum doesn't look or sound black or hispanic to me.
They are not Police Officers, but they are among first responders in an emergency by calling directly for police backup should anything happen.
My issue of racial and ethnical bias is directed at Police Officers, not Traffic Agents.
The fact of the matter is, as voiceofreason states, its what the newspaper sees will sell. Nobody cares about a white person getting a ticket because we supposedly have it so good. So print the blacks and hispanics getting tickets. And the media accomplished their goal apparently -- to some it appears that blacks and hispanics the only ones getting the tickets.
Peace,
ANDEE
Washington Heights is attractive due to it's proximity to the GWB not because of the race or ethnicity of it's residents. Akthough many dominicans see easy money in the drug trade which they use to move back home and live like kings.
The times had an interesting article concerning this matter last year. Apparently the local starbuchs is doing well because of the drug dealers. They come in to buy a cup of overpriced cofee in exchange for using the bathroom
Race has nothing to do with drug dealing. It's economics. Poor people will sell the stuff, affluent people will buy it. WH is an attractive drug haven for buyers living in New Jersey.
No other reason.
Thier was a town in ct that was similarly centrally located. To stop the drug dealing, police baracaded off many blocks making it a maze to get in and out of
Small minded people who still hold major bias today tend to be from lower less educated classes of people and tend to be evenly distibuted throughout all races.
Lawyers, activists, the media and politicains conviently use the racism issue for thier own bennifit. They play on some people ignorance as to the true way of the world.
Why are most of the people featured in the Daily News articles from minoroty groups. The last I looked, 80% of the population of this city are from minority groups, a minority being "victomized" is a bigger story and plays on people sypothy.
It is not just race they use to bring out the sympothy issue.
It is a "Pregnant lady" getting a ticket
A "man picking up a nickle"
In the case of the pregnant lady, the article had little mention that she was part of a gang of teanagers blocking the stairway.
Hey I just pulled a daily news. By using the word GANG. It potrays a different picture then the word "GROUP" They mean the same thing, but one gives the reader an image of a roudy bunch of people, the other just a bunch of people
Many people use the race issue as a convient excuse for thier failings.
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
Just kidding.
Right On! Or, what makes the Franklin Shuttle more important than the Sea Beach Line? Guess the "powers that be" figure, what the hell, it's only them Eye-talians and Chi-nee livin' along the line. They'll take what we give `em....
And we have, damn it. From 59th Street south, the plant is definitely substandard. Show me any other line, even in the so-called "disadvantaged communities", with the paltry bare ass stations the Sea Beach has. And whether it offends some or not, the demographic makeup of the lineside neighborhoods has a hell of a lot to do with the attitude of the TA towards the line. Really, sometimes I suspect there's a bit of "...screw them damn dagos..."when it comes to the Sea Beach. Okay, sometimes, the boys around Avenue X would get into a scuffle or two with some of the TA boys outta C.I.Y. Hell, that's just Brooklyn life. "Defending your turf" crap. For that an entire train line has to be neglected?
The Franklin Avenue line was so much more decrepit than the Sea Beach line for many years. Eventually it was decrepit enough to necessitate a total teardown.
Eventually the Sea Beach line will "suffer" the same fate.
I hadn't noticed anything until now, but it sounds like you may have a point.
Has it occurred to anyone that this entire charade is an effort by police union members (who commute in from the suburbs) to pressure Mayor Bloomberg to find some way (other than not giving raises) to pay for the soaring cost of allowing people to work for 20 years and then retire out of state (with inflation-adjusted pensions) at age 42?
Who is kidding who?
This summons is different. It is one issue if laws haven't been enforced, and now are. It is another if someone who isn't breaking a law is given a ticket, and a political statement to go along with it. It sounds like the police are retailiating against New York City residents for only adding $3 billion onto the nation's highest tax burden. How dare we get off so cheap! Who the hell do we think we are?
How about all of the above PLUS for a stupid law that should only exist in communist countries - We really have lost our freedom if we cannot stand in front of our own stores or homes.
In every case I've heard about, there was a statute or ordinance that could literally be interpreted against the citizen who was ticketed. I haven't heard about many cases where the police invented a rule that didn't exist.
The fact is, however, that all law enforcement is dependent on interpretation and discretion. The average citizen would be amazed at how much our latitude the system gives police, prosecuters, and judges. It is not an exact science. The law doesn't prescribe with scientific precision what is supposed to happen in every situation.
Loitering, for instance, is defined (according to Merriam-Webster online) as: "to remain in an area for no obvious reason". I haven't looked up the law's definition, but I'm sure it's similarly vague. Even assuming you accept that this ought to be illegal, it's still a matter of judgment whether a person has an "obvious reason" for remaining where they are.
If a cop exercises lousy judgment in handing out a loitering summons, you can of course challenge it in court. But by the time you do that, probably taking off at least half a day from your job, you've already "lost" one way or another, no matter what the judge decides.
Of course, for the purpose of this post I'm assuming the facts to be as the article states them. Most of these "stupid summons of the day" articles present only one side of the story. There may have been more to it than what the media reports.
To keep this relevant to transit, let's consider the waiting areas near the turnstiles in many subway stations. People often wait there until their trains approach the station, but is their reason for being there really "obvious"? We might THINK we know why they're there, but couldn't one of them have some other motive? In all probability, those people are there to wait safely for the train, and it would be ludicrous for a police officer to ticket them for loitering, even though their reason for being there isn't completely obvious. Also in all probability, a person standing in front of a barber shop having a cigarette is there because he can't legally smoke inside. His reason for being there isn't completely obvious, but we can be fairly certain of what his reason is. My point is that before an officer gives out a ticket for loitering, he should make sure that the party being ticketed absolutely has no valid reason for hanging out there. This guy was right in front of the store in which he worked! I don't care if he has a police record as long as a freight train, he should not be ticketed for standing in front of his place of work having a cigarette.
I have a friend who is currently a police officer, and several others who are retired officers. I have all the respect in the world for those who risk their lives every day to protect us. But this crap is just wrong. I find myself seriously thinking of once again moving out of New York City.
That is what he told the Daily News. We don't know if that is what really happpened.
My barber shop is a hotbed for organized crime types. I have seen on a few occasions my barber give bags full of money to someone who walked in
My point is that we don't know the truth in this situation
As for the loitering law, waiting in a subway waiting area is a valid use for the area, Waiting in subway waiting area for 5 hours a day, every day is not a valid use of the area.
Police officers don't right frivilous tickets that are just going to be overturn by a judge. It looks bad on thier service record. There is not enough information in any of these daily news stories to make an acurate assesment of the situation PERIOD!!!!
Are you certain that that's what you saw? Could it have been something else? Somehow, I doubt that your barber would do that in so obvious a manner.
"As for the loitering law, waiting in a subway waiting area is a valid use for the area"
Of course it is, but only if one is really waiting for the train! How do we know what's REALLY happening?
"Police officers don't right (sic) frivilous (sic) tickets that are just going to be overturn (sic) by a judge."
Is that a proven fact, or just your opinion? Seems to me that most people would just pay the fine, rather than take time off from work to go to court on the CHANCE that the ticket will be dismissed, and therefore most of those tickets don't get challenged, and don't end up looking frivolous. And IF the police officers really are under orders to write these tickets, as has been alleged, to whom would they look bad even if the tickets WERE overturned? To the same people who ordered them to write the tickets in the first place? From what I hear, failure to obey directives from their superiors would look worse on their records.
You have a point with regard to verification of the guy's claim that he worked in that shop. However, it would not be a problem for the officer to step into the shop to see if the guy had a barber's license on the wall. If he really worked there, then there should be no ticket issued.
I should stop doing it (I don't do it as often now).
For the benefit of SubTalk, I will ask my friend today to verify this. :-D
IMHO I think it's fine as-is...even gives NYer's some exercise.
People can fall in between anywhere at any time. Even on straight tracks its possible if a person doesn't watch their step.
For the very short run that it is, I really don't think making the platform straight and entering/exiting the station will make that much of a difference. If someone's life is arranged so that that 30 seconds a trip has a significant impact, they've got bigger problems.
The cost of hiring full-time safety supervisors at either end of the platform, even if needed in perpetuity, would probably be lower than the cost (to say nothing of the hassle) of rebuilding the station. Not knowing enough of the facts, I'm not sure whether any remedy is necessary, but I'm rather sure that rebuilding the station is not.
I didn't say it wasn't. But I notice everyday commuters running, where the tourists are (mostly) walking. Who do you think is more likely to stick their foot in the gap?
I agree with you that nothing needs to be done here.
URL: http://www.panynj.gov/pr/pressrelease.php3?id=365
Peace,
ANDEE
I LOVE Auntie Anne's, the perfect place to go and grab a bite around Drexel without paying through the nose or buying from a cart.
Whoa, $2 for a 20 oz Coke that is crazy.
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
Not to mention chocolate chip bagels.
How are you supposed to put lox into a raisin bagel? Ewww.
Cream cheese with scallions finalizes the treat ... and gotta be served up on the wooden board fresh out of the oven. YUM! Nothing made my day more than a pair of garlic bagels on the way to my state job followed by *H*ello! *H*ow *A*re you this morning? Teach THEM to screw with me. :)
Satisfaction for us grunts in Civil Service come down to your choice of two working phrases:
1) "Could you please put that in WRITING?"
and
2) "Can you cite the chapter and paragraph in the collective bargaining agreement that you feel that I'm in violation of, and the name of the party who filed the grievance so I can call my steward?"
MMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm! Bagels. :)
It's FREEDOM Toast, you Osama sympathizer, you! GOP uber alles. :-\
--Mark
You will win $1 Million if you become the first person in your group to suffer a heart attack?
No F****N comparison. There's a downtown lunch for you. Pretzel, dog, Coke. Eat it sitting on a plaza wall as the crowds stream by under the looming skyscrapers. Or, get one near Radio City, watch the tourist parades.
Love that roasting smell!
I've always wanted to try a pretzel over there, but for some reason, I never do. I guess I'm too lazy. I often go to Queens Mall (while still under rehabilitation) and recently I went to Fortunoff Mall in Westbury last sunday. I saw that kiosk and I really wanted one, but again, I resisted...for no reason! God, I really want one with the glaze all over it. :-)
:-) Andrew
The consist went to lay-up at 207Yd.
The CTA runs 2, 4, 6, or 8 max cars on every train. There is never an odd number. Also, if one of the two cars in a married pair gets damaged and can't be used, but the other is still in good shape, they will "marry" it again to another car in a similar situation.
John
Advantage is that one pair can share key components such as air compressors and motor alternators, and there are half as many couplers on any given train (drawbars are used in lieu of couplers within the married pair). There are savings in car weight, power consumption, and maintenance.
All cars on both systems are married pairs.
Miami Metrorail did not buy any cars from the Budd Co. They were already out of the railcar business by then.
Mark
John
Everything that arrived at Wabash Avenue had blue end caps.
It's the fibreglass end caps that will make the cars the only MTA equipment that will never wear the MTA's new all-white with a Maryland flag that's going on the buses and LRV's.
They tried on one of of the sets that have gone throught the GOH process. First time the set went through the car washer, the white paint was coming off in patches. So, blue they stay forever (or until replacement.
John
All of our Budd built cars (1981-82 vintage) carry a bulders plate on the inside of the train doors. It says "Designed and Built by the BUDD Company". That order was the combined one. The only difference is that Miami's cars don't have a destination sign over the train door on the operating ends. Ours do.
Our second order (1984) carries plates from Transit America.
Was there ever a study/trial kind of experiment in NYC subway to use trailers? Or am I missing a known fact after 6 years with Subtalk?
The IND, however, was not a fan of trailers. There were none
used in the R1-9 series. Since the IND/Board of Transportation
took over the two private companies in 1940, car equipment
decisions thereafter followed the BOT practice.
Trailers diminish schedule speed and track capacity by reducing acceleration. Perhaps in these other systems this is not a factor,
or the motor cars are made sufficiently overpowered to compensate.
Interestingly enough, there are once again trailers, sort of:
The R142 and 142A class have "A" cars with 4 motors and "B"
cars with 2 motors, i.e. half-trailers. The reason for this was
primarily lack of underbody room for the motor inverter equipment.
When you consider how much current trains can draw, it's a miracle they don't burst into flames when a failure mode occurs. Pretty good design work in my book. Of course nowadays, they actually have money for parts. Or at least they DID ... HOPEFULLY we won't see a repeat of the subways that were everyday life for ME. "Maybe we'll get there, maybe we won't." Nowadays, there's REAL casinos if you feel lucky. Heh.
--Mark
Nappy
A similar situation existed in Washington up until the turn around loop track was put in service at New Carrollton Yard (D99). At that time nobody at WMATA was sure if odd to odd or even to even car coupling would work. Needless to say it turned out that there was no trouble coupling sets odd to odd or even to even.
John
The PATCO line has 96 cars in Married Pairs[201-296], and
25 Single-units [101-125].
The Broad St line is an oddity. There are 76 "Single End"
cars [501-576] which can be coupled in train lengths from
2 to a maximum of 8 cars. Odd-numbered train lengths can
be made as long as the train has "A" end in each direction.
The "B" end has no cab. Then there are the 49 "Double-End"
cars which are single units [651-699], no restriction on
train lengths. Trains can be made like this: SSDSS or
SSSSS , with the "A" [or cab] end of trains 1 facing North,
and one facing South.
I have mixed feelings. One the one hand, S Ken had a lot of character, albeit faded character, with the white painted roof fringes–I would have loved to see it when it was in its full glory. On the other, yes, it’s dowdy and the Piccadilly line interchange is a little awkward as it was a retrofit!
Perhaps the renovations can use the original lift shafts which are still there, though blocked with vent grilles!
John
I hate this, it takes a few days to destroy history, and once it is destroyed then the debate ends because it has gone forever. These people in positions of power should have more respect for people who disagree with their views and believe that with some thought and imagination, old architecture can be modified so that everything works.
As I said, I would have liked to have seen South Kensington when it was a whole station. Now that it’s a hole, with a not-very-particularly inspiring front, I can see that all those air rights would be very attractive to LU.
I just hope that the finished frontage has a nod to the past with an awning with the LU Roundel and the station name in white on a blue background. Maybe they can also tidy up the Circle/District level and do something (travelator?) with the tunnel to the Science/Geology/Natural History museums.
John
I asked her what she thought. Here is what she said:
How can it be an eyesore when you don't see it from above ground?? There's just the island of shops and a wall in front of the tracks. Bizzarre. The Circle and District platforms are fine, I like the old-fashioned roof. The Piccadilly platforms do get crowded. One thing that does sound good about the redevelopment is a new bus interchange-it's a nuisance having loads of bus stops on a narrow pavement with lots of people trying to get to the tube station. Big people jam up there. The station itself would be fine with a few more ticket machines and/or enough staff to open both windows! It isn't any worse than a lot of other stations, and I certainly don't think a new station would be worth the years of hassle during a big rebuilding.
If you stand on the Circle/District platform (which is currently an island platform) and look east towards Sloane Square, there is a disused platform on your left (which had signs and big flower pots last time I was there). On your right, there is space for another two tracks, which I recall seeing at one time, except that some of this was taken in the early 1970s for the escalators down to the Piccadilly line.
I also recalled reading somewhere about bits of construction for the Metropolitan line. I took a look at the likely sources and found this: about half-way down. Again, it was the victim of the escalator installation.
John
Wow! A four-track District Line - now that would be cool!
I think that is precisely what was originally there.
It looks like one of the tracks that was removed would have been a stub, as the tunnel continuation west of South Ken isn’t wide enough.
Baron's Court - Northfields.
I know, I know... It's part of the Picadilly line now but it used to be part of the District Railways.
It's probably not there anymore, but above the High St./Gloucester/Earl's Ct. triangle was the Airport Bus Terminal. It was from that building that I first saw a glimpse of London Underground trains. Most of them were red so they must have been CO/P/Q stock.
People in the adjoining neighborhoods were consulted well in advance about the AirTrain construction and by and large did not raise any objections. I wouldn't say that the graceful elevated structure is at all an eyesore, especially when compared to the Van Wyck itself.
Building an elevated line down the middle of the LIE might not be as hard a sell as one might imagine. There has been a massive amount of construction in that area, indeed through Old Westbury, associated with building HOV lanes. Actually, the main opposition to a rail line construction might come not from neighbors, but from people who regularly drive on the LIE and have had to put up with a great deal of HOV-related disruption.
A full 15 years later, there are noise abatement barriers going up at that very location.
--Mark
CG
Noise barriers on rail lines (example: Miami Metrorail) which hide the railcars' trucks are pretty effective. They don't remove the sound completely but, when combined with a modern trackbed design, they really do promote peace in the neighborhood.
Maybe LIRR should try them at-grade in places like New Hyde Park, where express trains which haven't visited the truing machine for a while barrelling through can raise Cain...
"The other night, I was driving along the Van Wyke Expwy south of Jamaica Ave and I took to notice the structure that was now in the center of the highway and it came to mind how gross it was know the low class neigborhoods surrounding the this structure had to take the brunt of construction and future noise"
In fact, most of the community had no problem with it at all. The opposition was from 24 people - the rest was manufactured and paid for by the airlines. And the PA won a lot of commendations from people in the neighborhood for the agency's construction plan, which limited the amount of noise and inconvenience, and added a lot of value to the neighborhood through street improvements and sound-proofing of schools.
"So you see, money does talk around here in NY state when the upper classes have the clout and the poor folks have no one to voice the concerns over construction projects"
The community had plenty of voice over AirTrain.
" that might lessen the value of their homes"
AirTrain has already increased the value of homes nearer to Jamaica's commercial center. It has no impact at all on home values along the Can Wyck.
" or cause future health problems."
Neither AirTrain nor its construction caused, or will cause, anyone any health problems. Just the opposite - over $200 million went to locally owned minority businesses who worked on the project, and a lot of local people got good jobs with health insurance as a result.
Ypu're repeating the kind of ignorant rumors that fall into the same category as "Birth control pills are an evil plot by Whites to Kill Black People" and other unfortunate myths which hold down economic progress in minority neighborhoods.
Plus, much of South Ozone Park is solidly middle class. They are smarter, as a whole than the Old Weesstbury bunch who feign to not like the LIRR.
I mis-typed. But really, Can Wyck sounds good - it's the street that made progress, where something good happened for everybody.
Also, it would be great if the LIRR could use the line that goes beyond Clinton Street and you it for either more freight into the surrounding area or to even think about returning commuter rail service as it did once before. But of course the upper class of Garden City would not want it that way, AGAIN. I am certain they were very happy once service was ended through their backyards.
OK. You may have a point there. I'd prefer the lights to stay on.
You made some interesting points, that I agree with to some extent. If the Van Wyck made you think of it, cool.
But understand that the Van Wyck is an example of what can and should be done. That project has helped a lot of local people, will help with neighborhood commercial investment (already has - look at One Jamaica Center and look at the conference center being planned).
That was a win for Jamaica, not a loss.
avid
The noise of Sunrise Hwy usually drowns out LIRR trains except at very early in the morning.
How long is the delay from BIE until you can cgarge again?
--Mark
David
BTW, the 7 is still about 3/4 R36, but I doubt it will last longer tahn a few months.
NOTHING wrong with having too many redbirds on a line, brah!! :C)
Sorry, but that's very incorrect. The R-142 and R-142A were ordered on schedule in 1997, so there's no way any of them could have been expected to come in that year. Along with the huge ridership increases that started in that year following the introduction of "One City/One Fare," this is a reason that operable (as opposed to damaged) Redbirds would not have been retired starting in 1997.
David
URL: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/91179p-82775c.html
It won't be limited to those hours, they'll bill plenty of evenings and weekends at those rates. But, hey, the MTA is getting a 20% discount off the going rate.
CG
The Straphangers are disingenuous, as always. They knew perfectly well that, by challenging the fare hike in court, they would force the MTA to expend resources—our resources—defending the hike. Gene Russianoff may have his priorities in the wrong place, but he's no dummy. He knows that $400/hr for an experienced lawyer is cheap.
The public is secondary in all these issues. There is a old adage, the lawyers win no matter who wins. This is the case in 99% of the lawsuits filed in this city.
It goes to show you how much the straphangers campaign really "Cares" about the rifing public
Each one of their frivilous legal challenges cost the riding public money to defend the challenge.
Not to mention the cost to the taxpayers in the form of court time.
Many people do not realize the costs
Would you want the MTA to hire a bunch of Hacks for thier defense?
Once a court agrees with the Straphangers' legal challenge, it can no longer fairly be called frivolous. Perhaps if what the MTA did had not been so wrong they would not have to spend so much money trying to find some legal theory, any legal theory, that would justify it. :-)
Tom
AFAIK, the salient point that distinguishes this particular law firm from thousands of others within NY State or from the "hack" lawyers employed by the MTA is the fact that one of the partners happens to be the spouse of the highest judge in the state. My guess is what briefs that they prepare for the lower appellate process will be pure gravy. The MTA bought influence not expertise.
$400/hr worth of campaign contributions?
These facts were known when the trial judge was assigned. The MTA could have asked the judge to recuse himself. They did not.
The appellate process is different. There is no "luck of the draw" of being assigned one judge over another. It will be interesting to see whether or not Chief Judge Kaye recuses herself, when the case gets to the Court of Appeals.
I don't know the exact amount, but she wasn't getting services in return.
The judge could also have recused himself without MTA's asking for it. In fact, the judge had an ethical duty to do so wthout being asked.
It is a shrewd legal move. The MTA was got a stay which past precedents have always dictated. They could not loose
One of the reason the MTA did not protest is that this case is ultimately decided by the appellet court anyway. Any improprieties helps the MTA's case
How do you make a campaign contribution to an attorney?
These lawsuits are a game to these guys. Nothing more. The game is to get one's name out thier to get elected to higher office
So whatever lead to this firm being hired, I DOUBT it had anything to do with Judy Kaye's husband being on staff. I'd look to others there who are friends of Paturkey or his puppetmaster D'Amato as the cause and effect factor here, not Judy Kaye ... whoever wrote up the article is modulating their anus to speak ...
What the strappies are trying to do is just force another public hearings process so they can get more camera time. It is all about making a name for themselves not a better operating MTA for the public bennifit. The public is too blinded by the smoke and mirrors. If you read the straphangers site, you get no real information of the actual content of the Lawsuit and the potetial outcome.
State Senator Carl Kruger pulled a similar stunt with the Department of Education Lawsuit. He settled in the favor of the board of ed but renamed a tittle community superintendant and held a news conference claiming victory.
NYPOST ARTICLE
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/923.htm
Vs the truth that he caved in NYTIMES article
Deal Clears Last Obstacle to City Schools Overhaul
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
he Bloomberg administration yesterday cleared the last legal hurdle to New York City's most sweeping educational overhaul in more than a generation, settling a lawsuit that opposed the mayor's plan to reorganize local school districts.
Under the deal, which was approved by Justice Doris Ling-Cohan of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, the administration agreed to maintain a small office in each of the 32 existing community school districts. But the new district offices will be a shadow of the current ones, which were often criticized as being bloated. Now, just three people will be assigned to each one.
The administration also agreed to name a superintendent for each district, retaining a title that Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein had planned to eliminate. But the deal allows Mr. Klein to proceed with plans to reorganize the school system into 10 instructional regions.
Both the administration and a group of state, local and federal lawmakers who had brought the suit claimed victory yesterday. Mr. Klein said he had protected the reform plan by agreeing to cosmetic changes, while the lawmakers said they had won important concessions for parents and communities.
The settlement averted a potentially lengthy court battle that had threatened to derail not just the district reorganization, but virtually every component of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's effort to overhaul the schools, including new uniform reading and math curriculums and plans to give principals autonomy over their school budgets.
The settlement did little, however, to end the acrimony between the Bloomberg administration and its critics in the State Legislature. Each side called a news conference yesterday morning to announce the deal and offer its spin.
Mr. Klein, speaking to reporters gathered around a conference table at the Education Department's headquarters in the Tweed Courthouse, said that he had conceded virtually nothing. Noting the sunny weather, he said, "The last cloud to our reorganization plan has now been removed."
At precisely the same moment, State Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, Assemblyman Steven Sanders of Manhattan and other plaintiffs in the lawsuit gathered on the steps of City Hall. "The mayor and the schools chancellor have blinked," Mr. Kruger said. "Our communities have won."
The Education Department immediately moved to push ahead with its reorganization plan by announcing how the city's 1,200 schools would be grouped within the 10 new divisions, which are being headed by 10 regional superintendents.
Last year, state legislators granted Mr. Bloomberg widely expanded control of the city school system. But after Mr. Bloomberg announced details of his reorganization plan in January, many of the same lawmakers turned against him, saying they never expected him to effectively eliminate the local school districts and superintendents.
Each regional superintendent will oversee a team of local instructional supervisors, who in turn will directly supervise 9 to 12 schools. The Education Department's Web site — www.nycenet.edu — has posted the names of the 113 instructional supervisors and the schools they will oversee.
Officials also said that within the next day or so, principals will get their budget allocations for next year from the central administration under a new system that avoids channeling the money first through a district office.
The settlement yesterday largely mirrored a deal that Mr. Klein struck late last month with State Senator Frank Padavan of Queens, who had introduced legislation aimed at blocking the district reorganization plan.
In the deal with Mr. Padavan, the chancellor agreed to maintain the small offices in each district and to appoint a district administrator to be chosen from the ranks of the local instructional supervisors.
Under yesterday's court settlement, the district administrators will be called community superintendents, but will still be taken from the group of local instructional supervisors. It seems likely that the job will be little more than an extra title.
Mr. Klein said the local instructional supervisors who serve as community superintendents would still be responsible for overseeing their groups of schools. But they will also sign evaluations of principals in their districts and will be liaisons to the parent councils that are expected to replace the old community school boards, he said.
Mr. Sanders, the chairman of the Assembly Education Committee, said yesterday's settlement was important because it forced Mr. Bloomberg and Mr. Klein to comply with state education law, which establishes district boundaries and outlines the responsibilities of community superintendents.
But he acknowledged that under the mayor's reorganization plan the community superintendents might have a limited role. "If they are doing their best to circumvent the law, I say shame on them," Mr. Sanders said. "There are only so many things you can enforce by law. Sincerity unfortunately isn't one of them."
The principals' union, which had joined the lawsuit against the mayor's plan, praised the settlement. "There is now no question that in September the entire school system will be operating consistent with existing state law," the union president, Jill Levy, said in a prepared statement.
The teachers' union, which was not involved in the lawsuit, also praised the deal.
"We congratulate the parties for putting aside their differences," the union president, Randi Weingarten, said in a statement
But for the court to overrule an executive agency, it must be proven that they violated LAW or their OWN RULES. And yes, they're entitled to change the rules if they so desire. Public hearings are there for the airing of grievances around the Festivus pole, they are not the final arbiter of reality. But as I've indicated since the beginning, the MTA *will* prevail unless it can be proven that they broke the law or violated their own rules. So far, I see no such evidence ...
The law states that the govenor and/or mayor have the right to appoint heads of agency's to goven those agencies. It is the local policians who want to show their constituants they are doing something, anything that impeads many city and state agencies from properly governing thier agencies. The term limits law makes it imperitive that the want to be carear politicians have to make there name known whether it harms thier constituants or not. That is the problem.
The best way to do this is to critize any more made by the mayor govenor or any public ageny. They uses the publics natural distrust of big business and government to thier advantage. In minority communities they local hacks claim racial bias no matter what the issue is.
The mayor wants to cut garbage pickups to once a week in area of one and two family neighborhoods, the political idiots show pictures of overflowing garbage cans and rats. In my neighborhood and most suburbs of the same density, once a week pickups are no problem. But to show they are fighting for us, they forced sanitation to restore the cuts costing taxpayers millions in unnneeded pickups
The is no real need for so many layers of govenment in this city. Combined that with law schools graduating so many lawyers with not much to do and you have a receipt for disaster
If they want publicity, go on Fear Factor or Survivor!
http://csmail.law.pace.edu/lawlib/legal/us-legal/judiciary/second-circuit/test3/95-9153.opn.html
where SUNY became responsible for a portion of an award after it was determined that NYPIRG and SUNY had some legal issues ... and students sued because of claims of violation of THEIR first amendment rights owing to the mandatory allocation of their student fees to NYPIRG ...
Plus, the Strappies are using a sitting Assembly Member as pro-bono counsel. Of course, pro bono is Latin for "since the client isn't paying, my forgone fees become a deductible expense." In other words, We the Taxpayers are footing the bill on both sides!!
They'll be hauled up before the IRS before a fast talker can say tax cheat, if they try.
First, only contributions to charitable, educational, etc. institutions that are recognized by the IRS can be deducted. Second, only actual out of pocket and non-reimbursed expenses are tax deductible. Lost wages and don't qualify.
Not with their own politician (and his allies) on their side.
- - - - -
First, only contributions to charitable, educational, etc. institutions that are recognized by the IRS can be deducted.
The Strappies have somehow managed to get themselves placed in the "recognized" category.
- - - - -
Second, only actual out of pocket and non-reimbursed expenses are tax deductible. Lost wages and don't qualify.
They'll simply adjust the billing to bloat the "expenses" while reducing the "fees" to zero.
There are differences between charities and tax-deductible charities. The Straphangers Campaign is the former not the latter. A charity means that they can accept donations. It does not mean that the donar can deduct such contributions from his taxes.
Support NYPIRG
"Take a moment and click here to show your support for NYPIRG through a tax deductible contribution."
A political party is not. A contribution to an election campaign is not tax deductible, though a $1 contribution to the national election fund (if you checked it off on your form 1040) is in effect, a charitable contribution because it reduces the tax you actually pay by $1.
Straphangers is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NYPIRG; any money given to Straphangers ends up with NYPIRG. Since NYPIRG falls under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, so does Straphangers.
The Obvious logic is:
Force them and the will come, nyc, youve gotta be crazy to drive ti midtown, long island the same, so u take the RR or Subway
so charge tolls on all highways, nationwide, at every entrance of every interstate and us route, and see how fast mass-transit comes up into vouge
Mark
Michael
Washington, DC
The key point is that London and New York (and I guess Paris and Tokyo too) are cities which grew up with the rail transit infrastructure there, so they are places where living a pleasant existence without a car is feasible. Many places that are newer, or more thinly populated, have grown up with car use being the norm, and to *stop* people using their cars now will be very difficult.
Driving in our region already has enormous disincentives, such as: high insurance rates; tolls on some routes; very heavy traffic on almost all routes; cost of parking. If there is a mass transit option, rest assured it will find plenty of customers. Those who drive either don't have a realistic mass transit option, or are sufficiently affluent to be indifferent to the costs. Indeed, even the phrase "realistic mass transit option" is almost comical in our region, where 90-minute one-way commutes are commonplace.
Generally, the mass transit corridors that exist in the region are not starving for passengers. Most modes of mass transit are at or near their rush-hour capacity. They don't need to have more passengers "forced" onto them. If you want more people to take their cars off the roads, you need to create capacity on the mass transit network. Merely increasing the cost of driving, without more, would just penalize drivers who probably wouldn't be driving anyway if mass transit were realistically available to them.
In hindsight, probably most of the major expressways should have been tolled, but to put a toll collection infrastructure in now would be a huge undertaking. And at the end of the day, most of those people probably still need to be driving anyway. A more practical option would be to implement congestion pricing on those roads that are already tolled, put tolls on the city-owned bridges, and plow the extra money into mass transit investments. Build it, and they will come.
All my life, people who don't want to use public transit have been saying that. It will never be good enough for those who are in love with their car. There are natural limitations on public transit - namely, there have to be enough people wanting to go from the same A to the same B at about the same time to pay for the costs of running (at minimum) a small bus*. Those who demand that public transit must get "better" before they will consider using it are usually demanding a quality that is unachievable - i.e. that it should be the same as using their own car! And that isn't public transit, that's a taxi.
The real point is that highways are paid for from taxation and nobody thinks that is odd, whereas public transit is expected to pay (at least a fair proportion) of its way through the farebox, so it is not a fair competition.
* - Yes, I know trains are more economical than buses - but only if they have enough passengers. An empty 10-car train loses a lot more money than an empty 30-seater bus.
Why do you say that?
Electronic toll collection (E-ZPass) is relatively inexpensive, and it doesn't cause traffic jams (on the contrary, tolls would reduce traffic volumes).
Of course this is just my imagination running off ... I could be way way off but I just thought I'd share this.
True - you've gotta be crazy to drive in midtown - that's exactly why I don't shop there either... How am I going to carry the stuff home? Some people say - go into the department store and order it for home delivery - well that doesn't work for me - I refuse to lose a vacation or sick day to be held a virtual prisoner at home for a day waiting for deliveries.. If I buy something its coming with me so public transit just doesn't work.
I keep hearing this mentioned when people discuss shopping trips.
Home delivery is a well-known practice. For people living in apartments it's just an everyday thing. Tell me, just how many times do you leave your home to purchase items large enough to necessitate a car? Truthfully, most everyday items we need to buy can be fit into a shopping bag, if not a pocket. How many couches are you buying? How many sheds, or lumber or wheelbarrows? This can't amount to more than a small percentage of total shopping trips.
I used to live on 84th St. near Ft. Hamilton Pkwy. I would go to the Pathmark on 13th Ave. by bus. Do my shopping, and just carry my bags, usually 2 or 3, onto the bus. It's doable, and I didn't have to worry about parking or tickets or damage to the car. The plentitude of supermarkets and other box stores in the suburbs belie the fact that they're all selling basically the same crap. Kohls is selling what Target sells and what Wal-Mart sells and what Old Navy sells....really not much of an honest diversity of choices. (And I'd venture to guess that about 75 % of ALL that crap is made in China...lord help the industrial districts of Newark and Cleveland and Chicago, all done in by the incessant demand for the "cheapest".)
Thats fine if someone is home to receive the stuff - UPS has returned lots of things to the sender on me because I was never home to sign for them.. Home delivery doesn't work for me.
I remember also buying a television set from Macy's years ago - I had to wait a month for delivery - to me that is BS - Now if i buy a TV you better believe I will be watching it that night. Same with an air conditioning unit - etc... I have no patience to wait for delivery or to be kept a virtual prisoner on the delivery date - I'd like to tell them - "you deliver it between 7am and 7pm and maybe I will pay sometime between Jan 7th and July 7th..."
For people living in apartments it's just an everyday thing. Tell me, just how many times do you leave your home to purchase items large enough to necessitate a car?
More often than you think - and I have bad knees so carrying heavy packages around - even 1 or 2 shopping bags - isn't an option.
Sheesh. I fail to see a connection to a reason to avoid having to take public transit. When I purchased my television it was delivered within the hour! Hell, I rode with the guy who delivered it. And this was a "brand name" store, a PC Richards to be exact. So that's not a indicator of how reliable or not the home delivery system is. (And for you to wait an entire month......by the end of the day you should have DEMANDED the set be delivered. How could you wait week after week? )
I understand about the bad knees. Uh, surely, normal walking could help strengthening them? Going from house to car to store or work and back to car and back to house really ain't much of a walk.
Do what I do. When you receive the first notice call UPS and tell them you want to pick it up at their shipping center.
That's a real big help for the person who had it shipped because he had no way to carry it home in the first place. :-(
Tom
When I started to read this post, I thought that was an "in service"
consist (unless you knew by numbers they were for scubaiing).
You had to be on the MOD trip in 2001 for that :^)
Don't A to B transfers require a single, with four trippers, on each end of the consist?
(I missed this post the first time around, I guess.)
GOTTA love the quizzical looks from T/O and C/R's...
I used to get 'em ALL the time back when I'd wait
around at IRT 96th Street for a REDBIRD 2 to come along..
Peace,
ANDEE
No, jail time isn't good enough for him. Handcuffing his hands behind a subway pillar and having the conductors he punched return the favors would be fitting. That might send him a message.
Bill "Newkirk"
Even fishier than that is the fact that he claims he rode to Howard Beach before seeking medical attention.
I've heard stories throughout the years about conductors who been spat on, had bottles thrown at them and even hit with baseball bats. Not much safety on that job.
Bill "Newkirk"
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
They're in Providence too.
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
Nah....that probably would damage the doors and the cars would be OOS.
Maybe they should give a Brillo pad and make him shine the third rail !!
Bill "Newkirk"
Another form of punishment: how about tying him to the front of a reach car and then sending the reach car into a flooded tunnel (he is tied to the coupler, with vinyl separating him from the coupler). Remember, the punishment must fit the crime!
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
Not that I ever did anything like that!!!!!
Not that I ever did anything like that!!!!!
We're talking about punishment, not shear torture !!
Bill "Newkirk"
I can't......Im honest !! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Bill "Newkirk"
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
I had one kid try it once (at Canal St on the R), showing off for his girl. He ended up with a few bloody knuckles when I slammed the cab window shut and he hit that instead of my face.
My understanding is that they aren't persuing this as far as their supposed to by law (as far as charges), is that true or just crew room BS?
You need to be able to ride with the shoe slipper hanging out when we see kids on the platform. :)
It does indeed. What I heard last was that they were charging it as aggravated assault. I don't know if that had changed or what I heard in the first place was pure bunk.
Peace,
ANDEE
:)
Peace,
ANDEE
It's not the size of your hands, but how fast (and skillfully) you can move them ...
Bernie Goetz couldn't have said it better. :-)
Tom
That is very true. You could have big hands but if your hand skills & fighting position ain't there, a bad result will occur, simply put getting your ass kicked.
Carefull now....the perp may hire an ACLU lawyer and sue you for assault !
Bill "Newkirk"
If that doesn't work, he should call the firm of Dewey, Cheatham and Howe !
Bill "Newkirk"
BTW, I noticed a better police presence on the Brooklyn-bound Bridge platform last night. About time the station had better security. Now if they can nab those card swipers hanging out at the HEET's on both sides of the Lexington Ave #6 line platform, that will be a blessing too.
I introduced a guy like that on the MARTA system to a police officer.
You never know what else they are doing.
Mark
What's better than giving free passes to employees, is that they are currently building their own parking decks at Doraville, North Springs and College Park. The way the arrangemnt will work (I think, it could be the other way around) is that BellSouth will build a five-level or so garage and then they will lease the top three decks to MARTA for public use while their employees use the lower decks.
Robert
And yes, 1575 did run on the QJ/J in revenue service, as in this pic at Sutphin Blvd. Sorry about the prevalent silver-and-blue paint scheme.
Note that it appears the end with the IND destination curtain is facing out; it's cranked all the way to the end.
Probably because Brighton Beach wasn't on that sign. That's where the (QJ) went first before it went to Coney Island.
Bill "Newkirk"
-William A. Padron
--Mark
In theory, the train could have ended up on the Jamaica line, by running down one of the routes to Coney Island, back up the F to W4, and down through the Chrystie cut, but instead it went to a different part of Jamaica (with a visit to Jamaica Yard).
I'd guess that the 6/28 trip will probably run up the Jamaica line if there's no GO in the way.
If there is a GO then I have no clue, as we would have to go southbound again (maybe Sea Beach<->Brighton?). Ought to be quite interesting regardless, of course.
All I know is we haven't covered the following:
53 St, 63 St
Astoria
Archer
Chrystie
Sea Beach, 4th Ave (36-95)
9th Ave LL/37 St Yard
Jamaica El, Bway Bklyn El, ENY Yd
14 St, Canarsie, Canarsie Yard
Myrtle El, Fresh Pond Yd
Central Park West
Concourse/205 Yd
Wash Hts/207 Yd
Fulton, Pitkin Yd, Rockaways, Rock Pk Yd
Brighton (technically)/Franklin Shuttle (fat chance)
Am I missing anything?
--Mark
But anyone who's run a work train can tell you, you can gap out on a grade or on a ladder where it would seem impossible. And yet it happens. Worst feeling in the WORLD is getting on the horn and begging for something to give you a push. :(
Never got taught that trick. Got enough of a dose of the willies with the "here's how to use the extension cord" and wouldn't ya know it? There's always be one in the cab in the second or third car on the floor somewhere on the Arnines. Yeah, like I was going to get down on the WillyB and plug it in. Yeah, RIGHT.
You KNOW you're in trouble though when you went over the gap and only one or two cars in your struggling train would make a blue flash. :)
The kids would be amused though at how many cuts of cars didn't make it across the ladders. One of the nice things about pulling onto a ladder and NOT encountering a call on ... you could ask for a push. Heh.
The diesel was used in place of #491 who sat out the trip with a hot box. Three cars full of railfans may or may not have made the grade at Smith-9th Sts. and the river tunnels. The diesel was insurance, can't lay down and tie up the "road".
Bill "Newkirk"
BTW, I see that the D-types also had a work motor along for the ride on it's recent fantrip. Is it also just for insurance, or are the D-types inoperable?
-Stef
We couldn't get out of 36th St. station to climb the ramp to the West End line. After several tries, the D-Types and Steeplecab got going together. Those D-types ain't light weights !!
Bill "Newkirk"
Even if it's a repeat with the diesel escort, they really should. I'm not really sure that #491's truck can be repaired in time unless they swap out one of the other idle museum arnine's truck.
Bill "Newkirk"
8-) ~ Sparky
That fantrip last summer was advertised as a D-Type / Steeplecab fantrip. A D-Type fantrip with something extra. The D-Types didn't really need the Steeplecab.
Bill "Newkirk"
And, yes, BMT/IND trips really are better than the IRS, as you stated :)
--Mark
: )
Mark
Arti
It would prevent suburban commuters from using the Lex to get downtown. But it would also force everyone on the #6, N/R, and E/V to transfer to the local to get to East Midtown. No way.
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.
Arti
One idea the MESA study looked at was to add a second downtown local track at Grand Central—making it a 5-track station. This would have improved headways on the line by allowing 3 downtown trains to be in the station at once. But the logistics of constructing it would have been horrendous, and it would have offered just a very slight improvement to crowding conditions at GC, so the idea didn't go very far.
(Anyone have a candidate for a local stop that should have been express, or an express stop that should have been local? My favorite example is Chambers St on the 1/2/3/9. There's really no reason for an express stop there. Obviously the 2/3 need to peel off somewhere, but if you were building the line today you'd probably make the split farther south, as was done for the A/C/E.)
The whole point should be moving people. Today express service provides minimal time savings and the only asset it has, is the image of being faster.
Arti
You should have said: "...moving people from where they are, to where they want to go." If half the trains (i.e., the expresses) skip one of the more popular stations, that objective isn't met.
Arti
Let's get real. Of course, every stop is somebody's destination, but Grand Central is by far the busiest stop on the line. Indeed, it beats its next competitor (51st St) by about a 4:1 margin.
Yes, it's true (though not widely appreciated) that express trains aren't a whole lot faster than locals. But the pertinent point is that the busier stations should be express stops, because more people enter and exit at those stations.
A lot of people who get on at GC work in lower Manhattan.
Besides the if you were to add too many more trains to the local you will start to slow things down (there is just so much distance between stations).
Perhaps they find Atlantic Terminal a better oprion then.
Arti
ESA in my mind.
Arti
Perhaps they find Atlantic Terminal a better oprion then.
... later corrected to ...
ESA in my mind.
Grand Central is the major point of arrival from Upstate NY and Connecticut. Neither Atlantic Terminal nor ESA will provide transit service for them.
< sarcasm >
In that vein, rip out the existing 4-track Lex south of GC and extend ESA and MNRR through it the rest of the way down to Bowling Green. One-seat rides for the suburbanites. The heck with the schlep help that lives in the Bronx (they can change to SAS at 125th) or Brooklyn (make them take the trains through Montague or Clark).
< /sarcasm >
Yep. IMO, the idea of Manhattan subways being local only is ludicrous. Call it what you will....folks need that option/fantasy of being able to "leap" over long stretches of city blocks to traverse from downtown to midtown and uptown. You want that as an ingrained concept of how intra-city transit operates. I don't care how other cities don't have express tracks, they don't serve a "real" purpose, etc. etc. NYC, and Manhattan especially, operate at a faster pace than other towns. We need those express tracks.
Look at the timetables, there's virtually no time savings from express service, especially in Manhattan. Shorter headways on IND, BMT would save more time.
Arti
51st Street on the Lexington local line should have been an express stop. It is one of the ten busiest stations in the system. 59th Street was converted from local to express, and the same thing could be done to 51st Street.
Disagree. One of the great things about this station is that it balances the load, because the Queens folks don't get right on the express. Same with the changes to the #6 at Canal, and the proposed change at Bleeker. Someone needs to be on the local.
That's my point about GC.
Arti
Arti
66th and Broadway would make a good express stop now because of Lincoln Center, which didn't exist when that line opened. I often wonder how many people headed for Lincoln Center get on a 2 or 3 by mistake and blow right past it.
OTOH concertgoers headed for Carnegie Hall don't have that problem - 57th St. is an express stop as it should be.
I don't think 66th is a particularly busy station, despite the fact that Lincoln Center is now there. It probably is true that some tourists fail to realize that it's not an express stop, but the walk down from 72nd isn't too onerous.
These days, at least, you can transfer to a downtown 1/9 at 72nd if you don't want to walk. I don't recall whether the original design at 72nd made the list of design errors, but as built it was certainly about the most clotted and unnavigable express stations in the system.
It's the third busiest local station on the line, behind 59th and 50th, and just ahead of 86th and 79th.
(That doesn't mean it should be an express station, of course -- it just means there needs to be adequate local service.)
Opera and ballet patrons don't take the subway. :)
I'm an opera patron (I went about 25 times last season) and always took the subway in both directions. The platforms at 66th are indeed packed after a Lincoln Center performance. It feels a little surreal being on a jammed #1 downtown when PARSIFAL ends at midnight.
I suppose so. It's usually only the uptown 1 that's jammed at midnight!
It's not just the subway -- the buses also get quite crowded. If it weren't such a logistical nightmare, I'd suggest running artics on the M66 after Lincoln Center performances.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Why is 71 Av/Forest Hills an express stop? (Disregarding the fact that this is a terminal, as I don't think it was intended to be as such.)
Perhaps 111 St (7) should be an express stop. As should 137 St (1)(9), & 14 St/Sixth Ave (F)(V).
Don't even get me started on stations that shouldn't even exist at all. Hewes St, Bushwick-Aberdeen, Courtleyou Road, 145/Lenox...
Either Park Place shouldn't exist or Chambers/Bway should be a "local" stop (actually would be connected via transfer, but the express tracks would bypass the local section).
What's wrong with Hewes Street?
As for Bushwick-Aberdeen, I assume in years past it must've been a more used stop years back. Just think of Atlantic (L). That station is now the least used station in Brooklyn, and as designed it was a major hub, even bigger that Broadway Junction.
The same for 145th Street. Now it seems a bit worthless, but back then it was the terminal of the line.
As for Coutleyou (or Beverley), either-or of those stations were probably redundant right from the beginning.
I'd like to add 18th street on the 1/9. I love that station, but it seems a bit unnecessary.
What the hell, man? The Hewes Street station serves a different neighborhood than the Marcy Avenue station. And Lorimer Street is another neighborhood also. I don't see Hewes as useless at all. Those are pretty high density streets. It's a long walk from Union Ave up to Marcy. In the `70s' I used to frequent friends on S. 4th Street between Union and Hewes. That station was perfect for the neighborhood. I could catch the KK for Rockefeller Center, the J for Broad Street, and the M for Coney Island.
For the year 2002, annual ridership:
Times Square: 53,434,864 (#1)
Grand Central: 40,225,214 (#2)
For the year 2002, average weekday ridership:
Times Square: 166,944 (#1)
Grand Central: 140,503 (#2)
David
It's all about interpretation.
David
But that would make even more people to transfer at GC. Also why wait til SAS?
Maybe to make both 86th and 42nd Local.
Arti
Arti
The local simply can't handle the crowds going to and from eight stations, three of which are exceptionally busy. (86th is the busiest non-CBD station in the system -- rank 11 in 2000, with 16,898,144 fare registrations; 68th and 77th are the busiest local non-transfer points in the system -- ranks 24 and 25, with close to 10 million fare registrations each.)
The SAS will reduce those numbers slightly, but they will still be very high.
Not in my experience. I used 96th St regularly when I was dating a girl who lived at 92nd and First.
You waited for a local train at 86th on a regular basis just to save 2 blocks walking? That's a strange use of time.
I definitely see a moderate proportion (say, 20%) of the people who get off at 86th climb 1 flight of stairs and then wait for the uptown local.
You have addressed one group who would then transfer at 125th or 42nd. The other is those entering the system at 86/Lex who are going to an express stop South of 42nd or North of 125th.
Because it's an express station. Make it a local and ridership will even out between it and 96th/77th.
Yes but it would also result in much worse crowding in local trains. The cure would be worse than the disease!
Arti
You could increase the local service from 21 to 25TPH. The turnaround at Brooklyn Bridge is the limiting factor.
With all the additonal crowds at Grand Central, I don't think that would be nearly enough.
So people say, but I don't see why. In rush hour the 6 frequently has a dwell time of under 30 seconds at BB, much less than at 51st.
According to the SAS SDEIS, chapter 5B: "On the #6 local service, the number of departing trains is projected to increase from 21 to 25 trains per hour to accommodate expected ridership growth. This is the maximum number of trains that can be operated on the #6 route through the Brooklyn Bridge loop."
Maybe this was written at a time when passengers weren't allowed in the loop.
AFAIK, officially they still aren't—although you can often get away with it.
There's a rather eerie story about this on the Straphangers "Rider Diaries" site. A guy boarded a downtown #6 at Bleecker, and rode through the loop in the last car to avoid getting caught. (Rightly or wrongly, he was under the impression that you weren't supposed to do this.) The train stopped inside City Hall station, waiting for a northbound #6 to leave Brooklyn Bridge. The guy went out the front door, and observed the station from the small metal "bridge" between cars. He was so awestruck that he dropped his CD player, and it almost fell into the track bed. Now, that guy was living on the edge.
I believe the 2 layup tracks there are way too short to store a train.
Past posts on this board have suggested that those two tracks are used sometimes. In those cases, I suspect they check the whole train very carefully before leaving the station.
It was posted here that a bulletin was issued in April, 2001 stating that passengers are permitted to ride through the loop; it was confirmed in February, 2002. AFAIK, none of our friends in RTO have posted that this has been rescinded.
Past posts on this board have suggested that those two tracks are used sometimes. In those cases, I suspect they check the whole train very carefully before leaving the station.
Yes - in those cases.
These days you know that it will be strictly enforced but people still ride through the loop at times anyway. Its very risky and I wouldn't take the chance of possibly getting arrested for whatever I would be charged with.
Your belief is wrong. The two layup tracks are capable for storing a 10 car train between the two signal lights.
In fact once a train was late it went right through Bklyn Brg SB plat then thru the loop and discharged on the uptown platform
I would of loved to be on that train. I bet the people were pissed since at least half of them had to take a downtown 4 train.
At Bowling Green/South Ferry (5) on the other hand, a train could go out of service and come out via the Bway line, so there it makes sense, but on the (6) it does not.
Well on the 6 it doesn't make sence. But sometimes teenagers like to stay on the train to go onto the abandoned platform, trip, break a bone, sue the MTA and win.
Actually, this makes no sense.
If you really check carefully for passengers, you can't run 25 tph. Continental has great trouble handling 20.
If you don't actually check for passengers, you don't need the policy.
Arti
Excess capacity on the #6? Yeah, I think you're right, with
a little Vaseline you could squeeze a gum wrapper in there
during rush hour.
Arti
But making GC a local (that is, non-express) stop would reduce service at the line's busiest station. While more trains could run on the #6, no one has suggested that service could be doubled. Therefore, if expresses don't stop at GC, then GC will see less service, no matter what you do with the #6. The busiest stop on the line is quite obviously the last place where you want to reduce service.
- No blocking the egress from the trains.
- No disreagrding the instructions of NYCT employees.
- No disregarding of the bing bong warning. If the door fails to close because your body or your possessions are in the way, you are in violation.
- After 5 convictions, a judge can order you banned from the Lex at rush hour. Any further violations are contempt of court with possible jail time.
In return, NYCT promises to send trains into the Lex system at a rate of 1 every 100 seconds. If you are unlucky and end up in a big cluster of people, you may not get onto this train, but you'll only have to wait 100 seconds for the next one.
Rich
It's called the 42nd Shuttle.It occupies the top subterranean level on 42nd St between 6th Ave and Broadway. Even the 42nd St & 6th Ave Station mezzanine does not cross 42nd St. The entrances north of 42nd St have separate fare control and platform access.
It had 3 fare control areas the last time I checked: north side of 42nd St; south side of 42nd St and 40th St.
Actually it runs down to 34th St. However, I remember that there were separate booth and turnstiles at 40th.
The passageway from 40th to 35th is not currently open to the public, of course.
It's called the 42nd Shuttle.It occupies the top subterranean level on 42nd St between 6th Ave and Broadway.
Then why can't it go under 41st St?
The mezzanine is already being extended underneath the SB BMT platform. Just pull it all the way through to 6th.
It's hard enough as it is to get between the Upper West Side on the 1/2/3/9 and Queens on the E; the F is even worse. I never know how to get home if I find myself on the F in Queens: Stay on the F to 14th? Backtrack at 47th-50th and transfer again at 59th? Transfer at Roosevelt to the E, and either transfer twice more at 7th and 59th or once with a walk at 42nd? Get off at Roosevelt and take an R or 7 to Times Square? (Yesterday an R pulled in across from my F at Roosevelt, so the choice was clear.)
And before anyone suggests that the market for such a transfer is small, take a look at the crowds that stream down the stairs at 7th Avenue off the B/D and E. Where do you think they're trying to go?
My rules of thumb:
Rush hours: minimize distance and number of stations, because delays can happen anywhere (so transfer to the B/D at 50th).
Non-rush: minimize number of trains you have to take (so go down to 14th).
Any good weather: walk a few extra blocks to minimize connections and stops (so if you have an unlimited, walk across 50th from 6th to Broadway).
In contrast to a transfer at 42nd, on the map it looks like a transfer between 7th Ave (B/D/E) and 50th (1/9) would be relatively easy to create. The western edge of the former seems to be almost on top of the northern edge of the latter.
Of course, this would be a compromise—easier to do, but no direct transfer to the 2/3 express, and no help to F/V passengers.
<<>>
It's called the 42nd Shuttle.It occupies the top subterranean level on 42nd St between 6th Ave and Broadway. Even the 42nd St & 6th Ave Station mezzanine does not cross 42nd St. The entrances north of 42nd St have separate fare control and platform access.
The corridor from 1/2/3 to L under 14th is a slightly longer direct, uninterrupted corridor. It runs a greater portion of a long crosstown block than the 41st St corridor.
The walk from the north end of the northbound A/C/E to the south end of the BMT at 42nd is probably the longest walk inside fare control.
Next, my Train 448 connection at Springfield was actually on time out of Chicago (so it wasn't amtrak's fault) and only 48 minutes late at Rochester, but, like always, CSX strikes again and by Sryacyuse the train was 1:40 late and by 10:40 AM it was over 2 hours late. This made me have to cancel my Springfield railfan session and take the Outland route to Boston.
Bill "Newkirk"
John
: )
Mark
-William A. Padron
This may seem to be a stretch here, but I wonder if at all the IRT Flushing line's 103rd Street-Corona Plaza station in Queens had been retained in the first place its original 104th Street-Alburtis Avenue name, as well as now keeping the BMT Jamaica Avenue's currently adopted 104th Street station name (from its original 102nd Street, then later as 102nd-104th Streets on the map). Then, there could have been in essence also an elevated station parallel in such a manner for each of the three divisions (along with the IND Fulton Street line) at 104th Street in the borough of Queens.
-William A. Padron
This story is at least of passing interest to you folks.
URL: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/nyc-rape0611,0,5870658.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
You are giving the man far too much credit. It is fairer to say that he is the man who trades away things like transit, education, and help for the actual poor in exchange for extra funsing for his patronage base.
But I see this as a personal matter than has nothing to do with public policy.
You're dead wrong about that. His patronage base includes transit and education in his district. EWrgo his trades have been pretty good for NY (though he is Manhattan-centric).
"You are giving the man far too much credit."
I don't think so. SAS is approaching because he drew a line in the sand for us.
R-32 #3594
North Terminal (WTF?!?!?!)
Myrtle Av, Bklyn
(M) Myrtle Av Local
They made a lotta Fs, and As and Bs and Ds and etc to prepare for service changes. For example, the (F) 6 Avenue Culver route would be used if the F were to just run as far north as 57 St. The F *should* have the "(F) Queens Blvd - 6 Av - Culver" designation, since the F runs on Queens Blvd to get to 179 St Jamaica.
I remember those on the redbird R30's.
Yeah. It looks better on these than on the DE/DM-30s.
Mark
Bill "Newkirk"
The Paint Scheme looks good IMHO. I wish they would of kept the older scheme on 167(look on railroad.net for more)
How do they get the conventional brakes to work withe a DE/DM or C-3, which have their own weird, computer-assisted, braking system ?
That's the way they used to do the P72 coaches, believe it or not!! They actually had a photo in their employee newspaper showing apainter rolling the blue onto the cars!!!
I have yet to see a NYA MP15, but if thats the case, thats pathetic.
Well this is an SW1001, but it't the same idea as the MP15's. Notice the old blue and white from when it was an LIRR engine is completely bleeding through:
(photo from www.nyrail.org)
--Z--
"Next stop Houston Street....that's HOW-ston, not HYOO-ston..."
or
"Please don't move from car to car, they all look the same...", followed shortly by "To get off at South Ferry you need to be in the first five cars..."
--Z--
Harry Nugent C/R on the 1.
Trivia and Did-U-Know factoids while travelling between stations..
"Up next is West 225th Street... but before that we cross the Broadway Bridge...
bet there's something you DIDN'T know about the Bridge.. the answer...
at the other side."
(this would make me want to STAY ON and MISS my stop
(just to hear the fact)...
Judging from some of your posts you'll add "and I'll break your f@%&ing neck if you litter." :-)
Tom
"Moo."
[By the way, Peter Dougherty, if you're reading this -- I think there's a typo on page 15 of Edition 3: Just south of 34th street, the tracks are labeled A1-A4-A5-A3-A2; shouldn't it be A1-A3-A5-A4-A2?]
David
But arnines were KNOWN for wanting to escape. When they were down at Rockaway on the HH and the E, it happened often enough from Rockaway Park yard that we'd constantly get "refreshers" on the proper application of the cranks on an almost daily basis at Stillwell. And the motor instructors would walk the layup yards and CHECK you.
So what I *WILL* say is that the "arm" of the handbrake cannot rise higher than horizontal, so no risk to teeth unless you're bent over. But in the interest of helping people get religion, and further to explain the old TWU 100 UMD slogan, "keep your head down and ALWAYS wear your cup", the BIG risk was to the family jewels as the handle would whip around under tension and raise your voice a few octaves. Kapische? :)
I think the 'arnines' had that runaway habit because they were heavy - 84,000 lbs. each. I would reason that the handbrakes were relatively weak for the weight of the car. Heavy weight has a way of detecting the slightest gradient and taking the excuse to roll. I imagine this to be the basic cause, what do you think? Just imagine what the gradient on the viaduct could do!
R-32.
Actually, n/b A trains go faster past 23rd today than in the late 60s, when I rode that stretch every Saturday. The R-10s would literally crawl past 23rd, so much so that you could count each individual I-beam. The R-1/9s were a hair faster the few times I rode on them. A year or two ago I watched the speedometer of a n/b R-38 A train as we passed 23rd, and it held steady at 25 mph! I was shocked. Took the diverging switch at that same speed.
No GT there would mean more homeballs and more complication. The guarding signal is very far from the switch as it is.
Today I was on the 6am southbound from Boston, and 3pm northbound from NYC. The morning train was about 2/3 full, and the afternoon return about 80% full. Previously, I've noted that the 3pm is the least crowded of the evening northbound departures (others are at 4, 5, and 6pm). I asked the conductor, and he said that since the fare reduction, all four of these trains have been extremely popular, and he confirmed my observation that the 3pm had the biggest average increase in ridership.
This is just one person's observation based upon a limited sample, but maybe the strategy is working.
I recently booked passage to New York from Los Angeles in order to ride the MOD trips at the end of this month. LAX-JFK was $660 round trip; LAX-EWR (same airline, same dates, same times) was $325. Is there anything rational to this pricing scheme?
A few years ago, I flew CMI-ORD-SJC on American for about $300. That same ORD-SJC flight alone went for about $400. Why? American was matching TWA's price on its CMI-STL-SJC flights.
Supply and demand, which is the most rational pricing scheme of all. LAX-EWR is more competitive, because generally more people prefer EWR as a destination (on that route, at least).
A few years ago, I flew CMI-ORD-SJC on American for about $300. That same ORD-SJC flight alone went for about $400. Why? American was matching TWA's price on its CMI-STL-SJC flights.
That's what they call "hidden city ticketing," and some of the airlines are in the process of being sued over it.
Oakapple - "Supply and demand, which is the most rational pricing scheme of all. LAX-EWR is more competitive, because generally more people prefer EWR as a destination (on that route, at least). "
With airline pricing and yield management, it's often actually the opposite and in this case probably is the opposite. If an airline decides to fly a non-stop from LAX to EWR they're committed to a certain size plane to make the trip. Today, the very low prices on coast-to-coast flights generally come on flights that are very underbooked (they'd rather sell a ticket at $325 than have the seat go empty) or to secondary airports (Long Beach and Oakland).
LAX-JFK is much more popular than LAX-EWR because of the better international connections.
Supply and Demand work with airline pricing, but not in the way that most economists and business people are accustomed to. This is because the marginal cost of providing a seat for one more passenger is extremely low (essentially the cost of a meal and some insurance charges) until it suddenly becomes extremely high (cost of adding an additional flight or of complying with "bumping" regulations).
Amtrak could certainly benefit from improving their use of yield management. The fixed train lengths on the Acela Express make them more like an airline than ever before.
CG
Nice to see the geometry car again though. :)
Nor was there any R-10 footage.
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
C Train Local R32 #3434
A Train Express R38 #4179
G Train Local R46 #5507
There goes my Season Pass.
FYI, that sign Flatbush41 is referring to is just by the current, unrenovated staircase by the RTO offices and in front of the two turnsitles leading to LIRR tracks 1 and 2. Coming from IRT side, make a left, downhill and first set of stairs. The sign in question is to your left.
The walkway to the Downtown 2 & 3 has a sign "New Lots Ave (2) and Flatbush (3)"
So I get on 3774, the North motor and then we're off at 7:10pm. So we average 25mph between station on the elevated portion on the Culver then we do nicely on the ride. I see a G that just left Smith-9 St and when we arrive & leave Smith, the curve is just wonderful when you have a RF window :-). So we do fine then after York St we go via Rutgers and we go 43mph until we reach East Broadway then we have a V in front of us when we leave 2 Av so the T/O had to go a little slower than usual so he doesn't catch up to it so quickly [and better speed]. Its 7:50 when we leave West 4 St and its a smooth ride and on the stretch from 23-34 St we go 35mph. Its 7:54pm & took about a minute to leave since the D was arriving on the platform. So we keep moving afterward then we go 32mph btw Lex Av & Roosevelt Island but only 24mph approaching 21 St.
We leave Queensbridge and I see the portal which would of led to the never built super express track then we're off on the QB express! So we have a slow start averaging 25-30 mph [could of went faster :-\] but we really don't get higher speed until we are about to bypass 65 St in which we went 37mph at best until arriving at Roosevelt Av. Its 8:13pm and we're going smoothly on the express and we go a disappointing 27mph between Roosevelt and bypassing Elmhurst but then as we went on we would go 40mph at best until we reach 71 Av/Forest Hills. Its 8:19pm when we leave and we're going fine and as we left Union Tpke, I saw the 3rd rail covers were removed so we had to go slow in that stretch and we go more smoothly as we go on. Then after going through the stops via Hillside we finally arrive at 179 St at 8:33pm, an 83 minute trip.
So I go outside and I catch the Q36 and I take it to the last stop on Merrick Blvd and I decide to walk down Jamaica Av to Parsons Blvd [needed some fresh air, ya know] to catch the E. Man when I got downstairs that platform was stiflin hot, geez but the R32 A/C was wonderful :-). So I grab the RF window on 3642 and after a coulpe of minutes we depart JC at 8:53pm. So its a smooth ride and then after 75 Av were off on the QB express. So we go 37mph btw 71 Av and Roosevelt Av. So its 9:10pm and then we go down the dip bypassing 65 St and in the stretch up to Queens Plaza we go 39mph and I was really hoping we would hit 40 but did not anyway it was cool then we arrived at QP, boarded & departed and took the turn into 23/Ely at 34mph. So then after we leave we go fast via the 53 St tube going 43mph at best.
I take the E to 7 Av to wait for the B/D rather than get off at Times Square so I wait 5 minutes before a R68 D comes and its nice and cool so I take it to 34 St to catch the Q. The escalator wasn't working [as usual] and I end up missing the Q so I wait 8 minutes for the next train to come and I get on a R68 and then I take it via Broadway express and the Manhattan Bridge and take it to my stop, Newkirk Av at 10:15pm caught the B8 and then I go home.
NF 961 B68
RTS 4991 B82
R46 5987 (F)
RTS 7532 F SHUTTLE
RTS 9326 F SHUTTLE
R32 3774 (F)
Orion 529 Q36
R32 3642 (E)
R68 2648 (D)
R68 2898 (Q)
NF 853 B8
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
R1 #100 - When was this car removed from service and assigned to the Transit Museum? Also, does it have Commonwealth or ACF trucks?
R4 #484 - When was this car removed from service and assigned to the Transit Museum? Also, does it have Westinghouse or GE motors?
R12 #5760 - When was this car removed from service and assigned to the Transit Museum?
R15 #6239 - ditto
Thanks!
Frank Hicks
R1 mechanical details HERE:
http://www.nycsubway.org/cars/r1.html
R4 mechanical details HERE:
http://www.nycsubway.org/cars/r4.html
Didn't see details on acquisition dates, but they're probably in here somewhere ...
groups and GE motors, or vice-versa. The motors were, AFAIK,
electrically interchangeable, so again, we'd have to actually
look under the cars to see what they currently have. It was
not uncommon for a car to be running around with mixed motors
on one truck!
R1s and R4s were retired ca. 1970. The R-12s were retired
around 1982 and the R15s lasted into about 1985, however I think
those two came to the museum earlier...
see the related thread on "history of museum SMEE cars".
I guess you're right that it shouldn't be too hard to tell whether a car has arch bar or Commonwealth trucks even from photos. Motors are fun, though. A couple of the Chicago Surface Lines streetcars at IRM have 3 GE 216A motors and 1 WH 319B motor - and that wasn't a fluke, that was actually company policy because they had three times as many GE motors as WH motors! Weird stuff...
Frank Hicks
The Transit Museum did not exist until, er, well, the date
is on this site somewhere, 1979 I think. Prior to that there
was a rag-tag museum fleet looking for a home.
IIRC, the Transit Museum officially opened on 4 July, 1975 at Court Street.
8-) ~ Sparky
The Transit Museum opened on July 5, 1976.. I was there.
It was the day after the Bicentennial and "Op Sail" and they were advertising it as "Op Rail"
(I got to look I have the flier around here somewhere)
-Larry
Thanks for the correction, it was one of those "Senior" moments, that
some of us on this board suffer. Besides when you have more behind you,
then in front of you, what's one year? >>GG<<
8-) ~ Sparky
Peace,
ANDEE
8 - ) ~ Sparky
From my NYC Transit in the 1970s:
On July 2nd, 1976, the NY Transit Exhibit opened for business in the long-closed Court Street station in downtown Brooklyn. Originally planned as a temporary exhibit for the nation’s bicentennial, it became a permanent museum. The mezzanine contained various exhibits and models; the platform level contained numerous subway and elevated cars from the museum collection. On July 17th, the first Nostalgia Trains began weekend runs between 57th Street / 6th Avenue and Rockaway Park, with a one hour stop at the Transit Exhibit. Service was supplied by the three D-Type cars 6019, 6095 and 6112, as well as a set of museum R-1/9s. The following year, on April 24th, 1977, the museum AB standards 2390, 2391 and 2392 would be used as well.
Aha! So the R1/9s were not stuffed and mounted as of opening day. So does anyone know when the R1/9s (that we rode on 6/8) last operated before the current MOD trips?
---Choo Choo
D-Type 6112
R-1 100
R-4 484
R-7A 1575
R-11 8013
R-46 1776 (nee 680)
R-46 1976 (nee 681)
The above two were had a red,white and blue stripe for the Bi-Centennial.They were the 200th and 201st R-46's to be delivered.
Lo-VT 4902
Lo-VM 5466
R-12 5760
R-15 6239
Hopper H-254
Steeple Cabs 5 and 6
On July 26 the following were added:
R-17 6609
R-30 8506
R-33WF 9306.
Larry, RedbirdR33
8-) ~ Sparky
SEPTA went back on GOH cars with keeping 1220's on GE control cars and 1432's on WH Control cars.
Baltimore Transit was rigid on not mixing motors on PCC's. Seems the PCC was a standarized car, but GE & WH made their PCC motors different.
Frank Hicks
The ERPCC specs required the manufacturers to conform to a standard. How they built it was of no consequence as long as the specs were met.
SEPTA's problems may have been good ol' SEPTA screwing up. They also removed the field shunting on GOH cars, resulting in a 25 mph car. (SEPTA claimed that due to traffic, a 43 mph car wasn't needed.) That may have been a cause of the dynamic brake failures, but nobody knows.
SEPTA had cars with 2 1198's and 2 1432's and cars with 1 1198 and 3 1432's (or the reverse). The mixed motor cars seemed to have beaucoup problems, so SEPTA went back to 1198's on GE cars and 1432's on WH cars. The GOH 2 cars were better than the GOH cars.
With the dynamic brake loop, an radical imbalance could cause
a partial loss of braking. However, those two motors are so
close that I suspect your other theory (SEPTA maintenance practices)
was the real reason for the failures.
There are two ways to remove the field shunting on PCC cars.
The crude way is to cut the coil wires to the S1, S2, etc. contactors,
or remove the contact tips. This would cause horrendous spotting
(coasting) performance. The more sophisticated way is to re-arrange
the control circuits so those contactors don't get energized
during the accelerating sequence but still work in coast. I don't
have any documentation on what SEPTA did.
I'm interested in this stuff and hope you tell us some more ...
If capacity on the Lexington local can be increased to 25 trains per hour, why not consider skip-stop service in weekday rush hours at all local stations between 125th Street and Canal Street (except 51st Street)? "Local" or semi-express service would be speeded up, drawing patrons from overcrowded express trains.
New Yorkers seem to be generally opposed to skip-stop service, but it works when service is frequent. I'm an ex-Chicagoan, so go ahead, throw metaphysical rocks at my head.
The problem isn't running so many trains through the Central Business District, as much as handling so many trains the the terminals in the Bronx. Sure, you can sent 25 TPH down Lexington Ave. But Pelham and Parkchester can't handle 25 TPH.
Brooklyn Bridge is the problem, thanks to the TA's fumigation policy.
They used to operate 30 tph out of Parkchester and Pelham Bay Park (15 tph each) in the 40's and 50's.
There's always an option to terminate additional trains at the Third Ave-138th St station, if today's Bronx terminal operations are not handled as well as in previous years.
That's right. The problem is Brooklyn Bridge, thanks to terrorist concerns. If we decided we could run the trains right around, the Lex local would have the same TPH as the Lex Express.
The problem with skip stop is that the heaviest ridership is on the Upper East Side and in Midtown, so it really doesn't make sense to skip either set of stops.
One could do skip stop Downtown. My suggestion would be more controversial:
1) Eliminate 28th Street station
2) Merge Spring Street, Bleeker Street and Prince Street into one Broadway-Lafayette-Houston Street complex. This would eliminate would also eliminate one stop. All current stairs could remain -- The platforms would be extended all the way from Bleeker to Spring, but walled off from the tracks except for 550 feet in the middle, thus becoming passageways.
Bleeker to Lafayette rebuild now in design will probably close this option for the next 50 years.
The other thing, as several of us keep pointing out, is that the express isn't really that much faster than the local, even with the Lex stations being as closely-spaced as they are. It's simply not a problem that merits such a draconian solution. There are better ways for us to spend our money.
If capacity on the Lexington local can be increased to 25 trains per hour, why not consider skip-stop service in weekday rush hours at all local stations between 125th Street and Canal Street (except 51st Street)?
The SAS SDEIS examined skip-stop service on the Lex as a potential way to speed up service on the line. It was rejected as a stand-alone solution, but retained as worthy of future study. However, there are only a handful of Lex stations that are reasonable candidates to be skipped—certainly not all local stations (except 51st) between 125th and Canal. You'd end up saving only a minute or two over the haul from 125th to Brooklyn Bridge.
You have given us an objective reason, based on a measurable quantity, for opening or closing stations. The 28th St station is 1/4 mile from either the 33rd or 23rd St stations.
Let's apply this criterion elsewhere - namely to the SAS. The only stations that are greater than 1/4 mile from an existing station are 106th and 72nd.
It's objective, alright. Is that, in fact, the sole determining criterion that ever governed the opening or closing of stations? No.
Should it be? No.
To begin with, the criteria for closing a station—which is how this discussion began—are very different from the criterial for opening one. I could give a long list of stations that probably wouldn't be there if the system were being constructed today. But they're there already, and we might as well keep them. The last NYC subway station to be permanently closed was Dean St. The whole line had to be rebuilt, and as the station was extremely lightly used and very close to another station, it was eliminated. A whole bunch of IRT stations probably wouldn't have been included had the line been built 20-30 years later.
Now, when it comes to opening a station, or for that matter any transit project, you are dealing in projections. Strictly speaking, a projection isn't "objectively measurable." It's an extrapolation from known data, but it isn't a "measurement" per se. A projection doesn't have the same precision as the distance between two points on a map. If that level of objective measurement is required, then nobody could ever build anything.
Some of the criteria included in the MESA DEIS included:
Increase in the number of person-trips in the subway system.
Reduction of surface vehicle-hours and vehicle-miles traveled.
Reduction of commuting time (person-hours) and commuting distance (person-miles).
Reduction in crowding (within stations and trains).
Increased reliability of existing transit modes.
Highway accidents avoided.
This is just a summary. Page 20-17 of the MESA DEIS summarizes the benefits, putting them in 5 categories, 11 sub-categories, and 24 variables projected. Not counted are follow-on economic benefits, such as jobs created or retained, increased property values, and so forth.
Of course, all of these benefits must then be weighed against the costs. Just because all of the benefits exist (assuming you find the projections plausible) does not mean it's worth expending billions to achieve them. Some of us believe it is, and some of us believe it is not.
The SAS is not required because of the distance between stations. It is required because of the load on the line. The SDEIS mentions a long walk from certain parts of the Upper East Side, over 1/2 mile, as a reason to build the SAS. I don't think that's an important reason, given that many people in the outer boroughs are farther away. The reason is the limited ability of the Lex to accomodate additional rush hours passengers without making a bad quality of life worse, combined with ongoing development and East Side Access.
Looking systemwide, 1/2 mile between local stations seems to be the usual standard for the distance between local stations on a given line, though there are exceptions. The Contract 1 subway, subway lines derived from Els (ie. Jamaica Avenue) have closer stations, as did the Els themselves. I find 1/2 mile betweeen local stations to be reasonable.
I seem to recall the following from the esteemed Mr. Littlefield:
You wouldn't close them because they are underunsed (they aren't!). You'd close them because they are too close to other stations,
All I'm trying to do is save some money. Why should one build the SAS by using your first criterion and then close its stations because of your second criterion. Wouldn't it be less costly not to build a subway in the first place, rather to build one that did not have any open stations? :-)
Let's look at the tradeoff. Users of the 28th Street station will have to spend an extra 5 minutes or so walking, in whatever weather the city tosses out that day. Local passengers who don't get on or off at 28th gain about 30 seconds of riding on an air conditioned train.
Considering that this is a local station on a line with frequent express service, I don't see how it could possibly be a worthwhile tradeoff. South of 42nd, the 6 just doesn't get much through traffic, since it doesn't go past Brooklyn Bridge. Most of the passengers on the 6 between 42nd and 14th are getting on or off at one of the three intervening stops. It's a local that doesn't branch off anywhere at its south end (like the 1/9 does).
Again, compare local ridership on the IRT (with close local stations) to local ridership on the IND (with distant local stations). If your reasoning were correct, we'd expect IND locals to be more crowded, since express passengers wouldn't mind spilling over to a local that doesn't make many stops. In fact, that's not what we see. The close spacing of the IRT local stations has generated dense neighborhoods that depend on those local stations; the distant spacing of IND local stations discourages dense growth around them, so most IND passengers come from far away, and insist on the express no matter what.
Closing local stations on lines with express service to save time on the local is a bad idea.
Surely the dominant factor that makes the Lex so popular is not the spacing of the stations, but the fact that there's no other north-south line remotely close to it. On the West Side, where the IND mostly operates, there are other lines close by. On Central Park West—where IND stations are pretty much the same distance apart as IRT stations—IND ridership is depressed by the fact that it cannot attract passengers from the east.
Otherwise, however, I agree with David's analysis.
Arti
One very interesting page in the SAS SDEIS is page 5B-25, which shows the projected entry and exit volumes at every Lex station under either the build or no-build alternatives. Now, the projection year is 2020, but for stations where no dramatic changes in the neighborhood are on the table, I don't imagine that the projections, in relative terms, are dramatically different from what obtains today. I haven't seen any other source that shows both entry and exit volumes for the stations.
These are the projected entry/exit/total a.m. peak-hour volumes for 33rd, 28th, and 23rd on the Lex under the no-build scenario:
33rd: 3,120 / 9,130 / 12,560
28th: 1,180 / 630 / 1,810
23rd: 1,390 / 9,750 / 11,140
I'd welcome current stats if anyone has them, but I'll bet the proportions today are pretty much the same, making 28th an order of magnitude less busy than 33rd or 23rd. The MESA DEIS shows entry statistics only, through 1995, and they are consistent with what I've reproduced above. These are all purely local stations with no transfers, so there is no other source of traffic except entries and exits at the turnstile.
Interestingly, of all the Lex stations, the SAS SDEIS projects 28th, which is already among the line's least busiest, to have a 62% reduction in traffic if the line is built, against approx. 15% for either 33rd or 23rd. And that's despite the fact that there is no planned SAS station at 28th, even though there are planned SAS stations at 34th and 23rd.
Perhaps it has to do with those hospitals. Remember that the SAS will be serving a couple of hundred thousand jobs on the far east side. In Midtown, the Lex will serve far more jobs, at 28th Street it will not.
It is according to OASIS maps.
Arti
I said that Bleecker has a high south-bound transfer volume. I don't really see what there is to take back.
I've seen an occasional skip whose first stop was 14th, not even stopping to pick up passengers at BB.
I've only once seen an (in-service) train bypass an (open) express station -- just a few days ago, when Q trains were being rerouted throughout Brooklyn, one NB circle-Q bypassed 36th Street on the express track.
What's the basis for the suggestion?
I guess loops aren't treated as relays for the purposes of the fumigation policy.
I'm glad to hear that. The last time I made measurements at BB was 29 Oct 2001. They were definitely fumigating the locals and taking more than 3 minutes to get trains onto the loop.
also Westchester Square can be used to terminate trains
Arti
Let's put this idea to rest already. It just isn't practical.
You seem to think that locals are empty. Not true. IRT locals are just as overcrowded as expresses north of 42nd Street. Skip-stop would increase average wait times from 1.4 minutes to 2.4 minutes.
All stops south of 96th Street on the Lex are major morning destinations and afternoon origins. They can't be skip-stop stations or else a lot of people will have to transfer between skip-stop trains, bringing their average total wait time from 1.4 minutes to 4.8 minutes. Astor to Canal would require a backtrack. The extra transfers would feed more people onto expresses: someone traveling from, say, 96th to 33rd probably stays on the local straight through, but once he has to transfer at 86th or 42nd anyway, he might as well go downstairs and hop on an express.
I have regular rider on the Lex for over 30 years and all I do is laugh when I see these proposals. Even if the MTA was receptive, where would the money come from, how long would it take to get built (think SAS), and how would you serve the riders during that time?
Let's get real people!!!!
If capacity on the Lexington local can be increased to 25 trains per hour, why not consider skip-stop service in weekday rush hours at all local stations between 125th Street and Canal Street (except 51st Street)? "Local" or semi-express service would be speeded up, drawing patrons from overcrowded express trains
If skip stop service is already unfavored on the 1/9 which has less trains than the 6, what makes you think people want to wait more than 3-4 minutes on the Lex local in the rush?
Skip-stop might be more trouble than it was worth, as on the #1 and #9.
At all of those #6 local stations, the number of boarding and alighting passengers is quite a large fraction of the number of riders staying on board the local trains. Therefore the total additional time spent by passengers waiting for a stopping train would probably exceed the total time saved by those staying on board. (51st Street, which you have rightly excluded, is the worst case.)
Another potential problem is that, due to the increased number of boarding and alighting passengers per train stop, station dwell times would increase. Unless timing was perfectly coordinated, there would be a tendency for skipping trains to get stuck behind stopping trains.
Peace,
ANDEE
Back in the 1980s I was sitting in a northbound #1 at Dykman. It was hot (pre-AC) and the windows were open. You always looked forward to Dykman in summer, because the noise would no longer be bouncing in on you off the walls via the windows.
As the train started to pull out, some young punk reached in through the window and punched me in the face, then ran along the platform laughing at me.
With AC, they can't get the passengers anymore. They can still hit the conductors.
Sure they can. What they do now to get the passengers is open the windows while on the train and throw things or spit at the people on the platform. I have witnessed this.
Peace,
ANDEE
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
That's certainly not without precedent.
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
It is pretty hard to enforce a banishment. Would there be pictures of these guys posted at the entrance to every subway station? Would they be allowed to ride buses where they might strike a B/O? Much better is to give them a couple of years in Attica to think about what they did, and then let them try to behave themselves when they ride the subways again.
Tom
The way to enforce a banishment would be that if a banned person subsequently gets arrested or gets a summons where they do a name check while he's (or she's) in the system he would get an additional charge of criminal tresspassing.
Store chains like Wal-Mart do this routinely with shoplifters.
In a way, drivers' license suspensions are a form of banishment. Most people will keep on driving under suspension, courts know that full well when they order suspensions. But the idea is that if a person with a suspended license gets caught driving, he'll face relatively serious punishment.
Which is sort of pushing the boundaries of "permission," but at any rate, a similar procedure with respect to subway offenders may not be possible without a law change. The difference, of course, is that Wal-Mart* and places like that are private businesses, while the subway is a public conveyance. Banishment is still an idea that merits further investigation.
* = my stepdaugher and I were in the Centerreach Wal-Mart last evening, and she made the observation that a significant percentage of the employees ("Wal-Martians," as they're called) look as if they came from the shallow end of the gene pool.
Who ELSE would be willing to work mandatory 10 hours a day without overtime at SUB-minimum wage after getting the lucky "Associate" tag with THEIR name on it? Wal*Mart *LOVES* to hire the "retarded" (their words) as associates ... no union, and you get beaten if the store doesn't do a steady 3% per quarter increase in sales. Wal*Mart is a living EXAMPLE of where the republican party wants ALL employees to be by November 2004 ...
*I* haven't set foot in one *YET* ... 'nuff said. :(
If it weren't for WAL*MART employees, spam would have gone away YEARS ago when they'd have realized that everybody's got ENOUGH "v1agra ehwjkewjerjejejsj" already. But thanks to WAL*MART, the shallow end of the pool STILL thinks they'll get rich if they vote for Dick Armey.
WALMART POEM:
As I lay on my bed, thinking about you, I feel this strong urge to
grab you and squeeze you, because I can't forget last night. You came
to me unexpectedly during the balmy and calm night, and what happened
in my bed still leaves a tingling sensation in me.
You appeared from nowhere and shamelessly, without any reservations, you laid on my naked body...you sensed my indifference, so you
applied your hungry mouth to me without any guilt or humiliation, and you drove me near crazy while you drained me. Finally I went to sleep.
Today when I woke up, you were gone, I searched for you but to no
avail, only the sheets bore witness to last night's events. My body
still bears faint marks of your enthusiastic ravishings, making it harder to forget you. Tonight I will remain awake waiting for you...
... (f**king mosquito.)
Then again, there's KAY-MART ... even WORSE these days. Where else can you get SPOILED soda with benzene in it, or catch that Prarie dog monkey disease?
Yep - watch out for falling prices ... THERE'S A GOOD REASON! :(
Wow, that's not a nice thing to say. Figure out how much Wal-Mart is paying the employees...whaddya expect? People crack me up. We want the cheapest prices we can pay. Yet, the "elite" amongst us feel free to demean the human component of the retail dynamics the "owners" have configured. You want to see "better" looking retail employees, how about having the stores pay the beginnings of a decent salary for clerks, maybe starting at $10.00 an hour. Bet you'll see a whole better attitude at the register.
For that matter, maybe a company like Wal-Mart could be proactive in encouraging local suppliers for the items they sell. A Wal-Mart has deep pockets, and is already involved in many a community planning venture. I say turn it around. Encourage producers of goods to experiment with local factories instead of always looking overseas for the "slave-labor" goods to ensure low cost. Retail should not be allowed to blithely squat on top of the mountain of effects their supply strategies have created without recourse.
This should have been done after the first incident that he came into office. Its nice to see how now that its gotten media attention he's meeting to discuss safety. I bet C/R Canarick is happy about that, to see that a stabbing can't get him closer to a safer job but the media attention can.
In a just world, victims would deal out justice to the criminals who wronged them. That conductor should get the kid in a room alone for 10 minutes, with the kid handcuffed.
The Conductor's windows should open outwards (like the drive in a MickeyD's~~ But much sturdier) probably in a three sided configuration making a little coupla like on those bay-window cabooses.
Yeah, ok, I know it presents some hazard to passengers who are up close to the train on the platforms, but it should be no more of a hazzard than the conductor's head to the unattentive.
Such a contrivance would also prevent passengers on the platform from asking directions from the train crews.
I would take down the overhead zebra-boards and build a metal railing around the conductor's position, and mount the zebra-board on that, with a notice to those on the platform that the train conductor will not answer questions or give directions.
I wonder how the idea of a full face shield will sit with the MTA. I might not stop a fist, but it will stop a facefull of coffee, pop or spittle.
Ideas from Elias...
your ideas may also work.
That is still a half way solution. The C/R, or T/O in OPTO should be observing the doors through electronic (CCTV) methods from within the cab and never be sticking their heads out of the windows.
Tom
p.s. i am in no way for conductor bashing. i am, however, for violent repurcussions for conductor bashing.
HOW?
With the use of the layup track and spring loaded swithces, and timing!
Both trains depart at the same time, with the G.C. bound train switching to the layup track.
Now both sets avoid a head-on collision and pass each other safely.
Bingo, 40% increase! Pass go receive $200.00
During non-peak hours, keep the current system or go to the new dual four car sets.
Has this ever been proposed before now?
Avid
If you are talking about that stretch of track on what used to be track 2 just west of GC - that track was removed years ago. Track 3 now connects with a switch directly to track 1.
To install a new track on the track 2 roadbed is an interesting idea but would probably not be cost justified. And remember the shuttle is closed during the overnight hours.
Go to Jail, go directly to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $200
avid
Actually you might have something there: Sending commuters to jail. That would free up quite a bit of capacity.
:-o Andrew
Probably not seriously.
How's this for a cheaper way to increase service by 40%:
When a train discharges all its passengers and receives its new load, it closes the doors and leaves. Currently, most shuttles sit there a few minutes collecting more people.
NYCT could do this plan at no additional cost except a bit more power and wear and tear on the equipment. They don't because the traffic doesn't require it.
John
8-) ~ Sparky
About ten years ago I ran a three-car North Shore train (420-415(diner)-755). To get through the Visitors Center loop, it was three points of power, and DON'T STOP!
8-)~ Sparky
Sparkyism :^)
We'll help the Maine economy for a couple of days at least this summer... our tentative vacation plans include northern Maine and New Brunswick (Mary is a big lighthouse fan). Don't know if we'll have time to stop by Seashore this trip... we were last there in 2001.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
On your way back south, you and Mary should check out the Nubble Light in York (Beach, I think) and the Portland Head Light in South Portland. Those are 2 of our favorite places to lighthouse-gaze.
They are nice... we did the southern Maine coast in '01 after our plans in Québec changed thanks to a convention of hooligans infesting the area where we had planned a couple of quiet days.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Frank Hicks
Air travel is way down everywhere, no surprise, but people are still traveling by car, mostly staying closer to home than used to be the case. Seashore's numbers shouldn't be affected too much as I'd imagine that most of its visitors come by car from reasonably close places.
As noted elsewhere, weather's probably the main reason for the decline in visitor numbers.
Personally I think it's the weather in the northeast. I don't know about Sea Shore but as a regular at Shoreline, and a volunteer operator there, most of the weekends so far had rain. The average person (not us railfans) would not want to go to a trolley museum during a downpour.
8-) ~ Sparky
As I write this, the thunder is booming, the sky lights up (the big el yard in the sky?) and it's raining again.
Odd Baltimore water note on 6/12/03 - all the gates on all 3 city reservoirs are wide open - all are at capacity.
However, by 2002 the realities of the economic slowdown began
to impact families' travel and leisure budgets. 2002 attendance
was down, and 2003 thus far is horrendous. The weather isn't
helping, but even if Todd could fix that there are deeper
underlying reasons.
Same for the contributions in cash situation. :(
I'm working on July 4th now, my next Transit and Weather Together.
Many thanks in advance for a sunny 4th July weekend!
John
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~mjr/FantasyMapv2.pdf
Constructive comments welcome. Destructive comments ignored.
Enjoy.
Max Roberts
As a matter of interest, what are your proposals for the bits of national rail within Greater London that you haven't incorporated nto the Greater Underground? What gets done with them?
The unused BR bits mainly get incorporated into Crossrail and Thameslink 2000. For example, Windsor Lines go through Heathrow and into Crossrail, everything else would go into their terminals. If there is any spare money left over, we could have "Crossrail Riverside" which would connect the remaining South Eastern and South Western services. Inter City services would be diverted into some sort of super-terminal, probably Euston.
Surely Kings Cross/St Pancras, since the EuroStar will be there (not fantasy, being built right now).
Fytton.
That is only temporary during the rebuilding works.
And it is the major public transit interchange in London, so it would be logical for all Inter-Cities to go there in Max's fantasy plan.
1. Did I miss the North London line somewhere?
2. I like the revamped Northern line!
John
The service was every 20 minutes on Saturdays last time I looked. If I listed my top 10 places that I least wanted to spend 20 minutes in London, NLL destiations would feature heavily on the list, along with the Watford DC line.
Your point about some of the stations being in less than desirable areas is not to be argued with, though.
Tim
Harrow & Wealdstone looks like it would really limit frequencies on your Waterloo & City and Kingsway Lines - even if some trains short turn at Queens Park (and thus don't conflict with the Met), you'll have difficulty running more than 15tph on either.
I see Northern Heights has finally made it! (At least in fantasy.) Would the new tunnel beyond Moorgate be the same size as that North of Moorgate? (If so, sub-surface stock could run on it :-D).
Your map looks really very comprehensive! Well done!
Psst - little niggly point - the stations on the Heathrow Loop are backwards.
There might be some bottlenecks on the lines to Harrow, but no worse than at Kennington at the moment. Would it be likely that much more than 12 tph would be needed between Queen's park and Kenton even during the peak?
Haven't thought much about tunnel sizes. I suppose my fantasy trains would be painted red and cream and have the same body design as 1938 tube stock, but with full sized tunnels, we could run replicas of OPQ stock.
This map was published in Underground News magazine of the LURS. I think that one or two people have possibly mentioned Heathrow along the way (also spelling mistakes).
Sure is... presumably you have the track diagram book?
Would it be likely that much more than 12 tph would be needed between Queen's park and Kenton even during the peak?
True, but you'd need to find more on the lines South of Queen's Park somehow.
Haven't thought much about tunnel sizes. I suppose my fantasy trains would be painted red and cream and have the same body design as 1938 tube stock, but with full sized tunnels, we could run replicas of OPQ stock.
:-D that would be fun...
This map was published in Underground News magazine of the LURS.
Now that IS an achievement - I'm impressed! Did you write an article about your new lines too?
I think that one or two people have possibly mentioned Heathrow along the way (also spelling mistakes).
Yeah - well all that's cosmetic really. Public agencies make similar goof-ups all the time. My favourite was the sign Birmingham City Council erected reading "Sutton Coldfield Grammer School for Girls". It's always a good idea to let someone have a look at it before it goes public so that little things like that can be ironed out and you don't end up with a postbag of boring letters about typography.
In fact, the Waterloo and City Line is going to be very unbalanced, with 30tph needed at the Romford end. You would probably have to be able to reverse trains at Paddington and Queen's Park. I would turn round half of the trains at Paddington, and half again at Queen's Park. Kingsway Line should be more balanced, and an end to end service of 18tph max should be ample.
The LURS had a members night with three presentations on map design. The fantasy map was/is self indulgance, but I wanted to see just how much abuse Beck design principles could take and still produce an attractive readable map. There are four maps in Underground news from that talk which appeared about a year ago (Reality map, Reality map zoned, Reality map in original art deco style, Fantasy map).
I use the Quail book of the entire Southern Region and Underground - the page joins are a bit random, but it certainly shows everything.
LT was never very good at showing fast services, and in that tradition, I've not shown the express Northern Line tracks to Mordern, nor to Heathrow on the Piccadilly.
I never got why the fast sections aren't marked - two lines would do it, like the Piccadilly/District section is shown.
There are four maps in Underground news from that talk which appeared about a year ago (Reality map, Reality map zoned, Reality map in original art deco style, Fantasy map).
The Art Deco one sounds fun - how do I get a copy?
1) If too much downloading takes place, the university will wonder whether I've started up a porn site.
2) I want to keep control of my files. If I put too many in the public domain, this increases the risk of theft.
3) The LT museum is very very unhappy with what I am doing. Apparently they think that any map in any Beck style is in breach of copyright.
But good God, the Met Line would be the longest, most complex subway line in the world! The Northern Line right now would be a piece of cake compared to that. How would you make the routing work for this line? Would many Met trains still terminate at Baker St in order not to create a bottleneck between the northern and southern parts of the line? Would some southern branch routes terminate at a point down there?
How about the Jubilee Line! It loops over itself. I would say make the Morden South-Grange Hill routing a different line name, since those trains would never see the rest of the "main" part of the Jubilee. I wold also make the Jubilee route that loops via Stratford terminate at Hackney, so it wouldn't duplicate the Morden South-Grange Hill route.
Why did you ditch the Circle Line? Surly there is still capacity for it. I see that since the District Line would be simplified, they could run more trains on the lower half of the Circle, so that service is not reduced.
Is the Gloucester Rd/S Ken branch of the new Kensington & City Line necessary? Couldn't passengers just transfer at Earl's court to get to those stations? Would that branch use the unused track space currently at those stations?
Again, great map.
What it looks like to me is that he's added express tracks from Baker St to Aldgate :-)
Oh and Aldgate East to Barking :-D
"This is a Barking train... woof woof!"
I wold also make the Jubilee route that loops via Stratford terminate at Hackney, so it wouldn't duplicate the Morden South-Grange Hill route.
I think this is one of the best parts of Max's plan! It would allow a service pattern of anything up to:
15tph Stanmore - Canning Town - Thamesmead
15tph Stanmore - Canning Town - Hackney - Morden South
15tph Grange Hill - Hackney - Morden South
It's really no more confusing than the current 2-branched Northern Line through Central London.
James is right, there is an express Met line built under the K&C line. The Met is long, but very straightforward to run. If short workings were needed, Baker Street from the East and Tower Hill from the west would alleviate to frequent trains in the contra direction during the peaks.
Two reasons for the long Jubilee Line. First, it is built by stealth, as per when the Underground was constantly expanding during the 20s/30s. The next stage is an eastward extension from Stratford to King's Cross. The other reason is that, and again, this is not a fantasy trackplan, there is an enormous system of flying junctions linking Victoria, Westminster, Green Park, and Piccadilly Circus. Any route is possible without conflict. In emergency, or during engineering, any route can be offered.
Ask any LU worker how to improve reliability, and the answer is always the same: close the Circle Line. Even if my fantasy engineers find a way of eliminating every flat junction, there are still fundamental difficulties. I went off the Circle Line a few years back when I was travelling regularly from Colchester to Plymouth. Having a timing point at Edgware Road, when my departure from Paddington leaves in 10 minutes, is not funny.
The new tubes alleviate the need for the Circle Line, especially the Middlesex Line. The stub to South Ken eases the pain of loss of Circle slightly, and should be easy to do as South Ken and Gloucester Road used to be 4-tracked. The only station that really loses out here is Sloane Square. Aldgate is certainly not a busy station.
The current tube map (at least the PDF on the web site) doesn’t have a current author: instead there is a credit that the map is an evolution of Harry Beck’s diagram. This is true, but there was a definite change in style sometime between Beck’s map and the 1960’s when I first started paying attention.
The current map is produced by Illustrator 8 on a Mac.
John
They have been painting the station for a week or two now.
Who's a lurker though? I've been around this board for at least 2 years now...
(kidding!!!)
Just kidding Fred!
Long Live the Sea Beach. C'mon....just for the name alone we gotta keep it going strong! I mean, there IS a Brighton Beach. There's no "Sea" Beach. That wierdness is part of the lines' attraction. It gives it a primative air:
"Eh, where you goin'?"
"Goin' to sea beach"
"Oh, no go to lake beach?"
"No."
Do you know for a fact that there will be no additional N trains in rush hour? Was that mentioned at the hearings? It wasn't specified originally.
If there are more of some kind of bridge trains than other kinds, there will probably be merge delays at Dekalb (not that that is the worst thing in the world).
No, thank goodness. Astoria deserves decent subway service despite your yearnings to the contrary.
What would that be? Before 1987 the N went to Forest Hills instead. That wouldn't be bad for people on Queens Blvd, but what would it do for you?
The N needs to go to Queens because, as AlM said, People there need decent subway service. The TA exists to provide passengers with proper service and not to satisfy irrational nostalgists1 who rarely ride the subway (and even less for actual transportation). People on the N in Brooklyn are not in any way affected by where the train's northern terminal is. On the contrary, through routing benefits a small number of people who actually need to go from two particular outlying zones and no longer need to transfer. It also simplifies operation by using the same trains to two outlying areas, leading to fewer empty trains and more cost efficiency.
The following text has been provided to minimize misunderstandings:
The adjective "irrational" is included to modify the meaning of the word "nostalgists." If I meant that all nostalgists are irrational, then why would I need to put a completely redundant adjective would be needed there?
This observation comes from over 6 months of observation on this line over the past year.
It could use 4 car service starting around 9 pm manhattan bound
Impossible, since these 4 car sets will come S/B on the Q circle, they will be impossible to board, given the current headways. You would need 4-5 minute headways to compensate for this, and OPTO will not work on this line. Too many curved stations (like Parkside, Beverley, and Sheepshead Bay, limit visibility for the T/O even if he/she relies on cameras.)
Moving the sceens in cab will reduce the dwell time issue.
The brighon line after 9PM manhattan bound is not all that busy at all. The 4 Car service does not have to start at exactly 9 PM.
We also might see an early start on N/B B express trains, currenty it's 6 on the nose for the first Q express train leaving BB. The first N/B B train MUST be in the Bronx before 6:45 AM, the first B train from BPB would have to leave before the first Concourse Express 6:17 D train.
Should be interesting schedules that I am looking forward to.
N Broadway Express
Your train could STILL be replaced by a bus. "We're all bozos on this bus" ... goggle the quote, buy the album. Heh.
That's more like it.
THEN some more 1689. Heh.
Oh, Sparky's getting soft in his old age... didn't even get too annoyed with me yesterday when I managed to avoid operating 2001, despite his best efforts to stick me with it (I was either motorman or conductor on 357 all day). Besides, 1001 is undergoing major restoration work in the shop right now so it will be a while before anyone gets to run it again, and 27 is taking up valuable space in barn 3... all due respects to 27, but I wish they'd move it out and put either Brilliner 8 or Master Unit 84 in its place, since 1001 is on the shop tour I'd rather have a contrasting car to show the folks when we get to barn 3 rather than another PCC.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Without the M, it's a long wait for service on the 4th Avenue Local. And 4th Avenue north of 15th Street was just upzoned to permit 12 story apartment buildings. The city is clearly hoping that people will be attracted there.
So what do you have against terminating the M at Chambers and extending the new W to Bay Parkway? That way in the evening all 14 tph through the Montague are available in the same place, i.e., the Broadway Line stations.
Not a bad plan.
Uhh...Coney Island?
Rather than stop the W at Bay Parkway, what about extending it all the way through to the newly renovated Stillwell Avenue station?
Same reason the M doesn't go there now. Can't fit at Stillwell. The only way to run more routes to Stillwell is to combine 2 and run through service, or cut one line's TPH.
If anything, it'll remove service from passengers at the local stops while adding almost nothing for the people at Bay Parkway and 62nd Street and literally nothing for the people at 9th Avenue.
Is the M feasible along 4th Avenue? Absolutely. Can a full time W local to Bay Pkwy (while proposed D train runs to Coney Island) replace M and improve service? Most definitely.
It's really all about getting these plans into motion.
--Mike - R40M
The same place they will get it from under their current plan of running it from Ditmars to Whitehall, except with less deadheading.
Don't do that, better to combine it with the C or V train and run it through the unused 6th Avenue-Willy B connection.
Simple, it becomes the V. The V runs from Continental to Metropolitan.
However, that may be simplified (or further complicated) by the future arrival of the R-160's.
Why would that happen? It would be no worse than when the G ran with 6-car R46 trains. Also, couldn't the V be based out of East New York or Fresh Pond Yard instead of Jamaica? Before 7/22/01 when the B and D ran to Coney Island, the B was based from Coney and the D from Concourse. But you might be on to something if the service is first tried out only on weekends.
Just how necessary is it that the V go to Church Avenue? I recall one poster saying that an express (whether F or V) between Jay and Church would be about as popular as the Astoria express W was. Then again, it might be much more popular, as another poster mentioned.
Someone mentioned earlier, it being based out of Jamaica, as Fresh Pond could only store some trains, ane even if ENY is the main yard, still some cars would be at Jamaica, and this would probably be disruptive to that yard, adding some separate consists that could not be used on the other lines.
They could use express service at least to Church. It seems like a short stretch, but with all the hills and the winding path, it seems to take forever to get from Jay to Church alone (about 20 minutes), and even operationally, it would make the 2 trip F jobs easier. sending every other F exp. is not as simple and beneficial as simply having another line to Manhattan run local.
There are 25 rush hour Fs plus Vs. That's enough to serve both the M line and provide rush hour express plus local service on the Culver Line if NYCT chose to do so. There would have to be some renaming, and a few additional trains for the Culver line, but the service is there north of 2nd Ave.
Yes, 15 and 10.
There is no way there would be 25 tph on the Culver Line.
Here's one way to divide them up (not necessarily the best):
6 Ms Metro to Continental.
4 Vs Church to Continental.
5 (F)s Church to 179th.
10 diamond Fs CI to 179th.
You may be correct on the yard maintenance issue. We shall have to see on that. There are some places for the trains to nap, though, so maintenance moves might only be as needed, not for storage.
I disagree with your conclusion that "the W could easily take the M's place on the West End Line and provide a better service for West End (and 4th Avenue local) riders who want Lower Manhattan." For midtown, what you say is certainly true, but for downtown, things are not as clear. In terms of diversity of routes, there is already a Broadway local service (R). Should another Broadway local service (W) be added before a Nassau Street service (M)?
Having the (M) on West End provides a better service for 4th Avenue and West End riders headed north to Lower Manhattan or North Brooklyn, and also benefits people in Maspeth, Middle Village and Ridgewood, as well as parts of Bushwick and Williamsburg, that are headed for Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn.
Having the (W) on West End while also having the (M) go uptown via Chrystie, provides all the benefits of the former case with additional benefits for North Brooklyn < - > Midtown riders
That doesn't necessarily overrule the possibility of sending the W through in place of the M, but it does indicate why the M is (apparently) the option being most strongly considered.
Personally, I think the connection between the Nassau line and DeKalb is useful to have, and it's a shame we're losing it middays. Let's keep it in service at least a few hours a day.
I agree with the sentiment too.
However, if I worked at 55 Water St, 40 Wall St, or some other building east of Broad/Nassau, and lived anywhere served via Dekalb, I would far rather have 14 tph in one place (Whitehall or Rector) than 8 in one place and 6 in the other. I'd prefer the extra walk (2 short blocks and an unpleasant crossing of Broadway are the max) in return for reducing my mean wait and especially the variance in the mean wait.
This is especially true if I had to change trains at Dekalb or Pacific, and the benefit of getting a seat (which is virtually a guarantee on the M) wouldn't last me all the way home but just for a few stops. I suspect people weren't asked the question in that context.
The M train does have a small ridership during it's rush hour runs to/from southern Brooklyn. These customers are smart, they want to avoid the crowds on the nearby 4 and 5 lines. Ending it at Chambers will reduce ridership at Broad and Fulton Streets.
But ridership on the M to/from the Brighton Line was much better than it is now. On the R32's and R38's there are rollsigns touting the Diamond Rush Hour J to the Brighton Line, why not? The sign I saw was as follows:
J JAMAICA-NASSAU-BRIGHTON
When the M ran on the Brighton line, it was the primary local service. Brighton local passengers didn't have much of a choice. Of course they rode the M, at the very least to the next express stop.
Well Ocean Parkway could be considered but then it will be a double load for the tower crew at Brighton Beach so the M coming back to the Brighton seems distant :-(.
While I agree the M is questionable in southern Brooklyn, ending it a Chambers all day during the week is really not good. This cuts M riders off from the Fulton Street transfer which is the only easy way the M riders can access any of the west side lines. Without the M going to at least Broad Street, the 2,3 and A,C would require them to get off at Chambers, and then either take a J to Fulton, or have to get off at Essex to get an F to West 4th to the A/C, making the exodus at Essex St even worse than it is now.
Either that, or more people will contribute to the first exodus the M has at Wyckoff-Myrtle to get the L to take them to 6th Ave for the West Side IRT or 8th Ave for the A/C.
Ideally, they should combine the M and the V which would really solve the "is the M necessary" problem. If not they really have to reconsider using Chambers as the terminal for the M during the week. If the M must be cut from southern Brooklyn, they really need to terminate it at Broad street with the J. M riders already have to deal with loosing the Fulton transfer on weekends, and that already after having to transfer to the J at Myrtle. On the weekends it is acceptable, wven if not ideal, they shouldn't have to put up with that crap on weekdays also.
(Or they may not. I don't know. I'd love for both lines to run to Broad, but I don't know if they both can.)
First of all, right now they turn Js and Zs at Broad. Why can't they turn Js and Ms in non-rush times.
However, I do see part of the problem, though this doesn't directly apply to the question. I got off a southbound J at Broad a few weeks ago and hung around to see what they would do to clear the train.
Sure enough a family remained on the train, in about the 4th car. A platform conductor roused himself after the train doors opened and slowly waddled (no other word properly describes his gait) along looking for passengers. He eventually found the family and fairly anemically told them they had to get off. They didn't really realize he was talking to them, so he raised his voice and they got the message.
This was the PM rush, when there are 12 trains that turn and 6 trains that go through per hour. Given this level of energy in clearing out the train, I can understand that they have a problem.
If ridership between DeKalb and Chambers has dropped, it's because there are fewer riders between those points or because riders are opting for alternative routes.
Riders between DeKalb and Chambers don't care if the train continues on as a Brighton train, a West End train, or a superexpress to the moon.
If ridership between DeKalb and Chambers has dropped, it's because there are fewer riders between those points or because riders are opting for alternative routes.
There may be another reason for Q Exp's observations:
If a Brighton local rider is going to lower Manhattan and has to take an M anyway to get to Dekalb, they might as well stay on the train all the way through the Montague, even if Church Street is slightly more convenient.
But if they have to change for a tunnel train at Dekalb, they have an 8/14 (or whatever the ratio is) chance of seeing an R before they see an M. They'll probably take the R even if Broad/Nassau is slightly more convenient, rather than wait up to 10 minutes for an M.
Under the old routing, a large number of Brighton riders were forced to get on the M. Under the current routing, only a fraction of West End and 4th Ave local riders (a much smaller number) are likely to see an M before they see some other train.
Right now, someone transferring at DeKalb for a tunnel train has not only the R but also the N competing with the M. With the N moved to the bridge, the M will become slightly more popular.
It is possible to run the M with the other two trains on the Brighton. If the other two services each ran 10 tph, the M could run 6 tph during rush (similar to now). That's 26 tph on the Brighton which is still below maximum capacity. Unless the MTA does something radical to Coney Island, CI can turn 16 tph. Also, there is enough track between the Manhattan bridge-tunnel switch north of Atlantic and the 4th Ave-Brighton switch just south of DeKalb to hold a M train without it getting in the way of all the other trains. The M CAN conceivably run on the Brighton.
I'd run the M on the Brighton only during rush. Outside of rush, the M wouldn't be needed on the Brighton.
or a R42 at Avenue J
Still the Best Subway Ride, on the Brighton.
The point is, is it necessary? 4th avenue has more riders total than Brighton, so it makes more sense that 4th avenue has more service than Brighton. Keep the "M" on West End, because it adds extra service on the 4th av local stops and the Brighton doesn't need it at all. If the Brighton gets the "M" it will loose another service.
Not every train is severely overcrowded during rush. On the current M, even during peak hours, there's usually plenty of seats available. This is especially true when the M is on the West End. It would be a travesty if the West End Line has almost as much service as the Brighton Line after 2004, especially when much more riders use the Brighton than the West End.
Express passengers are picky about their trains. If an express stop is served by two different express routes, people will wait for the specific one they want.
Local passengers just want to get to the next express station or transfer point. They'll board the first thing that comes.
On the West End line, a passenger destined for Midtown via the Broadway line (for now) has no reason whatsoever to get on an M train. On the Brighton line, a passenger destined for Midtown has every reason to get on an M train: take it to the next express stop and wait there for an express, or take it to DeKalb and wait there, or take it to Atlantic and transfer to the IRT.
That doesn't mean that Brighton local passengers have any particular use for the M. They'll take it if it stops for them, but most of them would prefer it if those M trains were Q's instead.
With the N returning to the bridge and running on a different corridor in Manhattan than the D, I expect that many West End passengers will take the M if it comes first and transfer at 36th to the N.
While you're absolutely correct in stating that majority of Brighton riders would be looking for midtown service, the big question that must be posed here is where would the M, on average, south of Broad Street have the higher ridership, on the Brighton Line or the West End? Based on what I've seen of today's M between Chambers and Bay Pkwy, the old Brighton M route I remember from Chambers southward and the fact that the M offers Brighton riders a one-seat ride into lower Manhattan (not to mention a slightly better chance for these riders to actually GET a seat), I'm almost 100% certain that the M would be more popular on the Brighton Line. While it's true that the West End M may see an increase with a 4th Ave-B'way Exp N, because West End riders may want to transfer to the N, will this increase compare with the ridership of a Brighton M? In my opinion probably not. I'd bet my career on that.
That doesn't mean that moving the M is the way to help those Brighton local riders. Simply running more Q service would help them a good deal more.
Leave the M alone. One other survey result (which you won't believe, but such is life): rush hour West End passengers bound for lower Manhattan prefer the Nassau line; passengers on other lines bound for lower Manhattan prefer the Broadway line. So if anything were to be extended to the Brighton line, it should be the W, not the M.
But then Broad will never be connected to the Montague tunnel (since it's inconceivable that both the M and W will run through -- there's barely sufficient demand for two Montague routes) and Stillwell will be come a bottleneck. (Why do you think today's M terminates at the last express station before Stillwell? That can't be done on the Brighton. I assure you that running the M or the W on the Brighton will be a very unpopular move if it forces a reduction in Q service due to terminal constraints.)
Your bottleneck argument is also a good argument. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but CI can turn 16 tph. If we have 10 tph midtown-Brighton Lcl and 6tph Nassau-Brighton Lcl, we'll have a situation that is similar to what happens now to the B/D around 34 Street and the 2 Q's at around 57 Street: A bottleneck near these stations but good and usually timely service for all four of these lines as a whole (though the B can be suspect at times). The same can happen on the Brighton.
You've already stated that you don't often ride locals. So how do you know that the people who got on the M at Brighton local stops were the same people who got off the M in lower Manhattan? I'm sure a large crowd got off at Atlantic and DeKalb while another large crowd replaced them.
Leave the M alone. The 4th Avenue corridor is already losing one of its three lower Manhattan services; let's not take away another. There's certainly no need for lower Manhattan service from both 4th Avenue and Brighton; trains through the Montague tunnel are among the emptiest of all trains across the East River.
the big question that must be posed here is where would the M, on average, south of Broad Street have the higher ridership, on the Brighton Line or the West End? Based on what I've seen of today's M between Chambers and Bay Pkwy, the old Brighton M route I remember from Chambers southward and the fact that the M offers Brighton riders a one-seat ride into lower Manhattan (not to mention a slightly better chance for these riders to actually GET a seat), I'm almost 100% certain that the M would be more popular on the Brighton Line.
The old Brighton "M" was the ONLY Brighton Local. So, it's safe to say that if another train, a more popular train running more frequently, ran on the same route, the M would be substantially less used.
Additionally, 4th av and it's 2 branches have MORE RIDERS than does Brighton. There is no reason for Brighton to have nearly equal service.
You also suggested that both the M and W could be extended through Montague. As it stands, the trains through that tunnel are pretty empty. When the N moves to the Bridge, they will be even emptier, as "N" riders who remain on the N for it's convenience will now be on the bridge. There will never be a need for 3 montague services when there are 4 bridge services. You can hold an opinion to the contrary, but its not going to change the facts.
Brighton ridership is not so crowded that it warrants another service added to it. A service increase would handle the job easily, and when the 4-track bridge is in operation, that will be possible. Or, if you really wanted to help reduce crowding, you could do something that would be beneficial to other people too: Add express service to the Culver line. Then you would be able to lure 6th av riders away from Brighton, and help existing Culver riders south of Church.
From 7:15 to 8:10 AM and 5 PM to 5:50 PM, in the peak direction, you had the QB local (later the Q diamond).
"Additionally, 4th av and it's 2 branches have MORE RIDERS than does Brighton."
Depends on time of day, rush hours you are correct but on evenings after 10 PM and most of the weekends, Brighton Line has more riders than 4th Ave service.
It's my understanding that this service was really unreliable, and as you yourself say, it operated for less than an hour each rush hour.
rush hours you are correct but on evenings after 10 PM and most of the weekends, Brighton Line has more riders than 4th Ave service.
Well, since we're discussing the "M", weekend service is not an issue.
I was on an M Thursday evening during the height of the rush hour (it was around 6), it was already crowded when I got on at Lawrence. Did all those people get on at Court?
It wasn't Lexington-crowded, but no train should be like that.
Here is the point: Montague tunnel is pretty empty as is. I've rode many an M/N/R train that had seats after DeKalb. MANY seats. Once the 4 track Manhattan Bridge opens, there will be a need for less trains through montague, as more "N" riders will now go over the birdge. Your claim that the PATH re-opening will create more ridership is absurd, people ride INTO manhattan, not out of it. Thus, there will only be a need for 2 montague services, NOT 3.
Another thing is your claim that more brighton riders will ride the "M" into lower manhattan. I don't understand how you can come to this conclusion. Brighton does not have more riders than 4th avenue total. Last I checked, it doesn't have more riders headed to downtown either. You're making this claim that 'Brighton will give the M more riders into manhattan' based on 2 things:
1. You think so (even though 4th av serves MORE people)
2. You feel that more people rode the "M" in 1986.
Let's keep in mind that much has changed since 1986. So, what you saw back then is likely to be extremely different now.
I also dispute your claim that the 4th av "M" is a 'miserable failure'. I've seen plenty of "M" trains crowded on 4th avenue. Occasionally, they're more crowded than a Q across the plat at DeKalb. (very rare though).
So then, let's conclude with the following:
When the Bridge opens, there will not magically be a need for 7 trains to South Brooklyn (6 is sufficient now, it will be sufficient later). So, the "W" is not going to go beyond Whitehall.
I rode the 4th avenue locals suring the morning rush for about 3 months, 2years ago. I never noticed people getting on ANY downtown bound train in large #'s (M,N or R). In fact, I noticed that more people transferred to a bridge train, and also that there were more people already on the train than there were those who transfered from a brighton train. Thus, we can conclude that there are more people coming from 4th avenue than from Brighton who want to head to downtown.
Brighton has never had 3 full services. It has never demanded those type of service levels. Put the "M" there, and you have to loose either the express or the local that's already there.
Many Brighton riders heading to lower Manhattan currently transfer to either the IRT at Atlantic or the BMT at DeKalb. These riders would be lured back to the M if it returned to the Brighton because its a one-seat ride to lower manhtn, something which it does not have. 4th Ave currently has three trains heading to lower Manhtn. Also keep in mind with the development of MetroTech and the rest of downtown Bklyn, Brighton riders would also have a one-seat ride to these locations as well (though some of the MetroTech buildings are within walking distance of DeKalb).
Ridership through the Montague Tunnel is low, but when PATH service returns to lower Manhattan, passengers traveling through the tunnel will go up. The proposed plan leaves Brooklyn riders with the very sketchy R train alone to service B'way local stops such as Cortlandt St in lower Manhattan. This I think is inadequate. We'll need two B'way local trains in Bklyn.
The M had more ridership on the Brighton than the West End during rush south of Chambers. This isn't a feeling, it's what I observed. I distinctly remember this. I'm not saying that Brighton riders outnumber 4th Ave riders. I'm saying that on average this version of the M during rush has less riders than the Brighton M during rush south of Chambers. On the West End, the M ridership is borderline pathetic. It looks a lot like the C in Bklyn during rush.
Putting the M on the Brighton during rush does not mean that other services would have to be cut. If you run 10 tph express and 10 tph local, this would still leave room for 6 tph M trains. Unless I'm mistaken, CI CAN turn 16tph while the Brighton Line can handle up to 30 tph.
I think I've said what I needed to say. If we're not gonna agree, then we can agree to disagree.
In fact, ALL Brighton Riders going to Lower manhattan must transfer. But adding the "M" train to the Brighton Line would be TOO MUCH SERVICE! You haven't addressed that yet. Brighton has never had 26 tph. Well, at least not since '67. So, if you want Direct lower manhattan service, Put the R on the Brighton Local, and run the Q to 95th as the 4th avenue local/Broadway/Bridge express.
Ridership through the Montague Tunnel is low, but when PATH service returns to lower Manhattan, passengers traveling through the tunnel will go up.
How did you come to this conclusion? PATH has never generated a lot of riders headed to Brooklyn. And if it did, perhaps you noticed that peak-direction is the opposite of everything else. So, all these people would be on the now empty Brooklyn-bound trains. There's no need for an increase even IF PATH did increase the # of people in the Montague tunnel.
The proposed plan leaves Brooklyn riders with the very sketchy R train alone to service B'way local stops such as Cortlandt St in lower Manhattan. This I think is inadequate. We'll need two B'way local trains in Bklyn.
Again, I rode the M/N/R frequently about 2 years ago. The only time a train through montague experienced heavy crowding was when A train was late or delayed. Heck, just about every train had seats by the time we reached Whitehall. MONTAGUE IS NOT CROWDED. IT DOESN'T NEED 3 SERVICES. IT DOESN'T EVEN NEED THEM NOW. They just need to route all the trains through.
The M had more ridership on the Brighton than the West End during rush south of Chambers. This isn't a feeling, it's what I observed. I distinctly remember this.
I'm disputing this claim. Even if it is true (The M doesn't have big crowds now, but the trains do have crowds. In Fact, it accomplishes it's purpose of servicing 4th av local passengers, because many people get off at Pacific to transfer) it's taken from 1986. Do you know how much service has changed since then? If you want to go back to that pattern, make the Q a peak direction only train too, while you're at it.
I'm not saying that Brighton riders outnumber 4th Ave riders. I'm saying that on average this version of the M during rush has less riders than the Brighton M during rush south of Chambers. On the West End, the M ridership is borderline pathetic. It looks a lot like the C in Bklyn during rush.
Now, I know you're just making this stuff up. You apparently don't ride the Rush hour "C" train often, do you? C trains can experience very heavy crowding, and not just rarely, or when the train is late. I've seen "C" trains that I just couldn't get on. C trains get crowded on a regular basis. Stand at High St, and watch "C" trains go by during the AM rush hour. Do the Same at montague.
For the Record, Cranberry carries more than 2x more passengers than montague on a daily basis. Yet, cranberry has only 22 tph, roughly the same # as montague. This is a fact, not something anyone observed. Now then, the C has more ridership than the "M", but the M gets good ridership too.
Putting the M on the Brighton during rush does not mean that other services would have to be cut. If you run 10 tph express and 10 tph local, this would still leave room for 6 tph M trains. Unless I'm mistaken, CI CAN turn 16tph while the Brighton Line can handle up to 30 tph.
WTC turns the E train, and it has 15 tph. It's a tight fit, but it can be done. But does brighton need that many trains? Let's go back to the comparison:
Cranberry tunnel: 150,000 riders. 22tph.
Brighton Line: 110,000 riders. 26tph?
Overserved buddy. You would NEED to cut one of the other train lines, because it would be too many trains.
I think I've said what I needed to say. If we're not gonna agree, then we can agree to disagree.
You haven't provided any facts other than you 'distinctly remember the M was more crowded' 17 years ago. I guarantee you that it will not resume those levels. Also, a big part of "M" service is getting 4th av local riders to a transfer station so they don't have too long a wait.
I would 'agree to disagree', but you have nothing to support your side of the argument. So why should anyone disagree?
All told, I belive that Q Exp has a point if the bridge services will be split 10:10:10:10 but does not if they are split 12:12:8:8.
You've just scored a point for keeping the D on the Brighton and the B on the West End. But I'd run the B 24/7 and the D part-time.
"In addition, although ridership at 4th Avenue local stations isn't tremendous, cutting their service by moving the M to the Brighton likely does more harm than good."
I suggested in my post that if bridge services are evenly split at 10:10:10:10, the 2004 routing would conform better to the 17:13 ratio (of 4th Av. vs. Brighton fares collected) if the M was moved to the Brighton and the W was extended south from (its scheduled) Whitehall St. (terminal) to the West End line. That is, the W would substitute for the M on the West End. Thus, the 4th Avenue services would have a combined 10+10+9+6=35 tph and the Brighton services would have a combined 10+10+5=25 tph, roughly conforming to the 17:13 ratio.
I'm one of them.
David
Only 20 years ago, in another example, Concourse IND had more riders than Jerome IRT for the most obvious reason; the rolling stock. Now Jerome has much more riders than Concourse. It's ridership patterns and how customers use their trains to their advantage.
So, I think the QB service indirectly was the reason why there were more M riders on the Brighton than on the West End. You cannot transfer from 6th Ave Bridge service to J and M, an additional transfer to the F train was needed and who would want to go through that?
What were they thinking putting that station at Grand not Delancey?
What were they thinking putting that station at Grand not Delancey?
1. Not that many people want to go from S Brooklyn to the Jamaica Line. The vast majority want to go to Manhattan.
2. The construction planners may not have realized that the route planners would initially provide relatively meager service (QB and QJ only) allowing a 1 or 2-train ride from Brighton Line to Jamaica Line. Once you provide decent service from the Brighton Line to the S side of the MB, the Grand/Bowery connection is not needed since Canal is available for transfers.
3. No one anticipated the long closure of the south side of the MB.
4. From a local neighborhood point of view, Grand makes more sense. Delancey/Christie is too close to Houston/2nd Ave and to Delancey/Essex, both of which already had 6th Ave service. Grand/Christie was better for the large (and then new) buildings located on Grand and Broome Streets.
Of course, with a little more money they could have connected the north end of Grand to the east end of Bowery. I would guess reasons 1 and 2 are why they didn't spend the money.
Riders who could walk to both would save a stop by taking the Sea Beach rather than the West End, and those changing to the Lex will be much better off on the Sea Beach with its easy transfers at Union Square and Canal Street.
How about the trip to Herald Square for those who have a choice of N or F service? From Bay Parkway, it will be 11 stops on the Sea Beach. From Avenue N on the F, that's 22 stops, and the F doesn't provide that easy transfer to the Lex, either.
Of course, the Sea Beach has infrequent service, but that's because few people use it. As the trains start to fill, service will increase.
Perhaps they'll use that middle track for summer beach specials in 2004.
But no, I ain't honked off at the MTA - since the 70's I think they've done a WONDERFUL job rebuilding an absolute mess and giving the city a subway system to be PROUD of. What *I* keep going off about is the "civil service mindset" and it applies across MANY agencies. I am bothered by the corruption, the anywhere you look "Peter Principle" mindset of what becomes management and the stupid things they obsess about to the detriment of the people, the organization, and the public as they build their stupid little fiefdoms. And the politicians that pack the agencies with burnouts and other "friends" who haven't a clue as to what they're doing. MTA's no different from the Public Service Commission in this respect.
Silly me ... each time I got sworn into a civil service title over the years, I stupidly thought that it was my job to serve the PUBLIC. Oh, silly me. :(
I got a nice present, though. The following day I went to Shea with my father to see the Mets. It was Batting Helmet Day and the place was packed. Every kid 16 and under got a batting helmet as they entered the park. I was about as tall than as I am now (tall for a 14-year-old), and the ticket taker looked me over twice after I told him I was 14. He gave me a helmet after all, which I still have.
Of course, we took the 7 both ways. No express back to Manhattan after the game, though.
Moolarkey is fraudulent milk.
The Mets won that Helmet Day game in extra innings, but we had to bail before the end so as not to miss our bus. Then the following day Ken Singleton hit a monster shot over the back fence in right field.
Click here to see the post For those who didn't see it, click on the link in that post LOL.
Yeah, I saw that air-conditioned car. Too bad for that Brightliner. If the accident happened at 59th it must have been in service as a B or a D.
First, I must confess, I was mistaken. Our buddy Selkirk TMO does not want to see your train in the Bronx, ever. On this at least, the two of you agree. If my N service proposal of sending it to the Bronx were accepted, Kevin would probably set a tripper along the tracks under the Harlem River to keep your train out. He would only be satisfied with a D train that was from the mighty Brighton or history-packed West End. A Slow Beach N just wouldn't cut it. Second, #1 Brighton Exp Bob gets the credit for proposing that your train have an extra-long dwell time at the Yankee Stadium station, that is, should your train ever reach the Bronx. Thirdly, I take the credit for proposing your train go via tunnel to the Williamsburgh Bridge, reverse direction, and then go through the Chrystie St. connector via 8th Av. local to the Bronx.
Anyway, have a great trip (I won't use the French expression) to the big town. How are you going to get to Nathan's, by walking from 86th St.? And don't start in with the cashier at Adelman's, you're old enough to be her father....er....even I'm old enough to be her father.
Who knows, maybe some time our visits to our home town will be synchronized and we'll get to meet.
Until they restore the connection to Chrystie, the SeaBits is the only train that ain't been to da Bronx yet. Until some M's and J's can make it up there of course. The REAL question is can FRED handle going to da Bronx? Moo.
Some of us have had jobs in Brooklyn while living in the Bronx (dunno how many corollaries there are) or working in Queens or such, but for MOST folks - if the train isn't screwed with between where THEY are and downtown, no problem. Scwoo the folks on the OTHER end. :)
They don't appear to be messing with the Bronx, so youse guys are on your own. (grin) I'll be camped out here on the stoop with my Louisville Slugger. Bring it on! :)
How about this?
wayne
LMAO! Fred you are too funny, calling the Brighton the Blighton Bitch while we have different names for the Beach like Sea Bits and Slime Bitch. Its good come next year the N will come out of oblivion [the tunnel ;-)] and run beside the Q on the south side come next year but still has to run in the tunnel at times.
N/W Broadway Lines
Astoria
Not to mention the short-lived NX in 1967-68.
I award you the very non-prestigious RonInBayside Award for good citizenship.
Seriously, I think it's great you care enough to go and be counted. You might not always think you're making a difference, but you are.
The steaks out here are huge and awesome.
Since I had three minutes, I quickly endorsed the plan, with a couple of reservations. One, I suggested that Q trains late at night can run local from 57/7 to Prince St, then go via. Bridge platform at Canal St over the Manny-B. This adjustment would ideally serve the most customers late at night with two services in Midtown Manhattan and the bustling Village area, while maintaining express bridge service. One line is only needed below Canal St, and this would not in any increase in manpower or equipment costs. (I noted that the current schedule allows a 7-8 minute gap between S/B W line service and Q trains, with both trains meeting each other at Dekalb as the Q via. bridge catches up to the slow W tunnel.)
The second and more damming allegations are the pictures and misinformation on the web site. At one point, I quizzed Mr. Sussman at the close of the hearing as to how many tracks are at LIRR Flatbush Ave station. Mr. Sussman didn't know the answer, but when I told him that there are only six tracks, I showed him a picture I took at the Atlantic Ave complex near the IRT area that there are TRACKS 1-7. (Wrong, it’s tracks 1 through 6.) Maybe Mr. Sussman should ride the subways and commuter railroads more often. In short, for the record of my testimony, I informed Mr. Sussman that there are 200 signs all over the entire NYCT subway system that are wrong. Unless I missed anyone there, I did not see any Subtalkers there, although one speaker complained about C service going in front of A express service outside Hoyt-Scher... station, but I explained to him as to why the C may be in front of the A (The A train may be running hot, the C schedule dictates to be in front of A train, etc.)
Enough said!
I quizzed Mr. Sussman at the close of the hearing as to how many tracks are at LIRR Flatbush Ave station. Mr. Sussman didn't know the answer, but when I told him that there are only six tracks, I showed him a picture I took at the Atlantic Ave complex near the IRT area that there are TRACKS 1-7. (Wrong, it’s tracks 1 through 6.) Maybe Mr. Sussman should ride the subways and commuter railroads more often.
What were you trying to prove, other than to embrarass the man in public? I have no idea if Mr. Sussman is qualified to hold his poition or not, but I have no doubt that there are many competent transit professionals who don't know such minutiae about the systems they work for.
I informed Mr. Sussman that there are 200 signs all over the entire NYCT subway system that are wrong.
And this has what, exactly, to do with the 2004 Manhattan Bridge service changes?
Jim D.
Question: If no NYCT employee bothered to look at the signs, how can they be alert for any possible suspicious activity, God forbid that happens, it's called ignorance.
Looks like the residents along the Brighton Line are not rising up in arms to protest the shocking replacement of the letter D by the letter B and the loss of their direct Yankee Stadium service.
That shows how little value public hearings have. There has got to be a better way to solicit public input.
I had dark buttoned shirt, black pants and my trusty "luggage". very poor turnout indeed. Looks like we will have to get used to this "service plan".
As for getting used to this "service plan" I'm still battling, but it looks more like the Alamo. I'm pretty sure the MTA will hear a lot more complaints if or when they go through with the B/D switch, but people have no one else but themselves to blame.
I'm sure the only complainers will be on this board. For the rest, the bottom line is:
1) Brighton riders get a weekday choice of Broadway or 6th Ave, and more trains.
2) West End riders get 6th Avenue service back.
3) Sea Beach riders get to go express to Manhattan via bridge.
4) 4th Avenue riders get to change to a Sea Beach Line that goes express via bridge, and a choice of Broadway and 6th Avenue express at Pacific Street.
5) Fewer delays, since the N won't have to merge onto the express at Pacific and there will only be two services on each side of the bridge.
What's not to like? One can argue whether Broadway or 6th Avenue is better on a weekday, but Broadway is better on the weekend, based on destinations. So I'd say Brighton riders are better off with the Q as a full time service.
2000 Weekend D Train:
Chinatown/Little Italy (Grand St.)
NoHo/Soho (B'way-Lafayette)
Washington Square/NYU (West 4th St)
Herald Sq./MSG/Empire State Bldg/Penn Station (34th St)
Times Square (42nd St-6th Ave)
Rockefeller Center (47-50th St.)
Columbus Circle/Central Park (59th St)
125 Street (Harlem)
Yankee Stadium
Proposed Q Train:
Chinatown/Little Italy (Canal St.)
Union Square (14th Street)
Herald Square/MSG/Empire State Bldg/Penn Station (34th Street)
Times Square/Port Authority (42nd St)
Columbus Circle/Central Park (57 Street)
The only place where the weekend Q goes that the D doesn't is Union Square. Like I said before the majority of the people at the hearing though small were arguing for the return of the D. I suspect that more will complain if this plan is implemented.
Soho-Noho: Change to the R and get off at Prince Street, which is right in Soho, or W. 8th, which is right in Noho. NYU -- The R is closer to most of the campus. Rockefller Center: when you get off at 49th Street and 7th Avenue you are within its confines. Harlem and Yankee Stadium -- change to the IRT.
Bottom line -- depending on your destination, either service may be better, but the bottom line is that the West End riders made a political issue out of 6th Avenue Service (or, rather, service to Grand Street), while Brighton riders did not. So what to you expect the MTA to do?
As someone who HAS to use 6th Avenue (an F rider), I can only hope that the Bleeker/Broadway-Lafayette transfer stays in the next capital plan, so that someday I can have as good a transfer option to the east side as Broadway riders have right now.
More importantly, Brighton riders were polled, and they informed NYCT that they had a slight preference for Broadway on weekdays and a strong preference for Broadway on weekends.
I can't tell you why they expressed a preference for Broadway. Perhaps it's the destinations. Perhaps it's the transfer points, since most destinations require transfers in any case. (The Q stops at the two most important transfer points in the system; the D doesn't stop at either.) I don't know, and it doesn't really matter.
I hadn't heard this. Where did this come from? Did it come out at the hearing?
But I do think minimizing the switching involved at Dekalb is the reason for this, and it does keep trains moving better. There is almost always a cross-platform transfer waiting or arriving during rush hours, and the tunnel trains are less crowded.
As for downtown vs. midtown, I think the vast majority of Brighton passengers, at both local and express stations, are bound for midtown. Send one of the two routes via downtown and the other one would get clobbered.
(If they wanted to eliminate the switching on both sides of DeKalb, they could run all Brighton trains via bridge/Broadway, all 4th Avenue expresses via bridge/6th, and all 4th Avenue locals via tunnel. I'm glad that wasn't done!)
I would be glad because both Brighton express and local trains go through 6th Ave via. Bridge, while the N and W fight it out on the Broadway line, maybe one of them should REMAIN though the tunnel. I hope it's not the W but the... (opps! Runs for cover)
This is true today more then 20 years ago. Downtown has far fewer jobs then it had 20 years ago plus the transfer to a tunnel train durin rush hour is painless.
I think what's going on here is that Brighton Manny B trains have a cross platform transfer at De Kalb to tunnel trains. 4th Avenue Bridge trains don't. Of course it is then preferable to make the 4th Avenue Local use the tunnel.
Yes they do. The transfer is at PACIFIC. If there all tunnel trains are 4th Avenue locals, they will all be available at Pacific.
He was saying that if Montague tunnel trains run on 4th Ave, Brighton passengers can always get them at Dekalb. But if they run on the Brighton, 4th Ave express passengers can't get them without first changing to a local at Pacific.
The question is... Who was polled? Where it the people south or north of Newkirk Avenue? If it was south of Newkirk Avenue.. I can understand why the majority would favor the Broadway. Being a Bwy line rider.. it becomes clearer why such a statistic exist.
Like I said in an earlier post, if I was a D rider... I would raise hell... It totally overlooks the upper manhattan and bronx...
Have you ever rode via 4th Avenue.. and have you ever rode the Brighton Line? If you haven't.. just take a close look... 4th Avenue riders.. look more like the Broadway population... therefore.. most of the 4th Avenue services should be geared to the Broadway crowd. As for the 6th Avenue crowd.. they look more like the people using the IRT.. But if it wasn't for the "D" extending past Newkirk.. Which is Flatbush..by the way... and we all know who lives in that area.. it will look entirely like the IRT... How many of these same people are in Bensonhurst/bayride.. or Borough Park... OH MY GOD! don't let me go there.. This is a manner of demographics.. common sense should tell you that the best place for the D would be via Brighton... Not west End.. Like I said earlier.. the reason why they want to put the D via west end.. is for their own convenience.. Not the public. Remember how they got us with $2 fare.. when evidence pointed out that it was not justified? So why would you think that it is in the public interests to switch terminals?
I don't care how you say it... It is another way for the MTA to get over on the very poor and unfortunate.. and as long as people allow them to take advantage of these citizens.. It will happen.
N Bwy
N Bwy
Brighton line riders.
Where it the people south or north of Newkirk Avenue?
Both, I'm sure.
If it was south of Newkirk Avenue.. I can understand why the majority would favor the Broadway. Being a Bwy line rider.. it becomes clearer why such a statistic exist.
Please elaborate. I'd like to hear your reasoning in full detail.
Like I said in an earlier post, if I was a D rider... I would raise hell...
Why? According to NYCT's proposal, current D riders will have the exact same service they have now, except that their trains will continue past 34th Street.
It totally overlooks the upper manhattan and bronx...
So do nearly all Brighton riders. More Brighton riders are going to Union Square and Times Square than are going north of 57th Street.
Of those who are going north of 57th Street in Manhattan and the Bronx, most need the IRT. Times Square and Union Square are very good transfer points. Columbus Circle and Bleecker Street are very bad transfer points. Anyone who needs to transfer to the IRT is much better off coming from the BMT.
Have you ever rode via 4th Avenue.. and have you ever rode the Brighton Line?
Yes, often.
If you haven't.. just take a close look... 4th Avenue riders.. look more like the Broadway population... therefore.. most of the 4th Avenue services should be geared to the Broadway crowd.
What is this supposed to mean? The West End line (which hooks into 4th Avenue) got along just fine with no Broadway service from 1967 to 2001.
As for the 6th Avenue crowd.. they look more like the people using the IRT..
"Look more like"? Please elaborate.
But if it wasn't for the "D" extending past Newkirk..
The D doesn't extend past Newkirk. The D terminates at 34th Street. Look at a subway map, please.
The D stopped at Newkirk for 34 years -- not much by subway standards. Before 1967 it was on the Culver line. After 2003, if NYCT's proposal is adopted, it will be on the West End line.
Which is Flatbush..by the way... and we all know who lives in that area..
Yes. People do. (Did you have something else in mind?)
it will look entirely like the IRT...
No it won't. The IRT doesn't run R-68's.
How many of these same people are in Bensonhurst/bayride.. or Borough Park...
None of them. Anyone who lives in Flatbush lives in Flatbush, not in Bensonhurst or anywhere else.
OH MY GOD! don't let me go there..
Oh, please do. I'd like to see what you really think.
This is a manner of demographics..
No, it's a matter of ridership preferences. Which are best determined by asking riders.
common sense should tell you that the best place for the D would be via Brighton... Not west End..
Common sense tells me that D is a letter, and that it really doesn't matter which trains carry that letter.
Common sense tells me that the subway system is a system.
Like I said earlier.. the reason why they want to put the D via west end.. is for their own convenience.. Not the public.
No routing is more convenient than another to the service planners. They draw the maps and write the schedules.
Their task is to draw the maps and write the schedules that best serve the city's ridership within funding constraints. If you think they've failed at that task, what maps and schedules do you think would best serve the city's ridership within funding constraints?
Remember how they got us with $2 fare..
What $2 fare? I'm only paying $1.67 per ride.
when evidence pointed out that it was not justified?
What evidence would that be? Please explain it in detail. (Or are you just parroting what you read somewhere?)
So why would you think that it is in the public interests to switch terminals?
You don't think it's in the public interest to extend the B and D south of 34th Street? That's the current terminal for both of them.
I don't care how you say it... It is another way for the MTA to get over on the very poor and unfortunate.. and as long as people allow them to take advantage of these citizens.. It will happen.
How is the MTA getting over on the very poor and unfortunate by running the B as the Brighton express? Please explain in detail.
He could possibly be right in thinking that Brighton riders with lower incomes are more likely to be riding all the way to the Bronx on the weekend than Brighton riders with higher incomes. Riders going all the way to the Bronx on the weekend are inconvenienced (relative to the year 2000 service) by the weekend Brighton service going to Broadway instead of the Bronx.
Is there any reason to believe NYCT deliberately disadvantaged low income riders? No.
Are there many other low income riders who will benefit from or be neutral to the service changes? Yes.
Are there higher income riders who will be disadvantaged by the changes? Yes.
Is the new plan decent for Brooklyn residents as a whole? It sure seems so.
The Bronx is served by six subway lines. One of them is the D. The other five aren't, and they're best accessed from the Brighton line by transfers at Union Square and Times Square.
NYCT's proposal gives slightly worse weekend access between the Brighton and Concourse lines than in 2000 (assuming the D doesn't bypass DeKalb on weekends, it's an easy transfer there), but it gives much better weekend access between the Brighton line and the five other Bronx lines.
Some Brighton riders are inconvenienced, but it's impossible for any service change to be beneficial to everyone. Most Brighton riders, even Bronx-bound Brighton riders, are best served by the Q on weekends.
I know that and you know that. I was trying to explain how he seemed to be thinking.
N Bwy
There is no current one seat ride from Brighton to a Bronx IRT line. Anyone who would be forced onto a crowded IRT line in the future is forced onto one now. At worst, Brighton to Concourse riders will have to transfer at Herald Square (as they do now), where turnover is high enough that getting a seat isn't an impossibility. If it's a weekday, those passengers can transfer at any 6 Ave station.
In other words, the "Q" forces people transfer, while the "D" offers many more people a one seat ride.
N Bwy
"Is there any reason to believe NYCT deliberately disadvantaged low income riders? No.
Are there many other low income riders who will benefit from or be neutral to the service changes? Yes.
Are there higher income riders who will be disadvantaged by the changes? Yes.
Is the new plan decent for Brooklyn residents as a whole? It sure seems so"
I don't know where this came from.. but I'm not going to knock you.. You do have a right to your opinion... even though it might seem odd.
Anyway, you got to factor in these racial demographics if you are going to run an effective system that serves all. With this plan, it serves people (regardless of color) who's destination is downtown Manhattan. This might be good on Saturdays.. (the shopping day), but what about Sundays.. where most families of color will most definately be heading beyond downtown? Should they be force to give their one seat ride? For those of you who don't care about this population, it is my understanding that your answer will be yes.. But for those of you who care about HUMANS.. (maybe you don't consider these people humans) not just your own particular group... you might say no..
Anyway, the trains are going downtown.. regardless.. so if that is your destination, you won't be affect if the "D" was kept on the Brighton Division.
N Bwy
Some Brighton Line people visiting family in the Bronx on Sundays will be inconvenienced by the new plan. There's no doubt about that. But others, who have family in other parts of the Bronx will be helped by the better transfer to the 4/5/6 at Union Square.
Also, for some people the Sunday trip may be more burdensome, but the 5-times-a-week trip to work anywhere in east Midtown (change at Union Square) will be easier.
So even among this one particular group, there are winners and losers. There's no general rule that lower income people lose from the plan and higher income people gain.
Strange. If you talk to someone like Sea Beach Fred he'll tell you that Subtalk is overwhelmingly liberal.
Anyway, if you find Subtalk so difficult, then LEAVE. You are PURE SCUM and you are not a valuable poster, no "R........." like you is.
Like I said in another post, "we're all friends here". This quickness to value judgement is, IMO, not befitting a railfan. I mean, look at us! By and large I'd say that we, uh, stand out from the crowd. The one thing we ALL share is, you diggin' the trains, it don't matter where you're comin' from...it takes ALL kinds.
And there still is such a thing as the right to have an opinion, ain't there? Without jumping down the throat of those whose opinions differ from yours?
N Bwy
Astoria
Would you say the same thing if I was responding to someone who said "Hitler was great, HEIL HITLER?"
What N Broadway Line said wasn't nearly as bad, but it's abhorrent nonetheless.
And explain how Subtalk is very difficult; sure you have the show offs and guys who think they're tough but I think your comment was just ignorant and has no merit whatsoever. And is everyone conservative, I don't think so.
"Is there any reason to believe NYCT deliberately disadvantaged low income riders? No.
Are there many other low income riders who will benefit from or be neutral to the service changes? Yes.
Low income riders might think so but I think there could be more of a in depth analysis to see if the service changes would benefit everyone and the M cutback in the middays should be looked at. I'm still not convinced about the MTA moving the B to the Brighton but let's see over time how it goes since the polls showed people preferred Broadway.
Are there higher income riders who will be disadvantaged by the changes? Yes.
And how is that???? You tell us how the higher income folks get "cheated".
Anyway, you got to factor in these racial demographics if you are going to run an effective system that serves all. With this plan, it serves people (regardless of color) who's destination is downtown Manhattan. This might be good on Saturdays.. (the shopping day), but what about Sundays.. where most families of color will most definately be heading beyond downtown? Should they be force to give their one seat ride? For those of you who don't care about this population, it is my understanding that your answer will be yes.. But for those of you who care about HUMANS.. (maybe you don't consider these people humans) not just your own particular group... you might say no..
Anyway, the trains are going downtown.. regardless.. so if that is your destination, you won't be affect if the "D" was kept on the Brighton Division.
Ok what was the point of bringing in race into your post? What makes you think that folks of color [minorities] will DEFINITELY be heading downtown and I don't understand why you even brought it up >:-(. You should watch what you say before posting it.
"Ok what was the point of bringing in race into your post? What makes you think that folks of color [minorities] will DEFINITELY be heading downtown and I don't understand why you even brought it up >:-(. You should watch what you say before posting it."
Yes! A sizeable "minority" population will be heading downtown, particularly on Saturdays. But on Sundays, it is entirely another story.
Lets look at it this way... Many white's using the system already have the benefits of getting a seat first, since, Newkirk Avenue seems to be the first stop that many black people access the system. Once they are inside train, after sitting for a few minutes, they are force to give up their comfort to change for a pervious train that use to serve their area.
But it doesn't stop there. You are not only telling these people to give up there seats, but you are telling them to wait on a dirty platform for several minutes. Than, depending on how long the train takes, these people are not ensure a seat.
So, not only aren't they given first choice to seating, they are now told that they must switch to a train that could be crowded. Is that really fair - just so they can access a few better connections down the line? hmmmmmm.
N Bwy
All a us, crowdin' onto that train. That's why NY is the most civilized city on the planet. Look, some people will never own up to having an "inner" feeling that "hell, the WHITE guy better not talk about race, dammit! Kick `is ass!!! Only "WE" can talk on that!" Which is as racist and as hateful a thought as any other.
Hell, one thing I just love to do is engage in conversations with those insane bastards who use to, uh, "preach" around Times Square and elsewhere. The rap was ALWAYS anti-white. But I'd go up to `em and jump into the conversation. Man, did it get them boys pissed! It was like, you could see in their faces they were thinking: "Who the f**k does this cracker THINK he's talkin' to??! How dare he think he man enough to challenge me!!!" And I'd still talk to `em....figuring, hey, you ARE on a public street. NOBODY's gonna stop me from relating to you, even if you're advocating killing me or anyone who "looks like me", if the venue you chose was the public street. Sorry, Mr. "I hate whitey" Religious Man, I don't even care that many in the audience are muttering racist, prejudiced hate talk, tryin' to freak me out. It's on the street so I'm welcome to join in. Even if I am the product of a "mad scientist" who went wrong.
Anyway, I guess that's besides the point. We The People are collectively none too smart. So you deal with it. And know where the devils are coming from...and never forget it.
You got it backwards... sounds intensional... but it's in reverse. White guys hate anyone who isn't exactly like them, which of course includes Black guys - which in their eyes is their biggest enemies.
"The rap was ALWAYS anti-white."
Rap is controlled by the white music industry, and many of the rap supporters are actually white. If rap is anti-something, it is anti black.. because of how blacks are negatively displayed through videos and rap lyrics.
Recently, there was a protest about this very same issue. It was about how radio stations throughout the country censor content that is particularly positive.
For instance, these radio station rather promote Calling women "Bitches" instead of promoting things that will uplift the listeners into correct consciousness.
N Bwy
And this describes all "white" guys?
I was wrong about you. You're not scum, you're SHIT.
Darn, but I thinkin' my man we're talking about here ain't really on the same track we are.
Right on, brother. Anyway, back to trains. Hey, all el lovers out there, I recommend you go walk from Copiague to Lindenhurst along E. Hoffman Ave. You'll get a rush. It's a very nice suburban el. Very high tph rate at rush hours. Mass transit like. And it looks cool coming from Bablylon too, along Railroad Avenue. Any admirer of tangents will appreciate the view, I promise that.
N Bwy
*smile*
N Bwy
If anything, it's the lyrics and not the rap that determines if it caters to the right people or to scum.
This is also racial because white rappers are as guilty as the black ones, probably even more so since they go to even more outrageous nonsense to make themselves feel "in". Besides, you can't hear any of that rap crap riding the subway and that's is what I look forward to doing for week-plus.
Well, boom boxes ain't totally outta the scene...you COULD bring a box with some Sinatra, Armstrong, Lady Day, early Bing Crosby, Louie Prima, Ellington, people like that jamming out of it. Raise a few eyebrows for sure...show `em what it's SUPPOSED to sound like! :+) And if them cats don't get the young sweet things swayin' there ain't no hope for `em anyhow.
For a service change???????? I honestly don't think so on the fare that can be [& probably is] racially motivated. HOWEVER pretending it doesn't exist come on how can I hide the fact on that it exists everywhere; but racism on a service change I highly doubt it although I think the B/D flip looks silly IMO to begin with and its debatable on the issue of race. I think I'll stop here.
Anyway, to speak on your subject directly, (and if you respond in a tone that is uncomfortable, don't expect a response, because I'm about dialoguing with adults, not children. I hope I made myself clear!) I think race "might" be a factor. Notice I did not say it "is" I said it "might" be a factor. Maybe I don't think like a typical "American" whereas my answers have to be configured in a "black way" or a "white way," but this attitude opens me up to the possibility it could be. Knowing the history of this country and how awful it has treated people of African descent, any form of racial discrimination is a possibility. In this case it is a possibility, not a fact, since I have not study the situation as close as someone who is working on the inside. But it does appear that these service changes are favoring "whites" over "blacks." I think I clearly identified that in previous posts. I don't understand why most of the people can't seem to figure it out.
What way can I say it to make you understand that a particular population is being disenfranchise by the switching of "D" to West End from the Brighton Division?
Let see if I can draw it out this way...
Removing the "D" from the Brighton Line will:
Benefit:
1) make it easier and less expensive for transporation officials.
2) Some passengers.. almost all white will most likely benefit from a "Q" line dead ending at 57th Street - b/c of the better transfers.
3) give more white riders a one seat ride.. since this corridor is primarily serving non black, mostly white passengers. Talking about 4th Avenue.
a) besides the Broadway option (provided by the N) it will give them a one seat ride via 6th Avenue "D" Note: passengers on the Brighton Line will only have the Broadway "Q", which I feel isn't a great option.
Disadvantages:
1) make it more difficult for members of the black community who might be traveling to upper manhattan and the bronx. Remember, these individuals already are giving second choice to seating, since they get on much later. Now the TA is asking these individuals to give up their seats and change for a crowded IRT line or other lines they choose.
2) Although the "Q" offers many attractive transfers, it forces people who want to go "uptown" to transfer to other lines that can be crowded. And does not offer a one seat ride at all.
I don't understand how it couldn't be racist or at least selffish from an operational point of view. But still, there are many flaws in this plan that needs to be address.
With that said, you can't convince me, and I'm not going to convince you... so lets just leave it at that. It's a draw. But I refuse stoop down to your level because you are uncomfortable about talking about race, which of course could be a factor in the MTA decision.
Just like the MTA has been favoring LIRR personel over their subway division, it's fair to say that they are favoring 4th Avenue and South Brooklyn riders over their Flatbush counterpart. Therefore, my concluding point is that there is a possibility (not a fact) that this could just be another attack on black citizens.
Understand me, I do not have proof.. it's more an observation to the possibility that this could be the case. I also meantioned that the TA could be thinking from an operational view point instead of the bulk of their ridership who uses the system everday.
Enough. I have moved on.. and SO SHOULD YOU.
N Bwy
You can't expect adults to respond to you and treat you like an adult if you don't act like one.
Well, you are acting like one. You're a fully grown SHITHEAD.
How about you? You going to be in town when I arrive. I've never met you in the flesh.
N Bwy
1) make it easier and less expensive for transporation officials.
--Why is this bad if it helps most other people too?
2) Some passengers.. almost all white will most likely benefit from a "Q" line dead ending at 57th Street - b/c of the better transfers.
--MOST passengers, regardless of race are helped, if they wish to go to any destination serve by the BMT lines, which is MOST destinations. the amount of people going from the brighton line to the concourse line could probably be counted on your fingers, and during rush hours will get a very similar service provided by the B
give more white riders a one seat ride.. since this corridor is primarily serving non black, mostly white passengers. Talking about 4th Avenue.
--No, It gives more 4th avenue riders a 1 seat ride. This makes sence, as there are 3 lines that feed into the 4th avenue line, so there need to be atleast 3 lines on it. Since the brighton line has no feeders,only 1 line needs to be running on it. ALSO... You obviously havnt seen 4ht ave lately... definately NOT mostly white
a) besides the Broadway option (provided by the N) it will give them a one seat ride via 6th Avenue "D" Note: passengers on the Brighton Line will only have the Broadway "Q", which I feel isn't a great option.
--The Q is the line that is preferred by MOST brighton line riders. For those who want 6th avenue, take the B on weekdays, or use the cross platform transfer at dekalb on weekends or nights.
Disadvantages:
1) make it more difficult for members of the black community who might be traveling to upper manhattan and the bronx. Remember, these individuals already are giving second choice to seating, since they get on much later. Now the TA is asking these individuals to give up their seats and change for a crowded IRT line or other lines they choose.
--I seriously doubt that many people go on the concourse line, or the CPW line from the brighton line on nights or weekends... weekdays there is the B
2) Although the "Q" offers many attractive transfers, it forces people who want to go "uptown" to transfer to other lines that can be crowded. And does not offer a one seat ride at all.
--Why not use the B?
Okay, forget about the earlier "unpleasantries". It's been raining forever, everybody's a little cranky. But regarding the 4th Ave. line...come on with that! The Sea Beach has been FAVORED?? Geeze, look at the stations along the line. The N train is like a bastard cousin of the good ol' Crosstown line. It's perfect Brooklyn; it don't get no respect. I'd say the Sea Beach has been neglected for years. Always getting the shaft.
It was hard to believe they would ever change the "traditional" D-Brighton routing (even when the bridge was closed, they used to maintain it, by "splitting" the line betweem Bway and 6th at 34th).
Being an African American, and among the first families to move into the mostly white Jewish Flatbush (west side of Flatbush Av), I had experienced the one seat Harlem connection a lot, especially with a godmother up there, and my father having friends up there and in the Bronx. Plus, he attended Fordham, and took me to his classes occasionally at Lincoln Center, and then for years afterwards, he had a Saturday radio show at the Rose Hill (Fordham) campus. So the D to uptown was a very useful fixture of life on the Brighton corridor (compared to Ridgewood, where everything almost always requires several transfers. To think I used to be impatient because there was no express service on the Brighton weekends!)
But in the late 70's and 80's, the by then predominent "black" population of Flatbush had become West Indian, and they do not have as much of the classic "Harlem/Bronx connection" as the American blacks!. (It seems most of them had come diretly to the other side of Brooklyn first, and then spread across to Flatbush).
Instead, many work in rich people's homes and hospitals (as on the Upper East Side), or other jobs that can be found on the East side rather than the more fancy office world of the Rockefeller Ctr. (6th Av. corridor) area. Probably not many of them (especially the newer immigrants) are interested enough in places like the Museum of Natural History or Yankee Stadium that they would demand a subway line just for those attractions. The connection to the Lex. at Union Sq. would be beneficial to them (moreso than at Atlantic, where they have to ride the overcrowded IRT through downtown). Anyone who is going uptown would also still have that option as well as the D. Plus across the platform transfers to the N,R,W to the 60th St. corridor, and to Queens. Plus, all the other Jobs that are in midtown along Broadway and are close enough to 6th Av. that it doesn't really matter, and on the busy 14th St itself, which is a local stop on 6th Av. (skipped by the D) but express on Bway.
So when I first heard that they preferred the Q via Bway, and wanted that to remain the full time service, after thinking about it, I wasn't surprised.
Plus that fact that it is probably true that the whites further out probably do prefer Bway, it is almost unanimous.
The D via West End is partly for operational convenience (as the West End was always the first to be cut back during nights and bridge work, so it seems funny it would get a full time line now). But also, since the miniature Chinatown of Sunset Park complained so much about losing Grand St., they figured they would probably prefer the full time 6th Av. service.
So this way, it seems everyone is satisfied; all races/classes, and the operations planners with the convenience of this arrangement. It seems they knew the meeting would be small, and I was surprised at how small the auditorium was, and how relatively empty it was. The few people there pushing for the old B/D routing for "tradition" reasons apparently pale in comparison to the riders who are happy with it, and approved with their absence. (I do still plan to mention the idea of making the B full time to preserve the old routing as an idea for an option, when I send in my followup suggestions).
If you remember, I was the last speaker for the day. Your manage to make revelance to race to subways in a positive light by line preferences. Most people regardless of race approve of the planned Brighton service which is full-time on the Broadway line and part-time on 6th Ave.
The only revision I would propose, and not until next summer, is to bring back the Beach Specials as part of a whole Beach promotional campaign. It could increase ridership amoung tourists, and young people residing in Manhattan.
Essentially, I'd use the Sea Beach Express tracks to run a super-express to Coney Island on weekdays when the projected high temparature is over 90, and on weekends and holidays when it is over 80 and sunny. It could relay on the middle track of the Astoria line north of Queensboro.
The Beach Express would run every 15 minutes outbound from 10 am until 3:30 pm. After 3:30, it would start running inbound. During the PM rush, it would use addtional Q and N trains FROM Manhattan that are not really needed for service TO Manhattan. Once in Manhattan, they would revert to their normal service as rush hour N or Q trains.
It's really just PR, plus a savings of a few minutes. But a little marketing savvy, combined with the new Stillwell Terminal, could be just what the subway and Coney Island need.
The Sea Beach Line only serves one side of the Boardwalk (Coney Island)
The Brighton Line serves ALL of the Boardwalk (Coney Island and Brighton Beach), with connections to two bus lines to nearby Manhattan Beach.
Put it this way, the Sea Beach is the least used line for beachgoers while the Brighton has the most customers. So it makes sense to put the beach specials on the Brighton Line, non-stop from Propspect Park to Sheepshead Bay, every 15 minutes from 10 AM-2 PM S/B and 3-7 PM N/B
Sorry Fred, you lose again.
When none of the branches to Coney Island are running express service, the Sea Beach local is the fastest route.
Oh, I see the confusion: some people are in the habit of using, e.g., "Sea Beach express" to refer to a train that makes all stops on the Sea Beach proper but runs express somewhere else. I am not in that habit. When I say Sea Beach express, I mean Sea Beach express.
And if we're looking for a superexpress from Manhattan to Coney Island specifically, then the Sea Beach is what we're after.
For a service like this what do you feel the last stop in Manhattan should be? Canal Street to Coney Island non-stop definitely sounds fast. Maybe two Brooklyn stops: Pacific and 59th.
People on the Upper East and West Sides are not going to use the subway to go to the beach. They probably aren't even going to Coney Island for the beach.
A train that runs all the way up to the Bronx would give many more beach-goers a one seat ride than one that terminates at 57/7th.
Anyone on the 5 or (or the #4 after it leaves the bronx.) can transfer at Atlantic.
So, the only uptown people who might have to make an extra transfer would be the #6 riders.
I thought up that routing because I figured that poorer neighborhoods would probably use transit more than midtown residents, and that these people could use a one seat ride. Uptown west side and the bronx. If I could, I would have routed it up the east side, but the freaking rolling stock isn't compatible.
!!! Then how do they get to the beach? Very few of them have cars.
The UWS and UES local stations are the busiest local stations in the system, and I can say from experience that they're very heavily used on weekends as well as on weekdays -- I usually have to stand on the 1 on Sundays, even as early as 8am, and even later when trains are on 5-minute headways. No IND line runs at 5-minute headways on Sundays. You want this line to run up the Concourse? The D, on (IINM) 10-minute headways, can't even fill most of its seats.
If any two neighborhoods are dependent on transit, they're the UWS (which is centered on Broadway, not CPW) and the UES.
They probably aren't even going to Coney Island for the beach.
I'll grant you that much.
A train that runs all the way up to the Bronx would give many more beach-goers a one seat ride than one that terminates at 57/7th.
Yes, and it would also give many more beach-goers a three-seat ride.
Besides, who says it has to terminate at 57th? It can continue to Astoria or Jamaica.
Anyone on the 5 or (or the #4 after it leaves the bronx.) can transfer at Atlantic.
The 5 only runs to Brooklyn rush hours.
So, the only uptown people who might have to make an extra transfer would be the #6 riders.
More people depend on the 6 than depend on the Concourse line.
Here's the point: these people are not going to the Coney Island Beach, no matter how many of them there are. There are probably more people coming from the IND line north of 125th than from the UW/ES's. If you use the Broadway IRT, you can transfer at 59th St. Going TO the beach, 6 riders can use bleeker. Coming home, they can use the Q train. The point was to give as many people as possible one seat rides. You're also giving people from the Heavily used northern Queens lines one transfer rides.
Really, if possible, I'd send that train onto the Lex express and then on the #6 in Bronx. But that Isn't possible, sadly.
The 5 only runs to Brooklyn rush hours.
I forgot about that.
More people depend on the 6 than depend on the Concourse line.
Not counting the upper east side, how many?
As I said, I grant you that.
If you use the Broadway IRT, you can transfer at 59th St.
Not from the express. (The Columbus Circle rehab is in the planning stage. As a result, expect many weekends in the coming years when all IRT trains run express in one direction.)
The point was to give as many people as possible one seat rides.
I think this is where we differ. One-seat rides are impossible to achieve in most cases. I want to see as many two-seat rides as possible, with same-platform transfers as often as possible, and with frequent and flexible service at transfer points (in other words, transfer points should be express stations on both lines).
Running the beach superexpress as a Broadway route gives one-seat or same-platform-transfer access to everyone on the Concourse, Astoria, Queens Boulevard, 6th Avenue, and Broadway BMT lines, and access with a single not-too-inconvenient transfer to everyone on the IRT (entire system), Jamaica/Broadway-Brooklyn, Myrtle, and Canarsie lines. That leaves only Washington Heights and 8th Avenue (and CPW, unless NYCT relents and runs two locals on weekends) without easy access to the beach superexpress. (They'll have to make do with two same-platform transfers, at 125th or 59th to the D and at Pacific to the superexpress, or with the Times Square corridor.)
You're also giving people from the Heavily used northern Queens lines one transfer rides.
The Queens Boulevard line connects with Broadway as well as 6th Avenue; the Astoria line connects only with Broadway. In fact, I suggested running the superexpress to either Astoria or Jamaica. Jamaica probably makes more sense -- via 63rd, express to Jamaica Center.
This is about PR having a good time, and getting on a train with a bunch of other people in bathing suits heading for the beach would certainly be more fun than riding a train with a bunch of us cranky commuters. The fun would start the minute one got on board.
On weekends and holidays, on the other hand, a beach express would be a real amenity since the B wouldn't be running and other trains would be running less frequently.
The route I envision is similar to (and would be coordinated with) the proposed weekend N service. You'd start at Queensboro (transfer from #7), Lexington (transfer from Lex), then down the Broadway Local (transfers from Broadway IRT at Times Square and 6th Avenue at Herald Square) to Canal (transfer from L at 14th Street and J at Canal) and over the Manhattan Bridge to Pacific. Lots of hotels in that corridor.
The service would be intended for Manhattanites, tourists, and those coming in from the Bronx, northern Brooklyn, and western Queens. Brooklyn residents would almost certainly get on whatever train came along. So it could run Pacific, 59th, Stillwell.
Following the thought, the privates run a "beach bus" from the Flushing Line and Queens Blvd line express to the Rockaways. Perhaps if the TA the route over it could beef it up and publicize it, running more services on the same hot days that the subway beach special would run to Coney Island. I'd add a stop or two south of Forest Park for transfers -- the current bus runs non-stop to Queens Blvd to the Jamaica Wildlife refuge.
They'll have to make do with two same-platform transfers, at 125th or 59th to the D and at Pacific to the superexpress, or with the Times Square corridor.)
If you're riding the #7 line, the A/C/E transfer at 42nd st isn't too bad. But for the rest of the lines, it's rough.
I'm no great fan of the Times Square corridor, but it does come in handy at times. In particular, it's the only transfer between the 8th Avenue IND and the Broadway BMT, and the only way to avoid it is by making an extra transfer.
Better to have it as an option than not have it at all.
It really doesn't help that the IRT has smaller cars. 4/5 trains have less people through the Joralemon tube than the A/C does in Cranberry, and more trains, but Just about every 4/5 will be crowded in the Rush, whereas the "A" will only have about half of it's trains packed, a quarter filled with little more standing room, and another quarter with seats available. The "C" shouldn't even count. For a line that goes to manhattan, its quite sad.
When I computed the relative crowding on each A Division line leaving the CBD in the afternoon rush based on 1996 statistics, the ranking went something like this: 6, 1/9, 4/5, 2/3, 7, 4/5 Brooklyn, 2/3 Brooklyn. (I may have the 7 and 4/5 Brooklyn reversed, but otherwise I think that's how it went.) But the morning rush was very different -- in particular, IIRC the expresses were more crowded than the locals. And, of course, 1996 was seven years ago.
Based on what data? The only data I've been able to access is the Hub Bound, and I haven't been able to get one hour data, just all day data.
In 2000, for the day, the Lex Local had 153,000 inbound travelers, the Lex local 151,000, the IRT Broadway Express 134,000, the IRT Broadway Local 116,000, the Steinway Tubes 110,000, the Jorlemon Tube 94,000, and the Clark Tunnel 65,000. I use inbound because the AM rush is more compressed than the PM rush, though these are inbound figures for the whole day. Outbound, there were more people on the Lex Local than on the express, for reasons I can't fathom.
The Manhattan Bridge (130,000 on two tracks) Cranberry Tunnel (126,000) 53rd Street tunnel (198,000) and 60th Street Tunnel (132,000) brought in IRT-type numbers of people, but with wider, longer trains. The Rathole only brought in 69,000 with lots of people forced to go that way to keep their seat. Once the bridge is fully open, that's going to be one empty rathole. Too bad Brookfield can't have his "super shuttle" hooked up to it.
It doesn't change the gist of your post, just clarifies the record. Thanks.
Slightly more for the express.
It is interesting how packed the local is as well. If nothing else, the Stubway would pull people from the local, leaving more room for Queens residents transferring at 51st Street.
If the TA made a Queens Blvd/2nd av train, they could eliminate the transfer for some people outright. Then less people would be on the E/F trains.
At the very least, they could run it on the local tracks.
Shall I use this as a launching pad for my C horror story from Sunday?
Score another point for running the B (instead of the D) 24/7.
P.S. Keep up your great posts. You are one of the people on subtalk who share a wealth of relevant current information with the rest of us.
I hear you Mr. Fred, and it tickled me also to see Mr. Greenberger push for that Sea Beach Superexpress. Can't you just see it: The Sea Beach becomes the newest route in the city! I can imagine all the tourists becoming exposed to the line. People from Akron, and Alabama, and Alaska along with folks from Rome, London, Sydney, Tokyo, Egypt..all of `em, goin' down the Sea Beach to the wonders of Brooklyns' Coney Island. We could wave to them as they zoom by the local stations.
I'm gettin' goosebumps...
Nah. The point would be to maximize the infrastructure. Wouldn't do anybody any good to run such a service on the Brighton. Its very busyness is what makes it the wrong line to put a superexpress on. Nature abhors a vacuum so the underutilized Sea Beach is the ONLY line that could fit that bill. What other subway line in the entire city has such a long stretch of unused available express r.o.w. that heads ultimately for C.I.?
Whatever you do, don't ever read any signage on busses. Especially the guides on poles. Most of them are so outdated that your subway goofs seem mild.
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
I got this multimodal shot a few minutes later:
OUTDATED? Try TOTALLY INACCURATE INFORMATION. Now you got me started on a subject I was hiding, I will let it out on those Guide-A-Rides:
B8: (Before current Manny-B service, it was printed in 1997)
Newkirk Ave B and D (DUH!)
60th St, B4 (it's supposed to be B9)
65th st subway station N (no such station exists on the Slime Bitch Line)
20th Ave station B (The bus runs on 18th Ave, not 20th Ave)
M5, M6, M7
All maps have the S Times Square/GC shuttle train stopping at 42nd st/6th Ave station
Northbound maps have Broadway line stations as trasfer points even though the buses run on 6th Ave
Q32
35th St/Q19 (It's supposed to be 35th AVE and it's Q19B, not Q19)
B61
Manhattan Ave station G (The G runs underneath Manhattan Ave but the stations are Greenpoint and Nassau Aves)
Old B6 map have FIVE mistakes before the new one is issued, one of the mistakes had the B68 (Coney Island Ave) at BOTH CI Ave and Ocean Ave.
That's for starters, the appetizer will come later today or tommorrow.
I've already done this and know for a fact that I am not the only frequenter of this board to have done so.
If you believe in this idea, you had better forward it soon, before it's too late!
You can doubt when ever you want, but when ever you step across the line and call me an "ASS," you leave me no choice but to use the KillFile feature. Because people who speak to me with that tone is beneath me, and do not deserve the time of day.
Hey I won't put you or anybody on my killfile regardless of the fact of the matter, you do what you want I can't stop you. How do you figure I'm "beneath" you? I had a disagreement with your reasoning and that makes me act like a child give me a break. Well I'm NOT a child nor acting like one I'm an adult [18 yo].
With that said, you can't convince me, and I'm not going to convince you... so lets just leave it at that. It's a draw. But I refuse stoop down to your level because you are uncomfortable about talking about race, which of course could be a factor in the MTA decision.
I still have doubts over whether the changes are based on ethnicity however since so many people didn't go to the meeting they think all is well. Look I could see what you were saying but the way it was said infuriated some people so what did you you expect you know what I'm saying. Ok lets call it a draw.
Just like the MTA has been favoring LIRR personel over their subway division, it's fair to say that they are favoring 4th Avenue and South Brooklyn riders over their Flatbush counterpart. Therefore, my concluding point is that there is a possibility (not a fact) that this could just be another attack on black citizens.
Wow now that's a whole next thing with the 4 Av line over the Brightion. Now we will have to see how this one plays out.
The IRT is packed enough.. they don't need anymore people to delay their system. Plus, you are taking away a one seat ride and forcing people into a sardine situation. If that doesn't bother you, FINE! but I won't tolerate it!
"No it won't. The IRT doesn't run R-68's."
Who's talking about equipment.. If you read what I wrote.. you would know I meantioned the PEOPLE who ride the IRT.
"None of them. Anyone who lives in Flatbush lives in Flatbush, not in Bensonhurst or anywhere else."
Please stop pretending that you don't know what I'm talking about... It is clear who lives in Bensonhurst vs. who lives in Flatbush.
"What $2 fare? I'm only paying $1.67 per ride."
Only TA employees are given reduce fares.. I happen to be a regular passenger and pay $2
"What evidence would that be? Please explain it in detail. (Or are you just parroting what you read somewhere?)"
The evidence is that most people traveling to upper Manhattan and the Bronx are not people who live via Fourth Avenue in Brooklyn.. Those individual, if they are not commuting to Manhattan... they most surely will be choosing a Queens Destination. That's just the reality.
"You don't think it's in the public interest to extend the B and D south of 34th Street? That's the current terminal for both of them."
I'm talking about once the B/D is reintroduce back into Bklyn.
"How is the MTA getting over on the very poor and unfortunate by running the B as the Brighton express? Please explain in detail."
It's very obvious that the MTA does not care about the poor and unfortunate, otherwise they would have considered how detrimental the fare hike is. On top of that, they want to inconvenience the majority of the people who uses the system.. the poor and working class ethnic "minority."
N Bwy
"Please stop pretending that you don't know what I'm talking about... It is clear who lives in Bensonhurst vs. who lives in Flatbush."
It is also clear on this board, that putting Bensonhurst and Flatbush on opposite ends of the spectrum that you are a RACIST AND A BASHER. This board was meant to have everyone try to get along (while poking some fun) now you have just proven yourself to everyone else what you see as color.
http://talk.nycsubway.org/cgi-bin/subtalk.cgi?read=189544
N Bwy Line
N Bwy
Because his views on demographics may differ from yours? That's the citizenship qualifier? Look, the guy ain't advocating doing any harm to anybody. He has viewpoints, you have viewpoints. He made observations based on personal reactions to what he sees. If you're gonna assume a whole lot more into what he has publicly expressed apart from the specific topics being discussed, don't be surprised if that attitude comes around to bite you. Sorry man, but it's not an intelligent way of thinking.
Please, I'm not trying to flame anybody here. But really, some people better get it into their skulls that their viewpoint is not the ONLY viewpoint. Everytime I see someone say something akin to: "N Broadway Line is not worthy of being an American." I cringe. It makes me feel like my country is turning into a bunch of strutting little pompous asses. C'mon, do we REALLY need to emulate France??
N Bwy Line
Sheeeooot. You mean, say, a group of non railfans welcoming a railfan (who the non railfans normally consider to be, uh, eccentric)into their circle since he doesn't exhibit the telltale signs of a foamer, and maybe, he's also a property owning NIMBY? Yeah, I hear where you're coming from. I love being around people who conform to any or none of my "beliefs". It don't mean I'm gonna marry `em. But I like to be surprised that way. It's always good to hear original thoughts. I like hearing computer talk from a landscaper. Or "hip" guys discussing Mozart. And as long as everybody is cool about it, nobody's advocating death and/or destruction etc., it's a good feeling to hold your own within the, uh, matrix. It keeps everybody sharp.
That is so true yet so interesting. Some folks are prejudiced yet have friends in that same culture so they could claim they aren't racist or prejudiced, amazing how things go on huh.
The $1.67 comes from the MetroCard bonus of 20% for $10 or more on a card). For example, a new card purchased for $10 has a value of $12, or 6 rides. From elementary school math, $10 divided by 6 gives $1.666666..., or $1.67, per ride.
BTW, Transit employees ride free of charge on the subway and local bus routes, and the full $4.00 ($3.33 with the same MetroCard deal mentioned above) on express bus routes.
N Bwy
Well, you'll save money if you get a $10 metrocard good for 6 rides instead of buying $4 at a time. It's good for well over a year.
That means that, as a share of your total cost of living, the extra 50 cents won't cost you very much. There's the falacy. The subway dependent would be hurt by a 33 percent fare increase, but their increase was 15 percent ($63 to $70), and is still lower than eight years ago. The occasional user can hardly call the fare increase a life changing event.
Perhaps the MTA was not manipulative ENOUGH. In LA, advocates for the poor sued to force the monthly to be increased less than the single fare, on the ground that it is the poor who are dependent on transit and use the monthly! Here, the MTA did that up front.
Yet Straphangers still lobbied to have the 10% (pre-fare raise) discount extended across the board (i.e., lower the fare to $1.35, but not in those words). Their position was the poor can't afford more than one ride at a time, and therefore, the discount for $15+ purchases was discriminatory.
N Bwy
Yet now Los Angeles County MTA is about to lower the cash base fare and increase the monthly pass prices.
N Bwy
I don't ride regularly.. I run a homebase business and use the Subway.. for occasional mtgs.
Way to discredit yourself. Shows how much you know about the subway.....
Only TA employees are given reduce fares.. I happen to be a regular passenger and pay $2
David is right in this case. If you Metrocard on a daily basis and take advantage of their 'Get a Free Ride' deal that comes when buying a certain amount of rides for a certain prices, you save money. Since the entire system requires Metrocards, everyone technically saves. Unfortunately, I don't have the exact details with me. Could someone provide them please?
Well for some people they choose to do that, what your going to police people or something?
Please stop pretending that you don't know what I'm talking about... It is clear who lives in Bensonhurst vs. who lives in Flatbush.
Ok, its clear people live in their respective neighborhoods, please don't do this shit by classifying race in this issue. That comment was totally uncalled for. I totally agree with what Kool-D said, this post was just vile, and I think you are vile and moronic; its people like you who bring down Subtalk's credibility.
Only TA employees are given reduce fares.. I happen to be a regular passenger and pay $2
Seems like you don't know about unlimited cards or the incentives with PPR's when you buy a $10, 1 free, $20 2 free fares & so on :-\.
It's very obvious that the MTA does not care about the poor and unfortunate, otherwise they would have considered how detrimental the fare hike is. On top of that, they want to inconvenience the majority of the people who uses the system.. the poor and working class ethnic "minority."
Sure people will have to dig a little deeper into their pockets and yes I think it was unjustified but how do you know that minorities will struggle to pay the $2 fare? Come on get your facts straight and when you decide to say rational comments respond to this post.
I'm not policing anyone, I'm just giving you the facts of the manner at hand.
"Ok, its clear people live in their respective neighborhoods, please don't do this shit by classifying race in this issue. That comment was totally uncalled for. I totally agree with what Kool-D said, this post was just vile, and I think you are vile and moronic; its people like you who bring down Subtalk's credibility."
Race and racism is always a factor when these type of decisions are made.. Therefore, you have to just accept that the people who run the system might be discriminating against these poor defenseless people of color.
For instance, why must they remove the Bronx bound "D" line from the Brighton Division? And who do you think a train bound for 57th Street going to benefit? First of all, who lives on 57th Street? Who mostly shops on 57th Street? How much does it cost to rent property on 57th Street?
Have you taken a look at the area? Just stroll through there one day. Ride the Q past 34th Street and see what happens. Follow the people and see where they are going? There not interested in anything else but the Bronx bound "D" train. Why? Because there destination is more likely upper manhattan and the bronx.
Why should the majority of people who ride the system be inconvenience, just so the TA can save a few bulks? Just like anything, there is nothing but racism all over the decision to move the "D" to 4th Avenue.
"Sure people will have to dig a little deeper into their pockets and yes I think it was unjustified but how do you know that minorities will struggle to pay the $2 fare? Come on get your facts straight and when you decide to say rational comments respond to this post."
Your word "minorities" generally make less money on jobs than their white counterparts. Therefore, it makes sense that it will be harder for them to deal with a fare increase.
With that said, racism is very rampant in New York City and throughout the United States, because, the people with the advantage refuse to share with the disadvantaged.. who most likely is a person of color.
Let us for argument's sake accept that you aare correct when you write "Race and racism is always a factor when these type of decisions are made.. Therefore, you have to just accept that the people who run the system might be discriminating against these poor defenseless people of color," and then examine the "reasoning" behind your accusation that race played a role in these decisions.
"For instance, why must they remove the Bronx bound "D" line from the Brighton Division?"
And put it on the West End line. I'm at a loss to explain how this hurts minorities. Care to help? The D used to run on the Culver line. Does that smack of raciallly motivated bias too and if so bias toward what, exactly?
Your charge that termination of the Q train at 57th Street is racially motivated is singularly inapt. This is the very same Q line that one day the same MTA is proposing to send uptown to 125th Street, passing by the lovely Sutton Place neighborhood along the way. Is there racial bias there too?
57th Street is a convenient terminal. The next terminal, if the choice of 57th/7th for a Broadway service were declined, would be Continental Avenue, which of course, might be taken as a sign of appeasement toward those Forest Hills residents.
"Have you taken a look at the area? Just stroll through there one day. Ride the Q past 34th Street and see what happens. Follow the people and see where they are going? There not interested in anything else but the Bronx bound "D" train."
That's unusual. You're saying that EVERY person on the train has NO interest in anything in Midtown beside the platform leading to their beloved Bronx-bound D train. I must report this has not been my experience. But anyone on a Broadway train that wanted to go uptown via the West Side would have to change over to another train, because, as you well know, Broadway lines don't lead uptown (yet).
"Why should the majority of people who ride the system be inconvenience, just so the TA can save a few bulks? Just like anything, there is nothing but racism all over the decision to move the "D" to 4th Avenue."
Where is the proof of this? Show us how the "majority" of riders are being shafted by the D being assigned to the 4th Avenue Express over the Brighton Local. Show us that either this judgment was made by racists or that no reasonable alternative grounds exist. I doubt that you can.
I could go further. I'm not. Making charges is one thing. Proving them is another.
Who knows... it might never get built.. And with the gentification going on in harlem as we speak.. who know if the same people will be living there.
N Bwy
I'll try this one last time.
There are six subway lines in the Bronx. One of them is the D. The other five are all IRT lines.
Anyone traveling from the Brighton line to any of those five Bronx lines has to transfer to the IRT no matter what. Nobody's being forced to transfer to the IRT who doesn't already have to transfer to the IRT anyway.
Now, kindly tell me where I'm supposed to transfer from the D to the Bronx-bound 6.
Who's talking about equipment.. If you read what I wrote.. you would know I meantioned the PEOPLE who ride the IRT.
No, here's what you wrote: "it will look entirely like the IRT..." No mention of PEOPLE.
I don't like to accuse people of racism. I try my hardest to not accuse people of racism. When I see an ambiguous statement, I give its author the benefit of the doubt. I'm afraid you have robbed yourself of whatever small benefit of the doubt you once had.
Skin color is not a relevant factor in designing subway routes. If an overwhelming majority of weekend Brighton passengers of all colors, creeds, sizes, and shapes prefer Broadway service over 6th Avenue service, then weekend service to Broadway is the best way to serve the Brighton ridership.
You have repeatedly stated elsewhere in this thread that racism is alive and well. Indeed it is, and if you look in a mirror, you may find its origin.
Only TA employees are given reduce fares.. I happen to be a regular passenger and pay $2
Make up your mind. Later in the thread you claim that you're not a regular rider.
The evidence is that most people traveling to upper Manhattan and the Bronx are not people who live via Fourth Avenue in Brooklyn.. Those individual, if they are not commuting to Manhattan... they most surely will be choosing a Queens Destination. That's just the reality.
I asked you for evidence (in your own words) that a fare increase wasn't justified, and I'm still waiting.
But instead you've put forth a truly puzzling conjecture. Would you care to back it up with evidence (e.g., ridership surveys, MetroCard tracking data, or the like)?
I'm talking about once the B/D is reintroduce back into Bklyn.
Yes, we all are. The B and D currently terminate at 34th Street. Unless they stay that way, their terminals will change next year.
It's very obvious that the MTA does not care about the poor and unfortunate, otherwise they would have considered how detrimental the fare hike is.
So the subway fare should still be a nickel?
On top of that, they want to inconvenience the majority of the people who uses the system.. the poor and working class ethnic "minority."
And your evidence for this is ...?
If anything, it means, to me at least, that the wealthy Central Park West riders are the ones whom the MTA is getting over on, given there will likely be no Brighton Express/Central Park West Local B on weekends (and given that the full-time Central Park West Express/West End Local D skips past every stop on that segment).
N Bwy
Can I ask you a simple question? What demographic group are you referring to that "...who lives in the area..."? Are you suggesting that you have a bias against Flatbush residents by comparing them with "(looking) like the IRT."? Is that a positive, neutral, or negative statement you just made? If you know who lives in the area, well I am a Flatbush resident for all 34 years of my life and I am VERY PROUD of my neighborhood, lest I never forget that I am proud of my favorite subway line of all time. And much like other parts of NYC, Flatbush residents come from all walks of life, Jamaican, Haitian, some Chinese, some Spanish, some from the West Indies, you name it.
And for those who see me in person, I don't look at things the way you pre-judge neighborhoods like you do. I treat people equally so that you know where you should stand in regards to the area I live in.
You are a smart guy!
N Bwy
*frowning*
N Bwy
Then why are you putting humans in your killfile? I don't see any roaches or mosquitoes on this board.
You probably won't see that, but I liked posting it.
He's putting pigs in his killfile.
No.
As for the 6th Avenue crowd.. they look more like the people using the IRT.
Are you claiming that you can tell from a person's appearance which subway line(s) he or she rides?
That ability would be invaluable to the MTA, who only have turnstile counts and questionnaires to guide them.
N Bwy
So any place where everyone is white is an unfriendly atmosphere.
That goes to show you the kind of SCUM you are.
*smile* Mr. Buncker!
N Bwy
No. You never said that any place which has only black people or only asian people is also scary.
Personally, I find any place that's filled only with tigers to be scary.
Also, whenever a form asks for my race, I always select OTHER. If it asks to write down what "other" is, I write HUMAN.
There are races other than Human: Dogs have their own race, cats, pigs, horses, cows are all other races. Any member of the species Homo Sapiens is a member of the HUMAN race. Race itself is a myth concocted by "white" people specifically to subjugate "black" people and other people. By espousing views on the differences of "races" you're only falling into the game they would have wanted you to fall into.
At one time, Irish, Jews and Italians were not considered "white," simply because they were immigrants and of the lower socioeconomic classes. Nigger was a slang used against Irish people at one point. A minority in the United States has nothing at all to do with share of the population (otherwise Jews would still be a minority), but rather with the share of WEALTH and POWER that a group controls. At some point in the future, Hispanics and Asians will no longer be minorities.
Because humans evolved from Australopithecus in Africa, the "Negroid race" is the first one. African people have the widest diversity of traits among any human group. The tallest (on average) people are African and so are the shortest. Why is it that skin color is used as a classification and not eye color or hair color? There are African people with the facial features of Asians. The only reason there are "white" people is because Ultraviolet light is needed by skin cells to synthesize calciferol (vitamin D), which provides for the absorption of calcium. When one wears clothes for warmth over most of one's body and lives in places when the sun doesn't shine as brightly, the absorption of UV light is limited. By decreasing the amount of melanin pigment in the skin, more UV light can be absorbed by the exposed parts of one's body.
And I don't know where Caucasian comes from. I'm not Caucasian, and most people I know are not Caucasian. Caucasians are people from Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
It was widely believed 50 years ago. Today, only fools believe that there is such a thing as a "white" or "caucasian" race.
I agree with Jersey Mike that allowing the looting of the Iraqi National Museum is a travesty. Those artworks are worth more than a few lives.
Guess you haven't been there recently.
Wow, how often do you go to 59 St on the 4 Av line? I don't like to bring ethnicity into my posts but AFAIK I've seen Hispanics, Af. Americans, Chinese, Caucasian etc there. I think your still stuck in the old days or something; stop your only getting clowned and making yourself look bad!
This has got to be a joke. I've heard a lot of different reasons why the B and D should or shouldn't be switched, both logical and illogical, but this has got to take the cake. I can't even imagine what you mean by what the "6th ave crowd" or "people using the IRT" look like, or how how Broadway riders look like 4th ave riders "similar, whatever that means.
What do IRT riders look like that would be different from anyone else who uses other lines in the system. What are they skinnier because their trains are skinnier? No, it's a retorical question, I don't even want to hear the answer. This is about as logical as saying that Broadway trains should run on 4th Ave because all those stations looked similar at one time with cement block tile.
Moo.
...better lay off going to a bar with beer before subtalking :)
N Bwy
N Bwy
N Bwy
N Bwy
All trains through Dekalb have direct service to Chinatown. All Canal St stations and Grand St are part of Chinatown nowadays (though the R station is at the edge).
The business owners near the grand street station were the one's putting up all the fuss. They lost business as the consumers took the train to shop thier no longer had convient acess and thus they would loose business.
As in any free market economy, businesses moved where the consumers are which is near Canal street station.
That is why goverment should stay out of such issues. The free market takes care of the problem on it's own. Grand street business loses were offset by canal street business gains plus smart businessman who opened more chinease stores in where the people in the outer bourough live.
WHAT IF I DON'T WANT TO FORCE INTO A CROWDED IRT? WHY SHOULD I? AND WHY SHOULD I BE FORCED TO GIVE UP MY ONE SEAT RIDE... SO THE MTA COULD SAVE A FEW BULKS? Surely, they did not give a damn! about me when they raise the STUPID fare to 2 dollars...
I better stop.. before I say something that will get me throw from this board......
N Bwy
N Bwy
Union Square is extremely popular, not on its own, but because of the nice transfer to the 4/5/6. There are always big hordes doing that transfer, weekdays and weekends. Bleecker St. is especially useless to the weekend crowd that doesn't usually have unlimiteds.
Convient transfers to the 4/5/6 and now the polularisty of williamsburg has led to an increased use of the transfer to the L.
The union square area is home to many nightlife and bars frequented by many brighon line 20 somethings.
My friends and I prefer Broadway service over the slower 6th ave service.
N Broadway
The amount of people riding between the Bronx and Brooklyn on a regular basis is negligible.
N Bwy
N Bwy
Oh and by the way, Rockerfeller Center IS served by Broadway too, one block away at 49th St and 7th Ave. Q riders can transfer to the R for 49th. Same for the Village and Soho, they can transfer for the R at Canal.
I've been trying to avoid argument on this topic, but again my whole point focused on weekend destinations reached in Manhattan without transferring (or taking long walks). The 2000 weekend D route is much better than the proposed weekend Q route in this aspect.
Through the tunnel.
Maybe it was `cause it was late, past 2 am. so the ride seemed smoother. I actually enjoyed it when we would depart Whitehall Street...I would track the train journey in my head, allowing myself to be amazed at the engineering marvel I was actually traversing. I mean, underneath a riverbed my train was movin' along, pretty as all get out....and of course, being as it WAS the Sea Beach I never had any qualm about stretching out in the nice wagon and taking an easy snooze...would be gently jostled awake by the train at some of the wayside stops. Finally I'd be in good ol' Bensonhurst again. I guess my point with all this is...the Sea Beach will be the Sea Beach, even if the stinkin' powers that be try to divert it from its optimal positioning.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x6715.xml
http://www.guide2newark.com/arena.htm
The MTA has already basically lied about their budget situation in order to justify raising fares to $2.00. This makes their credibility suspect. If riders on the West End made a political issue of their train not going to Grand St, what would be the most easiest way to justify giving them 24/7 service on the West End via 6th Ave...by saying that their surveys indicate that Brighton riders prefer, by a large majority, Broadway service over 6th Ave service on weekends. I don't agree with everything N Broadway Line says, but I strongly suspect that Brighton Line's alleged preference of B'way over 6th Ave isn't really as wide as these surveys made it appear.
Oh? Please explain, in your own words, how the MTA has lied.
I find it hard to imagine how, given the state's fiscal condition, the fare in 2003 could possibly remain lower than it was in 1995.
in order to justify raising fares to $2.00.
Funny, I'm only paying $1.67 per ride. Only idiots and tourists pay $2.00 per ride.
If riders on the West End made a political issue of their train not going to Grand St, what would be the most easiest way to justify giving them 24/7 service on the West End via 6th Ave...by saying that their surveys indicate that Brighton riders prefer, by a large majority, Broadway service over 6th Ave service on weekends.
Actually, West End riders also prefer Broadway service on weekends, by an even greater margin than Brighton riders, but (a) there are more Brighton riders than West End riders, so the Brighton preference trumps the West End preference, (b) running a Broadway service on the West End on weekends would yield a confusing service pattern, and (c) running 6th Avenue service on both the Brighton and the West End would send too much service up CPW.
Why don't you email NYCT and ask for details on these ridership surveys?
Whatever their flaws, at least they exist. That's better than your pontifications (without empirical support) about where you think Brighton riders probably want to go on weekends, ignoring entirely the very many of them who have to transfer to other lines in any case, and neglecting the existence of the Culver line a short distance from the Brighton line which provides 6th Avenue service no matter what. Believe what you like, but I don't think you've convinced anyone yet, since you have nothing to back up your claims.
On that issue I'd say the distance is too far for most people to consider as an alternate. Figure from Kings Hwy station on the Brighton line to McDonald Ave is about 16 blocks. If you live within a couple of blocks from the E. 16 St. stop, or further East, it would take about 20 to 30 minutes just to get to the F line. Not that I'm against a good healthy walk. But it's not like electing to walk from Park Ave. South and 33rd St. to 6th Ave and 34th St., which takes maybe 5 minutes. In the Brooklyn example most will take the nearest up-line platform or multi-line station transfer from their originating train line. FWIW, the Ocean Parkway/McDonald Ave neighborhoods are distinctly different from the areas adjacent to the Brighton line. So the native territorial instincts of Brooklyites will tend to keep them from straying too far from their "home" lines.
Notice that, according to NYCT's plan, the lines alternate (south of 62nd/New Utrecht): Q to Broadway, F to 6th, N to Broadway, D to 6th, R to Broadway. That's a nice arrangement.
Agreed. Now if only there was a "crosstown" subway connecting all those lines, running under, say, Kings Hwy from Flatbush Avenue to at least Coney Island Ave, then connecting with 65th Street and running straight across to at least the 59th Street station...I suppose a "rapid transit-ized" LIRR row would be roughly equivalent but it isn't that well located for the neighborhoods mentioned.
By the way the Culver line is generally about a mile from the Brighton Line.
Only those who aren't interested in the facts.
Actually, right now, the only one who I can think of who agrees with you has openly proclaimed himself to be a racist. (There may be others, but he's the only one who comes to mind right now.) I would think you'd want to distance yourself from an open racist.
If you've noticed, I've been ducking arguments lately, only stating facts.
Actually, I hadn't noticed. Last I saw, your primary argument was based on your own wild guesses of where people tend to go on weekends, entirely ignoring the minor fact that many if not most transfer to other lines.
I'm merely pointing out that the MTA has not been honest with its budget situation
Again, I ask, how is that? Please explain in your own words. I hope you haven't been brainwashed by someone who's made a career of complaining about the MTA or the state and who thus is obligated to complain about the fare hike for fear of becoming unemployed.
(Then again, I didn't need any budget to tell me that a fare hike was inevitable. The fare was lower than it was in 1995 and the state's finances were in the toilet. It was obvious a year ago.)
It isn't a stretch to say that these surveys are pontifications disguised as science.
Without any evidence, yes, it is a stretch. Again, why don't you ask NYCT for details?
As I stated before, to justify giving West End riders weekend access to the 6th Ave line,
But West End riders prefer Broadway access on weekends!
How could you possibly think that NYCT bends over backward to accomodate the West End line? Until last year the West End was reduced to a late night shuttle, and for about a year it was even reduced to a weekend shuttle. It only got through service in September because it became the only line to run through to Stillwell (because only the West End and the Sea Beach have access to the one platform that's currently open, and the West End has more traffic than the Sea Beach), and it will be keeping that through service only because more traffic through DeKalb will be required to feed both sides of the bridge.
By the way the Culver line is generally about a mile from the Brighton Line.
Yes, and the people who live in between can walk either way -- the densely populated Ocean Parkway corridor is smack in between. And as I'm sure you're aware, lots of Brighton passengers take buses to the subway, and most of those buses run through that mile to the Culver.
You think the Straphangers Campaign was able to "brainwash" a Manhattan judge? The fare hike was necessary, but why should state agencies be permitted to treat the public like little children who can't handle the truth?
As for me trying to convince other people check how many times I've posted a message in the past month, particularly outside this thread?
I haven't been brainwashed by anyone. I've learned that if something looks like a rat, smells like a rat it probably is a rat. The shadiness with which the MTA conducts business is an example of that.
I've really said all that needed to be said. We can argue this until
we're both blue in the face so I'm just gonna drop it...If we're not gonna agree, we're just gonna have to agree to disagree. There's no use in debating it further.
N Bwy
Ocean Parkway is a wide boulevard about six blocks east of the Culver Line and 9-1/2 blocks west of the Brighton Line. Because of the difficulty in crossing Ocean Pkwy., I believe that people east of it would use the Brighton and people living west of it would use the Culver. I rode east-west routed busses through southern Brooklyn many times during the second half of the sixties, starting at points east of the Brighton Line. I never observed anyone who stayed on a westbound bus past the Brighton in order to ride the Culver, and therefore I suspect that the number of such riders is very low indeed. People who need to get to 6th Av. on the weekend that live east of Ocean Parkway I believe will prefer to get on the Broadway-Brighton and transfer at Dekalb or otherwise find some alternative routing; I doubt any would walk west or stay on the bus until the Culver. I know that I certainly wouldn't and, you can believe me, that has nothing to do with my favoritism for the Brighton.
Many will opt for the closer line and, if necessary, transfer or walk later, but some will opt to walk a few more blocks to get directly to the right train.
I'm not sure how relevant your bus observations are. Were they at express stops on the Brighton? Beginning in 1967, the primary service at those stations (at all times) was to 6th Avenue. Why ride past one line to 6th only to reach another line to 6th? A more interesting observation would be what happens now, when all Brighton service is to Broadway, compared, in particular, to what happened two years ago, when all Brighton service was to 6th.
Well, when I lived on E. 16th St. near Ave. R I never knew anybody who did such a thing as board a bus from there to go to McDonald Ave. Conversely, when I lived near 18th Ave. on the Sea Beach I never knew anybody who would take the bus up 18th Ave to get to the 6th Ave.-bound F train. This was before the Metrocard era so my observations might be faulty nowadays. Still, I doubt it. When you have to go to work it just doesn't make sense to take a bus over to another train if you're within a few blocks of either line. Even with the free transfer. It's a matter of time. That bus trip could take another 15-20 minutes. Why make your commute longer? You just want to get on the damn train and go to work with a minimum of diversions.
Of course nobody would get on a bus in the shadow of the Brighton to get to the Culver.
Yes, say, people who board a Kings Hwy bus at Flatbush Avenue. In that case selecting the train based on it's Manhattan r.o.w. does make the most sense, if that's their destination. Of course, they could choose to jump on a Flatbush Ave bus to get to the IRT also. It just goes to show you how even with free transfers living in a two fare zone is still a pain in the butt. Seems silly to be living in the city yet not be near a train line.
If Rockerfeller Center is so important for Brighton riders, then why not flip the N and the Q trains in Manhattan and Queens?
I guess the real reason they want the B on the Brighton b/c now.. the only full time service is via West End. And to make things less complicated, and since the D is 24/7 line.. it makes more sense to put it on West End.
"What's not to like? One can argue whether Broadway or 6th Avenue is better on a weekday, but Broadway is better on the weekend, based on destinations. So I'd say Brighton riders are better off with the Q as a full time service."
I disagree with you... A lot of people are going to be affected when they remove the 6th Avenue line on the Weekends. Particularly people living north from Newkirk Avenue. But who cares... They don't represent the same people running the system. Besides that, who you think will be force to switch over to D to make their destination beyond 59th Street? Not the very "w...." fourth Avenue... but very "b...." Brighton.
I have riden the "D" enough to know that a lot of people commute from that part of bklyn to upper manhattan/bx all the time.. BELIEVE ME! It's a VERY bad IDEA!
South of the line is a different story.. because.. these people won't be as affected.. because usually their destination is south of 59th Street.. And surely.. the Q does not go anywhere the majority of people want to go... which would mean.. people being force to transfer into a very CROWDED train they could have had.. if the MTA didn't make such a stupid decision!
N Bwy
However, I don't believe that ranting on SubTalk would help. Instead, at a calmer moment, why don't you e-mail NYCT with a short, respectful message concerning your preference supported if possible by cogent arguments?
If NYCT decides to make the D the part-time line (as I recommended in my email to NYCT), then current off-peak D passengers would have to accept that fact or find a different form of transportation.
Chances are that at least 99% of them wouldn't care what letter hangs on the train as long as the train shows up.
Well, Concourse local passengers might be pleased with the new consistency in service naming.
Why wasn't your account deleted along with that of your deity E_DOG? Coprotheists like you belong in the toilet.
N Bwy
You are forgetting that the D is not running on the Brighton now, and both underestimating and overestimating how inflexible people are.
Most people will simply continue to transfer to the D at 34th Street on weekends, just as they do now.
The truly inflexible will passionately object to the loss of the Q-diamond, and claim that it is only arrogance and incompetence that is causing the MTA to take it away from them. Maybe they can get Marty Markowitz and some of the City Council to condemn the Mayor for taking the Q diamond away.
At DeKalb, more likely. I'm sure it will stop there on weekends. (Weekdays, Q passengers can transfer to the B.)
If you're opposed to this B/D switch, what you (and everyone else who is opposed to the switch) can do is e-mail their elected officials. Here is a link to find out who your elected officials are, and their e-mail.
http://www.cmap.nypirg.org/netmaps/MyGovernment/NYC/MyGovernmentNYC.asp
You (and everyone else who is opposed to this switch) can also send letters to the MTA through this address:
Douglas Sussman
Manhattan Bridge Service Plan
347 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Arguing on SubTalk probably won't help your cause. Making a case through these avenues may make a difference. If you're looking for more ammo in your letters feel free to use the arguments I've posted in the past month.
There is a possible plan that keeps a Concourse-Brighton train running 24/7 without doing anything silly.
Q: Brighton Line CI to 57th (Brighton local), weekdays.
D: Brighton Line to 205th all times; Brighton express weekdays, Brighton local nights and weekends.
B: Orange B West End to 145/BPB weekdays. Yellow B to 57th weekends. It would not be rocket science for West End riders to learn the pattern.
N: Sea Beach to Astoria 24/7.
Is it better than the MTA's proposed plan? Of course not; some would benefit but more would be annoyed. But it would work if the MTA should decide that Brighton Yankee fans and those with relatives on the Concourse Line deserve 50 votes each. And it wouldn't be more expensive than the MTA proposal or come at severe cost to others (such as the idea of making the N a shuttle so that Brighton could have 2 weekend trains).
But what I'm addressing is the claim that running the B down the Brighton line is a service change. Of course it is -- and so is running the D down the Brighton line. Both the B and the D have terminated at 34th Street for the past 23 months. Any extension of either of those lines along any route in Brooklyn is a service change.
In the current circumstances (a survey showing Brighton riders prefer Broadway on the weekends) I agree 100%.
But for the sake of argument, suppose Brighton riders had preferred 6th Ave., but traffic projections still justified 3 Broadway services and 2 6th Ave services on the weekend? In that case, I think my suggestion would be the least disruptive one.
Fortunately, the point is moot, since Brighton passengers prefer Broadway on weekends, anyway.
I don't know why everyone is in support in moving my "Q" affiliate to the local tracks. At any chance, is anyone in favor of keeping it on the express tracks?
"(such as the idea of making the N a shuttle so that Brighton could have 2 weekend trains)."
YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING... *frowning* It's 24/7 or nothing.
N Bwy
When is the CI slated for completion? And would you consider this an improve service to what is currently running on the Brighton Division?
N Bwy
Of course one Broadway service and one 6th Avenue service is preferable to two Broadway services from the Brighton line.
This is good to hear,thanks!
"Of course one Broadway service and one 6th Avenue service is preferable to two Broadway services from the Brighton line."
I agree varing option are good, but in this case, I prefer the full time "D" over the full time "Q" because I feel more people will benefit... particularly on Sundays.
N Bwy
Race was simply not relevant, at least not until a racist began posting his opinions to this board.
N bwy
What the asshole is thinking of this Newkirk Ave redlining BS is this: Just because he thinks most Black people live at or north of Newkirk Ave station, while Whites live at or SOUTH of Newkirk Ave station is garbage. Look at the #7 train, how many languages are spoken on this line? Or has N Broadway never heard of the "International Express"? C'mon I am not bashing N because of his handle, I am VILLIFING HIM for his BIGIOTED, RACIST, BIASED, ANTI-EVERYONE remarks on this board. If his handle was Brighton Express or the like, he will be treated the same way, like MUD ON SHIT!
Brighton line riders were polled without regard to race, creed, religion, etc. They wanted a general consensus of what services they want on the Brighton line, which is a 6th Ave express during weekdays, and Broadway express on weekends as the single line.
N Bwy
N Bwy
The Q has been a local in Brooklyn since 7/21/01, get your facts straight, jerk.
"A lot of people are going to be affected when they remove the 6th Avenue line on the Weekends. Particularly people living north from Newkirk Avenue."
What is the difference between riders at Cortelyou, Beverley, Church, etc. from riders living near lettered Avenue stations and Kings Highway?
"But who cares... They don't represent the same people running the system."
Do you REALLY care about those riders? I know you don't give a rat's you-know-what.
N Bwy
I also don't see no reason for the change.
Plus most brooklyn people are mets fans
Say what? Uh, I don't think so...
N Broadway... in support of the Q Broadway Express
The D was "taken off the Brighton Line stretch" in July 2001. Under NYCT's plan, it won't be back...so what? There would be a Brighton/Sixth Avenue service (at least on weekdays) under NYCT's plan...it would just be called B. Other than railfans, I can pretty much guarantee that nobody's going to care what the service is called as long as the trains show up when they're supposed to and go where they're supposed to.
David
And just so's ya know I won't go stir crazy, it's kinda neat that the D train will end up running on the OLDEST BMT line with the richest history (tip of the hat to Paul Matus for that WONDERFUL article on the original West End) ... from a historical value, I can live with the change though I can't fathom the D train no longer stopping at Brighton Beach. :(
But yeah, whatever WORKS is OK by me ...
Nah, I EXPECTED you'd be near as sane as I am NOT to let Unca Selkirk have the "football" ... Heh.
No, but a good choice for Secretary for the Sea Beach rathole instead.
I nominate Ken Lay ... or maybe Dick Armey. That'd be a hoot.
So what if the D doesn't come back to Brighton and the B doesn't go back to West End? Just because that's the way it was doesn't mean that's the way it has to be. There's no need for both a full-time B and D. One or the other should be part-time.
Where did you get that number from?
1. Brighton Beach & Coney Island: Near egg slicers by new staircase to Q platform (Tracks 1 and 2)
2. B, M, N, R: Opposite stairs by LIRR Tracks 1 and 2
3. LIRR Tracks 1-7: By IRT passageway (There are only 6 tracks at Flatbush Ave station
4. 2 New Lots, 3 Flatbush: Ramp to S/B IRT local
5. 1, 2 4 5: By P/T stairs inside LIRR platforms
I encourage you to follow up on your testimony by mailing to Doug Sussman a list of the station signs that are wrong (unless you turned in a list at the hearing).
You made an interesting suggestion regarding the service plan itself. Somebody will look it over. Whether or not it actually gets done I don't know, but you did a good thing there.
"The second and more damming allegation...At one point, I quizzed Mr. Sussman at the close of the hearing as to how many tracks are at LIRR Flatbush Ave station. Mr. Sussman didn't know the answer, but when I told him that there are only six tracks,"
Can I humbly suggest something? Mr. Sussman's not knowing how many tracks there are at Atlantic Av is hardly "damning" at any level. Depending on how you brought it up (your tone, demeanor, language) it could have been something that distracted from your main points. I would not have brought that up in the context of a Manny B service plan hearing because I wouldn't consider it the right place and time for that. Also, if I want to irritate someone, I'd want to do it over a more substantive issue (like that fiasco at 2 Broadway).
All in all: That only 15 people showed up means two things to me:
1. Most people are satisfied enough with the service plan that they didn't feel the need to come (or it isn't important enough to them). Let's be honest here: No matter what service plan you have, full four-track service on the bridge is better than what you have now.
2. Your testimony became more important.
Thanks for showing up, Kool-D. If I had been in NY I would have been there too.
N bwy
N Bwy
Thankless job. Kind of like the boy whose job it was to be whipped in place of the prince every time the prince screws up. Hope he's paid well, anyway. At least these days.
I don't agree with your conclusion.. The "A" express should always go in front of the C... LOCAL... Because as an express... these passengers should not be inconvenience... for a few C riders who seem to have more time on their hands.. which is why they choose to live at a local station..
N Bwy
Whichever one is scheduled to go first should go first. If the schedule's been thrown out the window, then whichever line tends to be less crowded (whether that's the local or the express -- in this case it's the local) should go first, so that those with a choice gradually learn that it might be worth their while to ride the less crowded line.
It's REALLY different if you live in outlying boroughs ... out there, even with the JOKE they call "express" these days, there was a discernable, REAL value to them. Not so at 96 St though. Seriously, MOVE to the Bronx or Brooklyn - it'll open up an entire alternate universe for you - you'll SEE the VALUE of express service ... really. No offense intended, bro ... but when you live in the auslands, Expresses are SERIOUS stuff. 'word. :)
Expresses are great, but someone who opts to live at a close-in local station has certainly not shown any indication that he has any more time to kill than someone who opts to live at a far-out express station -- if anything, he's shown exactly the opposite.
If the express can continue unimpeded, great. If the local can continue unimpeded, great. If one of them has to go first at a merge, the one that's scheduled to go first, or the one that people are less likely to need to transfer to, or the one that's less crowded should go first.
How could you possibly justify a policy that always sends the express first? I wasn't aware that express passengers paid more for the priority service you feel they should get. On average, in fact, they pay less (per mile).
It's been done before, though is now somewhat discredited.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
I just think it's a crazy idea to throw a slower train that is empty in front of a faster train that is crowded.
It's about serving to the needs of the many... while delaying the few who might complain.
N Bwy
Wow, I'm surprised at how much this question of express vs. local keeps coming up. My gut feeling on this is...yes, I believe people should orient themselves around the design of the system. As long as this subway system HAS express run capacity, that great rarity in the world of urban rail transit, utilize that capacity. If that means a less crowded express train gets priority over the crowded local at decision time, so be it.
What I object to with making that decision based on the criteria you stated is that it "cheapens" the innate value of the infrastructure. The rider who is inconvenienced by having to transfer to an express further down the line can at least rest assured that at some point in her journey, she'll be able to "get a jump" in her commute route. To accept that the local WILL get into a junction ahead of a waiting express just annoys the express riders. And it's disappointing too. It gives a feeling of "well, I followed the rules as they were set up and they STILL made those rules moot when push came to shove. Why bother?"
Yeah, too, a lot of this is emotional. But damn it all, I say, the express gets priority! That should be the bottom line in any routing questions. Especially, especially in Brooklyn.
Ever take a NON Express bus from the Bronx to midtown? Now THERE'S a haul. Same one token ride too. But all I'm trying to do is offer another perspective to this, I didn't have to. :)
How do you figure?
Same price (1 fare), more miles => fewer dollars per mile.
So riders at Bedford-Stuyvesant have more "time on their hands" and "chose to live in the area" rather than a resident who needs MORE time coming from the Rockaways, they have the A express in Brooklyn.
What kind of dumb conclusion was based on your theory of locational preferences based on local vs. express. Most New Yorkers prefer to live near an express station, rather than a local station for the following reasons:
1. They have more frequent and faster train service.
2. On weekends, express stations are less likely to be affected by G.O.'s than local stations, so they will not inconvenienced.
But the law of supply and demand dictates that there are more local stations than express stations, so more people live near an express than local station, even though if I ran a poll on the local/express preference, most people would rather live near the express station.
Rockaway Parkway on the L to New Lots Ave on the 3.
You'd have to go way over to Union Square to get the 4 to Brooklyn, and transfer back in Brooklyn to get the 3. Or take the L to Sixth Ave to get the 3 (and the transfer between the L and the 3 there is a pain).
Or change at Broadway Junction and get the A to Broadway-Nassau St to get the 3, or the J to Fulton Street to get the 3 (and on weekends youd have to change at Chambers St to the 4 to Brooklyn to the 3, as the J doesn't go to Fulton then).
This is all because you can't transfer between Livonia Avenue and Junius Street, where the lines cross paths. Granted, there may not be that many people who would have to travel between Rockaway Pkway and New Lots, and if they do, I guess they'd take the bus. But anyway, subway could be an option if there was a transfer for those people, and it would just make the two lines more flexible if there was a problem on one of them. At least there would be other options.
So what is you guys ideas for the worst subway ride, or the "subway ride from hell"?
"You'd have to go way over to Union Square to get the 4 to Brooklyn, and transfer back in Brooklyn to get the 3."
Taking the B6 bus from RP to NLA solves this problem and you save 1 hour in the process.
As someone who used to ply that route on a regular basis (to see my grandparents in Yonkers) it is a pain. The all local F to Jay Street, change to the A/C to 168th Street, the elevator, and then the local #1 to 242nd Street. Followed by a long wait for a once a half hour Westchester bus. Followed by a walk up Van Cortlandt Park Avenue, a long, steep hill.
I did that trip dozens of times before we finally bought a car.
In the Bronx from 242nd st/VCP to Pelham Bay Park. You have to take the #1 to 96th st, then downstairs and upstairs for #2 train to 149th st/GC, then upstairs for #4 to 125th st, then upstairs for the #6.
Or you could stay on the #1 to TS, take Shuttle or #7 train to GC for the lone #6 train up.
The 1 to 96th St (either stay on the 1 or transfer 2/3) to 42, the shuttle or 7 to Grand central to the 4/5 to 125th to the 6 or the 6 right from GC, (or take the Broadway line right from 42 to 59th street for the Lexington).
OR - the 1 to 168th, the A/C to 145th, the B/D to 161st, the 4 to 125th, and the 6 to Pelham
Whew, what a hike!
I do it twice a month as is!!
1: 242nd St to 168th St, change to the "A"
A: 168th St. to 145th St, change to the "D"
D: 145th St. to 47-50 Rockefeller Ctr, change to the "F"
F: Rockefeller Ctr. to Roosevelt Ave. Change to the "7"
7: Roosevelt Ave. to Shea.....
I was, what, about 12 at the time?....I used to love that route. Didn't care that it took a little longer.
If you wanna involve BUSES....
The 9 BUS from VCP over to Fordham for
the 12 BUS to Bay Plaza/Pelham Bay..
Terminal to Terminal in about 60.
A to 168 to 1 to 14st to F..
You see, the reconstruction of the Franklin shuttle was good for something.
Just as bad is a transit commute from my house to JFK Airport. It's even worse to get to LGA, but at least LGA is very far. You can be rest assured that I will never use the Airtrain beyond the first day that it opens, even if it was free.
Bus WESTBOUND (away from airport) to Kings Highway, then Q to Prospect Park, S to Franklin Avenue, C to Utica Avenue, A to Howard Beach.
#3 West End Jeff
Let's see ... the construction period is going to be 2004 - 2010. What could New York accomplish in the same time frame? Fix a station escalator, maybe? God help us.
Just like I used to say New York State was a democratic as Mexico, but with all the democratic reform in Mexico, you can't say that anymore.
So what place is like New York? Perhaps Argentina.
#3 West End Jeff
--Mark
I found these two links to other things related to the Messina Bridge via Google.
http://www.structurae.de/en/structures/data/str04265.php
http://www.strettodimessina.it/
#3 West End Jeff
The Manhattan Bridge problem is overblown. Trains run over the Williamsburg Bridge, the Ben Franklin Bridge (and on the OUTSIDE no less) and the Lantau Link to the airport in Hong Kong with no problems.
#3 West End Jeff
I plan to do some railfanning, of course! We have booked the Eurostar from Paris to London. We're also travelling by train from London to Edinburgh, which I hear is supposed to go by the sea and have some great scenery.
I'll also likely visit the London Transport Museum, and I've printed-out our webmaster's Railfan's Guide to the Paris Metro (I wish I knew how to make that accentevous in the word "Metro"). Thanks, Dave.
Since I'm with my better half, it can't be an All Railfaning, All the Time type of trip, but I think she'll let me out to play a bit. Hey, the way she feels about trains, I feel about trapsing around Harrod's all afternoon, so we're even!
I'll be sure to try to get some good photographs, which I will share upon my return.
Cheers, Mates! Au revoire!
Have fun on your trip!
Mark
--Mark
Don't hold your breath too hard for the seaside views on the way to Edinburgh - they are all towards the far end of the journey, in Northumberland and southern Scotland. But they are worth the waiting for. Sit on the right-hand side of the train.
The London Transport Museum *is* good. Use Covent Garden tube station to get there. Though it tends to be very crowded, it is a nice old-fashioned station largely unchanged from the days of the Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway Co. (except for having faster elevators than then).
If you can get any spare time in Dublin, the DART is a nice ride too, also with some sea views, even if it isn't really a rapid transit. Unfortunately I don't think the new light rail system will quite be open in time for you there.
Why not try to persuade your other half to visit Greenwich with you? That way, you get to ride on the Docklands Light Railway (from Bank tube), and she gets to see the interesting new architecture of Docklands from the elevated train, and the historic stuff in Greenwich! If she won't wear trains both ways, you could go back again by riverboat, which is always a pleasant trip if the weather is good.
Must also say that Stockholm has a great subway system, and that Oslo's ain't so bad.
In Stockholm they have real-time, accurate, displays for when the next train will arrive - actually for the next three trains. It's not the cleanest stations I've been in, but not the dirtiest either. The cars themselves are padded seats and have two articulations making a long car with three sections. Usually coupled in two or three-car sets. T-Bana map
I have to admit I didn't travel to the limits of the systems but certainly downtown I could get within walking distance of everything I wanted to see. Stockholm also has a good bus systems and a few historic trams that fill in where the T-Bana doesn't go.
As for the city itself, Stockholm was very impressive, and I think anyone who likes European cities would love Stockholm.
I didn't use Oslo's system as much, but it was quite clean and efficient. The city itself is a fair bit smaller than Stockholm, and not quite as charming, but still nice. The biggest drawback for Oslo was that it is horribly expensive. I'm talking normal things cost 1 1/2 times what they might cost in Manhattan, and often twice what they would cost in Chicago. Let me just say that anyplace where a casual diner (that caters to locals) charges the equivalent of $20 for buffalo wings is pretty dang expensive. Part of it was the historically weak dollar, but that only accounts for about 15% of the high prices.
Anyway, would recomment Norway for the natural beauty and Stockholm for a nice urban experience.
The long-distance trains were great in both countries, too. The "Signatur" lines in Norway are amazing. Fast (200 kph), clean (nice leather seats even in second class) and everything else high-speed rail in europe is famous for. The Lynx lines that travel around Scandinavia are almost as nice, and just as comfortable. Oslo has a very nice high-speed train to the airport. And the airport in Oslo is a modern marvel as far as I'm concerned.
All in all, a great transit experience all around.
Mark
Stockholm in the 1930's opened an underground tram line, whose tunnel is used by T-Bana.
Mark
Several of the major cell phone service providers have approached the MTA with proposals, offering to bear the full expense and pay royalties to the MTA in exchange for exclusive signal (meaning their competition would all be on ROAM). From the MTA's standpoint, not a bad deal at all.
What would most likely happen, however, is a deal where the MTA funds the cable installation and permits multiple royalty-paying service providers access, making all of those carriers HOME services in the subway... not as good a deal for the MTA (although the royalties would be priced such as to make it better than break-even) but probably a better deal for the riding public.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Now, if a consortium of wireless telecom providers wanted to wire the subway—at their own expense and risk—because they thought it would be profitable, then I have no objection. But that's not how I would like to see public money spent.
You also have to factor in the loss in revenues from the payphones in the stations when you figure the costs. That is, by the way, why hospitals don't allow you to use cell phones. If they allowed cell phones they would lose all the money from the vendors who supply phones in the rooms. All that stuff about phones interfering with the electronic medical machinery is just garbage. If that was the case they wouldn't allow police radios, security's radios, or doctor's pagers.
Wrong.
There exists the possibility of a loose connection capable of causing a spark in any electronic equipment. Cell phones can cause a spark that can ignite gasoline vapors, seriously injuring or killing the person fueling the vehicle and/or a trapped passenger. It's not a likely occurrence, to be sure, but it has happened several times; one well-publicized incident occurred three or four years ago where a woman was pumping gas into her car, she had left the front door open, her phone rang, she answered it, and an apparent spark that emanated when she pressed the "talk" button ignited gasoline fumes that caused an explosion, seriously burning her and killing her child who was in a car seat inside the burning vehicle. It's a much lower risk than that of a lit cigarette, but it's a risk nonetheless.
Most of us don't bother switching our phones off, as we are willing to accept that level of risk, but issuing the warning relieves the cell phone industry from any liability claims that might arise from such an accident.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
It doesn't relieve them of liability. It does serve as one defense in a neglegence suit, but I'd be shocked to find a cell phone company rely on that warning as their defense in a case such as the one you described.
Innocent dead children ==> big verdicts against deep pockets.
A defense lawyer allowing such a case to get to trial should be disbarred.
I arrive to get my car filled. Do I open the door? Whoops, the door light switch has a spark–boom! Do I wind down the window? Oops, it’s electric and a spark in the motor brushes ignites the vapor–boom!
I can’t see anything of a spark in a cell phone, since the the power is negligble and the current across the contacts is just about nil!
John
Not to mention the thing you're most likely to do... start the car when done. Turn the ignition and BOOM.
Not entirely true, although I wish it was. Stray RF signals can interfere with heart monitoring equipment in particular, much of which is now managed with a wireless connection rather than wires that tether the patient to the bed.
A pager is a dumb receiver whereas a cell phone transmits, hence the concern.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Generally a cell phone will not interfere with medical electronics (or avionics either) if the cell phone is operating properly on its assigned frequency. The problems occur when cell phones are out of adjustment and transmitting signals that they should not send. There is a very small probability of it happening, but the if it does the results may be catastrophic. If hospitals allow the general public to bring any cell phone into the building, sooner or later the odds favor the small probability happening.
I was recently in a hospital where, as they were trying to get my signature on a DNR authorization, I was told a certain procedure was really quite safe, with the possibility of a bad outcome only one in five hundred. My next question to the doctor was "Have you done the last 499 without any problems?"
Tom
A now 96-year old friend has had her quality of life disastrously diminished by a procedure with 99.9% success rate gone drastically wrong.
The problem was that the success rate was nowhere near 99.9% for someone in her frail condition.
It's the same reason that boom boxes are not allowed in the subway - they're noisy and irritating to others. It does not matter why it is irritating - it simply is, and that's enough reason to leave the system unwired. Don't like it? Take a cab.
besides, think of the system disruption caused by wiring every tunnel. the only way I'd go for that would be if the city charged cell companies enough whereby the fare could be dropped significantly.
The cell phone companies would pass that charge on to you. They do it now. I recently got a bill from AT&T with a note:
"Regulatory Programs Fee
The Regulatory Programs Fee helps to fund AT&T Wireless compliance with various government-mandated programs. This is not a tax or a government required charge. It is an additional monthly charge created, assessed and collected by AT&T Wireless."
More info here.
Add cell phone capability to the subway and you'll probably see something similar.
Translation into English
"We underestimated how much it was going to cost us to do business when we signed you up for our service. So now we've created a $1.75 charge per month and separately isolated on your bill in the hopes that you don't realize that all we've done is simply increase your monthly service fee."
CG
The two way radio sucks. You can't talk at the same time as the other person is talking, It's of the speakerphone variety and WHY, WHY does it have to beep when it switches from send to receive?
There's nothing that the two way radio does that the standard phone features don't do BETTER.
You're supposed to salivate. :)
I never had any problems with them. Never have any calls unless I enter an absolute dead zone.
Verizon on the other hand... they were screwing with my bill left and right.
I also read that as "We're charging you to bring our systems up to date." Bullsh!t, take some of my monthly fee, you can't tell me all of that is to keep the system running.
The gov't allowing this is like allowing Keyspan and ConEd to pass their real estate taxes onto the consumer... it helps them increase whatever profit they make while making you poorer.
Also when the carrier signal drops, you get five minutes of someone yelling "HELLO" into the damn phone.
Thirdly, many people become oblivious when they start talking on the cell phone, hence the driving ban. Go ahead, say it isn't so, but watch on a city street and see how many cell phone chatting people walk into someone else. Now imagine how many accidents you'll have when someone is so busy yapping away that they realize its their stop at the last second. It happens enough now with people in face-to-face conversation.
Fourthly and lastly, people are just rude when they're on their cell phone. If you cough or sneeze some people will give you a nasty look. Gee, sorry if I had a bodily function that interrupted your conversation.
Sorry that should be "just plain rude." So interrupt their conversation ond feel their wrath.
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace.
ANDEE
#3 West End Jeff
Based on hearing a multitude of cell phone conversations while riding the LIRR, I would surmise that some of the dislike is due to two reasons: (1) many people have a tendency to talk loudly when on cell phones; and (2) conversations on cell phones often are annoyingly banal ("Hi honey, I'm on the train, be home in a half hour, I love you too!") Not all cell phone users or calls are like this, of course, and indeed I believe there's been a decline in loud/banal conversations now that cell phones are less of a novelty and more of a commodity.
Actually, I tend to find in-person conversations on the train more annoying than ones on cell phones. A couple of weeks ago on the LIRR, for example, I sat in front of this Alpha Male who had plunked his suit-covered anus next to a woman who as far as I could gather was a co-worker or slight acquaintance, in other words the sort of person with whom one might exchange a "Good morning," that's about it. Stud Boy spent at least 20 minutes regaling the poor woman with excruciating details of his latest golf game. It was obvious that she had no interest whatsoever in listening to all this prattle, saying an occasional "Oh, that's nice" or similar platitude. My CD player's batteries were dead and it took all the self control I could muster not to put the schmuck in a choke hold.
I agree nothing pisses me of more than 2 clowns getting on, sitting across from each other, and talking LOUDLY to each other.
Peace,
ANDEE
Had this yesturday one the (A), fortunately it was a somewhat interesting conversation relating to construction.
But some people get into details I wouldn't even share with family members...
I don't favor banning the use of cell phones in public places any more than I favor banning loud talking on the subway, but I don't see why MY money should go toward NEW ways people can annoy me.
Peace,
ANDEE
It would be nice to have the subways wired for cell phones and pagers, as I've often wanted to check voice mail or e-mail while underground. But I don't expect the TA to pay for it. If one of the cell companies wants to wire the tunnels, go for it.
One observation, though. There's a saying -- "Better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to say something and remove all doubt". It does seem that the vast majority of those who use their cell phone in confined public spaces are actively removing doubt.
CG
Peace,
ANDEE
2nd Avenue.
Peace,
ANDEE
That's just what would happen, knowing the MTA ;-).
It becomes a problem when people yap so loud and when people let it ring "on purpose" and then think that they are the shit b/c they have a cell [folks who talk in a foreign language tend to do that]. I don't even care about their damn conversation and I am NOT listening to it so maybe if people tone their voices down they wouldn't get into arguments & fights. The foreigners in particular on cell phones I could care less on their converasation because they are talking in a 2nd language so I won't understand what they are saying and I won't hold a grudge on that. I think it would be a good idea to have a underground network in the subways.
I don't see the point of you ranting about it but we have a right to express our opinion.
People talking LOUDLY in ANY any language is not OK with me.
Peace,
ANDEE
Agreed! I don't know if people talk about me or others [if they speak a 2nd language]. I think its a nuisance and disrespectful to everybody.
As for talking about me, I have a big ego but it's not so big as to assume the people conversing in another language are talking about me, and even if they were, I think my ego is solid enough that I don't need to know what they're saying about me.
Mark
Mark
To avoid possible problems, it'll be better if it is in a second language so I don't know what they are saying ;-). It only brings me more attention heh.
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
You talk too loud on them. For some reason, you feel you have to talk in a loud voice. To some, noise is power, and cell phone users know that very well.
Unless I have kids, I'll never use a cellular phone. I don't want to become one of you guys.
www.forgotten-ny.com
And that goes for laptop computers too. Although that's more of a commuter train phenomena. It seems cheeky of someone to flip one open and start typing. In my mind they're assuming a great deal. For one thing, I resent having to exert extra caution whilst traversing near the laptop users. I mean, who the hell are they to inhibit my movements? What, I gotta worry about bumping into you and making you drop the box? It's like, people have forgotten the difference between being at home and being in public. You bring one of those onto the train it's on your head if it gets damaged. Don't blame me if the train jerks and makes me fall on top of it! I suppose a pda form factor is a good compromise on this issue.
There is nothing so sublime as reading a newspaper on a train though. Perfect symbiology. Quiet, flexible, random data access...perfect for that short period of time when you can be un-hooked from the Net. And take a breather....
http://consumerlawpage.com/brochure/emf.shtml
Trains present a more complicated picture. Some electrically powered trains operate on alternating
current, such as the New York City subway and the Baltimore/Washington commuter train.
Measurements taken on the Baltimore/Washington train in 1991* showed 25 hertz magnetic
field strengths as high as 500 mG in the passenger areas at seat height. Other trains, such as the
Washington D.C. Metro and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), run on direct
current, but even these trains are not free of AC fields. Areas of strong AC magnetic fields have
been measured on the Washington D.C. Metro, close to the floor, presumably near equipment
located underneath some train cars. Train motors and other equipment create some very intense
alternating fields at higher than 60 hertz frequencies. In addition to sources of magnetic field
exposure from the train itself, train passengers are exposed to magnetic fields from sources the
train passes on its route.
There are viewpoints it's dangerous, viewpoints it's not.
There are constant claims that have no scientific backing whatsoever.
Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore has been doing studies on field strenght, both electrical and radio waves for half a century and has found no connection with wave fields and health and disease.
The current claptrap on cell phone fields reminds me on the fears in the 19th century that trolley wires over streets could cause lightning to strike out of a clear blue sky.
Wonder how they'd react if they looked at a geiger counter or knew about muons ...Yes, believe it or not, there is actually a molecule called Arsole... and it's a ring! It is the arsenic equivalent of pyrrole, and although it is rarely found in its pure form, it is occasionally seen as a sidegroup in the form of organic arsolyls. For more information, see the paper with probably the best title of any scientific paper I've ever come across: "Studies on the Chemistry of the Arsoles", G. Markl and H. Hauptmann, J. Organomet. Chem., 248 (1983) 269. Contrary to popular belief, however, the arsoles are not aromatic... Furthermore, the structure where arsole is fused to a benzene ring is called 'benzarsole', and apparently when it's fused to 6 benzenes is called 'sexibenzarsole', although that molecule hasn't been synthesised yet. Another well known poisonous arsenic molecule is the simple hydride, called 'arsine', with formula AsH3.
Ah well ... frightening it is that us "hicks" are more enlightened than our civilized co-hominids. :)
I have a laugh about these sort of things. We used to have some small radiation sources in our high school physics lab, Alpha, and Gamma, for basic experiments. By the time we were in the 6th form (17-18 years old), we got to play with them personally, rather than just watching the teacher. We had to use foot-long tweezers to take the sources out of their lead caskets and put them in whatever the experiment was. All good practice. However, one of the physics masters had a pocket watch with luminous paint on the dial. It provoked a much stronger reaction in the geiger counter than any of our sources, and he kept it in his breast pocket. And no, he hasn’t died of cancer 25 years later!
Stop the muons and neutrinos I say!
John
Nighty!
But yeah, gotta love it. That Cuchifrito butt "Ortiz" (he's one of yours) and that "fat tax" is just the top of the hoots up here where us ex-republicans are prepared to vote GREEN PARTY (like we did in New Paltz, where a STUDENT is mayor - as someone who ran for the office in that village as a republican and LOST can attest, THIS is a MAJOR HOOT!) ... but Ortiz? Let's tax the HELL out of anybody who as a "se habla Espanol" sign in their window as "UNAMERICAN!" ... SCROO them "es-spics" ... these are REPUBLICAN times ... spic'a'spanish, it's an all expenses paid in GuanTANomo ... unless you are an experienced Marimba player. What's gone WRONG with this damned country since the "appointment" of our Shrub?!?!?!?!?!?! :(
But all YOUR emotional problems (like mine) can be traced back to that horrible, WMD prototype, (gasp!) ... that DAMNABLE GILBERT CHEMISTRY SET "Atomic 'spintharascopes' that A. C. Gilbert Company, with its headquarters at Erector Square in New Haven, Connecticut (not far at ALL from the Branford "Nukular Arnine" facility. :)
Would you believe these guys gave KIDS U-238 (enriched uranium for WMD searchers) ?!?!?!?!?! Heh. The REASON why those of us over the age of 50 are laughing at all this "Code Orange DEPENDS" nonsense is that we had WORSE than this every day of our lives during the "Cold War" ... Them towelheads are PUSSIES compared to Ivan Ivanovich. Heh.
Recommended film (*NOW* out on DVD) ... "Dr. Strangelove" ... Peter Sellers, George C Scott ... Columbia Pictures DVD - #06187, www.cthv.com ... directed by Stanley Kubrick. And once you've seen that (if you haven't already) ... Unca Selkirk recommends following THAT up with "President's Analyst" with James Coburn ... ONLY on VHS ... Paramount figures this is NOT a "celebration of the New World ORder" and it never made it to DVD ... GOTTA SEE IT ... put it together with "Strangelove," "Sum of All Fears," "Failsafe" and "Autsin Powers" and you've got the current "regime" ... then again, those films had a POSITIVE outcome. Then again, Hollyweird is all about fantasy - for the rest of us, we get BLOWED UP *JUST* in time for the 2004 elections. Take Unca Selkirk's unhappy forecast to the bank, JUST like the Snediker El. :(
But yeah, BACK to what we're discussing (had it not been for my many beers for a 30+ hour day as I type in our company bar on a laptop) ... it's just AMAZING how fringe groups have distorted the SCIENCE of reality for their own petty cow flatulence (heh) when we ALL know that if COWS are a menace to the bozone layer, then we'd better KILL them vegans, because without BEAN-O, they emit four TIMES as much ozone-depleting methane as COWS. AGGGGGGGH. MORONS! :(
SCIENTIFIC METHODS AND FACT!?!?!?!? SHIRLEY you jest! That R68 across the platform runs MUCH faster than this one in warp 3. :-\
Let’s play find OsamaSaddam (because he was around), so they don’t see the Three Card Monte that we’re doing to our ex-economy!
Gotta admire these AOL swabbies though ... they make pishy when a bomb DOESN'T go off. Hahahahahaahahahahah. :(
I do remember going to a local museum sometime in the late 1960’s to see an exhibition on nuculear* power, where they had a bar of U238 next to a bar of Iron of the same size and we were invited to compare weights. Obviously those few stray Alpha particles have done irreperable damage!
* ™Shrub
But yeah, they once came with several members of the actinide series ... damned LIBERALS ruining everybody's fun. Now you've gotta go to NORTH KOREA to get a proper consists. Screw BLE and TWU, group IIIb RULEZ. Next best thing to Al D'Amato or "DESTINY-NY in Syracuse" ... even JOE BRUNO won't kiss this pig, but Paturkey's got a smile on his face and is lighting a cigarette. :(
Wonder how kisd that DIDN'T grow up on Don Herbert are doing. :)
Seriously, transition metals rule! We had more fun with manganese compounds and chromium compounds. Great metals that couldn’t decide on an oxidation state!
John
I had a maniac at DeWitt Clinton - his name was Bramesco ... he was also a pharmacist at night at the Burnside Pharmacy (shows you how well the city paid teachers in the 60's) and he was an absolute madman. He LOVED stinking up the halls, ex Navy guy. And he loved to draw Fe wheels on the chalkboard, replete with squeaks. A madman. Had a profound influence on THIS impressionable wittle mind. :)
Beware of dihydromonoxide, it's all OVER the city. Even little children are soaking up this dangerous pollutant. Heh.
Group IIIB is now called Group 3.
IA and IIA are 1 and 2.
IIIB-VIIB are 3-7
VIII is 8, 9 and 10
IB and IIB are 11 and 12
IIIA-VIIA are 13-17
0 (Noble gasses) is 18.
said the person who sits before a computer monitor.
You know, every person in the US whose contracted cancer in the last 50 years has lived surrounded by electrical fields.
How long has the Messina bridge been actively in the design stage (such as SAS is now in)? This may already be year 10 of that project.
A friend of my wife's is a school head near Leeds (UK, not NY). She has some funds to expand the school, but some Great Crested Newts (not Gingriches) have been found in the pond on the grounds. She now has to spend part of the funds on the equivalent of additional EISs, etc.
Closer to home, compare LIRR ESA to the Big Dig. I would say ESA is going better. I think they have a realistic, if not padded, estimate of total costs.
Gee Peter, let's turn this one around.
Well, for starters, since the 63rd Street Connector was one of the most competently handled transit projects in the country (virtually the only new subway line built strictly on weekends) one has to consider then the competency of the poster.
What makes Peter Rosa post whine so much about nonsense and then whine so much when the TA actually tries to do something useful? What makes Peter Rosa shoot off his mouth on Subtalk without knowing a shred about what he's talking about?
Is it all the caffeine you drink, or is it the hot weather (no, you do it in cold weather too)?
Do you whine incessantly about your boss to coworkers? How about whining about your coworkers to your boss? Do you whine about your car? Do you whine about your boss's car?
Do you whine about how incompetent Subtalk is when you';re not posting here?
Do you whine about how Subtalk is the only competent place and the rest of the world is incompetent (yes you do!)?
OK, I posted this to make a point. I'm really not doing this to attack you personally - only to illustrate what we'd see if the "shoe were on the other foot" so to speak.
So cut the world a break once in a while.
Gee Peter, let's turn this one around.
Well, for starters, since the 63rd Street Connector was one of the most competently handled transit projects in the country (virtually the only new subway line built strictly on weekends) one has to consider then the competency of the poster.
What makes Peter Rosa post whine so much about nonsense and then whine so much when the TA actually tries to do something useful? What makes Peter Rosa shoot off his mouth on Subtalk without knowing a shred about what he's talking about?
Six or seven years to do a measly 1,500 feet of tunnel is why I'm complaining. Yeah yeah, I know the TA's excuse, they had to keep service running on Queens Boulevard, that doesn't come remotely close to justifying a absurdly long time frame. And the endless work on the Borough Hall escalator is not affected by similar factors. Then there's the whole bit of how the city's been piddling around with the Second Avenue Subway for more than a human lifetime and has accomplished jack.
New York has utterly disgraced itself with this incompetence. Most New Yorkers are too closeminded to realize that not everyone west of the Hudson is a three-toothed hillbilly who marries his 12-year-old cousin. There are a lot of sophisticated people and competently run cities out there in the Great Flyover.
Instead of posting like the ignoramus you desperately want to emulate, read this first.
Then we'll talk again.
That's good for those of us who have placed some of your posts into the "drivel" category - we don't have to bother to change that.
Well I agree & disagree. I agree that it was a good transit project and has accomplished its goal [only thing not done really was the super express track] & that it the connector was built virtually on weekends only.
Now I disagree on the fact that it took way too long to complete and that it ran way overbudget. 7 years for 1500 feet of track its a outright shame, they could of very well finished the tunnel up to the QB tracks way before that the realignment of the tracks between 36 St & Queens Plaza. I understand that it took time while keeping trains in service [imagine the # of shuttle buses they would of had to use if it were shut completely]. Ok so for the 1/9 tunnel between SF and Chambers St it took only a year INCLUDING cleaning out all the debris in the tunnel and rehabbing Rector St in the process while it takes 7 years to construct a small spur.
Do you whine about how incompetent Subtalk is when you';re not posting here?
It isn't Subtalk that is incompetent, it is certain posters who think they are so cool but are irrelevant & don't think about what they say.
I would say the vast majority of what American workers enjoy today (things like a 40 or 35 hour - 5 day work week, paid sick leave, 2 or more weeks of vacation, worker safety rules ect.) are the result of unions. My grandfather worked for the 5th Avenue Coach company, his regular work week consisted of 6 12 hour days, every week; except the 1 week he got for vacation. And I believe he may have gotten 4 or 5 paid holidays. And after he died, the only contact his wife (my grandmother) recieved was a notice that she had 2 weeks to return his uniform and the families pass to ride the company's bus routes for free. While he worked in reletively "safe" occupation (he was promoted to bus dispatcher during his career from driver), unions also were the driving force for safety rules being enacted in indutries like construction, where employees being killed on the job was a far too common occurance.
Those were the conditions not that long ago. I'm sure that when the idea of the 40 hour work week (and a two day weekend)was first brought up at a bargaining table, the union was called "greedy". Of course we are all entitled to our opinions, but I would really like to know what factors formed yours in this area.
I agree with you 100 %. Without the progress the unions paved for us our daily lives would be much more miserable. People forget...or never learned that history. Different times, different circumstances nowadays, sure. But you can't ignore how the working people had to deal with life threatening dangers everyday of their working lives. We, all of us, are merely standing on the shoulders of those who struggled before us.
I also firmly belive that when unions stand against technological innoviations, they are being short-sighted. Some jobs will be automated out of existance, you may save them for a while; but you are not helping anyone. I think if a union tries to work with management when a new technology comes along to see that no workers are laid off (cuts can be done via attrition) they will often come away with a reasoable deal.
Think about all the things that had to be done manually 200 years ago that were done automatically 50 years ago (before computer automation), did unemployment increase drastically? no.
Computer automation is just the next step. Automation is just a good scapegoat for people unemployed during a routine economic slump or of their own incompetence.
I'll stay away on the subject on Ron. Anyway its not New York that is incompetent, its the MTA and the politicians who are the incompetent parties. Yes the 63rd connector was a joke taking almost 8 years to dig very little tunnel while service to South Ferry was restored in about a year [the quick reconstruction of the tunnel to SF was politically motivated IMO to give Pataki and the MTA a good name for themselves].
As for the NIMBY's, they're just trying to have their own way and they should be overruled on certain projects that would be a benefit and not a disaster. The unions, well they have proved how much power they have but are greedy. I will stop here.
You want to hear more MTA incompetence? Show up at tonights Manny-B service plan public hearing, you know who will be there.
I would think they'd be using their middle fingers instead of their thumbs.
Let's compare apples to apples. Where the 1/9 construction was done:
The tunnel already existed; it just needed to be rebuilt.
At the WTC site, where most of the reconstruction took place, the site was already exposed to the open air—thanks to the terrorists.
The line at that point is as simple as it can get—no merges/diverges with other lines.
The line was completely out of service while this was done.
I'm not saying the 63rd St line was done as fast as humanly possible, but let's make comparisons that are meaningful.
I think its a fair comparison although your right that the space was already open. Come on whole lines were built faster than a 1500 foot segment [I'm speaking on the 63rd connector] now is that consistent, I think not. I'm only speaking the truth and being rational. When 21 St only had shuttle trains running every 20 minutes DAILY and the (Q) only went to 57 St, they could of capitalized on that and built more than they should have and would of finished in a faster time frame than when it did.
It's not the 21st St end where the active trains interfered, it's the east end.
Except for emergencies, there were at least 2 out of 4 tracks in service between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt for every hour of the project.
Except for emergencies, there were at least 2 out of 4 tracks in service between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt for every hour of the project.
Most of the time it was the express tracks that were out of service since the F was selected to go through; although the V originally was supposed to use it.
The way it was built, any QB train, express or local, can use any of the three B Division tunnels (53rd, 60th, or 63rd). You couldn't ask for greater flexibility.
But the slightly better is from over 100% occupancy to under 100%. 6 full trains of people in the peak hour have been moved off the E/F onto the V.
As Dickens said (slight paraphrasing), expenses 20 shillings, income 20 shillings six pence, is bliss; expenses 20 shilling, income 19 shilling six pence is misery.
How long did it take to build the first subway line from City Hall lopp to 145th st/Broadway?
When the IND was being built, didn't it took only than 10 years (1930-40) with existing NYC topography that is not much different than today, how many miles and stations in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx were opened for passenger service? And the ENTIRE COUNTRY WAS IN THE MIDST OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION.
Now compare THAT with a simple 1,500 foot tunnel
Sure. What simple 1500 foot tunnel are you talking about? The only simple 1500' tunnel that has been constructed in NYCT in the last few decades is the 1/9 through the WTC site.
OK. It's not simple.
They have been renovating the post office steps at Cadman Plaza for going on 11 years. from the looks of things they might just be finished by next spring.
It only took 14 months to build the Empire State Building.
Anyway, what kind of bridge is it? What phase of the project is it in? If it is only in the design phase, then a completion date of 2010 isn't that bad. If it is a unique bridge, like anything other than a box-girder, then 2010 is pretty good. Or are you just talking about getting funding so that the project can be designed and built?
I am currently working on rebuilding a viaduct in downtown Atlanta. Looking at the dates on my construction plans, the concept was made in 1996, it was designed from 1997 to 1999, and demolition of the old bridge started in Nov 2002 and right now the target completion date is Feb 2005 (although we are waaaay behind schedule because of an incompetent subcontractor from Pittsburgh who can't drill bridge foundations without fucking up somewhere). So that's a nine year project for a box-girder viaduct. I imagine the gap bewtween 1999 and 2002 is for waiting for the funds to build the bridge. This bridge, though, is unique because it sits in between two existing viaducts, which makes it harder to build. And the GA DOT is one of the most efficient DOTs in the country, so this bridge couldn't be built faster somewhere else with our high-quality standards. I'm an Inspector and we ride the contractor's asses to make sure they do the project right
Straits of Messina bridge between Calabria and Sicily. It will be (by far) the world's longest suspension bridge when built, with a span between the towers of over two miles.
As far as I know, physical construction will start in 2004 with completion scheduled for 2010.
I am currently working on rebuilding a viaduct in downtown Atlanta. Looking at the dates on my construction plans, the concept was made in 1996, it was designed from 1997 to 1999, and demolition of the old bridge started in Nov 2002 and right now the target completion date is Feb 2005 (although we are waaaay behind schedule because of an incompetent subcontractor from Pittsburgh who can't drill bridge foundations without fucking up somewhere). So that's a nine year project for a box-girder viaduct. I imagine the gap bewtween 1999 and 2002 is for waiting for the funds to build the bridge. This bridge, though, is unique because it sits in between two existing viaducts, which makes it harder to build. And the GA DOT is one of the most efficient DOTs in the country, so this bridge couldn't be built faster somewhere else with our high-quality standards. I'm an Inspector and we ride the contractor's asses to make sure they do the project right
Heh, in New York, if demolition of the old viaduct started in November 2002 completion probably wouldn't be until very near the end of the decade. And the design/funding/bribery stage would've been far longer than in Atlanta.
You haven't given us any. I assume that's because you can't think of one either. If your basic point were correct, you'd be able to rattle off 4 or 5 examples.
What about almost any other urban transit project anywhere in the United States?
That's not an answer. List for me a few urban transit projects in the US, of comparable complexity to the 63rd St to QB connector, that have been done significantly more quickly.
Most urban transit projects are not of comparable complexity.
By the way, I'm not saying there are none. I just don't know of any, and it doesn't look like you do either.
This section covers my fascination with trains, how it evolved and how it led to the ambitious transit project
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Transit Project
This chapter will describe the focus of the project itself. It points out the goal of providing more subway coverage for the city as well as providing service to the suburbs. There are descriptions of current problems the current subway system faces and possible solutions that are implemented in the alternate reality of the transit project.
Chapter 2: Expasnion of the Current Routes
This chapter focuses on the extension of the current routes in both the A and B Divisions of the current system, which are all affected in some way by the larger system that is presented here. The chapter also describes the use and need of additional route markers and lines which were discontinued that continue to play a role in transit operation. Also included are ROW's of selected rail lines that now feature subway routings.
Chapter 2 was the result of three original documents that I've produced for last year's railfan audience that has been merged together into one document.
Chapter 3: Trunk Lines
This chapter gets into the heart of the project, by listing all the trunk lines of this much larger alternate subway system. Included are 2nd Avenue line, the IND Second System and many other original lines, a few are based on or are variations of proposed lines that railfans on Subtalk have posted in the past in various threads. This is chapter is one of the longer chapters in the project and one of the original documents I have produced for last year's group of railfans. Every line and possible connection is included, covering all five boroughs, and surburban counties in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.This chapter includes an Appendix, which is also of extended length covering details of information in regard to the trunk lines. Many interesting aspects of transit operation are found in the Chapter 3 Appendix, which is divided into five smaller appendices. A comprehensive listing of river tunnels, shuttle routes, track connections between the A and B Divsions as well as to commuter and freight trackeage and other intriguing things are found in the Appendix. Note that any remaining general transit information is included in Appendix A at the end of the project. (see below) Chapter 3 now includes a introduction in regard to the context of the document.
This appendix, which was another original document for last year's railfan audience will be mailed with Chapter 3.
Chapter 4: The Route Markers and Routing Information
This chapter lists all the route markers that are used in the transit project and markers not used. Following the table of route markers are routes themselves, with listings of terminals, trunk lines, operation times, rolling stock each route uses and the yards each route uses.
Chapter 5: Rolling Stock, Yards and Equipment--Part 1, 2 and 3
Chapter 5 also delves into the heart of the project by providing a comprehensive lists of rolling stock used in the transit project. This Chapter primarily consists of tables that lists all the cars used and that are in service. Each car class has been expanded to at least twice its size. This chapter is one of the longest in the project, and because I found that composing this all this information added up over time, the chapter is divided into three parts. The first part is completed, the other two I'm still working on while I'm completing Chapter 4. What you may find when reading this chapter is the overwhelming number of cars used, but I've got around the capacity issues somewhat by introducing a system of car transference from one yard to another--which will all be explained in this chapter. As I'm certain every railfan has a favorite car--real or fictional--you will be sure to find it in this chapter.
Subway yards are listed in this chapter also, and there are a lot of them.
Like Chapter 3, this chapter also features a brief introduction and an Appendix at the end. The Chapter 5 Appendix covers prewar cars listed for both the IRT and BMT and additional general information about rolling stock that wasn't covered in the main chapter and the chaining codes used for the additional trunk lines.
Chapter 6: Station Design and Architecture
This chapter covers some intriguing designs of underground station design. Some elevated and grade/cut/embankment stations are covered too. Also covered are a more detailed expansion of the IND color coded station tile system and more creative designs on the moaics motifs and wall signs on the IRT and BMT.
Chapter 7: A Fictional History of the New York City
(later Metro Area) Subway System
This chapter, aslo covers the heart of the project and supports one of the main points of the project: subway development in New York under different circumstances, different attitudes, a different spin on politics, finances and social concerns. Chapter 7 will be entirely in a fictional context using realistic facts and events for support and as a foundation to illustrate transit development in another reality.
Chapter 8: Commuter Rail and Light Rail--Further Development and Expansion of the LIRR, Metro North, NJ Transit and the new Light Rail System
Though the prime objective of this project is the subway, the project does not leave out commuter rail. As part of mass transit system, I felt it was integral to include further development of the three commuter rail systems in the Metro Area to supplement subway expansion to the suburbs in the form of more transfers and more inter-regional traveling options. The inclusion of commuter rail in the project also provides a single large mass transit entity consisting of subway and commuter rail designed to cover the entire New York City Metropolitan Area within a 75 mile radius. It is set up so that the subways serve inner zone areas (NYC, neighboring cities in Westcheter, and New Jersey and the immediate suburbs outside these regions) and commuter rail serves the inner and outer zones (outer zones being distant suburbs and more remote areas) The inclusion of the light rail system is simply the expansion of the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail System, which is expanded entirely to reach many regions--first and foremost developed to the system that NJ Transit is working towards--see the NJ Transit site for all the planned extensions of the light rail system--and providing an additional link between NY and NJ via original routings.
Chapter 9: Expanded New York City Subway System--smaller versions
This chapter provides other additional scenarios of the subway expansion in the city. I'm not sure yet of how many scenarios I'm going to include in this chapter, but there will be two included, which I can tell you right now.
(1) The first scenario is simply an extension of the current system using only past proposals the MTA, the TA and the Board of Transportation has made. Notably included is the full development of the IND Second System--both 1929 and 1939 plans. This system is confined within the borders of the city and except of one route to Jersey City, offers no extensions to the suburbs.
(2) The second scenario is an expansion of the first, but a scaled down version of the main scenario that this project fouces on. It is simply a modest expansion of subway service into Nassau, Westchester and New Jersey, covering only the immdediate Metropolitan Area.
Appendix A: Miscellaneous Items regarding Transit Operations
This Appendix describes/lists information that wasn't covered in the Chapter 3 Appendix or in Chatpers 7 or 8.
Appendix B: List of Stations of the Extended NYC Transit subways
This is appendix lists all the stations that "exist" in the project. They are classified by trunk line. Current stations are also listed.
(1) Question and Answer section
This section focuses on questions you may have about stuff that you may not be clear on, or have in the back of your mind, that I've thought of ahead of time. This document is half completed, and since the questions covered thus far are only about the first five chapters, I may likely send the first half of this document after Chapter 5, to see if it answers any questions that you may have.
(2) Feedback--What Do You Think? Comments, Suggestions, etc.
This section is simply a feedback section where you can freely comment only any aspect of transit operations of this project. It lists various questions of what you think about the material you read. The interesting part of this section is that it includes questions that lists scenarios where you decide how you would best handle the situation or event.
I'm still working on this document as well, but like the Question and Answer document, I'm thinking of dividing it into two parts and mail the first part to you after Chapter 5.
Other documents included in the project are:
1. A list of active towers--includes current ones and ones in operation on the "new" trunk lines. This will also be included at the end of the project.
2. A table of route markers from 1967 when the Christie Street Connector opened. This table also lists ficitional routings that existed at that time, and also provided two additional locations of BMT and IND merger, other than Christie Street. This table will be sent during the second and third parts of Chapter 5 or afterwards.
3. A historical chronology of ficitional routes that dates back from the Dual Contracts era through the 1990's. This is considered a prelude to Chapter 7, and will be likely be sent after Chapter 5.
4. A chronology of the ficitional routes in the order as I've conceived them. This covers routings created over a six year period. This will be send along with the historical chronology previously mentioned.
Chapters 6 to 9 I haven't started yet, but I will be working on them through the summer. I hope to have the remainder of the text portion of this project completed by mid-October.
The above listed respondees have already received chapters 1 and 2, and I eagerly await their feedback, as I continue to work on the last part of Chapter 4. There is still time to request your copy, as I would like to share this with as many railfans as possible. Weekly posting of this thread will continue for the remainder of this month.
Rembember you can email me privately by clicking on my handle, with your request or to ask questions.
For those who responded, thank you for your interest and taking the time out to be a part of this, I appreciate it very much.
ALSO THOSE SUBTALKERS WHO HELPED ME ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE POSTED IN PAST THREADS OVER THE LAST TWO MONTHS WILL RECEIVE THEIR "FREE" COPIES.
Dwayne Crosland/Xtrainexp.
Hevesi criticizes Tuboliner delays, cost overruns
Eds: Moving on news and business lines
mmdlfonhdt
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- A project aimed at modernizing passenger trains between New York City and Buffalo has fallen behind schedule and over-budget, according to state Comptroller Alan Hevesi.
Hevesi released three audits Thursday that show the state Department of Transportation project on Amtrak's Empire Corridor is $21 million over budget and years behind schedule. In the five years since the Turboliner modernization project began, $51.5 million dollars have been spent and two of the seven trains planned are in service.
"The millions spent for train modernization will not make travel noticeably faster until $140 million in improvements are made to tracks, signals and grade crossings," Hevesi added. "Neither DOT nor Amtrak appear to have plans in place or funds identified to complete the necessary work, so it is as if they are creating Formula One race cars to drive on city streets."
Phone calls to Amtrak and DOT officials seeking comment were not immediately returned.
Auditors examining the causes of the delays cited weaknesses in project management by the DOT and a lack of experience with both the DOT and Super Steel Schenectady Inc., who was contracted for the project.
Refurbished Turboliners can reach speeds of 125 miles per hour, but officials estimate $140 million in improvements to tracks, signals and grade crossings are needed to allow the trains to travel that fast.
Currently, most trains serving the Empire Corridor operate between 75 and 95 miles per hour.
Mexico City's main tourist area is the Zona Rosa. There might be a metro station with that name.
Fytton Rowland.
Do direct translations count?
Mark
I don't know how many of these places had rail service... Leverett, Massachusetts did, and Leverett, Illinois also, but beyond that I don't know.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Dowden Terrace, VA.
Whether it has or has ever had any sort of railway, I have no idea.
:-) Andrew
:-) Andrew
Jim Fish
Albuquerque, NM
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
I wonder if the Brooklyn/Greenville car floats are OOS ? That would explain the "scenic route".
Bill "Newkirk"
You mean you weren't informed by CSX !
Bill "Newkirk"
Can I get an AaaaaaaaaaaMen?
avid
Nooooooooooooooooo !!!
Bill "Newkirk"
avid
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
I hope the fact that they're not roadworthy has to do with them being the first batch (maybe ones that were sitting around a while anyway) and being stripped. What I was thinking is that not too long ago (maybe last month, say?) I may have been riding on one! If the car I rode last month isn't roadworthy, I certainly hope it was rendered unworthy by virtue of having been stripped and not because it was unworthy when I was riding it. (Though granted if they were in really great shape they wouldn't need to be replaced.)
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
R44 A Train Express #5206
R44 A Train Express #5303
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
By total coincidence, I wound up there at that point as well! I managed to see some dumbstruck straphangers as well, probably having no idea why the doors aren't opening for them. Unfortunately, I didn't get off in time to see it some more. I later got off at 42nd and rode a D back there, but it was gone! Heh, so much for trying to catch it. :-)
Bandwidth.
But no biggie. The folks in Minnesota handle everything, I do the code and the email and take a small piece of the sale. That way I can manage on a dialup. That's the way Paturkey wants it so that Verizon keeps him flush with cash, so be it. New York doesn't need the money.
http://www.t-mobile.com/hotspot/services_plans.htm
The could subscribe monthly or pay per minute usage or buy prepaid bundles. Each railcar would need to be equipted with 811.b transponders.
There are numerous other ways for the MTA to make non-transit related revenue. I detailed a few of them in a long winded post back in march. This is an area where if the MTA was a private concern, such services would be offered.
Aintcha heard they COOK their BOOKS??
And how do you propose they pipe data in and out of the trains? Data-over-third rail?
and charge $25 a month for service, as an addon when you perchase a monthly ticket, or a weekly service charge if you buy a weekly or even a daily charge, like $2 surcharge on your $6 ticket for wireless web, i always thought this was a great idea, because i see many people on trains with laptops, and if they had this service, who knows how many people will pull their laptops out of their breifcases, and put more posts on subtalk as they go home on the 5:45 local train to Babylon
Take a breath, you deserve it.
Mark
Don't see it happening though - I'm sure "customers" would be even MORE pleased if the bathrooms worked. :)
but the obvious way they would do it is satellite or cellular network, since most traffic is on 2 streches, main line, penn to ronkonkama, and brooklyn to babylon, not most trains, but the heavyest used sectors, so you could implement cellular at small cost compared to satellite
The only thing Hevesi proved is that he plans to run for Governor in 2006. He conceded on the record that there really was a deficit and the fare would have had to go up anyway. His true complaint was about the presentation of the debt-restructuring details, not the substance. (Meanwhile, there probably are shady things going on that he knows about and isn't reporting - maybe because they'd make him look bad?)
It is not about the mta defrauding the public as some media outlets potray it to be. One of the judges in the court of appeals on the record in the court scolled the straphangers campaigns lawyers because the judge stated that the mta was responcible for reporting their budget according to rules presented by the Sec and the state and not in a language that could be understood by any tom dick or harry.
Yes, but the Strappies' chief lawyer, who claims that the debt restructuring wasn't presented properly, is also a member of the State Assembly, which voted to allow the debt restructuring to happen in the first place - which means it was presented properly!!
The other thing was all the bad marker graffiti in the passageways. Are most stations covered with scribble? The shots of the platforms didn't have any graf.
The Paris Metro runs on the right hand side, just like here. Railroads, including the RER, run on the left hand side.
Mark
http://www.ratp.fr/boutique/
I'll email you later in July.
Mark
There won't be anyone there, they'll all be on vacation (the bison fute) (8-) .
I think our young photographer likes both kinds of foxes.
By the way, this seems to be the latest trend in railfanning, trying to get the perfect "chix" into the photo....maybe it will catch on like car magazines have some babe draped over the hood, or the motorcycle magazines have some skimpily clad woman over the motorcycle.....maybe railfanning will become a cool hobby afterall....it would do wonders for railfan's reputations....
< /havingfunwiththewholejoke >
Yes, but in the cases you mention, the photos are staged, and quite "fake." "Transit & Chix Together" involves real chix and real trains doing real things in their natural environment. That's something worth capturing on film!
---Choo Choo
Sounds kinky.
No, seriously though, I kind of like this trend, and especially the title of it, "Transit & Chix Together", sort of like "Traffic & Weather Together on the 8's".
Sounds kinky.
No, seriously though, I kind of like this trend, and especially the title of it, "Transit & Chix Together", sort of like "Traffic & Weather Together on the 8's".
unfortunately in a quick trip up broadway yesturday, there weren't any hot blondes to be found. guess they don't ride the subway... must mess up their hair or something.
Watch out for them redheads - fun in the barrel, but when you wake up, the first thing you'll see in your face is the pointy edge of a Bowie knife. Heh. Stereotypes are SO much fun to play with. :-\
She just managed to do BETTTER than any of the black-haired sweeties I knew and loved well in my youth. I grew up in the Bronx (to tell a tale) and when I moved upstate, brought a lovely with me from Morris Ave ... once away from the city and her parents, she LOVED the "complete freedom to be" ... she got into it, I got into my OWN thing, she wanted to get some one night (me not invited), I said "go for it if you wanna" and she did, ended up *I* got "lucky" and she DIDN'T.
We grew apart - moving upstate changed her entire scope of reality and she's better off WITHOUT me in her life since we were "BRONX" together, and the lady *I* diddled turned out to be BINGBONG! Long story short, I have no PROBLEM with what "Bubba" did ... I did the same thing and we *ALL* ended up *MUCH* better all around. Same for my EX ... God *HAS* a sense of humor ... it's going to be sunny later and through the weekend in NYC for the Snediker El which is STILL in progress. :)
My folks celebrated their 57th anniversary yeaterday.
The wife does look at the photographs that I take, so even though one eye didn't get married (it's allowed to roam), I still need to exersize a little caution :-(
Sunnyside is a sneakily hilly community. There are little dips and rises all over the place.
-Robert King
--mark
What is my problem? ( I have been married for seven years).
Will I get to say that again in October? Hopefully.
--Z--
Elias
One is assuming that this will be accomplished after all 4 tracks are running on the Manhattan Bridge. By that time the N will be operating at 9-10 tph. The W will be running short to Whitehall. Its purpose will be to provide the extra 6 tph that the Astoria branch needs but the Sea Beach does not need nor can the DeKalb interchange handle. Now, the lga plan would effectively negate the purpose of running the extra service for the Astoria branch by having the W operate express in Queens.
Dekalb could handle the extra W trains on the local tracks (R + M is only about 14 tph), but they're not needed to handle the customers.
As for the Astoria branch, Ditmars and Astoria Blvd are by no means the busiest stations on that branch. That's why the W express was a miserable failure. In rush hour, you could definitely splinter off the W trains to go to LGA. The trouble is that in non-rush hour, there aren't enough trains to give both Ditmars and LGA decent service.
#3 West End Jeff
Oh well.... I guess they can have fantasies too, eh?
Elias
For a time, the Rockaway Line was considered a separate division of the NYC Transit System, called the Rockaway Division. Until the mid-70s, an extra fare of 15 cents was collected at Broad Channel. While the E train provided service on the line, it was the longest rapid transit run in New York City (over 36 miles); in the late 50s, some said this was the world's longest rapid transit run. The extra fare was required until September 1st, 1975, when the fare became 50 cents anywhere on the transit system.
How was this collected? (I don't picture a C/R or clerk going through a crowded train to get it.)
Peace,
ANDEE
It's not just railfanning. If you missed your stop and have to backtrack, or if you cancel your travel plans on arrival at 215th when you realize you won't reach your destination in time thanks to the shuttle bus, you have to pay again to turn around.
There isn't even a booth there, so there's no one to beg. I guess you could ask the T/O or C/R for permission to ride through the relay, but I doubt you'll have much luck.
What about the Dyre Line when it was just taken over from the NYW&B? Didn't the conductor collect the fares?
Yes, and that continued on late night shuttle runs at least into the 1970s. Also, late nights on the west end of the Myrtle Ave. El (west of Broadway) conductors collected fares.
Conductor collected fares were more common in Chicago, used on many L lines into the 1990s during nights and weekends. With the introduction of Farecards and farecard vending machines at all stations, as well as OPTO, it is no longer done.
-- Ed Sachs
Interesting question. Would you have been required to pay an additional fare if you had stayed on the train all along?
I have a vague memory of being on a train in the late 60s where the conductor collected fares, but not having to pay. Could it be that Dyre itself had fare control but the intermediate stations didn't?
That was supposed to read "...can NOW ride for free?".
Yes.
Pardon my ignorance but what's an S/C?
Bill "Newkirk"
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
In it's heyday the whole stretch of beachfront that parallelled the train was thought of as a sort of resort. All up and down Rockaway Beach Boulevard there were attractions, clam bars, penny arcades, ice cream joints, Playland, of course.
My family moved outta there when I was six. To this day I can remember that atmosphere vividly. I remember riding down R.B.B. with my mother once on a bus and seeing a trampoline place, where you could just pay to jump up and down on them. Boy, did I want to go there! And at night it was really cool. The smells of the ocean and hot tar cooling, cotton candy and frying foods, always crowds on the streets. Good stuff.
So that, along with the notion that the line was a LIRR branch made the pay-as-u-exit scheme understandable. It was the equivalent of paying for parking at Jones or Robert Moses Beaches. (and, of course, the local boys, like my older brother, would crawl over tops of gates and whatnot, shimmy down pipes, etc., to avoid the exit fare. This would have been in the late 50s'.)
When (and if) the Second Avenue Subway is constructed, what
signal chaining code letter should be assigned to it, and
what should the 0 point be?
*-The Line would be "S"
If SAS is A division, then 0+00 is the South Ferry El Station, just like the El.
Is SAS is B division, then 0+00 is IND Zero where 1000+00 on SAS is due East of 1000+00 on 6th Avenue.
Alternate would be to take the Line T stationing and spin it 90 degrees CCW at the intersection of 63rd/2nd Ave.
Is there a one letter symbol for "Not in this lifetime?"
*-Note "LINE" is NOT EQUIVALENT to "ROUTE" here.
I see! It should be the Diamond-F because the F's my fav-o-rite train, and should run on all trunks in manhattan, with a different shape for each one! Crescent-F takes the Rutgers-Manny B connection. KeyHole-F takes the worth street connection.
Better yet, just do like the Boston Circle-T, but instead make the symbol for the MTA an orange Circle-F! Nobody rides the Circle-M anyway...
---I'm sorry, what was the question again?
I grew up by my favorite, Sheepshead Bay on the Brighton Line. Why the F?
BMT-East zero is close by, but doesn't really tie into the SAS.
The SAS was to be a Board of Transportation project originally, and so the survey numbers should correspond with the rest of the Independent.
They don't say anything - they're just single LEDs spaced 10-15 feet apart, not signs or anything.
Jeff, Didya see the SAS replies?
Thoroughly disappointed by the SAS thread!
From the L at 6th Ave to the street is 75 mandatory steps, but I have no reason to believe that's a record.
The really deep stations tend to have escalators or elevators.
According to this site, Smith-9th has escalators. Does 125th St. on the 1/9? If not, how many steps is it?
yes
How many steps from the platform to the 2/3 mezzanine, though?
Anyone trying to transfer from the M/N/R to the SB 4/5 also has to climb up to the 4/5 mezzanine to cross over (after walking quite a bit). Can we count that also?
Peace,
ANDEE
Want to talk really ugly? Look on this site: See photos of R-27s and R-42s in the same train. Or try almost any IRT train from the late 60s through early 80s. R-12s through R-36s mixed together, all different paint jobs, some with grafitti and some without. Yecch!!!
And what about the mixtures on the IRT back in the 60s? They'd throw together anything they had.....you could have R14s, R15s, R21/22s and R29s in the same consist. I saw that quite a bit on the 2, 4 and 5 lines. They always made sure that the R14s weren't in the middle, so that the conductor didn't have to work on the exterior. I seem to remember that the 6 was pretty much all R17 and R26/28. Not sure about the 1 and 3.
Yes the 6 had R-17s (6800-6899), R-26 and R-28s (7800-7899), also they
had some R-29s (8570-8599), as well as some R-33s (9200-9305), IIRC.
This was in the mid-70s.
http://subway.com.ru/bera-st2/pages/bera-st2-67.htm
Not really, but it's the operators that make the consist ugly :^)
What you saw was probably a mixed consist of Comet I or IIB and Arrow I or II...since those Arrows were converted from overhead EMU to push-pull, they can stick them at the ends of (if they have cabs in them) or in between (if they are just trailer push-pull) the older Comet sets...you might have seen trains like that on the Raritan Vallely Line from Newark, that's the only place one would see them...AFAIK...
Incognito
"I"RT Man
When has the R32-R38 pairing started?
When R-38's were introduced, I imagine. It's not at all uncommon to see R-32's and R-38's mixed, especially on the (A) and (C), since their yards/shops run both R32s and R38s. You won't see that on the E/F/R/V though because Jamaica only handles R-32's.
R40M/R42 pairing is also common.
avid
R38 A Train Express #3967
R44 A Train Express #5311
Honorable mention goes to trains of BMT standards. Well, they looked ugly to me when I first saw them in 1967.
#3 West End Jeff
#3 West End Jeff
#3 West End Jeff
R-1s and R-4s had a single large storm door window.
R-6s and up had a split storm door window.
R-1s 100 thru 144 had no sills beneath the doors.
#3 West End Jeff
avid
I think that you are wrong. The R-110b is not also known as R-134B. The R-134 is a work train car #EP011 to EP018. Sorry to correct you.
This report came from another of my MC collecting friends, who knew about the "babies" card, but hasn't seen any yet.
Anybody know where they are selling either of these two cards ?
I doughted that you knew anything about it, but was wondering what the reason is that they are doing this adv, program ... free popcorn everytime you dip your debit card ?
Maybe someone in Marketing finally woke up about the value of using the MC as an advertising tool. It does reach a lot of people.
I have been wondering for years why it wasn't done sooner, but then Marketing types are very strange people.
125th st/Lexington Ave, Downtown platform: On BOTH sides of the platform, all the signs read "LATE NIGHTS 4 TO BROOKLYN STOPS HERE" or "LATE NIGHTS, 4 MAKES ALL LOCAL STOPS". I never heard the 4 trains at night stopping at the S/B #6 side of the lower level.
Jay Street/IND, F line side of S/B platform: "...FOR CONEY ISLAND, TRANSFER AT AVE X" (To what? I presume the shuttle bus)
4th Ave/IND F line: The middle level of the walkway, just upstairs from the F/T mezzanine reads "F to CONEY ISLAND" .
Any others? Post away, I know of many others but I will leave them up to you.
Want a real killer? I looked at the newest Neighborhood Map at Bedford Park Blvd station, and the map indicates subway entrances at the N/W corner of Fordham Road/IND (DUH, that's the old Caldor/Alexanders side of Fordham, closed since the 80's I think), and two southernmost exits at Kingsbridge Road/IND (DUH! again). Mind you, this is a 2003 map.
All F trains run only to Avenue X. There you have to change for a shuttle bus for West 8th and Coney Island.
Ok they missed a sign at 4th Avenue. Customers who usually travel to Coney Island via the F know about the shuttle bus.
86th Street 1/9, part-time SB entrance at 87th Street, there's a lone 2 bullet next to the entrance. While the 2 indeed stops there late nights, the entrance in question is only open rush hours.
96th Street B/C, part-time entrance at 97th Street, still has a K.
34th Street 1/2/3/9, main Penn Station entrance has a sign pointing towards the diamond-C.
168th Street elevators have B signage instead of C signage.
New Utrecht NB still has a B instead of a W at the front of the platform, I think.
Signage at the north end of the NB 6 platform at 59th Street directs passengers for the SB 4/5 through the underpass at the south end of the platform unnecessarily.
Street-level signage at many station complexes directs passengers to enter where in many cases they'd be better off crossing the street or walking a block first.
From the BMT at Times Square, all (mainline) IRT signage points away from the 41st Street passageway, even where that's the more direct and less crowded route. From the IRT at Times Square, signage for the BMT at the 41st Street mezzanine directs passengers to 42nd Street rather than straight through.
Posted hours at many public restrooms are in error. I've never found the Fulton Street men's room open during advertised hours, and I've only once found the Willets Point men's room open, even though the signs claim it's always open.
There's an E/F/G/N sign at Union Turnpike -- but, granted, it's across eight lanes of highway from where anyone would come across it.
Transfer signage on the 2/3 platform at Fulton Street directs passengers up the stairs for all lines, including the 2/3 itself. (I think one or two of those signs still has 2/2 instead of 2/3.)
Perhaps this is only misleading and not outright wrong, but one sign at 149th Street-Grand Concourse gives the impression of a street exit to Yankee Stadium.
There's still a "Token required" sign at 215th Street NB on the 1.
Every time I follow the advice of the electronic signs at 57th BMT as to which Q train will be leaving first, the other one leaves first.
That'll do for starters.
I saw the same problem at 179th st/IND during the MOD trip we had last Sunday. When we waited for the MOD train to get ready, the LED display read NEXT TRAIN (Right Arrow, local tracks), even though all the F trains we saw were arriving at the express track.
Same thing at Union Sq, I think its the 14 St/USq East entrance.
Flatbush Ave: 5:50 AM to 10:30 AM and 3:00 PM to 7:30 PM
Utica Ave: Outbound from 7:30 to 8:30 PM (no Flatbush Ave trains at this point) and those East 238th St. AM specials also go to Utica in the morning.
New Lots Ave: Some of these trains are Extras and they are about every 30 minutes during the Flatbush Ave rush hour time frames.
All other times, including 10:30 AM to 2:45 PM #5 trains end at Bowling Green and do not go to Brooklyn
There's also that sign at Union Turnpike advertising "Limeted" rush hour service.
There's a sign at 63 Drive that points to a staircase, which has an exit at 64 Drive. Problem is that there is no such street called "64 Drive." This was mentioned on Robert Marerro's website a while back and the sign is STILL there today.
At Van Wyck Blvd, Queensbound platform, there is an IND tiled sign under the "Van Wyck Blvd" nameplate that reads as "--QUEENS BLVD-->" The problem is that it points to an exit that was demolished a few years ago. Also, I think near the 8-car marker at the Queensbound platform at Van Wyck Blvd, there is a sign that reads as "Exit | Van Wyck Blvd"
I remember seeing some signs at DeKalb Ave that had references to the D and Q, and other trains. Here are pictures taken in May 2001...
The entrance kiosk in the first picture has long been demolished and the orange Q in the second picture has been covered with a diamond Q for a while now.
This entrance kiosk was going to be demolished anyway (if you went there now it's just a giant wooden board surrounding the former entrance) so I suppose it was left alone.
True, but the signage looked like that for years. I remember the two Ms and RR from at least as far back as 1996.
NO ACCOUTABILTY AT ANY LEVEL
E Jamaica Center all times
weekdays 730am-730pm express
all other times all trains on local track
Limeted Rush hour trains to 179th street
limeted? LIMITED! LOL
Or maybe it is.
Anybody know if the late night 3 will be local or express in Manhattan?
Actually, the R should run normal and the J should be extended down the Sea Beach. As you say, all that's needed is an extension to Pacific -- and that's exactly where the N starts off on weekends anyway.
Then why not simply extend the J to 95th St? That more than anything will drill home the message to 4th Ave. local customers that the train will not be running normally. I tell you, there will be people on these R trains which will arrive at Broad Street expecting it to be Whitehall St, despite announcements and signs. These riders will be really screwed, since they cannot get the Broadway BMT at Broad, Fulton or Chambers St. Running the J to 95th St would both reduce the numbers of these confused riders and will provide the few who do get confused an easy transfer back to Broadway at Canal St.
At the very least, we should be seeing some brown R signs.
Last weekend (only through early morning Sunday), the 60th Street tube was closed.
This weekend, R trains are terminating at 57th, but W trains are running normal.
Next weekend, R trains from Brooklyn are running to Chambers, and R trains from Queens are running to Whitehall, with normal Q and W service.
It'll probably be as Kool-D said, 8 car R40s/R40Ms/R42s out of Coney Island Yard. Should be easier to distinguish as well because normally R trains run R46 cars. Seeing R40/40M/42 signed as R trains might make people take a second look at what train they're getting on.
BTW: In case no one noticed, ALL 4, and 5 trains will be local from 125th st to BB-CH (I suspect that since it's one less switching to contend with)
DUH! NYCT strikes again!
And if the R will only come as far north as Chambers, who says it can't be 10 cars long? I know Fulton and Chambers platforms are longer, but is Broad Street too short to handle a 10-car train? If not, they could just run 10-car R-32 consists. Otherwise anything 60' can show up on this "R".
And if the R will only come as far north as Chambers, who says it can't be 10 cars long? I know Fulton and Chambers platforms are longer, but is Broad Street too short to handle a 10-car train? If not, they could just run 10-car R-32 consists. Otherwise anything 60' can show up on this "R".
But I do like your service idea. The only question is how to sign it so as to confuse as few people as possible.
(RJ)
I could see this plan
J: Extended to 95th st/4th ave
No R trains
Plain and simple. People will use the W or Q from Brooklyn to Manhattan and change at 14th st/Union Square for "normal" 4, 5, and 6 service.
No R 57th to Continental June 14-16.
No R Whitehall to Court St. (split R service) June 21-23.
HMMM, I felted the history has again surfaced in the New York Transit. I feel like I will be 8 years old again on that only weekend.
-Robert kIng
Is there something you're not telling us?
I'm not dropping by Kodak until the 20th of June, let's say then it's twelve days for the Kodachrome films to come back. Then I need to sort out which ones I want printed, get that done and then scan the prints. Then I'll have some pictures to show but obviously it won't be for a while.
If you're asking whether or not I encountered trouble taking the pictures, I'm happy to say that I never had a problem.
-Robert King
No slide scanner or transparency adapter?
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
-Robert King
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
They want me to report to their training unit at North White Plains yard on 6/19 at 8AM. I understand that not only do I have to submit the pre-employment information they mailed me, but that I have to take an examination. Is anyone here a Metro-North employee who can be able to give me some kind of an idea what is on this exam? No answers, because I can do that all myself, but I want an idea as to what the exam will be based around. And how intensive is the training course for assistant conductors? I understand a lot must be known. I am very interested, and do look forward very much to becoming a member of MNRR, though if and when I must depart from NYCT, I will miss those I have had the honor of knowing there very much!! Please wish me luck!! Any help about the exam topics and the training will be deeply appreciated!! :-)
Rich
Your best bet is to ask someone in HR about the exam and what it consists of. Just remember that the whole process can take time. It was 6 months from the time I sent my resume until my date of hire. Best of luck to you.
ALSO THERE IS ONE TEST I MUST WARN U ABOUT. ITS CALLED THE HOGAN EXAM. ITS A PERSONALITY EXAM. DONT THINK THEY WANT UR PERSONALITY! U HAVE TO CONFORM TO THEIRS! FOR EXAMPLE!!!!
DO U LIKE BIG CROWDS? T/F ANSWER IS TRUE! ALWAYS TRUE
DO U LIKE ROCK COCERTS? T/F if u answer FALSE U JUST LIED ON URSELF AND U WONT GET THE JOB. they gonna ask u the same stuff 50 times over and over and over!
like
DO U LIKE UR PARENTS? T/F true! just think like MTA would and u will be FINE!
WOULD U LIKE TO RUN AWAY FROM HOME T/F ANSWER IS FALSE!!!!
Answer: My parents are nothing to me. The MTA is my gaurdian. I love the MTA.
BTW, I saw Godfried at graduation last week... he said he saw "SuperConductor" that day but couldn't remember his name... was that you?
We Need More Tickets, Not Fewer
By CLYDE HABERMAN
he guy was driving his cream-colored Rolls-Royce Corniche along West Broadway in SoHo. Actually, to call it driving is giving him too much credit. Bobbing and weaving is more like it. Several times, he nearly hit parked cars. Once, he almost veered into oncoming traffic.
Naturally, he was gabbing on a cell phone the whole time, with a seigneurial indifference to anything in his path. To his credit, he was at least moving slowly.
A police car happened along and ordered him to the curb. Justice, I thought as I watched, was about to triumph.
Instead, after a brief conversation on the sidewalk, the officers let him go without a summons. As they drove off, he reached for — what else? — his phone, and bragged to the person on the other end about how he had beaten the ticket. Had he been awarded the Distinguished Service Medal he could not have sounded more pleased with himself.
Breathes the New Yorker who does not wish this man was given the summons he deserved?
Might the same not be asked about all the men who spit with impunity on the street? Or about the drivers who barrel into intersections and scatter pedestrians who have the right of way? Or the dopes who lean on their car horns, as if that will get the traffic moving?
Or the bicycle deliverymen who become public menaces when they go the wrong way on one-way streets? Or the bike riders who hog the sidewalk? Or the subway louts who defiantly take up three seats by spreading their legs wide and refusing to budge?
When you get right down to it, the problem, many New Yorkers might agree, is that the police are not handing out nearly enough tickets. They are certainly not issuing them to many law breakers whose selfishness diminishes the quality of life here every day.
The prevailing wisdom, of course, is the opposite. It has become almost the stuff of urban legend, up there with alligators in the sewers.
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, we are told, is the evil mastermind behind a "ticket blitz," intended to raise millions for the cash-starved city by nickel-and-diming the citizenry to death.
This is a story shaped by the police officers' union, which has an ax to grind. It is shaped by a steady drip of newspaper anecdotes about supposedly zany tickets, some of which prove on inspection to have been fully justified. (Never mind that occasionally wacky summonses have been a fact of life since the first cop wrote the first ticket.)
The story is also shaped by interest groups and by opportunistic politicians who never miss a chance to pile on when they see someone in trouble. And there is no question that Mr. Bloomberg looks vulnerable right now, as shown by his dismal 24 percent approval rating in the latest New York Times poll.
Too bad little of this matches reality.
The reality, several city commissioners say, is that the mayor never asked them to grind out tickets.
The reality, a study by the Independent Budget Office reveals, is that the city loses money on most summonses other than those for parking violations, so it probably would be cheaper not to write them at all.
The reality, Police Department statistics show, is that the overall number of summonses issued for the first five months of this year declined by nearly 10 percent from the same period in 2002: to 3,759,868 from 4,157,629. Parking tickets alone are down by 12 percent.
You just might want to bear in mind this tale, dating to the late 19th century. It was told by the muckraker Lincoln Steffens in his autobiography, under the chapter heading "I Make a Crime Wave."
While assigned to police headquarters for The New York Evening Post, Steffens heard a great yarn about a robbery, and wrote about it. His rival, Jacob Riis, then of The New York Evening Sun, caught grief from his editor, so he dug up a juicy crime story of his own.
That sent Steffens scurrying for an even better tale. Riis retaliated. Then reporters for other newspapers joined in. Before anyone knew it, the city was wringing its collective hands over a supposed crime wave.
But there was no such thing. "It was only the newspaper reports of crimes that had increased," Steffens wrote. In fact, crime was down.
Plus ça change, and all that. You know, if you had a nickel for every overblown ticket-blitz story, you might be able to afford a Rolls-Royce of your own to drive erratically, summons free, down West Broadway.
Does that mean it'd be the opposite to normal East of Continental?
Jamaica bound E and F trains run to Comtinental, discharge there (you have to take a shuttle bus to Original Van-Wyck Blvd station and pick up E and F trains there). But riders will miss the treats we have been enjoying, as empty E/F trains run to Jamaica Yard, change ends and run back in towards Van-Wyck. OTOH we don't want passengers freaking out because they were on the wrong train when they realize they are going through a subway yard.
And after 7:30 PM weeknights E trains make local stops east of Forest Hills. Manhattan bound E trains stop at 75th Ave and Van-Wyck as early as 6 PM (In addition to the peak period 179th Street E specials which also run local east of Continental)
But on Wednesday, I rode the third express, and I bailed at Continental after the C/R repeatedly said that we'd be making all stops to 179th.
But on Wednesday, I rode the third express, and I bailed at Continental after the C/R repeatedly said that we'd be making all stops to 179th.
LOL! I would of stuck around anyway seeing I would have a RF opportunity on a R32 special E.
And here is one advisory that you can file it under DUH
Will the N run to Astoria this weekend?
Or press refresh and it'll go away.
The only advisory currently listed for the W is a weeknight Manhattan Bridge advisory.
The W is running normal this weekend. The R isn't going to Queens because the E and F will be dumping their passengers at Continental and running through the yard.
Accoring to this: http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/service/subsrvnr.htm The R will not stop at 5 Ave, 59/Lexington and QP. Maybe it will go to Queens via 63 St.
And according to this: http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/service/subsrvnw.htm The W won't go to Queens at all.
Of course. The bridge is closed to train traffic over the weekend. That's regular service for this entire pick.
Accoring to this: http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/service/subsrvnr.htm The R will not stop at 5 Ave, 59/Lexington and QP. Maybe it will go to Queens via 63 St.
No, it won't. The only reason it's being cut back to 57th is to alleviate congestion at Continental, where E and F trains will be terminating. If it could run through to Queens, it would run via its normal route.
And according to this: http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/service/subsrvnw.htm The W won't go to Queens at all.
This is all I see on that page:
Brooklyn-bound trains rerouted over the Manhattan Bridge
from Canal St to DeKalb Av
Late Night, 12:01 AM to 5 AM Tue to Fri, Jun 17 - 20 and 24 - 27
What do you see? Cut and paste.
R No service at Queens Plaza, Lex Av-59 St, and 5 Av
W No service between Queensboro Plaza and Lex Av-59 St
Weekend, 12:01 AM Sat to 5 AM Sun, Jun 7 - 8
Brooklyn-bound trains skip Union, 9 Sts, Prospect Av, and 25 St
Weekend, 7 AM Sat to 5 AM Mon, Jun 7 - 9
Manhattan-bound trains run express from Bay Pkwy to 9 Av
Sunday, 6 AM to 7 PM, Jun 8
Coney Island-bound trains skip Ft Hamilton Pkwy, 50, and 55 Sts
Saturday, 6 AM to 7 PM, Jun 7
Coney Island-bound trains run on the N from 36 St to Stillwell Av
Late Night, 12:01 AM to 5 AM Tue to Fri, Jun 10 - 13
Brooklyn-bound trains skip Union, 9 Sts, Prospect Av, and 25 St
Late Night, 12:01 AM to 5 AM Tue to Fri, Jun 10 - 13
Manhattan-bound trains rerouted over the
Manhattan Bridge from DeKalb Av to Canal St
Late Night, 12:01 AM to 5 AM Tue to Fri, Jun 10 - 13
R line
No trains between Pacific and 59 Sts
Late Night, 12:01 AM to 5 AM Tue to Fri, Jun 10 - 13
No trains between Pacific and 59 Sts
Weekend, 12:01 AM Sat to 5 AM Mon, Jun 14 - 16
No trains between 57 St and 71-Continental Avs
Weekend, 12:01 AM Sat to 5 AM Mon, Jun 14 - 16
R No service at Queens Plaza, Lex Av-59 St, and 5 Av
W No service between Queensboro Plaza and Lex Av-59 St
Weekend, 12:01 AM Sat to 5 AM Sun, Jun 7 - 8
Brooklyn-bound trains skip Union, 9 Sts, Prospect Av, and 25 St
Weekend, 7 AM Sat to 5 AM Mon, Jun 7 - 9
Today and tomorrow, 6/14 & 15, the following service pattern ran/will run:
Qs terminating at 42 St; Rs terminating at 57/7; Ws terminating at Lexington Ave; W shuttle from Ditmars to QBP.
There was at least one R-46 set running on the E today; I saw it at 36th and rode it a few hours later from Van Wyck to Van Wyck. There was also at least one R-32 set on the F.
The R I rode had an unusual sign reading:
R 4 AV LCL
R BROADWAY EXP
R 57 ST/7 AV
What do you think?????
You can let me know.
A nice evening to all of you,
BigDigFan
However, I'm a bit confused, how are Interstates considered transit? If anything I'd say that a monster road project like the Big Dig is the antithesis of transit since the definition of transit, or at least transit's worst nightmare, since it gobbles up budget allotments that could easily go to much more effective mass transit decisions.
BTW, the definition of transit from Dictionary.com:
tran·sit ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trnst, -zt)
n.
The act of passing over, across, or through; passage.
Conveyance of people or goods from one place to another, especially on a local public transportation system.
The system or vehicles used for such conveyance.
A transition or change, as to a spiritual existence at death.
Astronomy.
The passage of a celestial body across the observer's meridian.
The passage of a smaller celestial body or its shadow across the disk of a larger celestial body.
A surveying instrument similar to a theodolite that measures horizontal and vertical angles.
I'm sure we've all had the experience of waiting 40 minutes on a platform for a train to pick us up at 2 in the morning. Some of us even get the extra bonus of then having to wait AGAIN for a transfer. What's more, often when I catch a wee-hours train on, say, the broadway line, it'll be very full. Not packed, of course, but with almsot all of the seats taken and some standers.
After all, this is the city that never sleeps. People DO want to move about and night, and many have to whether they want to or not.
The tremendous waits for a train at night are rediculous. There must be a better way to do this, I thought.
So, here's the question. Instead of running 8 or 10-car trains at long headways late at night, why not cut down to 4 or 5-car trains, probably OPTO, for night runs? This way, you still get to cut the ammount of rolling stock in use, for repairs and cleaning, but still give riders a short wait for a train.
Now, I've heard that the current union contract stands in the way of this. From what I remember hearing, the current contract (other than being anti-OPTO in other ways) specifies a minimum length of shift for workers. Meaning that if a plan like this were to go into effect, there's be a lot of Conductors just sort of milling about and getting paid for it. This combined with the extra TOs needed to run the extra trains, would result in the MTA spending money it hasn't got.
First off, can anyone confirm these contract troubles? Second of all, why can't they be worked around? You'd be cutting a lot of C/R jobs at night, but GAINING a lot of TO jobs. In all, the number of people working should be even. And since [I think] OPTO TOs get more pay than C/Rs, shouldn't the union like this?
Are there any technical or other reasons why this wouldn't work? I know the MTA likes to do construction at night and on weekends, and the long headways helps with this, but surely there can be a way around this. Say, switch back to the regular way of doing things if there's to be construction.
I don't know, but having twice the trains, half as long, seems like a great way to improove the subway on nights and weekends, and encourage more ridership. Does anyone have any ideas about this?
Also, I've experienced crush loads at 2 in the morning on the 1/2 -- where they share a route, so headways are even shorter.
(I'm not commenting on the meat of your proposal.)
Every route is supposed to be every 20 minutes. Things probably do go wrong, which is a mangaement problem, not a lack of trains.
The issue with half-length OPTO trains that I've never heard an answer to is: how much work is it to split a train, and can you do it while it's sitting in the terminal? If easy, you could just send the train out in two halves, and rejoin it at 5 AM.
As for the train splitting, that strikes me as the sort of thing that would be really easy with the older cars, but would be much harder with the new computer-controlled systems.
And I have a perfect example of what I just said.Once,during training,I had to go all the way to Staten Island and had to be at Castleton Depot at 5AM.So I left my house around 2:30 to catch the 2:41 1 train that was supposed to show up at my station.It got there 4mins late and on top of that it arrived at South Ferry majorly late.
It was supposed to be at SF at 3:18,and the ferry was supposed to leave 12mins later at 3:30.What happened?The train got there exactly at 3:30 and I had to run like I was running a marathon to the terminal and by the time I got up the escalator,the gate was halfway closed.I was so damn lucky the person closing the door stopped and let me and someone else through,otherwise I'd have to wait another hour for the next ferry then I would've been late.
Has serious research been done on this? My speed is not high but maybe the mass of the train cause some sort of boost that allows tie to pass slower for me.
I am OPTO qualified and don't mind working all but the G. The cost savings are VERY overrated. The OPTO N and A save little if any money. OPTO tends to create other inefficient support jobs that more than make up for any cost savings. The 'line concept' that management loves is as much to blame as any luddite in the Union.
Who said something about 10,000 monkeys working for 10,000 years on of them will come up with a good service plan.
The way *I* see it, 34 years out of the system now, is that OPTO is an ANATHEMA and a damned SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE. I *AM* an "ontapanoor" myself, so my "liberal bent" comes from a PRAGMATIC REALITY as a BUSINESS PERSON in a SMALL BUSINESS ... *WE* are the people who CREATE JOBS, but thanks to Shrub, we've had to fire 100% of our NYS workforce. :( again
Bottom line though is OPTO and "let's see if the electric portion actually MATES when we do an add from that cut of cars we did at 23:30" works out. *POORLY* ... as I've mentioned before , I got stuck with PM WAA on my "pick" often making AA's out of B's and then trying to shape them back up ... and we were *LUCKY*!!!!! AA's were 32's!!!! ***ONLY*** 32's! And STILL the portion hatches would screw up or the pins would pick up a Pepsi can along the way. Or worse. :(
While I VERY MUCH appreciate the unique angle (sorry, Unca Selkirk is a firm believer in hearing *ALL* views, AND changing my mind as a result of "new information" as warranted by *FACTS* not emotions) the *REALITY* is a CONDUCTOR is responsible for the safety of ALL on board (and lately, those who AIN'T (!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!)) of one fo our regulars (several actually) ... the REALITY is that, lacking COMPLETE automation of a NYC Subway system designed from top to bottom for automation (and INSTANT replacement of a dead camera or crappy SPOTTING MONITOR - HELLLO! Any conductors wanna tell ME what a bad monitor at the jailbars is worth when it's out of focus, or worse, DARK? Nah, nobody CARES if you can't see the camera on the first three cars, nah) ... "OPTO" is UNSAFE by INHERENT DESIGN of a 100 YEAR OLD SYSTEM.
Modernize it end to end, there's a chance. R14X's are the FIRST step towards that ... resignalling and CBTC are the NEXT ... but it's likely to be ANOTHER 100 years before the dreams of ONE computer glitter geek are POSSIBLE. Fact is, the JOB of a "motorman" is to OBSERVE THE STEEL ... ANYTHING ELSE puts EVERYBODY'S life in "Clear and preszent DANGER." Note, to MY book, staring at BS on an LED display which results in you glancing AWAY from the steel to see (as was Ed Kroch's landmark quote) "How'm I doing?" is a THREAT to society.
Back in the days of old subway car gearing, your MOTORS would tell you the truth in your EARS. No NEED to look away and miss broken or cracked rails, a pair of yellow lanters (KEROSENE) whose wicks had done ovetime ... NEVER a problem BECAUSE your eyes were ALWAYS on the steel and those disco lights that reflected OFF them around the curve that you were PAID to pay attention to ... speedos first, now cameras proposed ... I've said MY piece ... and have been SHOCKED that no operating people with a CLUE have even argued that "take your eyes off the steel and EVERYBODY dies, scroo that dragging baby carriage" ...
*SCROO OPTO* ... Let them build a !%^#@^&*(^@#&*$%#(^ subway *DESIGNED* for it from the GIT-GO ... THEN we talk. Until then, ain't see nothing mroe than a strappy ... No offense.
But if yer cheesed off at the subways, DON'T screw with the hourlies. All of us *HAD* (in my day) and *STILL HAVE A CLUE.*" I for one am getting REALLY tired of this whole "plug in a card and everybody's rich" nonsense ... there's a damned good REASON for for the "union workrules" and the "lack of automation" ... and it AIN'T TWU's fault HERE ...
I can see that if you try to save money with half-length OPTO trains, the storage issue is a big one, becuase you have more equipment not in service.
But what about using the same amount of equipment, improving service rather than reducing costs? In other words, at 11 PM or so, you split the trains that you used to run all night in 2 and run them as twice as many half length trains instead.
You split or add a train and it is a new consist and must be reput in for service (everything retested). One cut and add there goes 2hrs and 15 mins. You can't tie up the mainline because of the amount of time so you have to cut it elsewhere losing more time. Some middle sections are bad so know you have more swaps to do. Some cars are bad so now a 8 car train with 7 motors is a bit slow a 4 car train with 1 dead motor stinks. What do you do on lines that do not have transverse cabs? Shuffling trains around loses more time.
If I had more than 2 mins I am sure there is more.
There are safety questions too. Besides the subway puncher a female employee was robbed and molested. Cleaning out trains also is dicey without a partner.
Thanks for that information.
It does not take 2hrs and 15 min to split 1 8 car r68 trains set that is made up of 2 4 car permenantly linked consistes.
You assessment is not correct.
You may be right. Still, I can't see short trains as ever being good enough to handle overnight schedules. It won't work in Manhattan. I know that you favor this option. Have you ever actually ridden a late night 4 car train consist in NY? It makes the subway look less inviting. If some of the changes you envision come to pass I think you'll see losses in ridership. Especially in Manhattan. Taxis will notice a large increase in fares. Even at two a.m. trains get crowded now, with 8 and 10 car trains. I can't see the supposed "half the train, twice the frequency" concept actually working in real life. It's an excellent "virtual" solution but the execution will not match the simulations. Okay, maybe I'm being jaded about this. We'll have to see but I strongly doubt it.
I actually ride the trains late nights all the time. I have been studying this issue for many years. Trains are not all that crowded after midnight at all. 40% of the seats are filled at best with most riders riding on the car with the conductor. Some lines do get a bit more crowded at times, but such issues could easily be adressed by adding an extra train and shorting the wait time thus spreading out the ridership.
On most lines even if NYCT continued with it's current service level after midnight, 90% of riders who want seats would get them. Of course I prefer increase the service level to at least 4 trains per hour from 3, especially on weekens to atttract more riders.
Most manhattan riders ride only a few stops. If the busiest point in the route a few people stand, it is not the end of the world as the train quickly empty out before heading into brooklyn, queens and the bronx.
I have even done a detailed study of the 7 train between 1-3 am on friday's for 3 weekends last march. The trains are virtually empty especially cars that are a few cars from the conductors car. My good budy who apartment overlooks the 7 tracks reportes that most 7 line trains late nights are empty.
Shorter trains do not make the subway less inviting at all. Part of the problem with the MTA current implimentation of OPTO on the G is poor signage. Passengers don't know where to wait. This could easily be solved by implimenting a color coded system. Green platform edge for train always stops(OPTO), yellow stripe for sometimes stops(full length trains)
If anything shorter trains are more invisting as it increases you chance of getting a police officer aboard your car which is always a comforting sight
The brighton line(my home line) and one of the busiest in the city could easily operate with 4 car trains starting as early as 9 PM(leaving brighton terminal) on weekdays. At 9PM manahattan bound, the trains are fairly empty. The first 4 car train would head brooklyn bound from 57th and 7th at around 9:45. An increase in service of one or two 4 car trains per hour would not only meet demand but would virtualy assure in 99.999% of the time every rider who wants a seat would get a seat.
Such and arrangement on the N/R/F would work equally well. As you read my other posts, I prefer in cab CCTV to reduce any dwell time issues. Even without such as system, most stops are on the T/O side of the train at night especially on the Q.
I am old enough to remember when NYCT ran 4 car train service overnight back 10-15 years ago. The signage of where a 4 car train would stop and when 4 car trains operate was awfull. After the shock wore off I had to run and try to catch the train
This situation could easily be avoied by better signage station announcements. The cost savings are tremendous. More then many of the critics are willing to admitt. The money could be put to much better use elsewhere in the subway system
You still insist on putting 4 car trains on the Q and other lines I see after 9PM, it doesn't make sense IMO. At 9:45 on the Q, trains are moderately crowded an having people run for the train will only turn out like the G.
As for people running for the trains on the G. The problem is poor signage not the short trains. If the MTA would put up proper signage and make proper announcements, there would be almost no running for the short train as most people will know exactly where the train stops.
An extra train or two per hour on the Q would bring rider praise for the shorter trains. Most subway riders that I have asked like the idea of having trian come more often and saving millions of dollars a year in uneeded expenses.
Someone has to clean out the train too.
Before you go on about inefficiency some consists do take longer than 45 to make up by the book. It does not get easier with the newer equipment either. There is more stuff to look at on the 143 and they put it in harder places to get to.
Breaking these trains into two half car units should take virtually no time at all. They should be put into service in groups of two to avoid having a third person have to move the train saving money. If it takes more then a few minutes to separate said trains NYCT should look into an automatic decoupling technology.
As for the r142's and r143 taking longer to put together and break apart. This should not be the case as they should have software that does dignostic checks automatically.
Improved pricess and throwing out he old "book" is in order here.
As you say you have thought about this for years read section 7 of the 143 manual and tell me if you can do that in 45 mins. Especially if you have a few put ins.
I hear over and over that it "does not save that much" is rediculous. The last time I looked a penny saved is a penny earned. If you truely run the numbers, the savings are in the tens of millions of dollars a year conservitivly including increased frequency of service on some lines.
I ageee that the NYCT management is as much to blame as the TWU. It is poor management that is at the heart of many NYCT problems and ineffeciencies although the union does little to help in any way.
Come clean.
What & where?
It ain't Baltimore, it does't go to BSM. Ever.
Branford is welcome to it.
Salaam would be proud!
I like the R26, oldest of the late Redbirds, as well as the R16, THE heaviest single car before the R68.
And don't tell anyone but I hear GE is making locomotives now!
:)
And then theres the Milwaukee Road electrifications, 3000VDC, with locos supplied by GE, boxcabs all. There were the EP-1s and the more no nonsense (not that the boxcab EP-1 were very nonsensical) EF-3s, all of which long predated the Little Joes. Those DC locos really could haul the tonnage, they completely beat the steam locos out of exsistance on their divisions, and really proved the worth of electrification.
And I hope New Haven didn't get any Little Joes. For the Milwaukee and South Shore it would have just been a quick retrucking to standard gauge, since both were 3000vdc lines, just like the russian line the Little Joes were to go to. But for New Haven it would have meant completely gutting the electical equipment and resetting them to run at 11.5 kvAC, that or else just a lot of sparks.
The NH electric is my favorite Flyer loco of all. I have a whole fleet of 'em.
IIRC ACF built the Gibbs Hi-Vs.
D'AOH.
Uhhh then the r-10's for me, doc.
Oops, the R-16s, too. Sorry about that.
R1-9 ACF, Pressed Steel, Pullman-Standard [R7]
R10-ACF
R11-BUDD
R12/14-ACF
R15-ACF
R16-ACF
R17-St Louis
R21/22-St Louis
R26/28-ACF [last cars ever built by ACF]
R-32.
R-32.
1. R-10's...that was so easy as a choice, and at the top of my personal list.
2. Of the R-1/9's group, I seem to lean toward and favor the R-6's in general, even including the Pressed Steel 1300-numbered series in the batch too.
3. R-12/14's, and I give an passing mention to the R-15's too.
-William A. Padron
Later, I caught car #3517 doing some street running in Camden.
Photos on Webshots page.
John
Mind if I ask how long you had to wait for an LRT to cross the Rancocas Bridge? I once waited about an hour, in what looks like the same spot, with camera ready, but saw nothing.
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
another bridge photo
and yer another
Friday, June 13, 2003.
Metrorail is currently experiencing a service disruption at Silver Spring station.
Disruption details: Station closed and bus shuttle service provided. The estimated delay is 10 minutes.
Silver Spring (AP) - Metro has resumed service this morning to the Silver Spring station on the Red Line after a train derailed last night.
Officials are trying to determine what caused the front wheels on the six-car train to come off the tracks about 8:40 p.m. Metro spokeswoman Taryn McNeil says 61 passengers were riding the train. There were no reports of any injuries.
The accident closed rail traffic at the station in both directions for the rest of the night while 16 buses shuttled riders between the closed stops.
Metro's chief operating officer tells The Washington Post that last night's storms briefly knocked out power to a station signal system, which controls routing to an inbound, outbound and center track. After the switches were reset, several trains made it through the station before the accident occurred
I arrived on time in South Station @ 2:45 PM on train 172, after having had a successful trip up the outland route photographing a lot of towers. I got on the Red Line and went to MIT where I found Lexcieee and stored my duffle bag. It soon became 5:30 and we moved out for the boat tour of Boston harbour via the Red and Blue lines to the Aquarrium station (which was appearently damaaged by the Big Dig and had the be rebuilt). There was a slight service delay and Lexcieee and I debated if they were right in holding the train at Scoullay Under or if the next inound should have just run express to even out the headways. We also disussed how the Red Line and busses have poor headway management.
The boat/dinner cruise went out around the harbour islands where we saw a number of the speedy (T) commuter ferries. We then went up the Mystic river and saw the Rt 1 cantilever bridge and then up the charges to the new Charles crossing. After docking we went back to MIT for my stuff and then tried to get to lexcieee's house. However, we just missed a train at Kendall/MIT and after waiting 15 min for the next one we surmised something was wrong. Well we were right when they anounced that the signal link to command center had been lost and that all service was canceled. We went up for shuttle busses that were not there and Lexiee in his experiance suggested we walk to Central Sq to catch the #1 as it would take hours for the shittle busses to be dispatched. Well he was right, we caught a 1 to Harvard Sq then walk all the way to his house between Porter and Davis. Not one shittle bus ever passed us.
The next day we had classes about Boston's transit history then went on a field trip on the new Silver Line and the Orange line. The silverline wasn't all that hot. The floor was way too low, felt it was going to bottom out and the stations were somewhat close together even on the washington section. The real problem was downtown where the BRT quickly turned into BT. I litterally could have walked faster than the all new and snootty Silver Line bus. There was also a problem w/ bunching and out buswas packed, but those right behind it were empty. Looks like the folks in Dudly got screwed in their El replacement.
We then took the orange line out to Forrest Hills and one of the professor guys who actually designed the entire southwest corridor explained the history of it. It appears that it had been a planned highway next to the NHRR viaduct. Well the houses were cleared, but then local activitst forced the city to reconsider the freeway plan and built transit projects instead. Well from 1979 to 1987 the rail line was closed and sunk into a depression with a transit line next to it. Every square inch of land was utilized for things to benefit the community like a linear park, play grounds, community gardens, community colleges, mixed income housing etc. They also tried to cover over the cut AMAP to try to knit the old divided community together. Anyway, their plan worked and today the southwest corridor is a wonderful place to live.
After the trip broke up at Back Bay I went and railfanned the Orange Line, I had been given a visitor pass so I could get on and off the system as I pleased. I got off at the station next to the Orange Line yard (begins w/ a W) and I rode the people mover accross the yard to the parking garage and back. It is and amazing railfan view and I took lots of pics. I also found out the the north end of the orange line is US&S signaled and even contains PRR PL dwarf signals mounted at angles to serve as communicator signals. Simply amazing.
I got off at community college and walked over the bridge that spanned the big MTBA commuter rail junction. I kept walking to Leechmeer on the green line to get a final ride over the last "EL" in Boston. I was saddened to see that the old trolley wire had been replaced with shit contant tention stuff.
The next morning we slept through the Red Line trip to the Davis, Alewife and Porter stations as we knew everything about them and instead attended the student presentations at 11. At 12 I left Lexieee and all the wonderful professors behind to catch the 1:15 ACElA EXPRESS train to Boston (more on it in another post). My AE train arrived NYP on time (a saw a cut of scrapped M-1's on the Hellgate) and I made the tight 15 min connecion to the 5:01 NJT Trenton Express after a 13 min wait at the TVM's. On the train I got a railfan view out the back and took lots of pics of the RoW. I also began to chat up an NJT planner and the conductor, more on this conversation in another post. I arrived ta Hamelton at 6:10 and met my mom. Not a bad week if I do not say myself.
Simon
Swindon UK
Lexcie
Scollay (which has been abandoned for years...)
Lechmere
Aquarium
Dudley
Scollay Square - the station - wasn't abandoned it was simply renamed Government Center.
The Adams Square Station was abandoned and later demolished.
You're right about that. The Silver Line is a very poor substitute for rail. This is apparent to everybody except the PR department at the MBTA, who continually laud their futuristic BRT system in glowing press releases. Local activists have taken to calling the thing the "Silver Lie".
I just figured I'd inquire with somebody in the field to get some insight.
Also, what are your thoughts on the NY RPA?
Thanks.
Well that's all,till next time....which'll be next Friday and Saturday when I do a pointcheck survey on the M35(Friday) and a ridecheck on the Bx1/Bx2 on Saturday.
There. I said 'el lines'.
This post has to do with trains! :) lol
Does anyone have any text or lowdown on a news story
about NYPD giving out tickets to drivers FOR HAVING A FRAME
AROUND YOUR LICENSE PLATE????
Is there such a hideousity?
Bill "Newkirk"
I can't agree with you more on those!!. My issue with license plate frames, glass covers etc is - Why are they being sold in NYC if they are illegal to use? As far as I am concerned the stores are defrauding the consumer by selling a product that it is illegal to use. I think the auto parts stores should be sued in small claims court every time someone gets one of those tickets - heck I would sue for losing a day to fight the ticket, pain and suffering (my stress at getting the ticket), consumer fraud, the cost of the ticket, and finally a full refund of the purchase price...
You're comparing different issues - your product when used as intended is legal - it is illegal only when used in a manner it is not intended to be used in. YES I will sue a store in small claims court and file complaints with consumer affairs if any store sells me a product that is illegal to use AS INTENDED. IMO it is consumer fraud to sell something the consumer cannot use legally.
But that doesn't mean consumers can't sue - I have a reasonable expectation that if I purchase a product from a store that the product in question can be used in the intended manner. Even if the stores are not breaking any law - they are certainly being very UNETHICAL and deceptive. They are effectively stealing from consumers by selling a product that has no use... That's what consumer affairs and small claims is for! IMO it is also false advertising to call it a license plate frame when all you can do with it is hang it on your wall.
But in the case of many products such as a $10 licence plate cover, suing is not worth the time and effort. This is why many stores continue to sell the product. Unless you put yourself a very large class action suit, no lawyer would touch it.
In the case of licence plate covers, many people who purchace them know they are breaking the law, The either don't care because they perceive that the police won't write a ticket or plan on breaking a few laws and put the cover on to help shield them from a few red light tickets.
I see lots of signs educating me of the law when I enter New York City: No turn on red, buckle seat belts, no hand-held telephones, Speed Limit 30 unless otherwise posted, use signals when changing lanes, etc. I've never seen a sign advising me to remove plastic license plate holders.
Having a propane grill when there's a natural gas line in the house is stupid.
My grill is on a concrete deck against a steel railing.
Still not the same - an exact analogy would be if propane were illegal for use - period! That is not the case... On the other hand, the license frames and plastic covers cannot be used legally in the intended manner. Big difference.
I won't be running afoul of any propane laws - Maybe I'm old fashioned but I still call the subway the BMT, IRT or IND and I still barbecue with charcoal ;-)
That's a disturbing statement, on a couple of levels.
I'd think the cops only cared about the CAPITAL letters/numbers
on the center plate portion region thingie...
Absolutely. If that is covered it makes it harder to determine that those are New York plates.
Tom
Chuck Greene
What do these guys who make the law have between their ears?
Who else does?
Nor does New York.
Whats the mater, you cant remember when plates alternated between black with wellow lettering, and yellow with black lettering.
Ops, I just gave away my age.
: ) Elias
Chuck Greene
I also know that the blue and orange plates started with letters corresponding to county. The same is true with the orange backed plates but when more were needed, the state seemed to issue them without a system of letters for counties. Now the statue of liberty license also started out with Q in Queens etc. But that was abandoned in order to supply the demand for plates.
I am not living near New York now and I hardly ever see a NY car (maybe once a month, so I am not up to date on that.
By the way, I live in Austin, Texas (where the state let's you keep a few more dollars of what you earn). That is even truer this year.
The format changed several times. In order:
NXX-NNN
XNX-NNN
XNN-NXX
XXN-NNX
The new plates are XXX-NNNN where the dash is a silhouette of the state, unless you paid the extra fee to keep your old number on the new plates.
Other family (now moved from NYS or deceased) lived in Dutchess County and had DC-391, 356-DC, 2D-501, and 888-DUG.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
The plates STILL have "embedded locality information" ... you just need to have access to the SP computers to get it. Our ex-Marines know where the car comes from though. That's one of the things I *really* like about living up here - "locals" get some juice, everyone else gets a receipt. Don't do anything stupid, and you get to plead to a bald tire. Do something stupid, and you might just as well have kissed a third rail. Nice, simple, friendly. Ghods, I love living upstate!
California consciously went away from that by randomizing the distribution of plates to all counties. There were allegations that some areas favored locals in enforcing laws, and worse, those from disfavored areas were subjected to harassment. At one time Kentucky put the name of the county on the plate. I do not know if that practice continues.
Tom
Indiana adopted a number code for its counties in 1963. Each license plate starts with the two-digit county code followed by a letter and up to four numbers. We lived in St. Joseph County, whose code was 71. In 1965 and 1966, we managed to have the same plate numbers for both cars, 71J247 and 71J248. I'm not sure if my father managed to swing a deal or if it was sheer coincidence. The 1965 plate was dark green while the '66 plate was reflective white with a "150th Year" banner across the top. Indiana celebrated its 150th year of statehood in 1966.
OhiO used to put the county on the plate. They still might.
In the 50s they certainly were Yellow on Black alternating with Black on Yellow.
Elias
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
:-) Andrew
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Must've been tough to drive at age seven ...
Must've been tough to drive at age seven ...
He didn't say he could drive it.
But he must have had a really good allowance to be able to pay the insurance.
So what if Empire State is covered.
So what if Empire State is covered. <<<
That may seem silly to you, but that is because you have given it no thought. The law is one size fits all, not different for what can be covered on NY plates as opposed to other plates. Just simply nothing can be covered. As far as I know, NY roads are not just limited to NY and adjacent state cars. Some states, like California have as many as twenty different color combinations and background illustrations* on valid licence plates. If the state name were covered, NY law enforcement might have difficulty determining where the plates were from. NY likes to cooperate with other states too. A County Mountie in the backwoods of Oregon might not immediately recognize the depiction of the Statue of Liberty, but might make out the words "Empire State" which his smarter superiors would know is New York.
Tom
*For inquiring minds:
1. Black letters and numbers on yellow background
2. Yellow letters and numbers on black background
3 Yellow letters and numbers on blue background
4. White letters and numbers on a red background (historic vehicle)
5. Black letters and numbers on reflective white background
6. Blue letters and numbers on reflective white background with red bar at top and California in red block letters at the top
7. Same as 6 but no red bar at the top.
8. Same as 7, but with "California" in script rather than block letters.
9. Special "1984 Olympics" plates blue on white with an Olympic symbol and vertical lettering (two characters) to the left of the numbers.
10. Special veterans' plates with a symbol to the left of the numbers.
11. Disabled plates with a blue wheelchair symbol to the left of the number.
12.-19. Eight different background images on the white background, for special interests including a whale's flukes, A 9/11 memorial, Yosemite Valley background, palm trees and sun background, Lake Tahoe background, a UCLA alumni licence plate, firefighters' memorial, and a Kids plate which includes symbols such as a hand, a heart, a star, or a plus sign as well as letters and numbers.
20. Special plates for diplomats and consular officials.
New York doesn't use the Statue of Liberty anymore. They're giving out tickets now for Liberty plates.
Elias
Virginia, as I recently discovered when my son moved there, has over 180 choices!
New Jersey and North Carolina have a bunch too. It's all revenue-producing for the state, and for sponsoring organizations as well. I have the "Conquer Cancer" plate on my New Jersey-registered truck, but just regular-style plates (albeit personalized) on my North Carolina-registered vehicles.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Where have you been for the last 2 years?
Wrong. You will be ticketed if the Name of the State cannot be read.
The Law in ND, and so I presume elsewhere too may be similar, is that name of the state cannot be covered. Now ND does not bother ticketing ND drivers over this offense since they can regognize an ND plate (or so I would hope) but an out of state plate is different, and they need to know the correct state before they can call it in. And so what you have done is pissed him off before he even stopped you, and so it will be added to the list of infractions that he will write up. So a frame that obstructs the ledgend "Peace Garden State" (Or "Empire State") will not draw you a ticket, but if it hides the words "North Dakota" (or "New York") it will.
The cover is always unlawful.
Elias
The frames around the plate are legal as long as they do not block any identifying charatersistics of the plate. The law on the books as most laws are vague. I read it many years ago but do not know the exact statue number of phrasing
Once again the newspapers publish only part of the story without the most important facts
I have had friends get tickets for covering their licence plates with black translucent plastic covers and also for plate frames that blocked parts of the plate number and state name
Having just come through there, it is a complete clstrfk. I can
only imagine what it will be like during the day. I hope they
realize by then that they can also turn trains on D4-D3 track n/o
the station instead of going into the hole, otherwise trains will
continue to be backed up to Woodhaven.
I sat still for more than 30 minutes just south of 63 Drive: most of the delay was caused by the last of the R and V layups at Continental, plus two work trains and a garbage pickup train moving through the area. I imagine over the weekend the congestion won't be as bad, since only the E and F will be running along Queens Blvd (both local). I'll get to experience it again on Sunday. The G will be cut back to Court Sq, and the R will go no further north than 57 St-7 Av.
One pleasant surprise tonight: the move within Jamaica Yard went smoothly, and without delay.
The GO does provide for F trains to be turned north of Continental, if conditions warrant.
And at roosevelt they took advantage of no express and did some work on the sb express platform edge.
True railfans won't stay away. They'll go there to see what all the fuss is about !
Bill "Newkirk"
F FOREST HILLS
F 71 AV
F 6 AV LCL
F QUEENS LOCAL
that would be shown during this GO?
As for the R, the northbound signs might look like this...
R MIDTOWN
R 57 ST/7 AV
R BROADWAY LCL
(if anyone is riding the R to 57 St this weekend, can you tell us what the signs read as? Many thanks)
R 57 St/7 AV (no flipping) on the outside and
R 95 St (no flipping) on the inside.
Of course I only rode and saw one R train this weekend so far and that was it.
...I took the Q on the Brighton through the Montague tunnel all the way to 34 St where I would transfer to the F heading to Queens [rather than taking the E at Times Square]. Man this weekend was full of GO's all over the system. So I have to wait about 10 minutes for the F to come and the platform was packed and when the R46 F came, the train got full; luckily I got a seat :-). So we were moving fine and the crowds on the train was getting bigger since we took all the R passengers that got off at 34 St. After 21 St, we had to switch over to the local track since there was no G and R service. So its still a smooth ride until after leaving 46 St where we slow down considerably stopping in btw stations and took 10 minutes to get to Northern Blvd then another 10 to Roosevelt Av 20 minutes from 46-Roosevelt. Then we went express via express track to 71 Av :-D and the crowd was huge and there were buses lined up ready to take passengers on Queens Blvd. In the process we passed 3 E's and 2 F's and people on the local trains and platforms were shocked, the expressions priceless.
If you attended last week's arnine M.O.D. trip, your wish would have been granted. Also, you would have the chance to ride real subway cars !
Bill "Newkirk"
I consider myself a true railfan and I avoid GOs like the plague. Maybe you should revise your statement to read true FOAMERS.
Peace,
ANDEE
>> Foamers won't stay away. They'll go there to see what all the fuss is about !<<
DONE !
Bill "Newkirk"
Some yard-lead tracks do not have stop arms at the signals and therefore are considered unsafe for passenger use.
CG
"The MTA has had systemwide all-risk insurance since 1992."
AND, from page 19:
"First Mutual Transportation Assurance Company (FMTAC), the MTA's insurance subsidiary, continued to be profitable, with earnings of $1.33 million in 2001. Through Owner-Controlled Insurance Programs (OCIPs), the MTA exercises greater control over the costs of construction-related insurance. In 2001 OCIPs saved the MTA more than $10 million in construction-related insurance costs."
David
I took a look at that release and some of the appendices to the 2002 annual report (B and D, specifically) and put together a separate post that some may find interesting.
It does appear that there is no liability insurance purchased (other than from a wholly owned subsidiary of the MTA) so the "for insurance reasons" isn't the reason why the GO couldn't use the yard track.
Of course since the MTA self-insures that risk, one could easily substitute "for risk management reasons" as the reason they wouldn't want to run trains loaded with passengers on track that may or may not be subject to the same degree of safety inspection as mainline tracks.
CG
But that's not the appropriate comparison.
Passengers weren't allowed to ride on trains on trackage without complete signal protection. Instead they were required to ride on buses on streets without any signal protection at all, and with a much greater risk of conflict to begin with.
Not to mention the risks borne by crowds in motion.
And the blatant ADA violation: neither Continental nor Van Wyck has elevators.
"Your honor, the TA brazenly allowed 1000+ passengers to ride through dangerous track in a yard where their train derailed and it took rescuers XX minutes to reach them."
If something happens they're probably looking at a finding of gross negligence and facing punitive damages. (Not to mention the likelihood of having at least one of those passengers be a Bronx resident so that they'd have to face a Bronx jury in the case).
On the other hand, the MTA probably has bus accidents on almost a daily basis. They deal with these situations all the time, and I imagine that every trial lawyer in NYC knows exactly what the going rate is for a passenger in a bus accident.
On a pure dollars and cents risk analysis, the tradeoff becomes the probability of an accident on the train multiplied by the cost of an accident versus the probability of an accident (or 2 or 3) on the bus times the cost of those accidents. But a good risk manager isn't necessarily as focused on the dollars and cents as they are on managing downside. There's a lot more certainty around the liability surrounding a bus accident. Not to mention the Public Relations disaster that a derailment in the yard would be or the myriad other reason why they might choose to use busses over trains.
I'm not able to comment on the ADA portion of your post.
CG
I mentioned in another thread that many Wal-Mart employees appear to come from the shallow end of the gene pool. Sadly, it sounds as if Wal-Martians are nonetheless from substantially "deeper water" than typical Bronx jurors :(
"Your honor, the TA brazenly allowed 1000+ passengers to ride through dangerous track in a yard where their train derailed and it took rescuers XX minutes to reach them."
A derailment alone, at the low speeds that are likely in a yard, doesn't cause injury.
The risk, AIUI, is collisions, which are somewhat more likely in yards than on mainline trackage, since yards don't have full signal protection.
But collisions are still far less likely in Jamaica Yard than on Queens Boulevard. Queens Boulevard has no signal protection whatsoever (yes, there are red lights, but a motorist who runs one is stopped only by the impact). Queens Boulevard doesn't have tracks, so collisions can occur anywhere, from any direction. And Queens Boulevard has many more independent vehicles, each one operated by its own driver, few of them professionals.
If carrying passengers through Jamaica Yard is an unacceptable liability, then carrying passengers along Queens Boulevard is an even less acceptable liability.
On the other hand, the MTA probably has bus accidents on almost a daily basis. They deal with these situations all the time, and I imagine that every trial lawyer in NYC knows exactly what the going rate is for a passenger in a bus accident.
Why would the going rate vary by mode rather than by injury?
With buses, the MTA has huge quantities of evidence that on-street travel is inherently dangerous, and they are making incredible efforts to insure that their drivers and buses are as safe as they possibly can be (even though this might be less safer than a subway yard). So they might have to pay compensatory damages, but never punitive damages.
If the MTA allowed subway passengers into a situation that they knew was inherently more dangerous than it had to be, then if there was an accident they could be liable for punitive damages. A jury might not buy the defense that a poorly protected yard is still safer than the streets.
Don't blame the MTA on this one. Blame NYS tort law as it deals with causes for punitive damages.
And how often do we hear about motormen getting killed in yard collisions?
I found this very thread over at the Rider Diaries. Download the files, especially the first 2 movies and see the madness! Geez, for you bus fans out there, the first movie bus in question is RTS 4907 and in the second movie we have Orion 6125. Any idea where these buses come from? There was another Orion seen from the backside in the first movie, but I was unable to obtain any number due to the quality of the movie.
When I went through the area, the line for the shuttle bus extended from Queens Blvd to Austin. No, I'm not exaggerating to make a point. The line was that long.
I have not seen the news today, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone from the Straphangers board called NY1 and other media outlets to get some coverage on this.
It's a variation of Copperplate, and there are countless knock-offs floating around the 'Net under a zillion different names (I've seen it called Copper, Boilerplate and others).
Cheers,
PJ Dougherty
Publisher, Tracks of the NYC Subway
VERSION 3.41 Now Available!
It's also on the WordPerfect installation CD.
--jonathan c.
This was at 239 St yard. Thisa isn't the first time I've seen, but the first I caught on camera. It appears that one switchman (or rather woman) at 241 St likes to set the signs to "7 Times Sq-42 St" on her layups.
That's right, people. If we lose the redbirds AND the 62s...and get the 142s instead, then we totally lose out on our railfan windows. And the 7 is my favorite railfanning line. It's a win/lose situation. :-(
I hope its marker lights are working.
Hell yeah!
You can also get 5606 for your very own, for $1,000 and transportation costs from Pennsylvania.
Only to folks with a CDL... they exited the consumer truck business a year or two ago (sold out to Budget).
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
-Stef
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
Maybe.
but the question is can they go to 10 cars permanently?
No. This was tested last year. Trains couldn't maintain the headways they'd need to maintain if they were shortened.
http://www.historychannel.com/global/listings/listings.jsp?NetwCode=THC
19:00 to 19:30 EASTERN ONLY (7 PM)
"CABLE CARS" ... "San Francisco cable cares are artifacts of a bygone era." (CC)
19:30 to 20:00 EASTERN ONLY (7:30 as advertised)
"SUBWAYS" ... "The first U.S. subway opens in 1897 Boston" ...
ROLL TAPE, USE IT OR LOSE IT ... *NO* rerun for the WEST coast at 10PM as usual ... "Big One" which features "A WWII sergeant turns four raw recruits into 1st Infantry sharpshooters." WAY OFF SUBTALK "on topic" to mention further. If you SEE this thread, and ain't already "bagged it" ... well, this is your ONLY shot if you don't already have it ...
Before they dragged those pieces of schnizzit onto the Newark City SUBWAY, those old PCC's were a HELL of a ride. And Beantown's gottem to. STILL in REVENUE SERVICE! Around where I am, a subway car might as well have a damned cowbell on it ... they don't EXIST here. :(
Be grateful, spongeworthy, yada yada yada. Heh.
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
I see that somebody isn't too impressed with NJT's Kinki-Sharyo units? :)
As for the scheduling and speed issues, I can't figure out what's wrong. I've been on HBLR and NCS, and NCS seems to suffer from more operating problems. Various signals have malfunctioned causing the cab signaling and train control to fail. Maybe it's because of the freight connection by Silver Lake.
NCS *is* still a treat to ride. :)
I must be getting old though - I remember when "progress" meant "improvement." Heh.
I agree. IMO The Silver Line (the self-described future of subways) was a let-down. It's just a clean burning articulated bus running on some dedicated street lanes that goes underground in downtown Boston.
I liked how Extreme Engineering emphasized the scale of our subway system and presented it to us, not so much with nostalgia, as with awe and wonder. But, unfortunately the show goes ga-ga over the 63rd Street connector and the East Side Access Project; describing it like some heroic gamble (ie. the building of the IRT, the Dual Contracts, and even the building of the IND). What really annoyed me was the fact that East Side Access is for the LIRR. No mention whatsoever of the Second Avenue Subway.
My choice for the category of "Best Documentary of the New York City Subway System" has to be Subways: Empire Under the Streets. It's entirely devoted to the NYC subways, describes each system (even quoting construction workers on the building of the orginal Queens Blvd and Fulton Street IND), as well as emphasizing the foolishness of tearing down the 3rd and 2nd Avenue els before building a 2nd Ave Subway. I hope A&E or the History Channel plays it again soon.
Here's a link to ShopAETV.com's description of the show
Untrue. The number of receivers you can hook up to the dish is unlimited.
It's actually quite easy - explaining it is the hard part. :)
But hey, if you're all set up and happy (I *love* it, I'll NEVER go for cable EVER again, I'm so happy) then you're cool. But once you've got those receivers and the pizza pan in your possession, if you're a HOMEOWNER, nothing like taking your "in-house TV wiring" and really going to town with it like we did ... and with "Para Todos" there's even a *TRAIN* channel (forget the name) on the "secondary" bird with the various foreign channels and NASA and other amusing things (we went for the SINGLE satellite receiver but are going to go with the "triple view [Para Todos]" once we can afford the upgrade) ... then you have the option of taking the VIDEO and AUDIO outputs, put them on a UHF channel with a Radio Short UHF modulator and build up a system.
Up here where we are, there's a lot of "skip" due to generally weak signals. We've got our locals off an antenna, but that also screws up channels 2 through 23 pretty severely with erratic reception depending on which way the wind's blowing and what part of the nation has big storms. Seeing Cuernavaca on channel 2 only screws things up. So while we have our strong locals, you *CAN'T* watch "channel 3 or 4" as provided by most consumer toys. Thus, we moved all of our receivers, DVD's, VCR's and such up to UHF channels with those toys, so we can trap out VHF entirely (aside from passing through the locals) and this in turn results in EVERY channel looking like it came out of a TV camera. That was the motivation. Not seeing herringbones, square block breakup (digital cable) and generally crappy video made it ALL worth the effort and expense when this country *HAD* an economy. :)
Seen it, pardon me while I hit "Post Message" and cackle. Only way "digital cable" looks OK is if you have a Panasonic VHS deck. :)
Hahahahahah (whoops, lemme hit post) hahahahah ...
But let me step off here and indicate something just so's you know where I'm coming from. I spent most of my life in television from the engineering side. I was also a journalist, on camera reporter, 6 and 11 anchorman. But that doesn't matter here. In 1985, after many years of building studios, cable access facilities and maintaining them (TelePromPter Manhattan cable, ELA, Metro Access, VideoFreex and others) I ended up going to work for the NYS Commission on CableTV which not just regulated, but INSPIRED the cable industry. I was on the ground floor with "Qube" and fiber optic and what became "Digital Cable" ... in 1993, "Paturkey" KILLED the Cable Commission after TimeWeenie bankrolled his campaign. Subscribing to TimeWeenie is ENDORSING Paturkey and Bruno, who benefitted GREATLY from their "deregulation" and reassignment (along with me) to the Public Shafting Commission. Got a phone? Use ConED? Well then, you KNOW what the PSC is worth. :)
But the bottom line is I'm a video, transmission, high voltage and fiberoptic and digital engineer. That is the sum of my LIFE, especially now. I *know* what "good" is, what "acceptable" is and the ONLY reason why "digital cable" is "acceptable" is that the analog service quality people got USED TO was *SO* pitiful, that 6 hour mode VHS looks BETTER.
TV Lines: Broadcast quality output of a TV camera is 600+ TV lines. What this means is that you can draw 600 vertical lines on a chart and the camera can actually SHOW all 600 lines. You can COUNT them. (computer resolution is in pixels, not TV lines, so a REALLY high quality 800x600 monitor resolution (adjacent pixels on or off) can only get you to 300 lines on an 800x600 screen ... TV camera output is TWICE as "resolute" ...
Once encoded into NTSC, owing to filtering, that "resolution" that was once 600 lines out of a camera drops to a MAXIMUM of 330 lines (because you have to leave bandwidth for the color and must FILTER the luminance to leave room - like bandwidth limits on a website) ... BetaMax was able to do 450 if the signal wasn't NTSC, and the full 330 if it was. VHS 2 hour mode does 220 lines, DVD about 420, S-VHS about 300 ... just so you have an idea of the maximum "resolution" POSSIBLE.
Digital Cable is spec'd at 220 or "near VCR quality" ... no thanks. For many people, the absence of graininess and herringbones is ASTONISHING quality, not so for a member of SMPTE like myself (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers) ... one of the reasons why I *LOVE* nycsubway.org is that many of the pictures posted here are *ABOVE* broadcast quality ... now TELL me "digital cable" comes even CLOSE to the quality of the archives here?
Granted, if you're used to REALLY CHITTY cable, digital cable looks great. To those of us who can CALIBRATE the difference, it sucks. Sorry if my karma runs over the dogma, but cable SUCKS. :(
One more time:
My digital cable picture quality is excellent. Sound quality is also excellent. It rivals my in-laws dish in every way.
Either they have a crappier TV or coaxial or composite cables from the receiver into the TV instead of S-Video or component.
What sold me on DirecTV was the availability of DirecTV with TiVo. The only thing better than a TiVo is one that records the all digital bitstream from DirecTV.
Digital cable isn't all digital. All of the channels not part of the digital plan are analog.
Even though I had satellite, I had a cable modem set up. Even though the operator when I was signing up told me that a cable line already ran into the house, they sent an installer anyway. The installer offered to drill holes in my wall and run the cable on the OUTSIDE of my walls. He wouldn't install it on the inside. Luckily the solution was to plug the modem in where the cable entered the house and to see if it connected by looking at the LEDs. I then ran the cabling myself (I wasn't charged for this incident).
Many cable companies give converters without S-Video ports.
True. Only channels above 100 are. Who cares?
In addition to that, Selkirk has posted the other aspects. In order for the signal to be sent through the air or through a coaxial cable, it has to be degraded below what your TV can support. For the most part, digital compression is smarter and either removes duplicate aspects or things not visible to the human eye anyway.
Won't prostheletize then, yeah, AOL's kewl ... really neat - I get everything from Cinemax to Starz and the sports package for under $60 a month from the pizza pan. What's cable getting these days for the same? $120 or has it gone up again? :)
Don't mind me, been feeling REALLY stupid not realizing that we weren't talking the same thing. But I *still* can't fathom why people get cable, unless they have a landlord who's taking cash on the side to PROHIBIT pizza pans (going rate is $30 a month per tenant to shut them out) ... that's WHY your cable bill is what it is ...
I won't bother to explain ... if you've ever seen their movie "Casino", well ... that pretty much explains everything. There's VERY few things on this planet I *despise* ... TWE is one of my bigger ones. I'd rather kiss Newt Gingrich on the lips. :)
When the satellite dish used for the comparison is pointed the wrong way.
The signal strength is at least 85% except on transponder 28 (which is a spot beam for another city, so it's irrelevant).
But DTV's frequencies AREN'T in the water absorption band, so "it bweaks when it wains" is a badly done install. Now filling up with wet snow, that's another thing. A broom (or a dish heater) takes care of THAT. :)
There are three things that effect direct TV signal
2 feet of thick wet snow
Strong lighning
Poorly mounted dish which sways too much in the wind.
Dispite what the cable guys tell ya. The rain itself does not effect the signal.
At a savings over cable of 20%, direct tv is a steal. If you wait for a deal you can also get the dish installed for free in two rooms plus 6 months free of one of thier premium packages
This month a one-year contract I had for a later deal I signed up for is ending. When they raised their prices by $1 earlier this year, they gave me a credit of $1 each remaining month of my contract, however the plan I am using (TotalChoice Plus) costs the same, so their price hike is actually a temporary price drop of $1 a month for me.
Don't you mean Y/Pb/Pr? Or are you talking about something else?
I went to Seacaucus to see Star Wars I digital projection. The cinema there used the TI lightvalve system (others were trying LCDs). I was very impressed by the smoothness of color tone, no jitter at all, and no apparent flicker. Almost enough to make me forgive Jar Jar Binks…
Once the projection equipment comes down in cost, I think film will be well on the way to extinction, and then all we wait for is the home theater version.
Ever wonder why the cable industry is so WHINY about satellite? *NO* comparison - picture quality, reliability, customer service, PRICE. :)
Unfortunately the American TV industry has in general given up quality in favor of quantity, by just about any of the metrics that one could reasonably use to measure quality.
I live in an apartment complex where we’re not allowed to screw dishes on the side of the building, so I have digital cable from Comcast (& a cable modem!). Sometimes you can see artifacts from too much MPEG compression, but the quality of the digital originated sources (eg HBO), is much better than the analog delivery.
John
Many many many years ago, each line had its own color (which made trains easy to spot in the distance) and this would make it possible to consider again. But it must be QUITE confusing for folks on the Lex (green) to see signage in RED (7th Ave) coming at 'em. :)
SUBWAY - The Empire Beneath New York's Streets was produced for A&E Networks by Transit Gloria Mundi Productions, Baltimore, MD. Directed by Carl Schultz.
(or that A&E would put it out on DVD).
If it mentions the demolition of the 2nd and 3rd Avenue el with footage towards the very end, then the video you have should be it.
The details:
Hands on History
Saturday, June 14 @ 7pm ET - Cable Cars
Climb aboard as Ron Hazelton drives a cable car through the streets and history of San Francisco. At a steady rate of 9.5 miles per hour, cable cars travel up and down the steep hills. Each of the 40 cars is a moving museum, an artifact of a bygone era. At one time, more than 35 cities across the globe used cable cars. But today, they only run in San Francisco--the city in which they were born on August 2, 1873. TV G
---
Hands on History
Saturday, June 14 @ 7:30pm ET - Subways
In 1897, a 1.5-mile subway line opened in Boston, Massachusetts, making it the first such form of mass transit in North America. Host Ron Hazelton follows the history of subways throughout the country. He directs subways from a futuristic control room, drives a train through its downtown run, and even gets up close to the treacherous third rail that makes it all possible. TV G
If they're going to do a show on Subways they need not go any further than the NYCT.
R32 - Sea Beach Express
As for the lines it is randon (yeah right). Some never leave their neighborhoods others go everywhere. Within the first 2 months I did all non-OPTO lines except the C. A year and a half later I got the C.
I got to top pay after 14 months, other have been on the road nearly 2 years and still are not even close.
According to the book 'New York City Subway Cars', the r-40's were renumbered downward 100 ( cars ); which subsequently caused the r-40m's to be renumbered upwards by 200. This was done in order to avoid the now renumbered slants.
You see, the original r-40's went from 4350 - 4549; 200 cars. They were renumbered downward 100, and so becoming 4250 - 4449. Hold on! Wait a minute! This causes a direct conflict with the r-40m's who are also numbered from 4250 ( but only to 4349; there were more r-40's than r-40m's ); the solution being to renumber upwards by 200 to avoid the slants altogether being they 200 cars. Basically what they did was swap the 40's and the 40m's to their 'proper' order since they were originally numbered topsy-turvy with the r-40m's coming first in the number sequence even though they were bought later. Although they were always numbered consecutively - one type taking over where the former left off. Get it? I sounds confusing I know.
Now... I think the reason you see the 40m now having the number of a slant 40 is because you're looking at a picture from the 60's, early 70's before renumbering took place.
I think it's so funny, but cool to see the r-40's with the r-38's tailed by r-32's. They had such a car shortage back then. I hope this helps.
R-32.
R40:
Old #/New #
4150-4199 4150-4199
4200-4249 4200-4249
-----------------------------------------------------------------
R40M:
4250-4299 4450-4499
Brake test car numbers* 4500-4549 (see note below)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
R40:
4350-4449 4250-4349
-----------------------------------------------------------------
R40 (A/C):
4450-4549 4350-4449
Some of what would have been the 4300-series R40M had brake test numbers like CB23, AS19 etc. I think some of these cars DID have original numbers in the 4300s, perhaps the first dozen or so of them.
wayne
All that's left now to do is the southbound platform.
I too am surprised they actually removed the "EAST NY" tiles and replaced them with tiles reading "JUNCTION."
wayne
Actually, I believe East Broadway on the F and Broadway-Nassau say "Bway", but I think Broadway-Lafayette spells "Broadway" out, or at least I think it was in the original tiles. Now I know "Broadway is spelled out, and they made the tile band darker (I liked the old light blue color).
It's funny, I'm not a particular fan of IND stations, but I always liked the IND monograms and tile bands. The stations are kind of cool in the monotonous simplicity.
wayne
---Chapter 11 Choo Choo
Flushing line ... which division? IRT, IND or BMT? :)
You'd get far more bang for the buck by building brand new service in Queens, such as the QB "super express" that was supposed to be included when the 63rd St tunnel was built.
If you want to improve capacity on the Flushing Line, it could be done more cheaply with signalling improvements to allow more tph, or even lengthening the platforms to allow 12-car trains. The Flushing Line will never be upgraded to B division.
:-) Andrew
- Convert all stations from Queens Plaza to Main St to B division standards. Station lengthening can proceed with trains still in service. Shaving the platforms wouldn't require a complete shutdown either. This can be done gradually on weekends, with temporary wooden extensions used while IRT trains still operate on the line.
- Run Broadway service on the newly converted line west of Queeensboro Plaza. Close the section from Queensboro Plaza to Times Sq completely. This will require the most effort to convert, especially the river tubes, but won't adversly affect service in Queens. The R train would be diverted to 63rd St so that the entire capacity of the 60th St tubes can serve both Flushing and Astoria.
Of course this plan would still be disruptive, especially to those who use the #7 in LIC, and increased demand for the Times Square shuttle. But it can be done.
I'd hate to see what "not minimized" looks like.
Convert all stations from Queens Plaza to Main St to B division standards. ...and then... Run Broadway service on the newly converted line west of Queeensboro Plaza. Close the section from Queensboro Plaza to Times Sq completely.
There's not enough room on the Broadway Line to take in all of the Flushing trains, in addition to the Broadway trains already there. To say nothing of adding about 1/2 hr to the commutes of people heading to the east side of Manhattan.
Of course this plan would still be disruptive....
Yeah, you could say that! It would be "easier" to build a new tube under 42nd St, and make the Flushing line 3 tracks from end to end. Not that that'll ever happen, but it would sooner happen than what you're proposing.
20 trains for Flushing and 10 for Astoria. Yes, it's a service reduction. I'm not saying I can come up with a plan which would NOT cause some kind of problems. East side Flushing riders would transfer at 59th St. Many Flushing/Broadway transferees at QBP would get a 1-seat ride (temporarily).
I doubt it. Roosevelt is a fairly narrow street. And again, the conversion to 4-track would be prohibitively expensive and disruptive. Again, for the capacity it would add it makes more sense to build additional lines, IMHO anyway.
:-) Andrew
Even the third track doesn't add capacity.
Even though the cost/benefit of this is not totally insane, it's still rather high, and will probably never happen. But it would add capacity. Heck maybe the SAS southern half can be designed so that A and B div can run together (yeah, right). But better than widening the Steinway tubes, right?
Someone mentioned a while back that since the Steinway tubes are made of cast iron, widening would almost be impossible.
Hey I wish the Flushing had a 4th track on the el, that would be so cool but it will never happen but we could dream though :-(.
Close the section from Queensboro Plaza to Times Sq completely. This will require the most effort to convert, especially the river tubes, but won't adversly affect service in Queens.
This is where my idea would come into play. giving the Flushing line more capacity, and the Crosstown line a ride to Manhattan. After conecting the 7 line to the 60th Street tunnel at QP, how about connecting the G Crosstown line to the Steinway Tubes between Vernon and Hunter's Point Ave. The Crosstown Line would then run IRT sized trains, but will be connected to Manhattan. This new line would run between Times Square and Bergen Street Lower Level.
A new station would be built at current junction of the 7 and G line. This new station would connect to the current 7 line Hunters Point station, and a connection between Court House Square and Ely Ave would be made. The section of the 7 between Queens Plaza (at a new platform added) and Hunterspoint Ave would become a shuttle. The current G line between Van Alst and Queens Plaza would be abandoned to passenger (but the track kept open for non revenue moves). Van Alst and Court Square would be abandoned. Van Alst is one of the least used stations in the system anyway, and Court Square won't be necessary either with the G running to Manhattan, and the new connection between the new "shuttle" at Court House Square and Ely Ave.
So in summary we would have:
-A new numbered IRT sized train route (let's say 11 to avoid confusion). The "11" would run between a converted Bergen Street Lower level and Times Square, via the fromer G route. This would prevent express service in Park Slope, but it's running just fine without it anyway. I believe the asset of having direct Manhattan service for the former G line outweighs skipping 3 stations in Brooklyn.
-A new lettered BMT sized train route (let's say "T" for argument's sake). This "T" train would run between Main Street Flushing, and Whitehall Street via the former 7 route in Queens.
-A new "S" between a new LIC-Sunnyside station in Queens, and Queens Plaza via the fragmented portion of the former 7 line.
To clarify this new "Sunnyside-LIC" station, the new station would be on the "11" route connecting to the new shuttle which would use the forme 7 line's Hunter's Point Ave station.
Or I just thought of a variation to this. How about having the new IRT "11" aka former G line terminate on the center tracks at 7th Ave. It would then run on the express tracks, through the lower level Bergen, and then terminate at Times Square.
:-) Andrew
How about Queens and the Second Avenue Subway? Hook it into 63rd instead of 60th. Heck this would probably happen before the southern half of the SAS even gets built!
Now here is the weird part... Have the two local tracks as division A tracks and have the two express tracks as division B tracks. There would have to be a way to adjust clearance between passing trains if the new track (among the three) was converted to B division.
There would be only a few (three?) stations affected by the third track conversion. The express stops. Perhaps 74th st should be converted to express too. It would be weird having B-division express service. With A- division local service. In fact, the B division trains can even come up from Broadway through Queen Plaza so there would not have to be alterations west of the bisection.
Anyway don't be too hard on me, it is only a fantasy, but what do you think about this? Let's not be overly concerned about money in my fantasy.
The problem is, if you pretend money is no object, then the universe of desirable transit fantasies becomes infinite. Without money as a factor, then practically no system expansion is ever bad: we can just build them all!
Add two tubes to the Steinway tunnel and add two tracks up to Queens Plaza. Then where the Flushing becomes three tracks, add one track (perhaps above the three tracks).
Now here is the weird part... Have the two local tracks as division A tracks and have the two express tracks as division B tracks.
If you'll allow practicality to make a slight intrusion, it would be better to keep the whole line as A Division, as there is more routing flexibility that way.
How? You're not losing any flexibility. The A div trains can still fit on the B div tracks if neccessary, just the B div trains can't run on the A div tracks.
Well, the inability to route B div trains onto the A div tracks is a loss of flexibility.
Also, while A div trains can operate on B div tracks, they can't stop at A div stations, as the car floor would be an unsafe distance from the platform edge.
- Converting to B division is a 19% increase in capacity (over the current 11 car trains) and requires widening the Steinway tube or some other major reroute.
- Lengthening all platforms to 12 A division cars is a 9% increase in capacity and is far simpler than widening the Steinway tube.
- Increase tph from 28 to 36 once CBTC is fully installed and tested is a 29% increase in capacity, and can be done in addition to either of the above.
The 2nd and 3rd capacity increases provide a lot more bang for the buck, and a lot less disruption, than the first.
There is plenty of unused capacity on the Flushing Line. They currently operate 28 tph (14 tph exp, 7 tph loc Main St and 7 tph loc 111th St). The used to operate 36 tph (18 tph exp, 6 loc Main St, 6 loc Willets Pt and 6 loc 111th St). They operated such service for nearly 25 years with R12/14/15's and R33/36's, until the 1970's fiscal crisis. The operated such service with 9, 10 and 11 cars per train.
On 13 April 2002, the TA demonstrated that they no longer have the organizational ability to operate Flushing Line service at greater than current levels. It ain't the signals.
--Andrew
I did not refer to the Main St renovation. It did not reduce capacity. However, it makes increasing capacity much more difficult.
One interesting note is that the TA bore the entire cost of the renovation. It did not even apply for federal funding because they knew that the FTA would reject the project because of its design.
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
The track layout and bumper locations have not changed since the early 1950's. There was a wall at the east end of the station. The wall was knocked down for the fare control area at platform level. Two stairways from each platform to the mezzanine level were removed. Four stairways from the mezzanine to the street were removed. The remaining stairways were replaced. The present stairways are twice as long as the original stairways.
Track lengths prior to the early 1950's renovation could hold only 9-car trains. The two platforms were connected to each other behind the bumpers. The tracks were extended 100 feet and the connection between the two platforms were removed in the early 1950's.
1. the federal funding mentioned by Stephen Bauman.
2. it costs less (how much less?) to operate a train line than bus service of the same magnitude over identical distances.
What happened on that date?
No.
If need be, the R142/A will probably be fitted with it and who can't ignore that future IRT rolling stock will have it.
Even the R-142s are not cbtc ready.
See above.
How would cbtc help anything? Do you know what CBTC is? It's a technology that would allow trains to be closee to another but still maintain safe distances, much better than the current block system allows. This ultimately leads to more TPH.
Do you know what CBTC is? It's a technology that would allow trains to be closee to another but still maintain safe distances, much better than the current block system allows. This ultimately leads to more TPH.
But as Stephen Bauman pointed out (cryptically, I must admit), there are also management issues that need to be addressed to get more than 28 tph. Trains have to be timed very precisely; otherwise you won't get proper throughput at terminals and merges.
So, better management with current signaling could probably allow more trains than currently. Better signaling without better management probably wouldn't allow any improvement. Better management AND better signaling probably would allow even more trains.
There never were any tail tracks at Main St.
I don't know who to believe. I wish there were pictures of what the track layout was at Main.
I seem to recall trains could come into the terminal faster than they do now. Maybe that is why I convinced myself that tail tracks must have been present.
Yes.
It's a technology that would allow trains to be closee to another but still maintain safe distances, much better than the current block system allows. This ultimately leads to more TPH.
No!!!
Safe distances are determined by the distance it takes a train to come to a complete stop and the distance from a train to the one in front of it. The signal system does not enter into the equation.
The BRT used a conventional block signal system on the Brooklyn Bridge that permitted 66 tph operation between Park Row and Sands St. This is 50% more capacity than any existing or proposed CBTC system.
Uhh, I believe that, in the spirit of the time when the BBS was king, if you throw it up onto the board, everyone's listening and everyone can answer. In one sense there is no "I" on this board. There's just me and "All You Zombies".
But it does. The distance the following train needs to keep depends on its speed and its distance from the lead train. A block signal system uses only some of the data on the position of the two trains in question, and no data on speed.
- In a block system, the position of the lead train is only approximated. There is no difference whether the last few feet of the train are in a particular block, or the whole train. This difference can be reduced with smaller blocks, but smaller blocks cost more and aren't usually used.
- In a block system, the speed of the following train is irrelevant to the amount of space it must leave. Yes, block signals can demand that a train slow down. But they don't say: it's OK for you to go 45 mph here, but if you do you need to leave more space than if you go 20 mph.
So in theory, block systems could allow the same spacing as CBTC. In practice, a current NYCT block system will not allow as close spacing at full speed as a PROPERLY DESIGNED AND TESTED CBTC system.
This is not to say that NYCT's CBTC will be properly designed and tested. They have the potential to screw it up.
Not true. Timers that start when a train enters one block can control the aspect of the next block (in addition to occupancy ahead). The net result is to ensure that a train is going below a maximum speed.
- In a block system, the position of the lead train is only approximated. There is no difference whether the last few feet of the train are in a particular block, or the whole train.
There is also uncertainty with regard to the position of a train in a CBTC system. Position is usually determined by dead reckoning with some form of correction at fixed points. The sensors count the revolutions of the drive wheel. The nominal wheel diameter is 34 inches. Suppose the actual diameter differs by 1/8". This is an error of 0.36% or 190 feet for every 10 miles travelled. The second source of positional uncertainty for a CBTC system is the maximum tolerated communications latency. Most systems tolerate a 1 second delay on each transmission. Consider a train were travelling at a maximum speed of 75 ft/sec (50 mph). The train will transmit its "state" to the central computer in 1 second and receive a command in additional second. Therefore, the system must assume a maximum delay of 2 seconds or 150 feet travelled before an emergency brake kicks in for lost communications. Thus, the CBTC system must assume a suitable cushion which is equivalent to the quantization error for a block system.
- In a block system, the speed of the following train is irrelevant to the amount of space it must leave. Yes, block signals can demand that a train slow down. But they don't say: it's OK for you to go 45 mph here, but if you do you need to leave more space than if you go 20 mph.
Consider the real world. If there were no stations, then the spacing between trains going 75 ft/sec at 40 tph would be 6750 feet. Most block lengths are in the 1000-1200 foot range between stations. Trains get close to one another only as they are approaching stations. The NYCT signals have taken advantage of this fact by decreasing the block length at station approaches. This reduces the positional uncertanty where it is important. At some stations, e.g. 125th and 59th on the Lex, they have dual signals within the station. These signals will go from red to a timer and then to a yellow aspect depending how far the train has left the station. Yes, the following train can enter the station at 40 mph or be told to slow down to 20 mph, if there is not sufficient stopping distance beyond the station.
The ability to place complexity where it is needed is one of a block system's economic advantages. A CBTC system must be to handle the worst case, communications-wise, regardless of context.
In practice, a current NYCT block system will not allow as close spacing at full speed as a PROPERLY DESIGNED AND TESTED CBTC system.
Actually, the current NYCT block system is pretty good. As I mentioned above, operating between stations at full speed is not a critical problem. The problem is at the stations. The NYCT system is uses block lengths in the 100-200 range for station approaches.
This is not to say that NYCT's CBTC will be properly designed and tested. They have the potential to screw it up.
They have not defined what a successful CBTC installation would be in terms of train speed and service levels. Therefore they have not defined what a screw up would be considered. :-)
A train in BIE can decelerate at at least 4 ft/sec^2, right?
So given v^2 = 2ad, the distance you need even if the next train is stopped is only 75x75/8 = 703'.
Why the extra 6000 feet of margin for error? I could understand 1000 extra feet. But 6000 feet?
Trains are operating on a headway of 90 seconds (40 tph). An observer is at a fixed point. The first train comes along at time T = 0 and continues travelling at 75 ft/sec. The second train comes to the same point 90 seconds later (T = 90). How far has the first train travelled?
s = v x t = 75 ft/sec x 90 sec = 6750 ft.
No, it's the separation one would get, if trains were released every 90 seconds. I'm assuming uniform headways - (0, 90, 180, 270,...) not (0, 45, 225, 270,...). It's the function of the train supervision system to maintain proper headways, not the signal system. NYCT has a very crude supervision system (holding lights). Systems that approach or exceed 40 tph use the latest in 16th century technology - clocks.
If there are uniform headways, then train separation will be 6750 feet, if the trains are operating at 75 ft/sec. How close will the get, if station dwell time is 30 seconds and both acceleration and braking rates are 4 ft/sec2? N.B. one of the charms of NYCT is that service braking rate is 3.2 mph/sec (4.7 ft/sec2) whereas emergency braking rate is 3.0 mph/sec (4.4 ft/sec2).
As you noted it will take 703 feet and 18.75 sec for the train to stop. Let x = 0 be the front of the station and let T = 0 be the time that the leader is 703 feet from the front of the station and beginning to brake.
At T = 0 the leader will be at x = -703, travelling at 75 ft/sec and the follower will be at x = -7453, travelling at 75 ft/sec. The distance between the trains is 6750 feet.
At T = 18.75 the leader will be at x = 0, travelling at 0 ft/sec and the follower will be at x = -6046.75, travelling at 75 ft/sec. The distance between trains will be 6046.75 feet.
At T = 48.75 the leader will still be at x = 0, travelling at 0 ft/sec and the follower will be at x = -3796.75, travelling at 75 ft/sec. The distance between trains will be 3796.75 feet.
At T = 67.5 the leader will be at x = 703, travelling at 75 ft/sec and the follower will be at x = -2390.5, travelling at 75 ft/sec. The distance between trains will be 3093.5 feet.
At T = 90 the leader will be at x = 2390.5, travelling at 75 ft/sec and the follower will be at x = -703, travelling at 75 ft/sec. The distance between trains will be 3093.5 feet.
At T = 108.75 the leader will be at x = 3796.75, travelling at 75 ft/sec and the follower will be at x = 0, travelling at 0 ft/sec. The distance between trains will be 3796.75 feet.
At T = 138.75 the leader will be at 6046.75, travelling at 75 ft/sec and the follower will be at x = 0, travelling at 0 ft/sec. The distance between trains will be 6046.75 feet.
At T = 157.5 the leader will be at 7453, travelling at 75 ft/sec and the follower will be at 703 feet travelling at 75 ft/sec. The distance between trains will be 6750 feet.
1. Can you better define "organizational ability"?
2. Has the time for a trip, say, the express run from Times Square to Main Street remained constant? If not, then what has the change been?
3. Has the minimum distance between trains at all points remained (significantly) the same since the decrease in service? If not, then what has the change been? In terms of signalling, I guess the question would be, has the number of blocks separating trains remained the same, i.e., are those safety standards constant? This is prompted by the reported changes the MTA made following the 1990s that they were bringing to "modern standards" the distance between trains.
4. On that last point of "modern standards" of safety I admit to some confusion. The reasoning as I understand it (which may be wrong) is that trains are heavier and take longer to stop than they once did. On the former, though, trains seem to be lighter than they were (the NTSB report for instance that the MTA purports to rely on in making a long term change to CBTC mentions that in the late-1960s a prime design requirement of trains was that they be lightweight). I cannot wite on the latter, although I would be (somewhat) surprised to learn that braking had not improved any in over fifty years (IIRC, they used the R-1 or R-10 or some other like model to establish the mean distance between signals, which is they say, too low for today's faster, slower to stop and heavier trains to consistently meet). Can anyone explain what seems like a paradox?
I was interested to see what the TA's simulated 30tph operation
would be. I witnessed this mornings simulation of a morning rush
hour. I also witnessed a couple this past week to establish a
baseline. I figured that any organization that currently does not
know how frequent their past service was might not know what its
present service is. I know the figure is not 24 tph based on TA
press releases proclaiming 29 and 30 tph operation over the past
couple of years.
There are about 5 key locations that should be monitored
simultaneously. I chose to observe Manhattan bound traffic at
111th St. This permitted me to observe the operation of both
express and local operation in sufficient detail. Service is
divided into express and local service with a merge at 33rd St.
This is a 1:1 merge (equal service both the local and express).
Local service is further divded at 111th St with half the locals
originating and terminating at this station. The remainder of
locals and all the expresses originate at Main St. I am assuming
that no morning trains originate or terminate at Willets Pt.
The steady state rush hour starts with the first express at 6:40
and ends around 8:47, when the last 111th St local enters
service. This is a period of roughly 2 hours. The round trip time
is slightly over 1 hour, so most trains make 2 round trips.
I recorded the arrival times for all trains from Main St. I
recorded both the arrival time and the time of the dispatcher's
signal for the 111th St locals.
The current TA timetable lists the difference in running time
between the local and express as 6 minutes. An older timetable
showed a 5 1/2 minute difference. This means that both the local
and express should leave 111th St at the same time to avoid
merging conflicts at 33rd St for 30 tph operation. They did not
do this which makes me believe that there was a fair amount of
merging problems at 33rd St.
It would appear that many of operating personnel were not
familiar with this line. Four conductors of the 15 111th St
locals did not wait for the dispatcher signal before closing the
doors. Another of the 111th St locals did not open its doors for
3 1/2 minutes after its arrival and did not open until 3 minutes
after the dispatcher's bell sounded. This snafu did elicit a lot
of motion on the part of the many TA personnel that were on the
platform. I did not notice any 111th St local leaving early
during the previous days' obervations.
One major problem with the 30 tph operation is that they ran out
of trains around 8:30. This increased the gap to the extent that
two locals from Main St skipped 111th St. This resulted in
intervals between trains of 14 and 16 minutes. There was a single
non-stop incident on Friday. This resulted in an interval of 11
minutes.
It is extremely difficult to do any number crunching without an
accurate published schedule. It is also extremely unlikely that
it is followed, if it were available. The dispatcher's clock at
Main St does not show seconds. It was off by 10 seconds from NIST
time. (I do set my watch to an NIST standard before taking
readings).
I have done some elementary number crunching. I've taken a moving
window of the number of Manhattan bound trains that passed 111th
St from 6:50 to 9 AM. I've moved the window in 1 minute steps.
I've chosen 3 widths for this window: 1 hour; 30 minutes and 15
minutes. I've taken the average for these windows to come up with
a single service level count. I've also taken the max and min.
I've used the arrival times for the trains that originated at
Main St and the dispatcher's bell for the 111th St trains. The
results are as follows: for previous 11-car operation for the 1
hour window the (avg[eff 1 hr rate], max, min) are: (25.61, 28,
23). For the 30 minute window: (12.68[25.36], 14, 11) and for the
15 minute window: (6.33[25.32], 8, 4). For 10-car operation and
"increased service levels" the same results are: (28.06, 31, 24),
(13.65[27.3], 16, 9), (6.66[26.64], 10, 4). N.B. these figures
calculated assuming that the trains that skipped stops did stop.
What is striking is the increased variability with the attempt at
30 tph operation. One should expect a deviation of only +/- 2
(express and locals leaving at same time). The fact that they ran
40 tph for 1/4 hour when one should be operating only 30 tph
means that people were leaving too soon. This may have
contributed to the train shortage 1 hour later. N.B. decreased
variability is required for increased service levels.
Was an equivalent amount of service provided with 10-car trains?
Passengers are effected by the system's performance during the
last quarter hour or less. The effective number of cars/hr for
11-car operation was 6.33 x 4 x 11 = 278.52. The effective number
of cars/hr for 10-car operation was: 6.66 x 4 x 10 = 266.4. for a
declne of 4.4%.
I would definitely catagorize the delay of nearly 6 minutes in getting operating personnel to operate a departing train to be part of the TA's lack of operational ability. There were about 5 supervisors on the Flushing bound platform There weren't any on the platform where the trains were supposed to leave for Manhattan.
2. Has the time for a trip, say, the express run from Times Square to Main Street remained constant? If not, then what has the change been?
When the R33-36's were introduced both express and local running times were reduced about 3 minutes. The local became 30 minutes and the express was down to 25 minutes.
3. Has the minimum distance between trains at all points remained (significantly) the same since the decrease in service? If not, then what has the change been? In terms of signalling, I guess the question would be, has the number of blocks separating trains remained the same, i.e., are those safety standards constant? This is prompted by the reported changes the MTA made following the 1990s that they were bringing to "modern standards" the distance between trains.
There has been no significant change in the signal system, since it was installed in the early 1950's until the 2002 test.
4. On that last point of "modern standards" of safety I admit to some confusion. The reasoning as I understand it (which may be wrong) is that trains are heavier and take longer to stop than they once did.
First off, we are talking about the same 40 year old equipment. You will have to ask the TA, why both old and new equipment takes longer to stop (time and distance) than the prewar fleet, including the D-types, which were the system's heaviest.
On the former, though, trains seem to be lighter than they were (the NTSB report for instance that the MTA purports to rely on in making a long term change to CBTC mentions that in the late-1960s a prime design requirement of trains was that they be lightweight).
The reason for wanting lightweight equipment is to reduce the amount of power required to propel them. This translates into lower operating costs because of reduced electrical demands.
I cannot wite on the latter, although I would be (somewhat) surprised to learn that braking had not improved any in over fifty years (IIRC, they used the R-1 or R-10 or some other like model to establish the mean distance between signals, which is they say, too low for today's faster, slower to stop and heavier trains to consistently meet). Can anyone explain what seems like a paradox?
Actually the R10 was the first trainset that reduced emergency braking capability.
FWIW, the best emergency braking capabilities were on the prewar Bluebirds, which used track brakes as one of its 3 braking systems. The BIE was 7 mph/sec or more than double today's klunkers.
As I understand it, the distance between signal blocks must be such that emrgency braking would bring the train to a safe stop before it ran into ts leader. Accordingly, if emergency braking were improved, then I figure (am I wrong?) that more tph could be run. The question remaining or at least the one concerning me now, is of whether or not improving emergency braking would be cheaper than installation of a cbtc system, and what the respective increases in service per dollar spent on each (as well as how quickly these options could be implemented) option would be.
Or maybe this approach has some fallacy in it that others have seen and tus declined to follow. If this is so, it escapes my notice.
The prewar Bluebirds were essentially PCC's with regard to propulsion and braking packages. Anybody dismissing track brakes for emergency braking is up against nearly 70 years of history with more than 5000 units field tested.
As I understand it, the distance between signal blocks must be such that emrgency braking would bring the train to a safe stop before it ran into ts leader. Accordingly, if emergency braking were improved, then I figure (am I wrong?) that more tph could be run.
Yes, you are wrong. The capacity limit is set by station stops. Service braking, not emergency braking rates, determine throughput at stations. This places the practical limit in the 40-42 tph range for reasonable values of braking, acceleration and dwell time. Service braking rates and acceleration rates of 4.0 mph/sec have been safely used on the PCC trolleys for almost 70 years.
I have noted that they used to operate 90 tph on the Brooklyn Bridge between Park Row and Sands St. They were not immune to the dwell time constraints. They had two tracks at each station in each direction. Trains alternated between the tracks - so that each track handled only 45 tph. However, nobody is proposing doubling the size of each station once CBTC is installed.
The question remaining or at least the one concerning me now, is of whether or not improving emergency braking would be cheaper than installation of a cbtc system, and what the respective increases in service per dollar spent on each (as well as how quickly these options could be implemented) option would be.
Almost anything is cheaper than NYCT's CBTC system. However, no CBTC system will increase capacity. It's determined by braking, acceleration and dwell time. CBTC doesn't change these one bit.
What cannot accomodate B Div equipment is the Steinway Tunnel system (the "S" curves west of the bridge, the tunnel and the tracks into Times Square.
My plan is to Bring the (R) train out to Main Street on the Flushing Line. Of course there is NO WAY (here or elsewhere) that this service can even begin to supply the capacity that these neighborhoods require until AFTER the Northern Boulevard Subway is built. (See my Myrtle-Fifth Avenue Subway plans for details.)
Once this is built, the needs of service on the Flushing Line will be altered so that it will be well withing the capacity of the (R) train running on Broadway via the 60th Street Tunnel.
The Times Square - Steinway lines will then then be connected to a new service running on the LIE ROW and making stops at several large park and ride facilities to be built at stretegic points. Some of the trains will continue via the Montauk Line and thence south on the Rockaway line to the Rockaways, replacing all (A) service to the Rockaways. [All (A) service will be extended along Liberty Avenue, thence bending northward on Supthin Boulevard to a terminal perpendicular to Hillside Avenue.
Now go raise me the money, and I'll build the subways for you!
: ) Elias
That's some forward thinking, man. And it truly is something that is needed. That is, the installation of new transit service along the Horace Harding Expressway corridor. Maybe 30 years ago the question of what such a service would do to the neighborhoods was valid. Now though, after years of fill in development, increasing population density, and a more urban feel to that stretch, some type of rail transit would be a fitting development.
But what form could it take? A subway? I don't know about that one. What could the design be, a tunnel under both service roads sounds expensive. I have never heard of that design ever being built. A subway on only one service road? Kind of an awkward configuration. Widen the main highway to incorporate a surface rail line? Pretty expensive too. Have you ever seen any drawings of the proposed service?
In the peak hour it's running 15 Es, 15 Fs, 10 Rs, 10 Vs. They could probably squeeze in a few more Vs and Rs, but they aren't that packed to begin with. They can't squeeze in more Es and Fs without radical and/or expensive changes.
About a year ago the News claimed rush hour Es and Fs were at slightly below 100% of official capacity.
I would guess BMT, since the #7 is isolated from the mainline IRT and has a physical connection to the BMT.
Oh BTW, in case if you didn't know, when the IRT Dyre Ave. line opened in 1941 using surplus wooden IRT gate cars and salvaged signals from scrapped BMT "els", the line was run as the IND Division. Imagine that.
Bill "Newkirk"
And yeah, knew about the Dyre, found that amusing as well. Once the connection was done to E 180, that changed. Although it should be amusing to see what transpires if the SAS ever gets built, and THEN extended into the Bronx. Pelham or Dyre could become B division. =)
That makes sense, the BMT Broadway subway is considered Southern Division. What prize do I get for figuring that out, some vintage ballast rocks from the Sea Beach Line !!
Bill "Newkirk"
I hear you. To this day the J always seemed like my "home line". Maybe it was my exposure to Jamaica in the late 50s' and early 60s. And I've always felt it's an el that runs through the most varied stretch of city landscape. Plus, it passed right by Jamaica Station; it was always fun to watch for the el trains from the LIRR as you approached Jamaica from the east.
And the service is pretty good for all the complaints. Probably second citywide, regarding el train service, to the Flushing IRT. Also, it's probably the closest a subway line can get to emulating a typical commuter railroad, i.e., after running a long route it ends up "terminating" in one specific section of the city. No continuing on through the CBD. No mixing and matching with adjacent routes. This train's headed for downtown thank you very much. Something about that I like.....
-William A. Padron
I too lament the homogenization of the different station names within the "complex" there. Why would the T.A. want to do that? Whatever station I ever had to use there, I always thought of it as "East New York". But I liked the idea of the competing lines choosing other names for their respective stations. Guess it's too complicated for non railfans.
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
R44 A Train Express #5383
R38 A Train Express #4000
Broad"WAS" is rather appropriate... I'm not sure about Easy NY though.
So I went back up to street level, only to find about two-thousand people packed onto Roosevelt Ave. waiting for a Q48, and no Q48 in sight. Riiiiiiiiiight. Like hell I was going to stand there for an hour to wait for a damn bus! So I walked down Roosevelt Ave. to the Willets Pt. station, which took about half an hour. A lot of people had the same idea, and they were not pleased. I was exhausted by the time I got to Willets Pt., and the R-62A that was parked there was already packed with people. So I pushed myself in and roughed it the whole way. Not what I would call a good trip on the 7. And I sure hope they fixed that signal problem FAST, because it was almost rush hour.
Do any pictures exist of the intact mezzanine before it flooded?
David
to whom?
the Tunnels will be wired for Cell Phones after all.Its seems the next radio contract might just be with Nextel.The theory is they wire the tunnels TA gets use of 2 way radio or Direct connect.Its a win win for both companies.Nextel gets its customers added usage on trains,and gets to charge roaming fees to phones other than Nextel.
Nope. Nextel's system uses a technology that no other mobile carrier serving our area uses, Motorola iDEN. Not only are the technologies incompatible, but Nextel is not licensed to provide service on any band that any non-Nextel phone can find service on.
[Also note that the annoying push-to-talk feature now exclusive to Nextel will soon be available from other carriers as well.]
Mark
The star ledger had an interesting article concerning using wireless technology to enhance communications for use by emergency services
"WiNSeC aims to ensure that communications never again are disrupted as they were on Sept. 11, 2001. The Twin Towers collapse wiped out telephone switching gear and callers overwhelmed mobile networks"
http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/business-4/1055225658272350.xml?starledger?b
The only thing edifying I find about this is that the MTA will have a stake in the potential profits for this....will they?
Is there a limit for the number of engines a train can have? I've only seen either two or four pulling a train. Can you have an odd number of locos?
There are days where we can have up to four trains an hour passing by, some days, I only see two trains all day. Are there busy days and slow days for the railroad? I would have guessed that traffic would be somewhat constant.
I've seen many Union Pacific trains using the CSX tracks. Do other freight companies have to book in advance with the owner of the tracks or do they just use them as they need to, with payment made after the fact?
I've seen some CSX trains where you have an engine that isn't a CSX engine. One engine was white and just read "Leased to Oakway, Inc." What is Oakway and why was it part of a CSX train? I have also seen a loco that just read in large letters, "HXCL." Does anyone know anything about this
How do freight companies keep track of their cars? I've seen a variety of cars, like from CN, CP, SF, UP, and Conrail. It almost seems like there is just a large pool of cars and companies just use whatever is lying around. Do freight companies get paid for letting other companies use their cars?
I've seen some cars of bought out freight companies, Like Burlington Northern (now SF) and Chicago Northwestern System. Who now owns CNW?
On coal trains, all the Conrail cars have "NYC" written on them. Does this mean New York City, or does it stand for something else?
Can the engineers control the grade crossings? There is one crossing just north of our site and sometimes trains will stop just short of the crossing and the gates come up until it's time for the train to move. What triggers the gates?
How come I never see Conrail cars on NS trains? Did CSX buy them all? Same with engines, I only see Conrail on CSX, while NS only uses their own locos.
That's all for now, I'll probably think of more questions later.
answer:
odd or even no differece, there is no physical limit some company's however have rule that only 24 consegutive tractionmotors can be online.
There are days where we can have up to four trains an hour passing by, some days, I only see two trains all day. Are there busy days and slow days for the railroad? I would have guessed that traffic would be somewhat constant.
answer:
not all the time, it depends on what kind of traffic the line has and its online customers.
I've seen many Union Pacific trains using the CSX tracks. Do other freight companies have to book in advance with the owner of the tracks or do they just use them as they need to, with payment made after the fact?
answer:
you saw a CSX train powered by UP runtrough power.
it was however most likely a CSX train with CSX crew.
I've seen some CSX trains where you have an engine that isn't a CSX engine. One engine was white and just read "Leased to Oakway, Inc." What is Oakway and why was it part of a CSX train? I have also seen a loco that just read in large letters, "HXCL." Does anyone know anything about this
answer: yes those are Lease locomotives , any one can leae an engine from them
How do freight companies keep track of their cars? I've seen a variety of cars, like from CN, CP, SF, UP, and Conrail. It almost seems like there is just a large pool of cars and companies just use whatever is lying around. Do freight companies get paid for letting other companies use their cars?
Answer: they are tracked by Computer and yes the owner gets compensated.
I've seen some cars of bought out freight companies, Like Burlington Northern (now SF) and Chicago Northwestern System. Who now owns CNW?
Answer : I believe Union Pacific
On coal trains, all the Conrail cars have "NYC" written on them. Does this mean New York City, or does it stand for something else?
Answer: when Conrail was split, the cars had to be temporary split without absorbing them into CSX or NS, so they were lettered NYC for CSX future cars (based on New York Central name owned by CSX) the NS cars were temporary lettered PRR for Pennsy name NS now owns.
Can the engineers control the grade crossings? There is one crossing just north of our site and sometimes trains will stop just short of the crossing and the gates come up until it's time for the train to move. What triggers the gates?
Answer: track circuits and predictor circuits.
some crossings have to be activated by buttons or short Island Circuits only.
How come I never see Conrail cars on NS trains? Did CSX buy them all? Same with engines, I only see Conrail on CSX, while NS only uses their own locos.
answer: most Conrail locomotives are repainted already except for older power.
Your friend is wrong. Conrail didn't have any trackage in Georgia. More than likely it is trackage owned by one of the railroads, where the other has trackage rights; less likely but still reasonably possible is that it is jointly owned trackage or trackage where one RR owns the north/eastbound track and the other RR owns the south/westbound track but the operations are jointly dispatched.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
It could be that the number of trains passing a site is constant in a day, but that the trains will pass at all hours of the day, depending upon how that day goes. Mind if I ask how long you are usually on the job site? My experience living next to the CNW-NW line was that a quiet night meant that there was a chance that the next day would be full of daytime freights, while a bunch of freights rumbling through at night either meant the day before had been pretty empty, or that the day after would be pretty dry. Yes traffic does change, but at the same time not all trains operate M-F, some may only run once a week, while others have multiple runs per day or something.
I've seen some cars of bought out freight companies, Like Burlington Northern (now SF) and Chicago Northwestern System. Who now owns CNW?
I hope you are refering to BNSF and not ATSF as buying out Burlington Northern, because I can assure you that ATSF definiately did NOT buy out Burlington Northern, in fact quite the opposite. And Oscar Meyer hot dot lines bought out C&NW, then slapped their gaudy yellow hot dog labels all over the granger green and yellow, disgusting. My understanding is that the cars don't have to be repainted right away, or at least for a good long while, the buying railroad bought the reporting marks for the bought out railroad, so the equipment can stay in whatever marks it once was in. The seeming exception to this was the Conrail buyout, where all equipment either became NYC or PRR, as Jaap said.
How come I never see Conrail cars on NS trains? Did CSX buy them all? Same with engines, I only see Conrail on CSX, while NS only uses their own locos.
I've noticed this too, nearly every CSX freight up here has at least one Conrail unit on it (that could just be CSAO's blue units screwwing with me, but I dunno), while NS is usually all mo-no-tone black. I assumed that CSX and NS would each get the same number of locomotives out of Conrail, but that may not have been the case. Perhaps CSX got more locos while NS got more railcars, routes and a few higher horsepower locomotives (like the SD80MACs). Or perhaps it might just be that NS is faster at repainting their recieved units (they got the Juniata engine shops, right?), so you are seeing Conrail units, they're just already repainted.
Not true, CSX and NS split Conrail I think something like 42%-58%, with CSX getting the larger share. Because they ponied up different amounts of $, they got different amount of assets, and sorting out the assets was a big mess, especially when both usually wanted the same things.
Yes, I meant SF as in Santa Fe. I just now found out that the real name of the company is BNSF and not just SF.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Yes, one is odd and many trains just have one loco. To fully answer your question, if you have trains back to back you never have to turn them or run long hood forward. Its like a married pair in the subways. This is why non-Amtrak elephant style running is a railfan event.
Yes, one is odd and many trains just have one loco. To fully answer your question, if you have trains back to back you never have to turn them or run long hood forward. Its like a married pair in the subways. This is why non-Amtrak elephant style running is a railfan event.
How do freight companies keep track of their cars? I've seen a variety of cars, like from CN, CP, SF, UP, and Conrail. It almost seems like there is just a large pool of cars and companies just use whatever is lying around. Do freight companies get paid for letting other companies use their cars?
There is some real complicated system that sort of works like the internet packet passage agreements. The system generally acts upon the good faith of its participants to simply return the cars back to their home road w/o having to get all picky about payments and stuff. Same with bad orders and minour maintainence. However some roads, usually shortlines, have been known to abuse the system and "steal" cars. Back in the PC days one SL was found to be repainting the cars in their colours.
I've seen some cars of bought out freight companies, Like Burlington Northern (now SF) and Chicago Northwestern System. Who now owns CNW?
UP bought CNW a number of years ago.
I've seen many Union Pacific trains using the CSX tracks. Do other freight companies have to book in advance with the owner of the tracks or do they just use them as they need to, with payment made after the fact?
Are you sure it was a UP train? Many trains have "run through" engines. Unline cars there is a detailed system of "horsepower hours" that must be balanced. If the train was UP and had trackage rights, UP would need to schedule its train with CSX or else risk, if the agreement even allowed it, having to wait hours for a gap. CSX is paid usually by the car*mile for trackage rights trains. All payment is made after the fact under this system.
On coal trains, all the Conrail cars have "NYC" written on them. Does this mean New York City, or does it stand for something else?
The car is owned by the New York Central LLC, a wholey owned Subsiduary of CSX created as a holding company for all the Conrail assets. NYC is the New York Central's reporting marks.
I've seen some CSX trains where you have an engine that isn't a CSX engine. One engine was white and just read "Leased to Oakway, Inc." What is Oakway and why was it part of a CSX train? I have also seen a loco that just read in large letters, "HXCL." Does anyone know anything about this
Welcome to the wolderful world of equipment leasing. Most locomotived are leased, not bought. Longer term leases (like 20 years) usually have the leasee paint the unit in their own colours. Short term leases (used for temporary gluts of traffic) are made from a host of specially lease companies that handle them. They come painted in the colours of the leasing outfit. You know its a non-operating lease company's engine because the reporting marks end in X. I think that HLCX is Hutchler (or something like that) and is pretty popular. CSX also uses a bunch of locomotives owned by First Union Bank marked FRUX and painted St. Paddies green and grey.
Can the engineers control the grade crossings? There is one crossing just north of our site and sometimes trains will stop just short of the crossing and the gates come up until it's time for the train to move. What triggers the gates?
This has been explained before in detail on Subtalk. It is either a lineside box with a switch or an innovative use of trak circuts and timers.
How come I never see Conrail cars on NS trains? Did CSX buy them all? Same with engines, I only see Conrail on CSX, while NS only uses their own locos.
First, NS has been better about repainting its accquired fleet than CSX. Second, the NS line you work near might be a original NS line and not a Conrail accuired line. The Conrail accuired lines use a different set of operating rules with such things as cab signals, so most of the former CR locomotives remain on the former Conrail system where their cab signals are needed.
There are days where we can have up to four trains an hour passing by, some days, I only see two trains all day. Are there busy days and slow days for the railroad? I would have guessed that traffic would be somewhat constant.
Many shipments, such as unit coal/oil trains or manifest freight do not operate on a daily or consistant basis. Coal trains can operate every 3 days, manifest freight can run every 2 or 4. Some days the you'll have the schedules match up and get a flow, other days you won't.
NS used to run long hood forward for crew protection, until a wreck in Michigan with Conrail when it was still Conrail (at a diamond) and they were told by FRA not to do so anymore. The wreck was: NS locomotive long hood forward, trainee engineer, two supervisors reading books while they were "supervising", trainee engineer misses signal, run into the middle of a Conrail train on the diamond.
How do freight companies keep track of their cars? I've seen a variety of cars, like from CN, CP, SF, UP, and Conrail. It almost seems like there is just a large pool of cars and companies just use whatever is lying around. Do freight companies get paid for letting other companies use their cars?
Yes, it is called a per-diem rate. It is very expensive, more expensive than using your own cars. This is why if say NS and BNSF have a coal contract that goes on both properties, NS will fight to have them use NS cars and BNSF will fight to have them use BNSF cars. Nowadays coal contracts are structured so that the shipper own the bathtubs, for instance, there are cars stencilled for DEEX (Detroit Edison Electric Corp). The keep track of those cars with a system run by the AAR -- the name of which escapes me right now. Maintenance is also governed by AAR rules (known as AAR interchange field manual).
Same with bad orders and minour maintainence. However some roads, usually shortlines, have been known to abuse the system and "steal" cars.
The scam doesn't usually involve stealing cars, although that did happen sometimes. The more common scam is for a leasing company to lease cars to a shortline at knockdown rates with the provision that the car must be in "interchange service" at least x number of days a month. "Interchange service" means the big fat ass leasing company is collecting per-diem from some poor old Class I. Eventually, this practice was discovered by Class I's who hissed and whined, and some roads got their car fleet "ordered home" no matter what was in it. I seem to remember some roads up in Vermont was in this business, with the result that the homebound cars completely tied up the operations on the railroad -- the shortline in question ran out of space to store their cars, and had to use their single track mainline to store the "leased" cars that have been refused carriage by a neighbouring Class I.
AEM7
When talking about cars, I think CSX did get more coal hoppers than NS did. Conrail hoppers tend to be in service with CSX, and I've occasionally seen NS unit trains with some 10-20% ex-CR hoppers. Nobody repaints hoppers, it makes no sense to. I think most CR hoppers you see these days are new CR hoppers, thus they don't have Penn Central markings; if you look, you will see many green boxcars still hanging around, and covered hoppers (for grain service) still in Rock Island colors. Why paint when you can still run 'em?
On the locomotive side, here up on the CSX Boston Line most of the locomotives have been painted out of their Conrail colors. I see more Conrail locomotive in NS service, actually, because CSX made a point of painting every single one except those in switcher service (for instance, you still find Chessie System locomotives lying around in switching service).
AEM7
Yes, they are yellow with the shield logo, right? I see them at least two times a week.
Maybe someone in your area had must been saying nasty thing to Mommy Nature, thus she a message to your community. If she get more upset than ever, then she will threaten your community with a tornado warning.
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
Chuck Greene
On the express track things started to get quite electric and hot. The 3rd rail was sparking and burning and making bubbles (like a foam). Later as I left the station, firefighters were going into it (yeah, like they can do anything, shut off power, etc; I saw them also pulling firehoses into the station and opening hydrants as I was walking away). There was no garbage there but they were burning and making smoke but there also was no flame, only sparks. Can anyone explain. Also this burning/sparking thing was only happening on the empty express track, not the local. Even though power was still going to the local track (and express track). The sparking thing also was only going on at the place where the 3rd rail insulator/supporter things were. Also it was a white purple spark, not blue, and looked like putting pure sodium into water (do not try this at home). Later (1 hr) I saw a MTA pick up label "hydrolics" and a other pickup with only a code on it.
As of last check they extened the van-wick/71av shuttles to 179. They are free. Also I got myself a cool magenta/red "block transfer" that I will never use or give away (I thinks is a collectable). Also the shuttles were using yellow transfers (switch replacement at union turnpike) but they weren't required and nobady was checking for them.
Can anyone tell me why the circut breakers never tripped because the 3rd rail was in water? Why was the train recieving electrons and was idling normally? Why was the 3rd rail only sparking on the express track? Where are the pumps/drains for the hillside IND line and why weren't they working (eveything else was almost dry)?
---Chapter 11 Choo Choo
BTW, wouldn't a flood also turn all the signals red, completing the circut on each block making it appear that a train occupies every flooded block?
the T/O was told to key by the signal. The water had created a track circuit which caused the signal system to falsely detect a train on a circuit ahead (probably where the rails were significantly covered), and set that signal to danger.
The switch motors are DC on the T. Is this the case in the NYC Subway? Thanks in advance as always.
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
I'm glad I'll be on Long Island that week... it could be a zoo!
Mark
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
I'm just wondering what busses you are refering to. I'm not real great with Boston transit, but my understanding is, right now MBTA is getting some 28 Neoplan Trolleybusses to replace their Flyers on the 71,72 and 73 Trolleybus routes out of Harvard Square bus tunnel. They're AN440LF rigid low floor trolleybusses with their insides from Skoda (IIRC). There are two pages, that I found relating to them via google, the first in english is A page relating to the history of Boston's Trolleybusses, while the second is a Czech page with some good detail shots of the new Neoplan Trolleybusses right out the factory Prototyp trolejbusu Škoda pro Boston v Plzni. Do note that first page is an angelfire site, which means popups.
The other busses Boston is getting, eventually or maybe, are some Neoplan (I think) Artic Duomode busses similar to Seattle's dual mode Bredas. I think these are the busses you're refering to. Unfortunately I couldn't find jack squat about them. All I could find was that they are Neoplan AN460LFs with either a Mercedes Diesel or a DD60 diesel engine and Kiepe Electrical equipment. Again I did manage to find two sites, one the parent site of the page above, http://www.mbtabuses.net/, has quite a bit on the MTBTA busses, and the other is an FTA project site for the Silverline, since the FTA just LOVES BRT! Apparantly MBTA is only ordering some 31 busses, which means they're making the same exact mistake Seattle made with it's bus tunnel, not buying enough busses to truely make it work.
I just wonder where the heck Boston is getting all the capitol to do all this, the Big Dig, then the Silverline, and now they want a connector tunnel between the North and South stations. The first two are only of questionable worth, especially when you consider the shear amount of money dumped into the big dig, and the third is really no more than an ESA or SAS, yet they'll somehow manage to get the money out of the feds, no doubt. What is Kennedy chairman of the transportation committee?
On another note, a lot of people claim the Silverline should have been LRT or something similar. I have to admit that their website www.allaboutsilverline.com makes me retch with it's touting of 'High Speed Service' and other bS (I like how the line got it's Silver color cause it's fast, oooooh [cough - BULLSH!T!-cough]). So I was wondering what people thought MBTA should do to make the line a success.
I would say extend the Trolleybus line straight from end to end, none of this dual mode stuff. Later extend the network to all over the city, and build up a solid trolleybus network, replacing diesel busses all over. By creating several tunnels or small elevated structures for trolleybusses to bypass busy roads, Boston could truely create a good network. Even better would be if there were integrated connector service with some of the Rail lines, have trolleybus networks extending out from some Red Line stations, I'm assuming one already does from the Harvard Square station. The trolleybusses shouldn't replace the rail lines, but rather complement them, all while both squash diesel busses right out of the city. The economy of scale of having a bunch of Trolleybusses ordered in large (100+) orders, as well as having a larger department to care for the wires, all while running massively more efficient equipment would eventually save money, after the initial capitol for the installation of overhead is accounted for.
But that's just my pipe dream, still with Boston's ability to get funding, it could happen, any thoughts?
The folling is from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/2990058.stm
Underground idea for Birmingham
The Lord Mayor of Birmingham has launched a campaign to bring an underground transport system to England's second city.
Councillor John Alden believes the scheme would stop Birmingham being choked to death by a paralysed transport system.
He told the city's civic society that the initiative was a "big idea for the 21st Century".
Councillor Alden has agreement from the main political parties to lobby the Government for funding - although the scheme could cost as much as £10bn.
The Lord Mayor said the campaign could unite the city after the failure to win the European Capital of Culture bid for 2008.
Birmingham has an overground tram system - the Midland Metro - which could be extended through the city centre from its current terminus at Snow Hill.
But Councillor Alden has raised doubts that the system could be extended through the congested city centre.
Another thought was a subway under Linden Blvd from the city line into Brooklyn, maybe connecting with the Canarsie Line. Mere mind candy, surely. And this board is nothing if not pregnant with ideas for subway routings, so I'm not saying anything new. AND, you were talking about "...unlikely cities", weren't you?
Okay, how about Stamford, CT? Or White Plains? A Newalk-type subway routing could be built in cities of this size. Heck, there are plenty of cities across the country that could conceivably plan for subways if the money was there. I'm thinking Kansas City, for one. And for K.C. I'm talking about full heavy-rail six and eight car trains.
The geology in the Kansas City area would lend itself for quick construction using boring machine tunneling. There is one thing that might be a problem and that is there are already a large number of tunnel under the city that are used for warehouses and light industry.
John
Have there ever been any serious proposals for a Kansas City Subway?
Have there ever been any serious proposals for a Kansas City Subway?"
In a word, no.
However, their was talk at some level back in the 1990s of doing some lite rail
I pulled this from a post in news:misc.transport.urban-transit from 12 23 1994
Excerpts from "ATA selects route for KC light-rail plan," Kansas City Star,
page C-1, 12/22/94:
Kansas City officials on Wednesday settled on a proposed route for the city's first light-rail line that would link the riverfront to southeastern and southwestern neighborhoods.
Area Transportation Authority commissioners unanimously approved an alignment with an estimated cost of $405 million. The next step is to seek approval from the Federal Transit Administration for more detailed engineering studies.
The selection of a route does not mean by a long shot that light rail is imminent in Kansas City.
...
The route chosen crosses the perceived racial barrier in Kansas City by linking the southeastern areas of the city with Downtown.
The main line of the proposed route runs 10.4 miles from the River Market to Crown Center and the Country Club Plaza, follows Brush Creek eastward and continues southward along Bruce R. Watkins Drive [US 71--MR] to about 75th Street. That would cost an estimated $320 million to build.
The chosen design also includes -- if the money can be secured -- an $85 million southward extension of the Country Club Plaza route from 51st Street for 4.7 miles to 85th Street and Holmes Road.
[This leg would use the old Country Club streetcar right of way through the Brookside, Waldo, and Dodson neighborhoods. This was the last streetcar line to be abandoned--in 1957--and the ATA fought for several years to keep the right of way from reverting to adjacent property owners.--MR]
If money is not available to do the entire route at once, the ATA is proposing to build the southeastern leg first, with the Country Club Plaza extension as the highest priority for expansion.
...
The ATA now will submit the selected route and a stack of supporting documents, including noise studies and effect on historic locations, to the Federal Transit Administration.
If that agency gives the go-ahead, the ATA could begin work on more detailed engineering studies in mid-1995.
Ultimately, construction of a light-rail system will require state and federal money. A proposed one-quarter-cent state sales tax for
transportation is seen as one way to accumulate local matching funds to leverage federal dollars.
# # #
If you do a google search you will come up with some other stuff.
And there was the exchange Sandy Smith and I had on the subject on a Kansas City Subway in the Google archive of USNET . That was related to Daton Subway. You will have to know some of the history of Kansas City to understand the inside joke.
John
Some have water pipes in them. If Cin. ever gets light rail, the tunnels could be used for that.
Also, I'd love good rail transit in Cincinnati. I have layovers there so often. It'd be nice to easily ride into town and have some fun between flights.
Mark
Even if Cincinnati had a subway or light rail, I doubt it would run all the out to CVG, which is a long haul from downtown (and in a different state, of course). It's more like commuter-rail territory.
But more importantly, I got this information from Light Rail Cincinnati's official site. Even if you don't care about light rail or Cincinnati you have to check out this page. It has to be the slickest ever put together for transit advocacy. The map animation is a real treat, and the slide show is worth watching, too. Here's the link:
Light Rail Cincinnati
Mark
Here's the problem I have with light rail -- cost. Why has it turned out to be so expensive to build light rail lines?
I'm happier with light rail than no rail at all, but I have to ask these questions, not just because I'm more of a subway fan than a light rail fan, but for pragmatic reasons as well.
Mark
IMO, the problem is that too many civic leaders and transit managers see their light-rail as a 'centerpiece' worthy of gold-plating instead of an economical form of urban transport. They love big, fancy systems with expensive rolling stock. Thus, too many systems feature unnecessarily overbuilt construction and every available technological development. San Diego and Portland (the city system, not MAX) have shown that simple, economical light-rail systems can be built. Unfortunately, too many politicians want a fancy light rail system that will be a shining legacy to their careers.
Jim D.
The original 5.3-mile Central Corridor cost $115 million.
The 8.7-mile Southwest Corridor cost $177 million.
The 1.8-mile Central Platte Valley Spur cost $48 million.
Well, why not? One wonders how all that track was laid back in the day. First of all, all the utility rehabs should not be considered part of the light rail project. That sort of tagging on sounds like an excuse to use federal transit money for other things. Second of all, I don't see how a road that is built to carry a truck can't carry a trolley. Wouldn't the rail spread the load from the wheels.
Mark
Mark
Mark
Mark
talk.nycsubway.org/cgi-bin/subtalk.cgi?read=496798
John
Also, there are no basements in Miami.
Miami Transit Expansion
Mark
And Biscayne Blvd. They really have some grand plans.
Mark
As far as the grammar, to be precise, and correct me if I am wrong:
El-100% above ground level operation
Subway-100% below ground level and covered (in a tunnel) operation
Any line that is a combination of those plus ground level, open cut, embankment would technically be a combination or multi level line.
In common usage in the city, subway would mean any line. In Philadelphia, subway refers to Broad Street Line and El refers to Market-Frankford line.
Just like most of the London Underground isn't in fact underground.
On that basis Amsterdam is unlikely - and indeed for that very reason they have only one true undergraound line in Amsterdam.
For those of us who don't know the UK very well, where is Milton Keynes?
Mark
I'm curious...is the experiment of MK generally viewed as a success, a failure, or is it hard to say?
Mark
A success economically - it has negligible unemployment - and beginning to be a success culturally (a good theatre, etc.). Architecturally you won't like it if (like Prince Charles and many other British people) you like old places, and it is to a certain extent a butt of jokes - not least because of the concrete cows it has in one of its parks. On the whole, people who live there like it and people who don't don't.
A failure with some huge good points really.
Hmmm. Just like England herself.....
I'm sorry. Geeze, who am I, George Carlin?
Hmmm. Just like England herself.....
Indeed.
Bad joke time...
Yank: "In mah country there are trains where you can go all one day and part of the next and still be in the same state."
Brit: "We have some trains like that too, but we're not overly proud of them."
Aussie: "I my country there are trains where you can go all week and still be in the same state!"
Mark
And is virtually the only place on the A5 of any note between St Alban's and... errrmmmm... Telford (it just misses Hinckley, Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield and Stafford; Weedon Bec and Weston-under-Lizard are not of note). Consequently, the A5 is one of the most fun A-roads in the country - the other being the A46(/B4455/A429).
If I ever found myself driving along the A5,* I'd probably stop at Weston-under-Lizard simply because of its name.
* = of course, I'd probably be causing a huge catastrophe by driving on the "wrong" side.
It's actually well worth stopping there. There's a gorgeous stately home surrounded by parkland.
of course, I'd probably be causing a huge catastrophe by driving on the "wrong" side.
Get a motorbike, then you can just drive at 90mph straight down the middle.
And if you've ridden a Birmingham bus, you will see how bad traffic is as a result - on a normal day it can take over 15 minutes to get one mile out of the City Centre. If there's one accident on a main road, the result is invariably gridlock for the entire city and you get stupid things happening like it taking 2½ hours to go 4 miles. If the traffic looks particularly thick at the bus terminus at Moor St Station, I will go into the station and get the first train to Hall Green for the Outer Circle bus - it can often be quicker despite being very indirect (I live near where King's Heath station was before the war).
Which may well be one of the reasons why it never got a subway.
There are also geological problems. A fault runs SW to NE (roughly along the A38 Bristol Road until about the B4127 Priory Road then shifting slightly Eastwards to pass East of the River Rea and the City Centre and leave the City just North of the A47 Saltley Road). East of the fault, there are clays which are pretty much perfect for tunnelling; West of it, however, including the City Centre, is a mass of Sandstone which makes tunnelling difficult.
If we were trying to do things on the cheap, very little tunnel could be built and Suburban lines used and reactivated. A bare minimum would be:
- a North South tunnel to get the Cross-City Line out of New St station.
- a Second tunnel and pair of tracks at the West end of New St station on the LNWR lines.
- an extra tunnel for Suburban services on the former MR lines East of Birmingham, perhaps connecting with the Snow Hill Slow Lines.
- an Underground terminal in Harborne, if the Harborne Railway were to be reactivated.
All of this, however, would be in the geologically awkward half of the City. :-(
Belatedly they have realised the truth that you cannot have unrestricted mobility by private car in a traditional city.
And the truth that trams won't work in Birmingham City Centre...
A city designed specifically for the car is another matter - now an idea for a *real* fantasy subway immediately occurs to me - Milton Keynes!
"This is a dull beige line train to Newport Pagnell. The next stop is H7."
- Oh the tragedy...
Hudson County....there's a stretch of urban terrain that could seemingly benefit from a good sized subway system. The linear nature of the bus routes there seem tailor made to be sub-stituted. And the population density seems about right also. Washington Avenue in Hoboken resembles 5th Avenue in Brooklyn. Well, I guess we'll have to see how the HBLR effects the patterns there.
concrete doesn't seem ideal for the subways - on els they could eventually chip and rain lots of rocks onto the street...
Hope the innovation works. Some folks have said that concrete is too hard, and cracks the trucks. Then again, concrete doesn't burn.
(Oh, new font for the board!)
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
I just looked it up on the web, couldn't find any references to it, but I remember seeing it advertized in Railway Track & Structures. I don't know if this is the same stuff as NYCTA is getting, but it sounds about right.
Here's a press release from Yahoo that has expired (which I had to pull up from the archives):
North American Technologies Group Raises $2.4 Million
Thursday January 23, 9:38 am ET
Company to Expand Production Capacity to Meet One Million Composite Railroad Tie Order From Union Pacific Railroad and Supply Other Railroads
HOUSTON, Jan. 23 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- North American Technologies Group, Inc., (Nasdaq: NATK - News), an innovative producer of composite-based products made from recycled raw materials, announced today that it has raised $2.4 million in convertible debt and equity.
The funding includes $2 million in convertible debt from North American Technologies Group's largest shareholder, Avalanche Resources, Ltd., which had already invested more than $3.5 million in the company. It also includes another $400,000 in new equity from existing and new shareholders.
"We continue to invest in what we believe in. NATK has the leading composite railroad tie. Our TieTek(TM) ties are increasingly gaining acceptance by railroads as a cost-effective and environmentally attractive alternative to creosote treated wood ties. Over the next five years we expect composite railroad ties to capture up to 10% of the estimated 16 million annual tie market in the U.S. alone -- a market valued at more than $550 million," said Kevin Maddox, Managing Director of Avalanche Resources and Chief Financial Officer of the Company.
"This financing allows us to upgrade our existing production facility and begin a second line to meet our sales backlog. We will be delivering our patented TieTek(TM) ties over the next six years to meet our one million tie order from Union Pacific Railroad," said President and CEO Henry Sullivan. "We have orders for our ties from other railroads, and we expect a growing demand for our product. The recent announcement that the largest supplier of treated wood ties plans to exit the forest products business increases our commitment to provide an environmentally attractive engineered composite tie. We plan to increase our capacity to help satisfy the railroad industry's ongoing requirement for replacement ties," Sullivan added.
"The Company's TieTek(TM) composite ties can be installed interchangeably with wood ties, last longer and have a lower total cost of ownership in most applications," Sullivan explained. "In addition, the TieTek(TM) ties are environmentally friendly and have no disposal costs since they are completely recyclable. The ties are waterproof, fire and insect resistant, and can hold spikes and support heavy loads longer than wood, particularly in hot, wet environments." Each year, approximately 75 million ties are installed in the U.S. and around the world, at a cost of about $2.5 billion, according to Company estimates.
http://www.usplasticlumber.com/press_release/press/2002_apr22.htm
Life expectancy is listed in the article as "2-3 times" that of wood.
http://www.usplasticlumber.com/Specs/railtiespecs.pdf
I would wonder whether these ties have to be used with plates & Pandrol clips, or do they really work as straighforward replacements where the rail is nailed straight to the tie?
John
Its sad but its time for them to go.
---Chapter 11 Choo Choo
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
Man Express M don't be so impatient, it will be here soon I mean if they gave it out now it would be far too early and it could change, further confusing passengers.
THE BLIGHTON BITCHES LOST;!! AH, BOOHOO!
See he must have a bit of Brighton in him to give himself that handle of the M ;-). No he & Freddy should write "I SHALL NOT DISS THE BRIGHTON" 200 times BWAHAHA :-).
Some posters have referred to the extension as Air BART, but the name Air BART is the name of the bus shuttle between the Coliseum/Oakland Airport Station and the Oakland Airport; which costs an additional $2.00 each way in addition to your BART fare.
Is this extra charge new? When I was there in May, 2002, one exited BART directly (without exit turnstiles) to the bus and turned in the BART tickets on the bus. The $2.00 charge only applied to anyone who did not have a BART ticket.
Tom
The real PAIN is at Oakland Airport. There are 2 bus stops, one at each terminal. You have to queue and purchase the $2 ticket at a machine just inside the terminal, or at the bus stop itself. Needless to say, you hope your bills are the type the machines like, or boy does the line back up!!!!!! The last time I used it, I had 1 $1 bill that went OK, (note that it wouldn't take coins that day) but neither I nor 3 other people could find another bill that it would take, and the time link cause it to spit out a $1 partial fare ticket!!!! (Now what?!) In a hurry to make an appointment in SF (the bus was there) I got on asked what now, and the drive said just put it in and a $1 bill. So I did. The problem was there was a L O N G line inside of people trying to buy tickets.
Fundamentally, this needs to be changed. The concept was done when OAK wasn't very busy in relationship to SFO and SJC. Now it is a MAJOR Southwest Hub, and lines are long and busy. Why they don't just take cash as a regular option is beyond me! No such problem when SamTrans ran the BX from Colma to SFO. Cash was the way!!
: (
Mark
And to think my wife gladly puts up with all of this!
: )
Mark
(Even though I didnt ride the extension, I got to see it, on yet another visit in Nov. 96, I drove along the freeway which contains the Dublin/Pleasanton branch in the median (I-680?))
Mark
Mark
I will be in SF for only 2 days, June 28, 29 on a trip to SF, LA, and San Diego.
It would really suck if the trip I have had planned now for about 1/2 year had the beginging part of it ruined. Either way I still get to ride the Red line in LA and Trolley to the border with Tijuana, Mexico. I have ridden the red line twice and there isn't really that much that stands out about it. On the other hand I have never been to San Diego or ridden the Trolley. I hope its more like BART, interesting and fun to ride. Not that the Red Line is bad, it's just kinda boring. They didn't put any real variety into it. The trains are very plain, no automated announcements, no high speed segments and no fare collection, which I will never understand. Each station is very beautiful though with its own neat design. Thats one thing they did right. The free, large parking lots like at North Hollywood were also smart.
I personally prefer the more modest designed BART stations and spending more money on making portions of the line high speed like the trans-bay tube. The carpeted and padded seats on BART are cool also.
I guess I'm kinda old fashioned though. Neither of these systems in my book comes close to a ride on a Chicago L or the NYC Subway. At least I'm guaranteed a great time in NYC when I visit in August. Even if one subway line is shut down, there's always so much more to explore!
Don't miss the train ride down the coast between Los Angeles and San Diego, either. It runs on the beach in some places, and through a beautiful lush green canyon just north of San Diego. You can ride the route on Amtrak's Surfliner or you can take LA's Metrolink to Oceanside and connect with the San Diego Coaster. I actually took Amtrak to Oceanside, then the Coaster because the Metrolink schedule wasn't convenient, but the ride was great nonetheless.
Mark
Mark
Mark
Remember: BART operates Mon-Fri 4AM to midnight, Sat 6 AM to midnight, SUNDAY 8AM to midnight. I'll post something additinal on this.
WOW!!
: )
Mark
LOL
LOL!
It would have been sooner, but they ran into the Y3K problem.
Alan Follett
Hercules, Ca
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.goodcowfilms.com/temp/mta/mta1.avi
http://www.goodcowfilms.com/temp/mta/mta2.avi
Copy and Paste the Links to see the videos, you need Divx 5.05 to be able to see or RealOne Player, the latest version. Thanks to GoodCow (Straphangers Campaign) for shoothing this video.
in case you want to right click->save to computer.
AEM7
David
The Maryland Transit Administration is the worst managed public transit system in the United States.
Makes SEPTA look like a bunch of geniuses.
Who else has buses that throw tires, bus signs that don't work, even on new buses, Light Rail that runs on a never changing fixed 17 minute headway?
The NCL managed Baltimore Transit Company ran the system better.
I think I can top that one.
I think I can top that one. Travel West Midlands have a bus route that operates every 35 minutes, rather appropriately numbered 35S.
Makes SEPTA look like a bunch of geniuses."
Wow, that's some statement ! I've always heard SEPTA was inept, but I always though Maryland MTA was much better. How does WMATA rate in comparison to Maryland MTA ?
Bill "Newkirk"
WMATA is a system, Baltimore has one subway line, one badly run Light Rail line and a bus system in total disarray.
Management changes with every new Governor. Sometimes you get a pol, sometimes a transit professional. Current Adminsitrator comes from CTA and is highly regarded - except his total background is from CTA's bus side, no rail in his resume.
The light rail operates on a fixed 17 minute headway that never varies. Baseball, football, rush hour loads, same 17 minutes.
There is a project to double track most of the single track sections. The MTA's timetable on their website lists SEVEN YEARS to complete the job. Any competent rail contractor could do the job in 22 months. It ain't rocket science.
The Middle Branch bridge DT is 85% done. Betcha the second track won't go in service until next February, as the Oriole season is ongoing and is followed by Ravens football. Sheesh.
Dan,
Is this because of the single tracking in some areas ? The LIRR has the same problem with the Ronkonkoma Branch. Some single tracking in areas east of Farmingdale.
Bill "Newkirk"
The single tracking is an excuse.
The Light Rail managers have a morbid fear of any switch that cannot be controlled directly. Every end of double track has a power operated switch that takes 1.5 to 2 minutes to move from normal to reverse. They actually removed a spring switch at Dorsey Road (Cromwell) terminal and replaced it with a power switch.
The conversion of all end of double track switches to spring switches that are sprung to direct facing cars to the right hand track would cut 15 to 20 minutes out of an end to end trip.
Add to the power switch delay an additional minute for the signals to clear makes up much of the delays.
They also don't know how to adjust service for load situations, like baseball and football games. Patrons leaving the games may have a 45 or 50 minute wait to board. Three car trains are used before and after games, but are not necessary during the game itself. Mostly empty 3 car trains operate at all times.
It has to be the worst operated light rail line in the country.
If it's any consolation, in New York a similar job probably would take fifteen years and cost 3x the amount.
Our buses say "Orange County Transportation Authority" on the back and rear sides...and someone got, uh, creative in the word "County" by removing the "C" and "Y" and making the "O" into a "C".
they could have just removed the O and the Y;-)
I was initially surprised that the word in question existed all the way back in the 1860's, but then I recalled that Geoffrey Chaucer used it 650 years ago in the Canterbury Tales.
I think I was **born** on a floor higher than that!
If you can't pay the fine, you go to jail.
You've never heard of the broken window theory. When they started to go after fare evaders, they found a lot of them were criminals with outstanding warrants and/or had drugs or guns on them. Many intended to commit crimes in the subway.
If you want to commit a serious crime, you're not going to bother paying the fare.
I have a sneaking suspicion that not all skells are totally dirt-poor. No doubt many of them are collecting various government benefits.
John, I think the response was bad because it was Father's Day today. It probably would have been a light group even if Peggy had done her tour today.
Upon entering the train I have to say that it is very well designed, with a bright interrior, really cool seats that unfold in neat ways (2-position foot rest, adjustible headrest etc) and the vestabules are fully enclosed (although it lacks some of the adventure of Amfleet vestabules). Even the safety instruction cards are well designed and informative. Did you know that those troublesome doors come with built in escape ladders?
My only complaint is that they seem to be trying to be a bit much airliners. The self-contained baggage compartments only introduce artificial constraints and the super-bright interrior might be detrimental to seeing out at night or for anyone who wants to get to sleep.
The ride was very smooth, much smoother than the Amfleet Vibra-ride I got on the way in and smoother than what you generally feel in Europe when off the hi-speed RoW's. Given the crappyness of American track, especially MNRR's, I have to take my hat off to the AE trainsets. Thank god they aren't lightweight, I'd be bouncing off the walls.
My train was spot ontime all the way to New Haven and about 3 minutes late comming into Penn, despite some slow running on MNRR. I saw the conductors booth in the Cafe car that occasionally had the speed up, but no cab signal aspects. I did notice the 150 segments in RI and MA, boy we were flying. It's a shame so much of CT is so slow. Does anyone know if that crazy tilt thing is in service? I occacionally noticed some odd car movement, but nothing really that consistant.
The staff was very nice, they even had one attendant using a little sweeper thinggy to clean the isles. The station dewll time was very good, even with crowds at many of the stations. Ok, btw there is one really sweet job. At Baltimore the first class attendant who dragged out peoples bags got a wad of cash from each suit for the "service". I didn't get a chance to try out the "up scale" cafe food as I had bought a $6 lunch of burboun chicken in SS and had most of it left with me on the train.
All in all I found it a very good ride and if it weren't that it cost so much I would definitly take it every time I went to Boston. Stay tuned for two other posts on issues I encountered on the AE.
In the "quiet car," they turn the lights down to 1/2 brightness. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, there is no quiet car on weekends. But on weekdays, it's the first business class car in the front of the consist, either behind the lead power car, or the first class car. Cell phones, loud conversations, etc. are prohibited -- and the conductors do a good job of maintaining it.
I'll be on the 1:15 tomorrow southbound.
South London (south of the River Thames) has never had such good tube services as north London. One tube line (called the Northern line) carries a full load of passengers to south London. Apart from the Northern line, the Underground does not serve south London well, and large areas are served only by the suburban rail lines (formerly the Southern Electric).
South suburban rail lines suffer from having:
1) Many outer branches (necessary to cover a such large area),
2) Many branches serving multiple terminals,
3) Inconveniently located terminals,
4) Circuitous routes,
5) Badly designed junctions and bottlenecks that limit line capacity.
As a result there are seldom more than four, or at most six, trains per hour on any given route.
An obvious solution would be to extend existing tube lines to the south. The Bakerloo and Victoria lines are likely candidates. It might be possible for tube lines to "capture" parts of the Southern Electric. But no such plans are being seriously considered.
Can anyone say why south London is so poorly served compared with north London, why there are no serious plans to redress the balance, and what ought to be done about it?
I also heard that with recent innovations, construction is now possible. If the south was developed by the Underground, wouldn't that make an already large world class subway into something even larger and greater?
And costs £3½bn for a ten mile two track line.
If the south was developed by the Underground, wouldn't that make an already large world class subway into something even larger and greater?
It would probably be easier and cheaper to Underground-ise existing lines. And I don't think we can find money for doing that as easily as we can for going to war.
I've always found it rather amusing that the Southernmost point on the Underground is on the Northern Line.
An obvious solution would be to extend existing tube lines to the south. The Bakerloo and Victoria lines are likely candidates.
I presume you are joking about the Victoria Line. Have you seen how packed it gets? The only extension I've ever heard suggested for the Vic is a loop at Brixton to increase the capacity of the terminal.
There is some plan which appears from time to time to extend the Bakerloo Line, with various variants. It's usual scheme is to go to Camberwell Green (which I am assured is nowhere near Trumpton), sometimes with an intermediate stop at Walworth, sometimes extended further to Peckham Rye Station.
South suburban rail lines suffer from having:
1) Many outer branches (necessary to cover a such large area),
This needn't be a problem - population density is lower at the extremities.
2) Many branches serving multiple terminals,
The lack of consistency in routings is a big problem. The result is people going to stations such as Clapham Junction and East Croydon on the first train available to have a better chance of a train actually going where they want to go. I'd say this was one of the two big problems facing the Southern Region.
3) Inconveniently located terminals,
If you mean outer terminals, this is vary variable - some, eg Tattenham Corner, I would even describe as very convenient.
If you mean London terminals, there is only one which is really inconvenient: London Bridge. Even that's in a good enough place - it's just that more people want to continue beyond there.
4) Circuitous routes,
Some of them are, but they really help connect various places in the suburbs to eachother. Example: if I were going from Sutton to London, I would not dream about going via West Croydon - however, I might want to go to Croydon.
5) Badly designed junctions and bottlenecks that limit line capacity.
This is the other main obstacle to good service on the Southern Region. Candidates for pisspoor junction design of the century include:
- Ashford A to F Jns (SE and LCD) - yes, all of them.
- Barnes Jn (LSW)
- Battersea Pk and Battersea Pier Jns (LBSC and LCD)
- Blackfriars Jn (LCD)
- Borough Mkt Jn (SE)
- Bricklayer's Arms Jn (LBSC)
- Lewisham Crossover Jns (SE and LCD)
- Metropolitan Jn (SE)
- Minster W and S Jns (SE and LCD)
- New Beckenham Jn (SE) - in fact, having a station called Beckenham Jn when there's also a junction at New Beckenham, the other Beckenham station, is pretty dumb too.
- N Kent E Jn (SE)
- Paddock Wood Jn (SE)
- Purley N Jn (LBSC)
- Norwood Fork Jns (LBSC)
- S Croydon Jn (LBSC)
- Sutton E Jn (LBSC)
- W Croydon Jn (LBSC) - which is actually at Norwood Jn Station, just to be confusing.
- Wimbledon B Jn (LSW and LBSC)
- Woking Jn (LSW)
Note the comparatively small number of pisspoor junctions on the former LSWR lines. This however is made up for by too many branches feeding into all lines into Waterloo, particularly the Main Slow Tracks.
As a result there are seldom more than four, or at most six, trains per hour on any given route.
Further factors include:
- Silly sections of single track (Epsom Downs anyone - especially as it used to be double track with a nine track terminal!).
- Running trains that skip stops pretty much at random.
- Reading old timetables in determining new ones rather than the track diagrams.
- The broken-up nature of franchising.
South suburban rail lines suffer from having:
1) Many outer branches (necessary to cover a such large area),
But resulting in not-so frequent trains on any one branch.
2) Many branches serving multiple terminals,
Further reducing frequency to any given terminal.
3) Inconveniently located terminals,
I meant London terminals, all of which are less convenient than underground lines.
4) Circuitous routes,
I was thinking of some routes to Blackfriars and London Bridge. Inter-suburban traffic is of secondary importance.
5) Badly designed junctions and bottlenecks that limit line capacity.
Yes, and in an earlier thread you made special mention of North Kent East Junction, and the fact that there are seven tracks approaching London Bridge from the southeast, some going in the wrong direction! Where is North Kent East Junction and what's wrong with it? And which tracks run in the wrong direction? Please tell us more.
Some are quite remote you know! I don't know quite who uses Epsom Downs - the line could do with more trains, but the terminal is in the middle of nowhere!
2) Many branches serving multiple terminals,
Further reducing frequency to any given terminal.
This is indeed a pain. 4tph to London Bridge would be easier than 2tph to London Bridge and 2tph to Victoria, regardless of Victoria being a "better" terminal.
3) Inconveniently located terminals,
I meant London terminals, all of which are less convenient than underground lines.
With the possible exception of Charing X.
4) Circuitous routes,
I was thinking of some routes to Blackfriars and London Bridge. Inter-suburban traffic is of secondary importance.
The St Helier Loop is a bit of a joke really. The District Line really should go to Sutton.
5) Badly designed junctions and bottlenecks that limit line capacity.
Yes, and in an earlier thread you made special mention of North Kent East Junction, and the fact that there are seven tracks approaching London Bridge from the southeast, some going in the wrong direction! Where is North Kent East Junction and what's wrong with it? And which tracks run in the wrong direction? Please tell us more.
North Kent East Junction is located East of London Bridge, where the Greenwich line (stops Deptford etc) splits off the SE Main Line (stops New X etc).
The SE tracks are numbered from North to South 1 to 7 (South of these are the LBSC tracks). The direction Westbound (to London) is called Up and the direction Eastbound (to Kent) Down.
The SE half of London Bridge station has 3 island platforms, serving tracks 1 to 6. There is no platform 7. Tracks 1 to 3 are accessible in both directions to/from Cannon St. Tracks 4 and 5 are accessible in both directions to/from Charing X. Tracks 6 and 7 are to Charing X only.
The crappy design of Borough Market Jn West of London Bridge station feeds the lines to Cannon Street very briefly through a 2 track section (which is not a problem) and also feeds all the lines to Charing X very briefly through a 2 track section (which is a problem, given the immense popularity of Charing X and the fact that Brighton Thameslinks, which don't serve Charing X station, also have to use these tracks, further reducing Charing X capacity).
On the section London Bridge to N Kent E Jn, the tracks are: 1 Dn, 2 Reversible, 3 Up, 4 Dn, 5 Dn, 6 Up, 7 Up.
7 actually starts well West of N Kent E Jn and is a loop track merging into and out of 6. As such, it adds precisely no capacity and is really not very much use.
5 and 6 are a normal 2 track main line - they become the Fast SE tracks and are the main pair of tracks to Charing X.
1 and 3 are a merger on the flat of the Slow Tracks and the Greenwich tracks at North Kent E Jn. A point of added confusion is the reversible track between them, a configuration familiar to New Yorkers on long Express runs, but serving precisely no purpose here on a section with no intermediate stations anyway.
4 is a track which splits from 5 at Borough Market and basically allows Charing X trains onto the Slow Lines. Unfortunately, the track configuration means that a train coming the other way (to Charing X) will cross this on the level onto track 3, then cross it again at Spa Road (halfway to London Bridge) to get onto track 6.
The Spa Road crossovers also allow Greenwich Line trains into Charing X, and in case that wasn't enough, there are also flat crossovers to allow LBSC (ie Thameslink) trains onto the Charing X lines.
The "let's get everything onto the Charing X tracks" attitude is understandable - Charing X is easily the best terminal and a hell of a lot better than Cannon St, even when Cannon St momentarily rises like a Zombie from the grave (it's so dead it closes after 8pm and on Sundays) for the rush hour in the City. All the crossovers on the level, plus the rush hour sending half the trains to Cannon St on every line job, leaves a 7 track line with a capacity of well under 48tph. In fact, it's probably nearer 24tph (+ whatever goes to Cannon St - whatever gets in eachother's way). This, you must agree, is pretty *@£$%~.
A simple 1 Dn, 2 Up, 3 Dn, 4 Up, 5 Dn, 6 Up, 7 torn up would give a capacity of 72tph, although without works on Borough Market Jn only 48tph could get beyond London Bridge.
I agree that the tracks at London Bridge should be simplified.
Under Thameslink 2000, trains would, I believe, be sorted at a new flying junction at South Bermondsey. So there would be two tracks each going to Charing Cross, Thameslink and Cannon Street. That would preclude cross-platform transfers at London Bridge, but I don't think there ever were any.
Thameslink 2000 would also involve adding through tracks to the north part of London Bridge station and demolishing part of the south train-shed in order to do so, a prospect that displeased the Inspector strongly enough to recommend a re-design. I don't understand why that demolition would be necessary, unless perhaps the existing tracks could not be made to line up with the new tracks west of London Bridge.
Without Thameslink 2000, your proposed reallocation of tracks seems a good idea to reduce at-grade crossings. To simplify operation, the North Kent line need only have Cannon Street service (via tracks 1 and 2). Cannon Street may not be the ideal destination, but it is probably no worse than Blackfriars and Thameslink. Tracks 5 and 6 should continue to go to Charing Cross. As for tracks 3 and 4, in the absence of new tracks west of London Bridge, they could go to Cannon Street or Charing Cross or both. Regardless of whether Thameslink 2000 is built, there really ought to be six tracks west of London Bridge.
With this flying junction they're making for Thameslink, I'd elevate it over the middle of the existing structure and give Charing X 4 tracks - that terminal's hell on earth in rush hour!
That would preclude cross-platform transfers at London Bridge, but I don't think there ever were any.
Only if you want to go straight back where you've come from! I suppose that might be of some use if you're trying to get from Hither Green to Greenwich or something.
Thameslink 2000 would also involve adding through tracks to the north part of London Bridge station and demolishing part of the south train-shed in order to do so, a prospect that displeased the Inspector strongly enough to recommend a re-design.
The proposal isn't great, but I wouldn't mind if they tore down the entirety of London Bridge station - it's not one of London's prettiest buildings!
Without Thameslink 2000, your proposed reallocation of tracks seems a good idea to reduce at-grade crossings. To simplify operation, the North Kent line need only have Cannon Street service (via tracks 1 and 2).
Of course stations beyond Charlton could also access Charing X.
Cannon Street may not be the ideal destination, but it is probably no worse than Blackfriars and Thameslink.
What would be really good would be to dive the tracks at Cannon Street into a tunnel and have the next stop as Moorgate on the Northern City Line - a kind of second Thameslink.
As for tracks 3 and 4, in the absence of new tracks west of London Bridge, they could go to Cannon Street or Charing Cross or both.
Hopefully an extra 2 tracks can be built over Borough Market. Charing X would be the best!
Regardless of whether Thameslink 2000 is built, there really ought to be six tracks west of London Bridge.
And if we're serious about high capacity, flying junctions and metro services, eight tracks.
Extend BakerLoo line to Lewisham, stations (tube) at Albany Road, Denmark Hill (Camberwell New Rd) then (a sharp turn) then capture rail service with stations at Peckham Rye, Nunhead, Brockley Cross and Lewisham. Connect to DLR at Lewisham.
Extend Victoria Line to Beckenham Junction, short tube segment then
capture rail service, with stations at Herne Hill, West Dulwich, Sydenham Hill, Penge East, Kent House and Beckenham Jct, connection to Croydon Tramlink at Beckenham Jct.
wayne
Nice idea, but what would you do with the Catford Loop? You can't connect it to the Brighton Main Line South of Brockley as that is already constrained by converging from 4 to 2 tracks at Bricklayer's Arms Jn. I suppose you could connect it to the Mid Kent Line (which doesn't go anywhere near Mid Kent for some reason) South of Catford Bridge, but that would mean that Crofton Park and Catford stations would close - plus it would put more pressure on Charing Cross, which is already overstretched. Also you'd be limiting Lewisham Service to North Kent and Bexleyheath service only. I don't think a Portaloo extension like this would fly.
Extend Victoria Line to Beckenham Junction, short tube segment then
capture rail service, with stations at Herne Hill, West Dulwich, Sydenham Hill, Penge East, Kent House and Beckenham Jct, connection to Croydon Tramlink at Beckenham Jct.
1) There's no room for all those extra people on the Vic trains.
2) You just killed the Chatham Main Line, have removed the capacity for Thameslink via Herne Hill (bye-bye Loughborough Jn, Elephant & Castle, and probably the St Helier Loop) and combined with your Portaloo line proposal ALL service beyond Beckenham Junction to Orpington, Sevenoaks, Maidstone East, Ashford, Chatham and East Kent. Half of Victoria station would be useless too. Oh and bye-bye Eurostar.
wayne
No problem. There are certain lines which would cause problems if you tried to Underground-ise them. The Chatham Lines are probably the most troublesome.
If Thameslink 2000 reconfigured Blackfriars in a better way than they are proposing and when Eurostar finally gets to St Pancras', the following might be a nice way of using the Chatham Lines:
(12tph Thameslink - Brighton Fast)
4tph Thameslink - Herne Hill - St Helier ACW
4tph Thameslink - Herne Hill - St Helier CW
4tph Thameslink - Herne Hill - Epsom (- Guildford)
6tph Blackfriars - Catford Loop - Ashford
6tph Blackfriars - Catford Loop - Sevenoaks
6tph Victoria - Herne Hill - Orpington
6tph Victoria - Herne Hill - Chatham - Gillingham (- Sheerness)
(Margate, Ramsgate and Dover services transferred to CTRL North Kent)
6tph Victoria - Lewisham - Hayes
6tph Victoria - Lewisham - Hither Green - Dartford
In an ideal world where we can start digging new tunnels, I'd suggest an extra Thameslink Tunnel below the existing one from St Pancras' to Blackfriars so that 48tph would be the maximum practical, rather than 24tph. The lines to Victoria could be tunnelled under Central London on any of the following alignments:
- Victoria, Hyde Park Corner, Marble Arch, Marylebone.
- Victoria, Charing X, Aldwych, City Thameslink, Moorgate (then via Northern City Line or to ex GER at Cambridge Heath).
- Victoria, Piccadilly Circus, Tottenham Court Rd, Euston (to DC lines, or continuing: St Pancras, Essex Rd, Dalston Kingsland to the NLL).
I'm trying to figure out where the Catford loop is (oops, found it on page 191) - the track maps I have obviously leave MUCH to be desired.
What track maps have you got? They must be pretty comprehensive to stretch to 191 pages! My Southern Region one only has 51 maps!
Maybe construct the extension alongside or just beneath the existing ROW.
Both of those are good ideas - LU did the first with the Central Line to West Ruislip and the CTRL will run for a long way beneath the NLL. Whether either of these work in South London, I really wouldn't begin to know!
Lets have a nice simple Thameslink 2000 service. All trains via Bromley South go through Thameslink and nowhere else. Only trains that travel through Bromley South go through Thameslink. If there is spare capacity, then run extra trains through Bromley South from Hastings etc..
Anything else will just confuse people, and will lead to delays and unreliability. Do not allow anything from the South Central division to travel through Thameslink, because that will just poison the entire timetable.
In fact, they could probably do this now, without having to build multi-level flying junctions at Borough Market Junction.
I've used Thameslink a lot. I used to live in South London, and travel to Nottingham University. It was never really a happy service. It was plonked down on service patterns that date from the early 20th century, rather than being used to create a self-contained modular service. This restricted capacity and reduced reliability.
Really it's quite simple. It takes the half the capacity of the Brighton Fast lines (after the other half has diverged at East Croydon for Victoria) and takes them over and out of the way of the Brighton London Bridge Slow Lines (thus doubling Slow capacity). By use of a flying junction and four tracks, this can merge with half the capacity of the Holborn Lines. (The Brighton Fast is desirable in Thameslink to link Luton and Gatwick Airports).
Therefore, ½ of the trains on the Holborn Lines would go to Blackfriars only, the others would continue through Thameslink. An equal split could also happen at Loughborough Jn, the obvious way being to send Thameslink trains through to Herne Hill and Blackfriars trains to Denmark Hill. Both these lines would then be at half capacity, the other half on both could go to Victoria, adding up to the capacity of the Chatham Main Line.
The everywhere to everywhere else Southern services never worked,
That was exactly what I was trying to counteract, whilst maintaining interchanges.
and I don't believe the people who work there now have the skills to make them work.
I believe they have the skills to do what they're told. It's up to those running our railway to tell them to do the right thing.
Lets have a nice simple Thameslink 2000 service. All trains via Bromley South go through Thameslink and nowhere else. Only trains that travel through Bromley South go through Thameslink.
That would eff up the one seat ride from Luton to Gatwick, so politically this wouldn't work. If the politicians will give us the money to build flying junctions so that Brighton Fast service can efficiently run through Thameslink, then so be it. However, sending Thameslinks to Dartford via London Bridge is a seriously dumb idea, and I don't really get why they've proposed this.
Anything else will just confuse people, and will lead to delays and unreliability.
Not if the South Central is run properly. Maybe the buggers should be sacked and replaced by South Western men.
Do not allow anything from the South Central division to travel through Thameslink, because that will just poison the entire timetable.
Let's just get back to what we tried in 1923 and let the world be run out of Waterloo... then even the Brighton might work...
In fact, they could probably do this now, without having to build multi-level flying junctions at Borough Market Junction.
They could definitely do your plan with no modifications. Their political preferences though are to give the Brighton Fast Lines access too. What I'd like would be a flying junction at Blackfriars Jn, the effective elimination of Borough Market Jn (1 Up Cannon St - Greenwich, 2 Dn Cannon St - Greenwich, 3 Up Charing X Slow - SE Main Slow, 4 Dn Charing X Slow - SE Main Slow, 5 Up Charing X Fast - SE Main Fast, 6 Dn Charing X Fast - SE Main Fast at London Bridge) with the Brighton Fast / Thameslink elevated over tracks 4 and 5 (call the platforms, say, 17 and 18) descending near New X Gt.
I've used Thameslink a lot.
Poor you.
I used to live in South London, and travel to Nottingham University.
Very poor you. I'm closer at the University of Leicester - and we have more trains.
It was never really a happy service.
I can appreciate that.
It was plonked down on service patterns that date from the early 20th century, rather than being used to create a self-contained modular service.
That was because they couldn't be Londoned (as in derrière) to design a new service plan for the entirity of the ex LBSC, SE and LCD. Now it's time to show the buggers.
This restricted capacity and reduced reliability.
Along with dumb use of Lewisham station, the London Bridge area track layout, bad use of the Brighton Fast Lines, sending everything everywhere...
The Southern Region really looks like a transit company circa 1910. I reckon we need to try somehow to bring it up to date.
And I thought living in the wilds of Beeston was adventurous when I was at Nottingham University.
Still that was a long while ago. I've lived in New York and Hong Kong since then.
Why are so many people with East Midlands connections who read subtalk. Is it because we all lived in large connurbations which lacked reasonable rail services?
Both of those are good ideas - James
Building alongside existing lines sounds cheaper than beneath, provided there is enough room.
How about building above the existing lines? Perhaps not so popular in the affected neighborhoods!
Which in London is not always the case...
How about building above the existing lines?
That's exactly what I'd like to do to the Borough Market Jn area!
Next topic of interest- have they let the contract to rehab the D78 District line stock like they did to trailer 17008?
wayne
I know - it's pretty much useless.
From what I have read, on the busy lines, it could ease crowding problems a bit.
Probably. There were plans at one time a very very long time ago for a second pair of District Line tracks beneath the exising ones as far as Mansion House.
The Thameslink Tracks from King's X St Pancras to Moorgate were also planned as extra Met tracks.
On the tube lines, the Victoria line was fitted around the outside of existing stations at several points. If this is possible at the stations, where room has to be allowed for platforms, it surely should be possible on any stretch of the line.
Will any four tracking happen though? No, is the short answer.
On the tube lines it should be feasible but you would have to bore a new pair of tunnels and build new station platforms and escalators. The two extra tracks would cost as much as totally new lines anywhere else, and (if New York is any guide) they would not double the capacity. London does not have New York's unique geography with major north-south arteries, and there is more freedom to build lines anywhere you like if the money is forthcoming, which it isn't.
The "Metropolitan Widened lines" consist of a pair of tracks running alongside part of the Metropolitan, which is a cut-and-cover line. They were built a very long time ago for steam operation to low standards with steep hills. They belong to the suburban rail network, and for many years were used for freight trains and a few commuter trains. Now they are operated as "Thameslink", a suburban passenger service which may be expanded to "Thameslink 2000". I don't think anyone would want to build another line quite like that!
What some of us were contemplating was extending existing tube lines into south London, perhaps by running them on the surface alongside existing suburban lines to save money.
Pre-Victoria Line, which I can remember, getting anywhere from Victoria was a pain, and getting from Victoria to Kings Cross was a particular pain: either you had to go all the way round the Circle Line via either Paddington or Liverpool Street, or you had to change at Embankment (as now is, then called Charing Cross) and again at Leicester Square with that endless tunnel between the Northern and Piccadilly Lines. A direct Knigs Cross to Victoria route was one of the main arguments for the Victoria Line. Wherever they could, they designed the Victoria with cross-platform connections (Finsbury Park, Highbury & Islington, Euston and Oxford Circus) to another line heading in roughly the same direction, Queensborough Plaza-style (but underground of course).
In addition to the 4 track SE Main Line.
Anyway, the Charing X stub would have been a bit hard to direct to Waterloo - the stub tracks nearly reach Aldwych.
Pre-Victoria Line, which I can remember, getting anywhere from Victoria was a pain
I say get the train back to Gatwick and fly somewhere nice and warm... like Athens...
or you had to change at Embankment (as now is, then called Charing Cross) and again at Leicester Square with that endless tunnel between the Northern and Piccadilly Lines.
Not the easiest transfer. South Kensington might have worked better.
IND-Queens Plaza station-Have a four track line and at a location close to the center of town, the local would branch off from the express.
Is that a possible consideration or is it not even to be considered?
Nowadays the prevailing view is that you get better value for money by building new two-track lines along new alignments. Even the Moscow metro, which carries more passengers than any other subway system, consists entirely of self-contained two-track lines. That makes for operational simplicity, which allows very frequent and reliable services.
That's exactly the kind of thing that I had in mind.
Extending the Bakerloo and Victoria Lines on to existing national rail lines in south London might end up giving those commuters slower service than now. Furthermore, they would have less chance of a seat, since tube trains are more standee-oriented than commuter rail trains. When the Central Line was extended up on to the Epping & Hainault branches in the 1940s, the total number of peak-hour seats actually dropped , even though the frequency of peak-hour trains had increased sharply.
In my opinion, it would be better to do as Paris has done and leave the tube for (relatively) inner London journeys, and attach outer branches to an RER-equivalent, with transfer between "RER" and tube at places like Ealing Broadway, Kentish Town, Stratford and Elephant and Castle. Which is why I support Thameslink 2000 and CrossRail.
Its obvious really. You might save ten minutes on a fast suburban service, but then you lose it and your seat changing trains at a terminal. Is the solution really to take a fast suburban service to Finsbury park and change onto the Underground. No it is not. People have voted for the Piccadilly Line and Northern Line with their feet.
It wouldn't surprise me if commuters from Cockfosters and Oakwood have never had to stand on an inward journey in their lives, and its only 12 station stops to Kings Cross, so we are not talking NYC locals here by any stretch of the imagination. OK, the seats might have dropped when Epping was electrified Epping etc., but did the passengers increase? Did they like what was offered?
There is no way that passengers from Thornton Heath and Crystal Palace are going to get a slower journey if these lines were to get plugged into the the Underground, as they currently run all-stations or almost all stations. You would save ten to fifteen minutes not having to change at Victoria or wherever. Plus, people travelling the longest distances would get a seat for the entire journey, because the empty seats don't lock themselves away at the ends of the line.
Extending to Croydon might not look so clever, as there are lots of fast services from Croydon, but even this makes sense now. There are more passengers commuting to East Croydon station than from there during the peaks.
I too am in favour of Crossrail, but as a Colchester/Cambridge to Oxford/Southampton service. One that actually offers some competition to the M25.
Underground style services to outer London work. The services that don't work are because of low housing density due to post-war planning changes. The only lines commuter lines which are equivalent or greater in usage compared with Underground Branches are at a guess those to Shenfield and Dartford, but these tend to run all-stations too, and the reason why the Dartford Lines are so busy is that SE London has a relatively low rail density.
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~mjr/FantasyMapv2.pdf
This one would work because it primarily takes over branches that have no freight or long-distance services, or are four-tracked.
Any London terminal is by definition poorly placed because it is only in one place. The Piccadilly Line gives a choice of numerous West End and City locations, South West suburban gives a choice of only one. London Bridge is not the only poorly sited terminal. Waterloo is awful unless you like concrete, theater, and subtitled films. Victoria must be awful by definition, otherwise everyone wouldn't be trying to get onto the Victoria Line.
The argument that Victoria Line services are so full that the line can't be extended is not quite true. A sizeable number of these people are travelling in from suburban lines via Crystal Palace and Selhurst. If both of these were plugged into the Victoria Line, then this would remove much of the terminal pressure. Those people who don't want the Victoria Line depart at Victoria, those who do have got on, say, at Crystal Palace, where there is much less pressure due to arriving passengers. The reason why Victoria Underground is a zoo is because too many people don't want to be at Victoria and are all having to do the same thing at once, get somewhere else.
The other way to take pressulre off the Victoria Line would be to run all South Eastern services into Victoria via Thameslink. With a proper interchange with the Central Line (Holborn Circus on my fantasy map) then a wide range of West End and City destinations are possible, in addition to the ones directly served. This would provide a reliable, modular, RER style service which has a chance of working.
Plugging branches from south of the river into the Underground should be relatively cheap. Much of this was done between the wars during the depression.
True - it's why Thameslink is a good idea. Pity they used OHLE North of London. Does it really cost more to 3rd Rail electrify the Midland Main Line than to go and buy a fleet of dual power trains?
London Bridge is not the only poorly sited terminal.
At least it has Guy's Hospital - it's the only hospital I know which has signposts to the local McDonalds! :-D
Waterloo is awful unless you like concrete, theater, and subtitled films.
Hey, don't diss Southbank! Having said that, a few tunnels across London from Waterloo would be nice...
Victoria must be awful by definition, otherwise everyone wouldn't be trying to get onto the Victoria Line.
Not necessarily. People choose to use Victoria over London Bridge or Waterloo precisely because it gets them near where they want to go. (The same thing happens at Charing X.)
It also happens that most people arriving at Victoria want to get onto the Victoria Line (mainly to Oxford Circus), not the District/Circle Lines.
Waterloo works better in this respect as the Bakerloo and Northern lines take lots of people away in slightly different directions and the Drain corners the City market.
London Bridge is pretty similar to Victoria in that everyone piles onto Charing X trains there. It differs from Victoria in that no-one would choose to go to London Bridge!
A sizeable number of these people are travelling in from suburban lines via Crystal Palace and Selhurst. If both of these were plugged into the Victoria Line, then this would remove much of the terminal pressure.
Alternatively the Brighton Slow Lines could enter a tunnel at Victoria to Piccadilly Circus and Tottenham Court Road, thus dispersing people at three stations and removing the pressure from the Victoria Line.
The reason why Victoria Underground is a zoo is because too many people don't want to be at Victoria and are all having to do the same thing at once, get somewhere else.
Another contributory factor to the everyone going to Victoria syndrome is that there are no Underground connections at Clapham Junction. Maybe the Northern (Charing X) Line should be extended from Kennington to Clapham Junction somehow - maybe a dogleg across to Vauxhall from Kennington then running under the A3036 Wandsworth Road.
The other way to take pressulre off the Victoria Line would be to run all South Eastern services into Victoria via Thameslink.
That would really limit capacity. You'd have the Chatham Main Line, the Catford Loop and the Nunhead-Lewisham Line all trying to get into Thameslink. Quite where this leaves Brighton Thameslinks, I don't know.
With a proper interchange with the Central Line (Holborn Circus on my fantasy map) then a wide range of West End and City destinations are possible
An extra stop on the Central Line would be rather useful.
Plugging branches from south of the river into the Underground should be relatively cheap.
When the infrastructure in Central London can handle it. Otherwise it's time for new big tunnels across London...
26 trains an hour via Thameslink would be just about perfect. With a connection to the Kings Cross suburban lines, this would give a reliable RER line at minimum cost. The merging issues could be dealt with between Loughborough Junction and Elephant & Castle, which were not conservation areas last time I looked. I have never come across any political pressure to run Brighton-Bedford direct services. They were fun while they lasted, but the cost to the other services is too great.
I guess these three are those odd Dartfords that go to Victoria. I imagine that this is about the problem of lack of capacity at London Bridge/Boro Market Junction than about any positive merit in sending these to Victoria.
"26 trains an hour via Thameslink would be just about perfect."
Well, the proposal is 24, not quite perfect but not too bad.
"I have never come across any political pressure to run Brighton-Bedford direct services."
I live in Bedford. There *is* political objection there to even a temporary cessation of the through service, not necessarily as regards Brighton, but about access to other intermediate points as well. The service has existed for over a decade and people's travelling habits have adapted to its existence.
However, I think it is really about direct access to Gatwick Airport from the Midlands (with one easy change of train at Bedford or Luton)as much as access to Brighton from Bedford. Croydon and Brighton are also more important places than anywhere in Kent that Thameslink might go to. In real life, no-one is proposing ceasing the through service to Brighton. The Thameslink 2000 proposals envisage adding extra southern destinations in order to utilise the 24 tph capacity that the cross-London tunnel will then have.
A classic example of a useful line with pisspoor service, so consequently it's lightly used. I say stick 12tph on there!
The merging issues could be dealt with between Loughborough Junction and Elephant & Castle,
Or there's that little useful device called the timetable.
(Yes, I know, when did anyone last believe a Southern timetable...)
I have never come across any political pressure to run Brighton-Bedford direct services.
Believe me, you'd have half the East Midlands up in arms at losing their nice easy ride to Gatwick. Oh, and Fytton will probably slaughter you.
They were fun while they lasted, but the cost to the other services is too great.
You have to be kidding that the Sutton Loop is more important than the Brighton Line!
The real joke in T2k is Dartford. A better scheme for them would be a Cannon St to Moorgate connector.
Where I'd probably send Thameslink is:
2tph Bedford (Fast) - London Bridge - 3 Bridges - Horsham - Bognor
2tph Bedford (Fast) - London Bridge - Brighton (Fast to 3 Bridges)
2tph Bedford (Fast) - London Bridge - Wivelsfield - Eastbourne
2tph Luton (Slow) - London Bridge - 3 Bridges - Horsham - Littlehampton
2tph Luton (Slow) - London Bridge - Brighton (Fast to 3 Bridges)
2tph Luton (Slow) - London Bridge - Wivelsfield - Seaford
4tph Gt Northern - Herne Hill - Sutton Loop ACW (or Wimbledon if District gets extended to Sutton)
4tph Gt Northern - Herne Hill - Sutton Loop CW (or Epsom if District gets extended to Sutton)
4tph Gt Northern - Herne Hill - Crystal Palace - E Croydon - Redhill - Reigate (maybe if electrification can be sorted with 2tph to Reading and 2tph to Aldershot)
Indeed. And guess what, the CTRL goes to Kings Cross/St Pancras directly. In addtion to the EuroStar trains, the new St Pancras is also going to have fast commuter trains from Kent. So Kent doesn't need access to those termini via Thameslink anywhere near as much as Sussex does!
"I'm sorry, but I lived in Nottingham for six years. No one else in the country really knows what the East Midlands are exactly, nor do they care."
Umm, I lived in Nottingham for 25 years, and James is currently resident in Leicester in term time......
Not enough of them, but it's a start! I sure hope Cliffe Airport happens...
So Kent doesn't need access to those termini via Thameslink anywhere near as much as Sussex does!
For once, Fytton, we agree. This seems to be happening scarily often these days. We must stop it.
and James is currently resident in Leicester in term time......
[Cue: woman with really deadpan voice and a Leicester accent]
"The train now approaching platform 3 is the delayed 1300 Midland Mainline High Speed Train service to London St Pancras, calling at London St Pancras only."
There are two issues here. First, we have people getting to work. They are expensive to transport by rail but the alternatives are worse. However, these people create a problem once they get to the terminals. Large numbers of people arriving at the same place together results in the need for expensive capactiy enhancement projects. The solution to this problem is not to have the terminals for commuter services at all. Furthermore, the simpler the services, the more capacity and reliability they have. If capacity can be raised by simplifying services, then this saves on the need for expensive flying junctions and so on.
OK, that gets everyone to work. Now we have to get Fytton to the airport. Crossing London by tube to get from one terminal to another is an anachronistic pain, but it is not as pressing as the getting people to work problem because fewer people are involved, and they travel throughout the day, rather than between 07:30 and 09:00 and 17:00 to 18:30. We are talking inconvenience here rather than bedlam. These people are not responsible for London's capacity problems, and therefore spending money increasing capacity for them is not addressing the real problem directly. It needs a more considered long term solution because its not just Gatwick to Luton, its Colchester to Reading, Southampton to Cambridge, Brighton to Birmingham, Ashford to Stevenage, and so on. Together, we are all choking up the M25 and its approach roads, and turning SE England into a car park.
What is Crossrail for? Originally, it was conceived as a project to relieve the horrifically overcrowded Central Line between Liverpool Street and Bank. Thats just two stations folks. Essentially, the Central Line currently has three branches: Epping, Hainault, and Shenfield, but the Shenfield passengers don't get a direct service and join the train at Stratford, meaning that the trains are full by the time they get to Liverpool Street, when I want to get on. These people want to get to Bank, Holborn, and Oxford Circus. They don't want to go to Heathrow (nothing wrong with Stanstead) or Reading, so why is the solution to offer them these journey options in an impossibly expensive all-singing all-dancing project? With a train every two minutes from Shenfield during the peak, they won't all need to go to the western extremities in any case. Hence, the solution here is too lavish for the problem, and this is why I think that Crossrail should be more concerned with long distance east-west journeys.
Overall, London's rail problems are best tackled at each root. If anything is wrong, spend as much money as needed to solve it and no more. Its the ambitious schemes that never get built, and these by definition solve nothing.
Or CTRL will have to be 3rd Rail as well. Much easier than re-electifying half of Kent with crappy catenary.
Taking commuters around East London and dropping them off at Kings Cross just shifts the terminal problem to somewhere else.
Except a lot of people will use Stratford as well. Between Stratford and St Pancras' you can get straight onto most Underground Lines (exceptions: District, East London, Northern Charing X, Waterloo & City).
Also, terminals are less of a problem if you're coming from further out. If I'm riding in from Birmingham, I much prefer a train which doesn't stop after Banbury to one which stops at piddling places like Gerrard's X (without stopping at the one piddling place which would be of any use to me: S Ruislip).
Crossing London by tube to get from one terminal to another is an anachronistic pain,
The only worse thing is the SE Arm of Virgin Cross-Country. I really hope they break it off and run the trains out of Birmingham Moor Street when it finally re-opens as both routes into New Street are lethargic and add 10 to 20 minutes. Oh, and if I wanted to go to Kensington Olympia, I'd've gone to Marylebone or Euston and got the Underground.
Brighton to Birmingham
I'm surprised that one survived. It takes forever. They killed the train to Pompey for that!
Originally, it was conceived as a project to relieve the horrifically overcrowded Central Line between Liverpool Street and Bank. Thats just two stations folks. Essentially, the Central Line currently has three branches: Epping, Hainault, and Shenfield, but the Shenfield passengers don't get a direct service and join the train at Stratford, meaning that the trains are full by the time they get to Liverpool Street, when I want to get on. These people want to get to Bank, Holborn, and Oxford Circus.
Then why didn't JLE go under Fleet St and take over the Shenfield Line? It would have been much simpler and much more use than the route they finally chose.
(nothing wrong with Stanstead)
There's a hell of a lot wrong with Stansted as far as I'm concerned. It's effectively in the middle of nowhere for anyone living West of the A1.
With a train every two minutes from Shenfield during the peak, they won't all need to go to the western extremities in any case.
Even if Shenfield got 30tph, there's plenty of room in the West:
- Chesham
- Aylesbury via Amersham
- Watford Jn
- Reading
- Heathrow
- Kingston (eugh bastard route)
This averages 5tph each - not a hell of a lot.
Canary Wharf JLE? Two words: Barclay Brothers. They were going to pay a lot of money to LU in return for a new Underground line serving Canary Wharf. Unfortunately, they went bankrupt before they wrote the cheque.
Yes, there are all sorts of places that you can send the extra Shenfield Line trains to, but running contra-peak they will be empty and therefore dead mileage.
Also, are all these lines going to be fully paid up members of Crossrail? in which case they will have their peak time requirements going into London, which might add up to more than 30 tph. Shenfield to Liverpool Street needs 30 tph into London, but it certainly does not need 40tph going out of London contra-peak. If these lines are only going to be Crossrail members offpeak then is it worth electrifying or re-electrifying them for relatively light useage?
That would kill the Brighton Fast to Victoria. So make the split 50/50 at E Croydon.
This leaves a line at half capacity, so find another half-capacity line (ie terminate half the Chatham trains short), then you have a full compliment on Thameslink.
The hybrid options are too expensive. They do nothing to simplfy the over-complex Victorian service patterns, and in practice will not work reliably.
I don't see how 50/50 splits are over-complex. I see it as a necessary part of running a branching infrastructure near capacity efficiently.
Okay, there are some dumb Victorianisms around, but remember the tracks are pretty much the same as they were in those days, so we'd best deal with it.
I don't understand why people from South London have to have multiple destinations for their trains. Its not as though commuters into Euston stamp their feet and say that they want Liverpool Street too. In fact, the ex-Broad Street services into Liverpool Street faded away very quickly. As you say, for long distance it doesn't really matter, and for short distance there are plenty of interchange options.
Then why does the NYC Subway work well?
I don't understand why people from South London have to have multiple destinations for their trains.
Nor do I, but there must be a degree of destination multiplication to deal with the number of branches and to provide convenient interchanges.
As you say, for long distance it doesn't really matter
Exactly, so the only difference between St Pancras' and Victoria or London Bridge is how long it takes to get there. The new line to St Pancras' will allow 125mph services, so it is clearly an improvement in that regard. This is probably the best improvement they could hope for in East Kent.
Major trunk lines that branch into three or more routes (and an express and a local on a branch count twice in this respect) are very rare away from NY and are almost unheard of on newer rapid transit systems. Hence, the green line in NY (can't remember its name) effectively has five branches heading northwards during the peak. The frequency for each individual branch is restricted by the capacity along the in-town section, and there will also be loading and timing problems in-town if the branches are unequally busy/frequent. The Mill Hill stub creates all sorts of problems for the Northern Line, while the Piccadilly Line has problems because many more people want to get to Heathrow than Rayners Lane
The only reason it works at all in NY is because of four-tracked routes in the centre. Express and Local allows for recovery when trains are late or out of sequence. Neither Crossrail of Thameslink-whenever will have this feature.
Errrmmmmm.... ever heard of the Metropolitan Line? Or the District Line?
The Mill Hill stub creates all sorts of problems for the Northern Line
That's because it's a crummy one track branch.
while the Piccadilly Line has problems because many more people want to get to Heathrow than Rayners Lane
Not really a problem - the Piccadilly Line has the Heathrow Branch to itself, so extra trains can run there without disrupting other lines.
The only reason it works at all in NY is because of four-tracked routes in the centre. Express and Local allows for recovery when trains are late or out of sequence. Neither Crossrail of Thameslink-whenever will have this feature.
The Chatham Lines are effectively four tracked from Swanley to London. Other lines have four or even six tracks. The only crappy 2 track lines are Greenwich and the SLL.
No, the Piccadilly Line suffers from all sorts of problems. Say you get two trains going to Heathrow for every one going to Rayners Lane. That means that half of the Heathrow trains have twice a waiting period than the other half, which means more passengers. More passengers means longer loading times, which means that half of the Heathrow trains take longer to get to Heathrow than the other half, and start to catch them up. This makes the intervals even more uneven and excerbates the problem. Basically, uneven loadings on branches makes it extremely difficult to to maintain an even interval service. Now, if the Piccadilly Line was four-tracked in-town, you could switch held-up trains to express to get them back to schedule, but it doesn't. You would be surprised just how often the Piccadilly Line suspends its timetable and runs an emergency service in which all main line trains go to Heathrow, and Rayners lane is served by an Acton Town shuttle service. When Piers Connor gave a talk to the LURS on just these topics, he told us that three days the previous week the Piccadilly Line had switched into the emergency timetable.
Swanley to London four track? No, because both run stopping services. If there are breakdowns etc you can switch trains at either end, but not in the middle.
RER A (Western end), RER C (both ends split into four), RER D (Southern end).
In fact, the RER is probably the most fair comparison to the Southern Region.
Say you get two trains going to Heathrow for every one going to Rayners Lane. That means that half of the Heathrow trains have twice a waiting period than the other half, which means more passengers. More passengers means longer loading times, which means that half of the Heathrow trains take longer to get to Heathrow than the other half, and start to catch them up. This makes the intervals even more uneven and excerbates the problem. Basically, uneven loadings on branches makes it extremely difficult to to maintain an even interval service.
Maybe the solution would be to send some District Line trains down to Heathrow. Do they fit beyond Hounslow West?
When Piers Connor gave a talk to the LURS on just these topics, he told us that three days the previous week the Piccadilly Line had switched into the emergency timetable.
That is pretty bad!
Swanley to London four track? No, because both run stopping services.
So what if both lines have stations on them? There are still 4 tracks. Trains on one route can overtake those on the other, so it works like a 4 track line.
District line won't fit into Heathrow, which is standard tube. Another solution is to Lose a District branch, such as Richmond to the Central (Ealing Broadway goes to Bakerloo) or Wimbledon to Chelsea Hackney, and then use extra paths to send District to Uxbridge, as was originally the case. South Harrow then gets a possibly unacceptably slow journey to London (19 stops to Victoria, I don't think that anything much more than 12 is good).
Shenfiield to London is a proper 4-track fast and slow service. It means that a train from Shenfield gets a clear run into London without ANY risk of running into the back of a train picking up passengers at Gidea park. You can't overtake a train at West Dulwich by running on the Catford Loop if there is a Late or delayed train at Nunhead or whatever. Swanley to London really cannot run as effectively as a proper 4-track line unless timetabled by seriously clever people.
According to a friend of mine in Paris, Line C doesn't exist, as far as reliability.
The following is more or less, responding to the other London threads, but Paris built in the last 35 years a few things in its central section:
The RER A line between Vincennes(St. Mandé) and Nanterre Université.
The RER B line between Luxembourg and Gare du Nord.
The RER C line between Gare d'Orsay and Invalides and some extra connections.
The RER D line between Châtelet and Gare de Lyon.
The RER E line between Haussmann and Magenta.
Line 13 between St.-Lazare and Invalides.
Line 14 (new).
And about South London..... . I'd like to see a plan that works in my life time.
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~mjr/FantasyMapv2.pdf
In practice, the loops would have lots of short workings, but they would allow some operational flexibility.
Yes, you are right, corner of Delancy Street and Parkway was my initial thought. Good for London Zoo as well.
I had to get from Dulwich to New Cross for my school trips. Two buses (12 and P3 or 12 and 36) and then a mile walk uphill. Plenty of Routemasters though. In fact the trip can still be done all Routemaster.
Which is why N Kent E to Metropolitan Jns desperately needs reconfiguring/simplifying.
That's where my Bromley South proposal comes in. CTRL means that Kent just possibly might become an important area for rail travel in the future.
Hmmm - the future: the slow way to Kent - I somehow don't think so.
What we need is to get the junctions sorted so everything doesn't conflict with eachother. If Thameslink can be hoisted up out of the way (or sent via the Elephant in your plan), a simplification of the tracks to:
- 1&2 Cannon St - Greenwich
- 3&4 Charing X Slow - SE Slow
- 5&6 Charing X Fast - SE Fast
would enable a wonderful set of service improvement for Kent, including Bromley, Orpington, Sevenoaks and Ashford:
GREENWICH
6tph Cannon St - Dartford
6tph Cannon St - Plumstead
(My original plan had another 12tph on a new Blackwall Pt Branch to help regenerate the area).
SE SLOW
6tph Charing X - Orpington
6tph Charing X - Bexleyheath - Gillingham
6tph Charing X - Lewisham - Slade Green ACW
6tph Charing X - Lewisham - Slade Green CW
SE FAST
6tph Charing X - Hayes
6tph Charing X - Bromley N
4tph Charing X - Sevenoaks - Ashford (services beyond Ashford would be via CTRL)
4tph Charing X - Sevenoaks
2tph Charing X - Sevenoaks - Hastings
2tph Charing X - Sevenoaks - Paddock Wood - Maidstone W - St Pancras'
If there is sufficient demand up north for getting to Gatwick across London, then perhaps more air services should go to the regional airports.
When it costs the same to fly from Birmingham International or East Midlands, then it's a better than Gatwick. However, when airlines start charging you £50+ more, then it's worth going to London. Maybe someone should tell BA, Swiss Air, Air France, KLM, etc to cut their fares to/from Midland airports.
Reopen the Buxton-Matlock line and then the East Midlands folk can go direct to Manchester.
Or alternatively finally open East Midlands Parkway. If we're into building new lines, a high speed line from just East of Birmingham International to Leicester would be nice.
I'm sorry, but I lived in Nottingham for six years.
Poor you.
No one else in the country really knows what the East Midlands are exactly
Maybe not, but they sure know where Leicester and Derby are ;-)
nor do they care.
They care enough to make you not vote against them. Remember the East Midlands is stuffed full of marginal constituencies.
If after going to all the effort of joining up the Great Northern line to the Thameslink tunnel we don't give the passengers from the Peterborough and Cambridge directions any through service to Gatwick, there would be serious objection! Peterborough will be the connection point for GNER passengers from the north trying to reach Gatwick Airport, rather as Bedford/Luton are for Midland Mainline passengers doing the same thing. Cambridge-Gatwick is fairly important in itself (Cambridge probably has more people per square mile doing regular foreign business trips than anywhere else I can think of), and by connection at Ely or Cambridge we can also get a two-seat ride for passengers from Norwich and Ipswich to Gatwick.
Rather than sending all the Midland line trains to London Bridge, Croydon and Gatwick and all the Great Northern ones to Elephant & Castle etc., a much better idea would be to extend the present concept of sending the outer-suburban service to London Bridge and Brighton, and the inner-suburban one to Elephant, Herne Hill and beyond. So, retain Bedford fast to Gatwick and beyond and Luton stopping to Herne Hill and beyond, and add Ely-Cambridge/Peterborough to London Bridge, Gatwick and beyond, and Hatfield/Hertford North stopping to Elephant, Herne Hill and wherever.
They never had it, so they won't object. Seriously, if we're talking about feeding 12tph from both the Midland and GN lines and 12tph from both the Holborn and Brighton Fast lines into Thameslink, it makes a certain sense to pair them. As the Midland lines are already there, they should get to keep their preferred Southern half. The GN can pick up the other. I don't really get what the fuss would be about from Peterborough and Cambridge - all they'd have to do is wait 2½ minutes on the same platform at St Pancras.
Peterborough will be the connection point for GNER passengers from the north trying to reach Gatwick Airport
All the more reason for Sheffield, Leeds and York to have better MML service. And who would use Gatwick Airport from Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Alnwick, Berwick, or places in Scotland?
and Hatfield/Hertford North stopping to Elephant
There's no capacity for those trains - they'd continue to go to Moorgate.
What there's capacity for is:
- King's Lynn via Cambridge Fast (1tph)
- Cambridge Fast (2tph)
- Peterborough (3tph)
- Cambridge via Letchworth Slow (3tph)
- Letchworth Slow (3tph)
a much better idea would be to extend the present concept of sending the outer-suburban service to London Bridge and Brighton, and the inner-suburban one to Elephant,
The result would be either:
- alternating 2½ and 7½ minute headways at stations Finsbury Pk etc (the Midland line of course becomes Fast/Slow immediately after St Pancras', so this is no problem).
- alternating 2½ and 7½ minute headways at stations London Bridge to 3 Bridges AND Elephant to Herne Hill.
So there would be imbalance somewhere as a result. Probably setting the GN Line slightly off balance is worth it, but it really is a less neat service pattern.
Any London terminal is by definition poorly placed because it is only in one place.
Agreed. I only meant that the London terminals are less convenient than underground lines.
The argument that Victoria Line services are so full that the line can't be extended is not quite true.
Good! So there is still hope for the Victoria line extension.
run all South Eastern services into Victoria via Thameslink.
I think you must mean divert them from Victoria to Thameslink!
Plugging branches from south of the river into the Underground should be relatively cheap. Much of this was done between the wars during the depression.
I didn't know that. Which branches?
I didn't know that. Which branches?
Well, the Richmond branch of the District and the Wimbledon Branch beyond East Putney were both originally LSWR, but these were Districtified long before WWI. The Richmond branch still has NLL service, but the last British Rail or prede/suc-cessor train on the Wimbledon Branch ran a long time ago (about the time the Southern Railway became BR Southern Region IINM). National Rail operating rules are still in force on the Wimbledon Branch though - the force of history in action...
In North London, the entire section of the Northern Line North of Highgate used to be GNR then LNER until the '30s; the Central Line East of Stratford used to be GER (then LNER); and the Central Line West of White City runs either on former GWR (the one pre-grouping company that kept its name in the grouping) tracks or alongside them where main line use continued.
The Bakerloo Line North of Queen's Park runs on ex-LMS tracks - these are still shared with BR's successors (whose name in this case I've forgotten and can't be bothered to look up). For a while after BR was privatised, Railtrack charged LT extortionate amounts for running the Bakerloo line on these tracks, so LT cards were not valid North of Queen's Park; they are now valid to Kenton (why not go one more station to the end of the line, I don't know).
Not just history - the tracks from East Putney, through the disused platforms at that station, and down to the Windsor lines into Waterloo at Point Pleasant Junction (east of Putney station) are still there, as far as I know, and the junction on to the main line at Wimbledon could be reconnected quite easily. This route from Wimbledon to Waterloo was used as a diversionary route when the main line was blocked for any reason, and also for empty stock movements, long after any SR trains actually stopped at the District Line stations. It would be difficult to use this route with any regularity now becasue the District service to Wimbledon has become more frequent, wiht fewer Underground trains terminating at Parsons Green or Putney Bridge and more of them going through to Wimbledon.
"The Bakerloo Line North of Queen's Park runs on ex-LMS tracks - these are still shared with BR's successors (whose name in this case I've forgotten and can't be bothered to look up)."
Silverlink.
One of them is. The flyover's been gone since Cro-Magnon man was around though.
and the junction on to the main line at Wimbledon could be reconnected quite easily.
I didn't know it had been severed. On the track map I've got there's a 2 track connection at Wimbledon N Jn - Wimbledon E "A" Jn and also connections through Wimbledon Depot.
This route from Wimbledon to Waterloo was used as a diversionary route when the main line was blocked for any reason
Interesting. The main line would be really screwed then!
It would be difficult to use this route with any regularity now becasue the District service to Wimbledon has become more frequent
I think it's still only 12tph or something. In an emergency everything could be cut back to Putney Bridge, I suppose.
Silverlink.
Duh! That was obvious! Thanks!
Sorry about muddled words. Yes, basically I think that Thameslink should be made more self-contained and modular, rather than spreading itself too thinly as it does at the moment. The mad thing about Thameslink is that no service is all day or seven day. Some services don't or barely run during peaks due to congestion. Other services don't run on Sundays, but the two are not the same.
Sorry about muddled words (II). The branches that were planned to be plugged into the Underground for the New Works Programme commencing 1935 were the LNER branches to High Barnet, Mill Hill (the "Northern Heights"), Epping and Hainault, and the GWR branch to West Ruislip. Unfortunately, Alexandra Palace was dropped after the war.
??? Both the basic Thameslink services - Bedford-Brighton and Luton-Wimbledon-Sutton loop - run seven days a week. The through services to and from Brighton are reduced in the peak hours because of the congestion in the London Bridge area (and one or two trains get diverted via Elephant & Castle and Tulse Hill to maintain the through service while avoiding the congestion point). The only service that isn't seven days is Bedford-Moorgate, but really that is only run to provide more capacity at the northern end without impacting the congestion point at London Bridge. Lack of it at other times is no big deal - you just change at Farringdon on to Underground trains.
There are a huge number of Sunday G.O.s at the moment that cut the through service, because of all the rebuilding in the Kings Cross area, but that isn't the basic timetable.
Streatham to Sutton direct via Mitcham Junction does not run on Sundays, and numerous stations on the Brighton Line, such as Redhill, get no Thameslink service.
Yes, we can change trains, but this all adds to the inconvenience. Much easier to get into a car and drive all of the way there.
I agree, and Thameslink 2000 would be spread too thinly over a much wider area. In principle they should focus on providing operationally simple, frequent services to a very few carefully selected lines with high ridership.
Later in the nineteenth century, what is now the tube system began to develop - first the subsurface lines, then the deep tubes when electric traction became feasible. But at roughly the same time, electric trams (streetcars) started, and the London County Council began to provide very cheap servcies, especially in inner south London. Traffic at the inner ends of suburban lines was drained off to the trams. And the dense network of lines already existing in the south discouraged development of new tube lines there.
Then came the "grouping" of companies in the wake of WW1. All the lines south of the Thames came under one ownership, the Southern Railway, which had relatively little freight traffic and no really long-distance main lines. It was strongly motivated to develop its suburban network and set about electrifying it. North of the Thames there were still three companies, two of whom had no interest in electrification, and which had already seen some of their inner London traffic drained off by the Underground as well as the trams.
In the 1920s competition developed between the Underground group and the Southern, with the latter keen to keep the former out of its south London bailiwick. Hence the daft story of the Wimbledon-Sutton line, built in the 1920s, which was meant to be an extension of the District Line but ended up as an obscure and under-used branch of the Southern. Electrification of the Southern continued between the two World Wars, and after WW2, when it continued after nationalisation until almost all of the Southern's network was electrified. Electrification in the northeast of London, the LNER's territory, on the other hand, came very late and by that time the steam services had largely lost their inner London traffic to the Underground. London Transport was nationalised in 1933 but the Southern not till 1948. By then, although theoretically they should have co-operated, the design of the networks was largely fixed. In ensuing decades rail traffic in general feel as more people got cars, so the case for any rail expansio nwas weak. Finally, as in New York, rail passenger traffic is now on the up again, but tube construction is so expensive that we are probably stuck with the Southern in more of less its present form. The relatively inexpensive East London Line extension proposals, however, will recapture two lines with quite frequent services (each ten minutes) and provide an Underground service to the existing stations.
It has been said that much of south London is an "aquifer", apparently meaning that there would be too much water to pump. But then wouldn't that apply equally to the Morden line? The Jubilee line extension? Anyway I prefer to believe what you say.
Thanks for your historical perspective, which is very interesting and clearly explained. Without knowing the history, one cannot hope to fully understand the present situation.
Anywho, after every stop the C/R would have a fairly detailed conversation with each new passenger about how this was the quiet car, etc, etc. This loud Quiet Car pep-talk was not only loud but repeditive so it was hard to put into the white random noise. Then, there was the incredible loud intercom anouncements which also went into detail about the quiet car and its rules...after every single stop. Arrrrgh, I thought the quiet car was suposted to be QUIET.
Maybe he should have had a sign, in multiple languages, to hold up while putting one finger over his mouth and quietly making a shhhhh sound.
Oftentimes the Quiet Car is adorned with 8-1/2 x 11 Xerox copies of a mouth with a finger over it and "Shhhh! Quiet Car!" (though just in English). They hang them from the ceiling and on the interior doors at both ends.
I think there are a few enterprising conductors who use these... since I don't see them on every train.
That just goes to show that now that I'm over 40, the odds of me having an original idea keep going down.
AEM7
Congratulations. You must have found the one Eurostar with more than 5 other people in your car.
You bleeding heart liberal, Mike.
I was trapped once in a smoking car on the Eurostar
If you object to smoking so much, why not book a seat in any of the other 17 cars? No-one's forcing you to ride in the smoking car. In fact, it should keep people who smell of Marlboro Reds away from you, so you win too by the existence of the Smoking Car.
In any sensible train - ie everything but Eurostar - you could have got on another car and not be restricted by these dumb compulsorary reservations.
Yes, they are that bad. However, I don't know how or even if they could tell if you sat in a vacant seat. You can get up and walk to the buffet car though.
But certainly in the UK reservation is not compulsorary, except on Eurostar. It is however advisable if you are riding the first train on a Sunday, otherwise you may find yourself standing for 200 miles.
I tend not to reserve because on many trains they won't let you specify the direction of your seat, plus they have a habit of reserving you a seat by a man with a walkman, very bad taste in loud music, and twenty rucksacks.
And I bet you're a really really BAD American who if, God forbid, struck by any smoking related illness would not think of taking tobacco companies to court.
and it's nice there's a buffet car - Amtrak has a "cafe car" these days which sells things only Rasputin could eat and live to tell about.
I didn't say it was any better over here ;-) There's even one company whose coffee is so appalling they give it away!
I find it amazing that someone who didn't want to be in a smoking car was sentenced to remain in one
I feel a strange glee at this. How often are we forced to sit in Non-Smoking Cars when we don't want to? Maybe if we enforced Smoking Cars on all Politically Correct Bleeding Heart Liberals, they wouldn't go around abolishing them.
without shackles at least. :)
Now that's not a bad idea... :-D
And you mean to tell me that there's weaker coffee than in America out there somewhere? You do realize them's biffing words. Heh.
Ah, Gauloises!
Are there smoking cars on Amtrak? The LIRR did away with them years ago -- they were the most foul and disgusting cars in the system. There was so much smoke in those things that I could swear some people were smoking two or three butts at once...
I never smoked but I always sat in the smoking cars - the girls who smoked were always prettier and sexier than those who didnt ;-)
The non-quiet cars can be interesting. Something about the train has people talking business far too openly and far too loudly. The first rule of business travel is that you never know who's sitting near you.
CG
Good... then the little monsters who were running up and down my car last Sunday must not be regular riders :^)
2. When was the last time there was express service between Church and Bergen
1976.
I didn't know F's EVER ran express - was this a special GO or something?
In fairness, the 2 times out of 2 recently I've seen it happen, there has been another F right behind.
As well they could have transfered at W4.
A while back (don't know if its still policy) V line supervision put out a memo that V line conductors MUST announce at West 4th for the F due to the nature of the 2nd Avenue terminal (the only ways to cross over are at the ends). Never heard many do this. If conductors did this the transfer at 2nd Avenue wouldn't be an issue.
How were they supposed to know that the next F would bypass Broadway-Laf? Every F is supposed to stop at Broadway-Laf.
A while back (don't know if its still policy) V line supervision put out a memo that V line conductors MUST announce at West 4th for the F due to the nature of the 2nd Avenue terminal (the only ways to cross over are at the ends). Never heard many do this. If conductors did this the transfer at 2nd Avenue wouldn't be an issue.
I thought this announcement was to be made at Broadway-Laf.
Personally, if I need to transfer from the V to the F to go to Brooklyn, I'll do it at W4, simply because, if something goes wrong, I have another potential option upstairs (and, in fact, if something goes wrong, some F trains might show up upstairs).
Thanks!
Chuck Greene
--Mark
wayne
:)
The Slime Bitch N will run local through the rathole from 11 PM to 5:30 AM every night, think you can put up with mediocrity on your line like that?
Broadway is for my Brighton Line, the Q Broadway Express AND via. Bridge.
It would make more sense to me to but the R68A's on the Q, 68's on the B/D and R40/42's on the N/W.
Did anyone else wonder why they're running the D on the West End instead of the B?
I mean, it's been the B for what, 25-odd years? Why change it now? I understand the routes each will run, but couldn't they leave the letters alone?
Maybe I'm missing something here. Is there actually a reason they reversed the lettering?
Thanks,
Mike.
For Culver, Queens prevailed over Brooklyn in the F letter. F stayed on the blvd. but Culver went from D to F.
And all this time, I thought that it was Staten Island which got "no respect."
Well, for the IND and IRT lines, yeah. Or also for the combined IND-BMT southern division lines too (though until recently that wasn't the case with the (B). Witness its 1998 northern terminal swap.) But the purely BMT letters are clearly defined by the Brooklyn terminals. When the Sea Beach and 4th Ave routes swtiched their Queens terminals in 1987, which borough got to keep the old letters? And Brooklyn never lost the (Q)
:-) Andrew
(Now THAT'S showing disrespect!)
:-) Andrew
:-) Andrew
Why does The Bronx prevail over Brooklyn in route assignments?
Trunk lines:
8th Ave: A, C, E
6th Ave: B, D, F
B-Q Crosstown and Fulton Local: G, H
Northern Terminals:
Washington Heights: A, B
Bronx: C, D
Queens: E, F
And the south terminals fell behind them in priority.
The BMT obviously favored Brooklyn from the beginning, with Queens as sort of, kind of, a secondary priority. (They did even less for The Bronx--nothing at all--than the IRT did for Brooklyn or Queens.) And the rarely-posted BMT route numbers were obviously oriented towards the Brooklyn terminals. The letters that replaced the numbers continued that tradition, mostly, but the mixing and mingling with the IND has complicated matters on both sides. (Oy! I should have warned them about intermarriage!)
Hey! Look at it this way. At least someone favored Brooklyn. Queens was an afterthought on all three divisions! And obviously the Garbage Dump got nothing but leftover BO....uh I mean a B&O RR line.
:-D Andrew
The only reasonable alternative is to use this as an excuse to (a) simplify service patterns in the Bronx and (b) improve CPW weekend/night service by making the B the full-time service and the D the weekday-only service. I emailed this suggestion to NYCT; it's probably too late for it to be implemented, but we'll see what happens.
(And the West End hasn't been the B since 2001.)
Yes true, but I along with many other West End-ers do NOT consider the W to be a train at all ;-)
Next stop on Fred's favorite line----Fort Hamilton Parkway.
N/W Broadway Line
N/W Broadway Line
Astoria
wayne
The only reason the express tracks are not being used is becasue the Manhattan Bridge is closed to 6th Ave trains. Before the rehab on the Manhattan bridge, the express tracks were used because trains going through Grand Street from the MB use the express tracks.
The same thing happend when when the MB was closed to Broadway Line trains. The express tracks on Broadway (and the Q/W Canal Street platform) sat unused for years also because the Bridge was closed, because the Broadway Express is also fed from the Manhattan Bridge.
For property damage and/or business interruption (other than by terrorism), FMTAC (effectively the MTA) retains the first $30 million per occurence. They buy reinsurance in the private market for the next $970 million on any one occurrence. Any amounts over $1 billion would also be retained by FMTAC/MTA.
For property damage and/or business interruption (caused by terrorism), FMTAC effectively retains $30 million there as well, with private reinsurers taking 10% of the next $700 million and the government taking 90% of all terrorism losses above $30 million. So FMTAC/MTA keeps the first $30 million of any terrorism claim and then also will pay 10% of the amount above $730 million. (This is very different that what they had in effect on 9/11/01).
For liability and workers comp, from what I've been able to piece together it looks like the MTA retains almost 100% of these claims. The only outside protection that the FMTAC buys looks like $10 million of coverage in the event aggregate claims against Metro North and the LIRR exceed $45 million in any one year.
No word on who the outside reinsurers are.
CG
CG
You forget about all the bond debt that must be repaid. This debt id backed by fare sales.
The antidote to this pessimistic outlook is to take a look at the Madrid system, for example:
http://www.metropla.net/eu/mad/madrid.htm
The expansion of this system has been phenomenal over the last few years, and it seems set to overtake Paris in route mileage soon if it has not already done so. This is a proper heavy-rail subway system, not glorified trams, and the photos certainly don't suggest cheap and nasty construction.
Even if we accept that the Spanish are happier to dip their hands in their pockets than we are, this does not explain the excessive time that our projects take, and Spain is not a rich country in any case. So, how do they do it?
Another motivating factor which favors the expansion is that a survey was taken in 1997 that showed that almost 90% of the SP population supported Metro expansion, because there is no other way to relieve congestion on the buses, roads and commuter trains.
Peace,
ANDEE
That being said, I fail to see how one can conclude that the difference between the street and subway platform will be "x" degrees. Subway stations retain heat, and dissipate it slowly. So while at the surface the "diurnal" temperature (i.e. cycle from overnight low to afternoon high) averages 15 degrees, in the subway it is far less. The major contributors are output from subway car air conditioners, the trains' grids, and people.
In my opinion this is a non-story, with a false premise and and a faulty conclusion.
And that's Transit and Weather Together.
Robert
Robert
Whoops, I thought it was HOTTER. But that would help in my case also if it was true.
Other items that could be big sealers
Aspirin to releave the headaches of delays
nose plugs to drown out the smell or urine
Issuing franchises to operate vending machine's is a painless way to do so. The MTA would have to do nothing except collect th checks.
Granted not all station shave room for such machines.
The biggest problem the vendor will have is keeping the machines full of supplies
--Z--
The story is sarcasm. The New Yorkish is not to be taken seriously.
Peace,
ANDEE
In finance I'm a contrarain, but based on anectdotal personal experience, I'm a momentum player in weather. It does seem to me that weather gets in these patterns and stays there for a time. Thus, I "forecast" a mild summer based on the cold winter and spring. We'll see. Might as well happen this year, when the F train isn't going to Coney Island anyway.
(Subway stations retain heat, and dissipate it slowly. So while at the surface the "diurnal" temperature (i.e. cycle from overnight low to afternoon high) averages 15 degrees, in the subway it is far less.)
I agree with you there. In the outer boroughs, where there are fewer train and people heating up the station, you are almost always cooler in the station than on the street. The same is true in Manhattan in the early stage of a heat wave. But when you get over 90 degrees for many days in a row, the station starts to heat up. The worst is boarding the subway after a cold front has ended a heat wave. You end up with yesterday's weather underground.
I think you're right too. The catch is that the patterns can break very suddenly and no one can accurately predict when.
Our last drought was like that at both ends. It was very wet for an extended period of time. Then pretty suddenly it stopped precipitating at anywhere near normal levels. The winter of 2001-2002 was dry and warm. Then suddenly last summer or fall some time the pattern broke and we've had excess precipitation since.
Some time, that pattern will break too. We just don't know if today (drier weather is forecast for a while now) or in 6 months.
Unless, of course, you step onto an R-32, with their wonderful deep-freeze AC.
Sour grapes. When my was in London on business during the summer, she was disappointed that there was no AC on the trains. She was told by the locals that the 90 degree plus weather she was experiencing was very rare in England. Just her luck.
Is it possible for the MTA to improve the airflow by installing exust fans in station or is that to much of a risk in case of fire.
Many people don't realize even inthier home that that exusting hot air out is more effective the blowing cooler air in.
34th street herald square is one of my favorite places to fry an egg on the tiles
Except of course GCT on the 4/5/6, which is an air conditioned station (at considerable expense).
(Of course, that would only cover the fare control area and the AirTrain platform, not the subway platforms.)
I think there is a reasonable approach to air conditioning. Install "blowers" over time to cool passengers on the platforms at the major transfer stations, where it gets the hottest. The others don't need it. You can't air condition the entire stations, because they aren't closed, and you can't install blowers systemwide, because the costs vastly exceed the benefits. But you could install blowers in selected stations.
They've done that on the uptown 4/5/6 platforms at Union Square, and they're wonderful. It may still be hot, but it feels much better.
It would be far more effective to exust the hot air out.
Your defintition of marginal is way different from mine. I used to find GCT miserable and now I find it completely acceptable.
I would wai at the top of the steps and take the first train that came at 34th street Broadway platform and transfer at a cooler staion such as canal street because it was so hot down there. In a mere minute in work cloths one is soaked to the bone especially towards the front of the train which is a bit uphill from the reat of the train.
(YES, I *know* it's "NewYorkish")
Unless of course, you find yourself on a crush-loaded train on a broiling hot day with the heat in the car being on.
I wasn't there (got my driver's license that day), but Wayne (Mr. Slant R-40) was. He says it was the most miserable subway ride he's ever had.
Then came the 46's. Heh.
NYCTA subway platforms have always been sweatboxes.
And in the days I grew up in NYC, NONE of the subway cars were air conditioned. NONE of the buses were either except for ten of the Fifth Aveue/Surface GM TDH5301's...but that lasted all of one week with their so-called "maintenance".
And only about 25% of the LIRR fleet had air conditioning too....
Heh. Deja vu all over again :(
WOW, they're coming in fast and furious !
Bill "Newkirk"
Incognito
CG
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
LIRR M7 #7156
LIRR M3
Forgive me, but the sight and sounds of it irrationally bring back earlier drawings and ideas about, uh, "space liners" that I was nuts about when I was a kid. That mechano-futuristic vision from the last century.
Diversions were:
Some SB F's turning @ 2nd Av, Most F's turning at Jay (a bear of a move.) NB F's turning @ Church.
If the problem was Bergen, then NB F's could have given their passengers to the BMT at 4th Ave, and then reversed on B5, and headed back south on B3. Seems the better solution during the AM rush, but hey- who knows.
They should have done that. Everyone in Windsor Terrace ended up trying to squeeze onto the B75.
The announcement was late. I entered the station at 6:30. It was 6:55 before the amouncements came thorugh and I headed up to take the bus. Some G trains had gone through Southbound, so I assumed the problem was to the south and the G was relaying at Church to pick us up. I didn't get to work until 8:00, instead of 7:00.
There is little plaque at the north end of the station dedicated to those who got the Bergan Tower back in opperation so quickley.
Yes, they did a quick patch. The capital project to replace everything is underway now. I wonder it that was a cause, or will be affected, by this incident.
The conductor was willing to announce only that we were "being held by supervision" - as if there were holding lights at York Street (not!) or in the tunnel (not!).
A few before you must have gotten through, as I saw them go by SB. Anyone know what happened?
Someone else had it right -- the should have cycled trains between Avenue X and 4th Avenue, and told people to transfer to the BMT. I think I'll mention it to the construction manager of the Bergen Street job. Maybe we can save a few nickels on shuttle buses during the shutdowns to replace the Bergen Street interlockings.
Unfortunately, that only works in the AM commute direction the way 4th Ave is laid out. For PM you would need people on the track to get the trains from 3 to 1 by hooking-flagging-unhooking. Not a bad strech of track for a working G.O. though.
I thought the Bergen bus re-routes were all going to be on weekends(?)
You're saying that SB trains would have to run express? That's fine -- passengers for the two bypassed stops can backtrack from Church. (I don't see why the so-called fumigation policy would have to be in effect here.)
Well, not entirely fine. First they have to climb, climb, climb to get to the IND, then the train doesn't even take them home. But better than nothing.
I thought the Bergen bus re-routes were all going to be on weekends(?)
So? Lots of people ride the subway on weekends.
By the time this happens, the bridge should be fully open, I think. The D should definitely run local on 4th Avenue for the weekends in question. It might not be a bad idea to send the N local (but still over the bridge), too.
Or run a single-track shuttle on the SB local track from 7th to Church.
(F) Bergen St-Avenue X
(F) 179 St-2Av/York/Jay
(G) 71 Av-Classon Av
(M) Metro Av-9 Av
[Shuttle Bus] Classon Av->Clinton Wash->Fulton St->Hoyt St->Jay St->Bergen St
Or must Bergen UL be closed?
Standard routine on the G is to run between Queens and Bedford-Nostrand middle, with a single-track shuttle from there to Hoyt. No need for a shuttle bus there.
As for the M, why make life difficult? The D will be running up 4th Avenue anyway, and the D runs on the same corridor as the F in Manhattan. Let F passengers transfer directly to the D -- and, ideally, to the N also, since some will find Broadway of use as well. Few F passengers are bound for Nassau Street, especially on weekends.
And ideally there should be 2 (G) shuttles, 1 local and 1 express Hoyt-B/N, one on each track. Better yet, if the Crosstown Line is bidirectionally signalled (not sure if it is) then run every other (G) local down the southbound track and back and switch over at B/N, and every other (G) switch at B/N and go down the northbound track (exp) and back, with the time difference in headway being made up by a longer layover at Hoyt for the expresses (convenient for A/C transfer).
Really? Maybe they ought to change that when they redo the interlocking.
(I thought the Bergen bus re-routes were all going to be on weekends(?))
Of course they are. That's still a lot of buses for a lot of bucks. We've had several shutdowns over the years on the F for non-signal projects. You should see the conga line of buses rumbling through Windsor Terrace.
I'm looking at the track map and I see your point. There really is no way to relay from local tracks north of 4th Avenue without a triple move, because there is an X switch between tracks B2 and B4 but not between tracks B3 and B1. Makes no sense -- this makes the B5 layup track even more useless than it would otherwise be.
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
If anything, fires around the system are unusual in this day and age since they're so uncommon, but in the 70's, things were quite different. With litter all over, a fire could start easily!
Then TA should put up a sign in all station and threaten riders a possible fine for anyone who litter. And don't tell me some station don't have recycle bin. Thats not an excuse.
The frequency of track fires only went down in the early 1990's when they purchased those garbage trains. Although track fires aren't on the news that much like before, they still occur once in a while as back then there were what 5 a DAY on average.
Robert
-Dave
:-)
G1RD
At first they ran in service to the Bronx. At some point (after 9/15/02) they began discharging at 96th.
That's why, until two years ago, the 3 ran 9-car trains.
Really? I didn't know that. I thought it was because the #3 was a less popular service than the #1/#2/#4.
Now the cars that don't fit at Lenox are stored in the Bronx.
Ah! That's why 239 Yard was so full the last time I went up there (on a weekend).
At first they ran in service to the Bronx. At some point (after 9/15/02) they began discharging at 96th.
THAT is a TOTAL waste. They should instead assign some R-62/A's to the #2 line until Lenox and/or Livonia are able to accomodate full 10-car trains, and run these trains in service. Either that or do it like the #5 or something. The whole point of the #3 is to provide 7 Av-Brooklyn service without having to go to the Bronx. If it has to go to the Bronx anyway, it should run in service. Or even if it runs as some kind of diamond-3 that runs express 149-180-GHR then terminates and runs light to 239 (not possible right now because the center track is temporarily out, but definitely worth considering, right?)
As for the Bronx 3's, they run as regular 3's all day and simply go to the Bronx at night. Resigning them for a single run to the Bronx is impractical, although some T/O's used to change the bulkhead rollsign from 3 to 2 when they ran in service. I suspect that they terminate at 96th now because of confusion along Lenox and in the Bronx. By kicking everyone off at 96th, nobody ends up in the wrong place, and if unruly passengers refuse to get off and hold up the line, following trains (or at least the ones that haven't reached 72nd yet) can get by on the local track.
Also, how many trains can be stored @ Livonia Yard? Thanks in advance.
-Adam
(enynova5205@aol.com)
I think Livonia can hold 20 full-length trains (2 trains x 10 tracks). Or it might be 8 tracks-I don't remember. Hell, it might even be 3 trains on each track.
Ed Alfonsin
Potsdam, New York
Anyway, on my ACELA trip we got a reasomable crowd at BOS, but then at Back Bay and Rt 128 a crush load of people got on essentially selling out the train. I was only able to keep my extra seat to Rt 128. Anyway, for a premium price one would think that there would be fewer people on the ACELA and more people on the Regionals. It makes sence that those who pay more should enjoy a nice empty train with room to spread out. Nobody likes to travel in a packed train, but it seems that the premium ACELA service is offering nothing but packed trains. Now, I know I was traveling on Friday afternoon, but I saw the same loadings even on the weekday offpeak trains at Baltimore.
Can anyone share their crodwing experiances on the AE? Any Comments?
I have to say that as a frequent flyer, I find even a crowded conventional Amtrak train to be wonderfully roomy compared to a coach seat in a commercial airliner! I only wish there were engough high speed and long distance trains so I could use them more and fly less.
Mark
It has been shown over and over that people are willing to pay a bit more for a product that adds value to one's trip.
If amtrak would be able to speed the trip even more, you will see even more riders on Acela express vs the regional service.
I'll echo Michalovic's comment that a crowded AE train is downright luxurious compared to even a business class seat on a plane. I'll fly about 75,000 miles this year, but I take AE (or something similar) on any trip where the time difference compared to flying is less than an hour.
Having ridden Amtrak's regional product (though not very much recently) I don't consider that to be "something similar" to AE. The trains are dark and dingy. Seat pitch is sometimes more similar to an airplane than a train.
What draws people to AE is consistency of product. You know what you're going to get (new train, relatively close to on time). On the Acela regional you get neither.
CG
>>Here is the abridged version of the Acela and Metroliner stats for May, 2003. The comparable data for April is shown in (parenthesis).
The detailed stats are in first reply.
Boston to New York
Acela: On-Time 60.7% (63.3%)
New York to Boston
Acela: On-Time 62.8% (68.4%)
New York to Washington
Acela: On-Time 59.9% (62.2%)
Metroliner: On Time 91.3% (89.0%)
Combined: On-Time 69.8% (70.3%)
Washington to New York
Acela: On-Time 80.8% (81.1%)
Metroliner: On Time 90.6% (89.2%)
Combined: On-Time 84.2% (83.8%)
All Acela Express and Metroliner Operations
Acela: On-Time 66.6% (69.0%)
Metroliner: On Time 90.9% (89.1%)
Combined: On-Time 71.9% (73.1%)
The fine print: NYC/WAS and NYC/BOS are each counted separately. Through trains between Washington and Boston are counted as two trains. “On-time” is arrival early, on-schedule, or up to 14 minutes behind schedule (DOT Airline Reporting Criteria). 15 minutes or more behind schedule, or cancelled is “late”. Data is from the Amtrak.com train status feature.
Images are only available <<
I'd be curious as to the reason for the difference in results between Metroliners and AE's. Would it be:
(1) - Better reliability of Metroliner equiptment
(2) - Inability of AE to keep to an optimistic schedule.
(3) - Data distortions because of the time of day of a particular train
(4) - Is there a difference in AE on-time performance for trains which only operate NYP - Wash as opposed to those that operate north of NYC. (i.e. some NYP - Wash trains arrive late only because they were delayed north of NYP)
To try and explain what I mean by (3), consider that there are pretty much hourly departures from Penn to Washington. The noon, 1, and 3 o'clock departures are AE while the 2 and 4 o'clock are Metroliner. Are the tracks clearer at 2:00 and 4:00? Do those time slots have fewer customers and thus less dwell delays?)
CG
I would think that once AE equiptment is all up to par, thier on time performance will improve. I seem to recall that there were numerous cancelations of AE trains due to equiptment issues
That warm stinking piece of Warrington excrement will NEVER be up to par. It's locomotives weigh 100 tons and the cars are 70 tons, way too much for 150mph running. They're 4 inches too wide, thus precluding the use of the multimillion dollar adding tilt mechanism between NYP and NHV. Those kind of things can't be fixed, except for buying a new trainset, and thats not going to happen.
Many trains were canceled due to equiptment not being available. Such issues are slowly being worked out.
There is nothing that can be done about the design flaws. They have nothing to do with the current on time performance issues.
I disagree. The famous four inch width ptoblem limits tilt aided speed through curves--thus timekeeping IS affected by design mistakes.
Also that 'equipment not available' was for those exact reasons. I'll check tommorow, but I believe that there are 3 Acela sets sitting in 30th St yard, two of them without any Locomotives. Those locomotives were down at Bear Delaware having their springs changed, keep in mind that these springs were to last some 100,000 miles, yet had to be changed after less than 30,000 miles. Before that it was the yaw dampers, which have yet to be replaced. Then just after that there was the side sill cracking (did they ever fix that?).
For the rest of their operational careers at 150 mph it will be this, just a string of problem after problem, they'll fix one thing only to have another thing threaten to break. There is a very good chance that there will be 'equipment unavailable' right up until the day that the last one does it's last run (most likely that will be pretty soon), something will be out, something else will be threatening to break. That is what happens when you try to go against convention and run a train that weight some 1.5 times more than any exsisting European design at 150 mph.
The length of time to take the trip is affected, but on time performance should not be since anyone with a rational mind would adjust the schedule to reflect the physical limitations of the equipment as it is rather than as it was expected before delivery.
Tom
>>Here are the greatly expanded stats for Acela and Metroliner in May.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) on-time calculation I apply here is the same standard the DOT requires for airline reporting. Trains up to 14 minutes late are considered “on-time” for the DOT calculation. If you add the “On-time or early” and the “1 to 14 minutes late” percentages, you will get the DOT on-time number (within rounding tolerance).
Boston to New York: Acela: DOT on time rate: 60.7%
Trains scheduled: 234
On-schedule or early: 20 (8.5%)
1 to 14 minutes behind schedule: 122 (52.1%)
15 to 29 minutes behind schedule: 81 (34.6%)
30 to 59 minutes behind schedule: 9 (3.8%)
60 or more minutes behind schedule: 1 (0.4%)
Cancelled: 1 (0.4%)
Average time from scheduled departure to actual arrival: 3hr., 41min.
Average deviation from scheduled arrival: 12.6min. late
New York to Boston: Acela: DOT on time rate: 62.8%
Trains scheduled: 234
On-schedule or early: 43 (18.4%)
1 to 14 minutes behind schedule: 104 (44.4%)
15 to 29 minutes behind schedule: 50 (21.4%)
30 to 59 minutes behind schedule: 26 (11.1%)
60 or more minutes behind schedule: 5 (2.1%)
Cancelled: 6 (2.6%)
Average time from scheduled departure to actual arrival: 3hr., 46min.
Average deviation from scheduled arrival: 13.9min. late
New York to Washington: Acela: DOT on time rate: 59.9%
Trains scheduled: 302
On-schedule or early: 42 (13.9%)
1 to 14 minutes behind schedule: 139 (46.0%)
15 to 29 minutes behind schedule: 69 (22.8%)
30 to 59 minutes behind schedule: 46 (15.2%)
60 or more minutes behind schedule: 6 (2.0%)
Cancelled: 0 (0.0%)
Average time from scheduled departure to actual arrival: 3hr., 1min.
Average deviation from scheduled arrival: 15.2min. late
New York to Washington: Metroliner: DOT on time rate: 91.3%
Trains scheduled: 138
On-schedule or early: 53 (38.4%)
1 to 14 minutes behind schedule: 73 (52.9%)
15 to 29 minutes behind schedule: 5 (3.6%)
30 to 59 minutes behind schedule: 4 (2.9%)
60 or more minutes behind schedule: 3 (2.2%)
Cancelled: 0 (0.0%)
Average time from scheduled departure to actual arrival: 3hr., 7 min.
Average deviation from scheduled arrival: 5.6min. late
Washington to New York: Acela: DOT on time rate: 80.8%
Trains scheduled: 302
On-schedule or early: 72 (23.8%)
1 to 14 minutes behind schedule: 172 (57.0%)
15 to 29 minutes behind schedule: 45 (14.9%)
30 to 59 minutes behind schedule: 11 (3.6%)
60 or more minutes behind schedule: 1 (0.3%)
Cancelled: 1 (0.3%)
Average time from scheduled departure to actual arrival: 2hr., 54min.
Average deviation from scheduled arrival: 7.4min. late
Washington to New York: Metroliner: DOT on time rate: 90.6%
Trains scheduled: 159
On-schedule or early: 108 (67.9%)
1 to 14 minutes behind schedule: 36 (22.6%)
15 to 29 minutes behind schedule: 10 (6.3%)
30 to 59 minutes behind schedule: 4 (2.5%)
60 or more minutes behind schedule: 1 (0.6%)
Cancelled: 0 (0.0%)
Average time from scheduled departure to actual arrival: 3hr., 2min.
Average deviation from scheduled arrival: 2.3min. late
All Acela: DOT on time rate: 66.6%
Trains scheduled: 1072
On-schedule or early: 177 (16.5%)
1 to 14 minutes behind schedule: 537 (50.1%)
15 to 29 minutes behind schedule: 245 (22.9%)
30 to 59 minutes behind schedule: 92 (8.6%)
60 or more minutes behind schedule: 13 (1.2%)
Cancelled: 8 (0.7%)
Average deviation from scheduled arrival: 12.2min. late
All Metroliner: DOT on time rate: 90.9%
Trains scheduled: 297
On-schedule or early: 161 (54.2%)
1 to 14 minutes behind schedule: 109 (36.7%)
15 to 29 minutes behind schedule: 15 (5.1%)
30 to 59 minutes behind schedule: 8 (2.7%)
60 or more minutes behind schedule: 4 (1.3%)
Cancelled: 0 (0.0%)
Average deviation from scheduled arrival: 3.8min. late
For the comparable stats for April, see:
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?f=4&i=74235&t=74234
The fine print: NYC/WAS and NYC/BOS are each counted separately. Through trains between Washington and Boston are counted as two trains. Cancelled trains are not factored into the average trip or deviation calculation (DOT Airline Reporting Criteria). Data is from the amtrak.com Train Status feature.
<<
These guys make Virgin Cross Country look good!
Those of us who pay more for Acela ARE getting more room to spread out than we would have on a corridor train - more leg room in particular - and we're getting the benefit of a train that arrives more quickly and with fewer stops. Mostly we ride it for the speed and because we get to avoid the families with small children that seem particularly prevalent south of Philadelphia on the corridor trains.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Yes, it does, but the individual seats are not assigned, hence people have to go hunting for one if they board at intermediate stations.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Southbound at Broadway-Lafayette?
(Actually, I'm sure it's more than half empty at those three locations.)
But what about southbound leaving 36th Street in the morning rush? That's what I'd like to hear about.
CG
I'd rather give up the empty seat next to me so that AMTRAK can make some money, survive, and improve their infratructure and service.
Mark
Crowded trains=less chance of service being terminated, and a better chance of service expansion. In other words, crowding is a GOOD thing. Right now, Amtrak needs all the passengers it can get.
Of course, I should have been smart enough to know that every ride YOU take is meant to be a railfan experience with no regard to the rest of the passengers, so that's my fault :-)
Many of us actually enjoy having the opportunity to sit next to a stranger, particularly if that stranger is equally pleased with the opportunity. It's just like this board... we're all schmoozers, to one extent or another, or we wouldn't be here. I've had many a pleasant conversation with someone I ended up sitting with on a train or an airplane, and while you may never find a lifelong friend, you might... I maintained a correspondence with an older gentleman who sat next to me on an airplane in the late '70s until his passing in 1994. We never met again, but our common interest in Schermack perforations (philatelists will understand) was the spark of a great friendship that transcended the disparity in our age and background.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
The girl next to me on Acela Express a couple of weeks ago grew up in Guilford; her fondest childhood memories were of her mother taking her to the trolley museum almost every weekend. The "lucky eraser" she still carries with her today was purchased in the gift shop at Sprague when she was 10 :).
******************************************************************
Florida Palmetto Metrorail station opens
Miami-Dade’s rapid transit system opened its newest station – Palmetto Metrorail Station – in Medley, Fla., on May 30. It is the 22nd for the rapid transit system as well as the first new station to open in 14 years.
One-point-four miles of new track were laid to extend the route to the new station, the area’s only transport hub for commuters traveling eastbound, originating in Northwest Miami-Dade and Southwest Broward County. The Office of Public Transportation Management (OPTM) operates the system.
The entire Miami-Dade Metrorail System began 24-hour service on June 8.
A park-and-ride lot for 710 cars was also built, including 20 wheelchair spaces and 3 stroller spaces. There are also three Metrobus connections to routes 282, 245 and 242.
Travel times from Palmetto station to the downtown Government and Dadeland stations is about 29 and 47 minutes, respectively.
A landscaped plaza leads to an open-air, double-height station concourse. Its architecture includes columns and glass block clerestory.
Last November 5, voters approved a “People’s Transportation Plan,” a traffic relief plan in which the Dade County “commits to adding more buses and routes, improving service, expanding rapid transit and creating new transit and construction related jobs,” said OPTM spokeswoman Aurelia Vasquez.
The grand opening ceremony included a special presentation to retired Rep. William Lehman, who got $17 million in surplus funds from the Metromover Project.
I know I just posted this link in another thread, but for convenience here's the homepage for Miami Rapid Transit Expansion showing all the proposed rail transit lines. This page also has a link to the People's Transportation Plan mentioned in the article.
Mark
Yeh I know it is a tree. But it is also a bug.
Mark
A BLE representitive talking to the Inkie singled out the new signaling/dispatching system that replaced all the SEPTA towers which included A, MARK, BOARD, WIND and WAYNE. The BLE rep said that under the new system "signals are slow to come up and traffic control is confused".
Way to go SEPTA, waste millions on new signaling which then kills your ontime preformance ballooning your refund policy and drive away ridership. Great move.
A BLE representitive talking to the Inkie singled out the new signaling/dispatching system that replaced all the SEPTA towers which included A, MARK, BOARD, WIND and WAYNE. The BLE rep said that under the new system "signals are slow to come up and traffic control is confused".
Way to go SEPTA, waste millions on new signaling which then kills your ontime preformance ballooning your refund policy and drive away ridership. Great move guys.
" traffic control is confused"
It sounds to me that the problem is poor training not a poor system.
The company I worked for replaced an older ad trafficing software product with a next gneration state of the art system that allowed greater flexibility, more targeting control, workflow and accounting support. It was billed as a huge cost and time saver which would allow campaign lead time to be shurnk from two days to 2 hours.
It took about a year for the staff to get accustomed to the new product and for the time savings to begin to show.
The same is probably true at SEPTA. Add in employees simpathic with union leadership who are dragging thier feet and you have poor system performance
http://btobsearch.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=55LV0P9RW7&sourceid=0039357149&btob=Y&isbn=1586853244&itm=67
Aha! Depends on the head!
From the NY Times:
BETWEEN OCEAN AND CITY: The Transformation of Rockaway, New York
By Lawrence Kaplan and Carol P. Kaplan
Columbia University Press
($52.50, hardcover;
$27.50, paperback)
After the Second World War, New York's municipal authorities used the Rockaways as an outlet for pressures emerging in the more densely populated parts of the urban colossus. This did not always serve the best interests of the area, its residents, or the people sent to live there.
Chance inflicts especial harm on those who are least prepared for life's contingencies. The burning of the Jamaica Bay trestle on May 7, 1950, an event that would have enormous consequences for the Rockaways, serves as a case in point. The trestle carried trains from the Rockaways directly to Penn Station in Manhattan in approximately half an hour, the fastest route for those commuting to work.
The Long Island Rail Road had not shown a profit on its Rockaway branch for years and, now facing bankruptcy, gave little indication that it wished to undertake the necessary repairs.
For at least two decades prior to the 1950 fire, Chamber of Commerce spokesmen had regularly requested that the wooden trestle be replaced with a fire-resistant one. They usually received a sympathetic hearing from the city fathers, including Robert Moses, but no actions were taken. In addition, as early as the 1930's, public officials made repeated pledges that the city would extend rapid transit to the Rockaways, but nothing came of these assurances either.
For six years (1950-1956), no rail connection existed over Jamaica Bay. During this time the community suffered in innumerable ways, some obvious and therefore easy to calculate, others more indirect. The now more arduous trip to the city discouraged people from moving to the Rockaways and limited the number of summer renters, diminishing landlords' profits.
It also deterred families from embarking on a day's outing, harming the concessionaires and amusement park operators. Attendance at the various Rockaway beaches, which hit a record 48,000,000 during the summer of the trestle fire, fell precipitously in the following years. Seasonal rentals had already begun to decline in 1949, a pattern that continued in 1950 and accelerated throughout the decade.
The summer population reached a high of 225,000 in 1947, but was down to 106,000 five years later. Within a short period of time, Rockaway began to lose its status as a major summer resort.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
--Mark
Right now thanks to your politicians, be it Democratic or Republican, are allowing Rockaway residents to drive to other areas that are ruining the City's Tax base, such as shopping at Green Acres or Five Towns Malls, driving to Jones Beach, seeing a movie, also in 2 locations in Valley Stream and one in Lynbrook. Why should city residents support the economy OUTSIDE OF THE CITY? We need jobs and transportation HERE RIGHT NOW. Build the mall and spruce up the beach, maybe a large Amusement Park instead of the mall that City dwellers would find a cheaper and easier place to access that Great Adventure. Plus these improvements would mean more A train service to the Rockaways also.
--Mark
Much of the reason parts of NYC are run down and housing prices are so high is due to short sighted government programs
If CI and rockaway were left alone other then some prudent zoning regualtions, they both would be prospering communities
Thier is an old saying
Give a man a piece of corn, he will eat it and look for more
teach the man to grow corn and he will not be in the need for more corn
Politics from the mid to late 1950's to the present try to give people corn and end up creating a need for more corn because those who received the corn do not know how to grow thier own
Rent control and subsidies housing programs although well intended have led to lower quility housing stock with higher rents
Both are correct. Most of the ill-conceived urban renewal projects happened after the trestle fire. The fire may have caused the decline which led to the ill-conceived urban renewal projects, which destroyed the area further.
It's time to fill up all those empty beachfront properties with new housing. I've seen many new units built in recent years, but much more should be built.
Do the same rules apply to R-44's?
Similar to R68(a), it's 4 car sets except for 62xx which are even numbers. 2 cars were lost due to 1987 accident at 179th st/IND.
The R-68 starts with 2500, a number divisible by 4.
And the R-68A starts with 5001, an ODD NUMBER. Because it ends with 5200, the R-44 has to start with 5202.
Even # not divisible by 4-next number above that (odd)-next odd number-Even number skipped over (divisible by 4).
5248 thru 5259 inclusive
5264 thru 5275 inclusive
5304 thru 5335 inclusive (5319 SCRAPED and replaced by 5405)
wayne
#3 West End Jeff
He's brought a lot of pleasure to folks on this board with his site and NY excursions, and to many others as well. My sympathies to him and his family during this sad time.
I've been there and experienced that some twenty seven years ago. Death of a family member, especially a sudden one is a painfull thing. Please accept my condolences to you and your family. May this dark day bring you all a little closer.
Bill "Newkirk"
Robert
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
My sincerest condolences.
Allan
Chuck Greene
Chuck Greene
Chuck Greene
Please accept my condolences at this time, and remember that your father is now at Peace.
Michael Klein
--Mark
www.forgotten-ny.com
Sunday,June 29th IRT SMEE trip.
Any rumors of this trip being cancelled are false. This trip will go on as scheduled. As for #6609, there will be no truck swap. The spotted wheels will be replaced at Corona Barn. Any other problems found on the June 7th trip will be corrected as well. There is a slight possibility that a couple of Redbirds may be sandwiched in between with the Museum cars on the ends. This is only a possibility, so don't panic ! Just hope for the best.
Saturday, June 28th R-9 trip.
The R-1,4 & 7A's will run again. #491 should be going into Coney Island shops for journal box (change of brasses) and other work. Also I was told #1575 was at 207th St. shops, on the blocks being serviced to correct some problems that were discovered on June 8th. One of them was the exploding shoe fuse. I asked about the current shop crew not being familiar with pre-war equipment. I was told there are still some guys who are pointing out the fine art of repairing the pre-war antiques, so they can still run in he future.
Chambers St (BMT).
I was told that on June 28th, The museum R-9's would arrive a little earlier so to allow picture taking, ticket selling at a leisure pace. I would assume, the problem with #491, and finding a diesel and crew led to the one hour delay. I am not 100% sure on that.
So there it is. If you feel that sending away for a ticket by mail won't arrive in time, then buy your ticket on the day of the trip. It's only a $5.00 surcharge and still is still going toi a good cause, The March Of Dimes.
Also any questions about the trip, you can do as I did and call Bill Wall at 347.643.5310 and leave a message. He will return your call as he did mine.
Bill "Newkirk"
The trip leaves from Chambers St. (J)(M)(Z) at 10:30 am on Saturday, June 28th.
You can buy one on the day of the trip. As for by mail, I cannot say if you will receive one in time. Just call Bill Wall at the number on the bottom of my post and leave a message. He will tell you if you have time or not.
Bill "Newkirk"
I bought my tickets ahead of time, so I believe there should be someone selling tickets on the platform. I'm not sure if it's Bill Wall or someomne else.
Bill "Newkirk"
Bring the kiddies. Show 'em what really primitive subway cars look and sound like. An educational experience to tell their classmates at school.
Child's fare = $20.00.
Bill "Newkirk"
Details here
I don't really know. Depends what the situation with the various G.O.'s are. We could retrace the same routes as 6/8 or we could wind up in the Eastern Division. It's anybody's guess until the offical fantrip G.O. comes out.
Bill "Newkirk"
You mean Eddie Sarkoukis ? I thought he worked at Coney Island Yard.
Bill "Newkirk"
Larry, RedbirdR33
I don't see a problem with this ... it makes the smorgastrain more authentic ... just liked the mixed consists of the 70s. Bring it on!
--Mark
I did have a weird subway dream a while back in which Flushing trains ran at ground level past Shea aka The Toilet Bowl. They had pantographs and looked more like interurban cars such as the old Big Orange South Shore cars.
BTW Saturday will mark 45 years since 7213 made the last streetcar run in Chicago.
You have 2 hours from the time you inserted your Metrocard in the bus farebox to swipe it at a subway turnstile or egg slicer.
For all types of Unlimited cards:
You can do it as many times as you wish. However try not to use it at the same station more than twice before you go to another station otherwise your card will be cut off by NYCT.
Not to steal the thread, but I was looking at a Manhattan bus map today and with the free transfers it seems that the best way of getting somewhere may really be different.
Let's say you are on the F in Brooklyn (as I am) and want to go to Museum Mile. One could argue that you are better off changing to the "C" if it's there and then taking a bus across the transverses. Wouldn't have thought of that before -- I'd just take the closest subway no matter how many changes -- in this case the Lex -- and then a bus, if needed.
Similar situations along 86th and 96th, though not as much because those busses are a bit slower into the park.
I wouldn't do it on weekends, since the B doesn't run and the C is erratic, unless the C happens to show up.
1. The Court Square area
2. Between 59th st/Lex Ave and 63rd st/Lex Ave
3. Between Coney Island, via. B68 bus to Brighton Beach (additional transfer back to either subway station allowed within 2 hours of first swipe),
4. Additional transfers encoded from any SI bus, to SIR (swipe at St. George station, then free ferry ride) to a second subway transfer allowed on selected Lower Manhattan stations within walking distance from the ferry or the M1, M6 and M15 bus only.
So in short, you have TWO transfers on Pay-Per-Ride from the B68 bus to the other side of either CI or Brighton Beach, AND 2 transfers from Staten Island to Lower Manhattan. All swipes MUST BE DONE WITHIN THE 2 HOURS.
Any other questions, call (212) METROCARD
The same rule applies between Avenue X on the F and Stillwell Avenue. The F shuttle bus is free so that is not a double transfer. You can also do this with Bus-B68-Q train or vice versa.\
And 5: Between 51/Lex and Lex/53. This works at any entrance to the station, not just 53/3.
I have also heard that on Staten Island you can take two buses and then the subway or bus in Manhattan if the first bus doesn't go to the ferry (and similarly you can transfer to the S53 or S79 to the R train).
Another double transfer is the Q79, another bus, then the subway, Any 2 Long Island Buses and another bus (NYCT or LIB) or the subway before or after and the Bx29 to the Bx12 to any other bus or the subway.
The B42, of course, runs right into the L's fare control, so the MetroCard rules don't apply there. In fact, with the help of the B42, it's possible to transfer from bus (B42) to subway (L) to subway (any) for free!
B42 to L train, ride anywhere you want to on the subway. Exit subway and MAKE SURE you re-enter subway by using the "Free Transfer" from the B42 bus fare you used on your Pay-Per-Ride Metrocard within 2 hours. Ride the L train back to RP and hop on B42 bus home.
Total R/T fare: $2.00
Here's A pic....
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
"SHOCKING. (pause) POSITIVELY SHOCKING."
"I'm Pussy Galore."
007: "I must be dreaming."
Triva:
This was originalally:
"I'm Pussy Galore."
007: "I know, but what's your name?"
But what changed because the producers felt they were already pushing the limits of decency with the name.
Rail content: Goldfinger planned to move the gold from Ft. Knox via rail.
Spoiler Space (highlight to read):
Blow up an atomic bomb inside the vault, destroying the US gold reserve and making it useless for millions of years, thus increasing the value of his own gold reserves.
Now how much would it hurt the city to allow anybody to transfer anywhere as much as he wants for a two hour limit? The cost to the city would be minimal.
Whatever they're spending now, since that is the current policy, unless you mean that in Austin you can transfer as many TIMES as you wan't, we don't have that. There are only a few exceptions. The transfers that I listed are double transfers which have special rules.
Transfer exceptions. Transfer is permitted from anywhere to anywhere EXCEPT:
From one subway station to another except when making transfer at designated station: Brighton Beach, Avenue X, Coney Island, Lex/51/53, Lex/59, Lex/63, 23-Ely/Court Square and 45 Rd-Courthouse Sq.
Between any two buses on the same route in either direction.
Between the following pairs of overlapping routes:
M27 and M50
M30 and M72
M96 and M106
Bx40 and Bx42
Between buses in OPPOSITE directions on the following sets of routes (transfers in the same direction still allowed):
M1, M2, M3 and M4
M101, M102 and M103
Bx1 and Bx2
Between non-intersecting routes or at stops that aren't transfer points on the Long Island Bus system (doesn't apply on NYCT).
Additional restrictions apply when using a bus-issued transfer instead of a Metrocard:
No transfers to subway
No transfers between Long Island bus and NYC Bus
M27 and M50
M30 and M72
M96 and M106
Bx40 and Bx42
Also the Q25 and Q34
Here in Austin, if you ask the driver for an additional transfer, he will let you use it again. I have never known anyone to be turned down. That is regardless of whatever the rule is.
Unless you have the data, I wouldn't be so quick to assume this. (No offense, but your post said that you live in Austin, TX, where the transit system is probably a whole lot less complex.)
The rules for MetroCard transfers represent a trade-off. The idea is that if you're taking one trip on MTA facilities (bus and/or subway), you shouldn't have to pay two fares. But if the rules are too liberal, then a lot of people start getting a 2-for-1 deal.
For instance, in Manhattan there are a ton of trips that can be made in under 1/2 hour. If subway-subway transfers were allowed, there'd be quite a few people taking the subway to a shopping district, running errands for 90 minutes, and taking a free ride back to where they came from. I wouldn't trivialize the cost of offering this extra "deal" (which we, the users of the system, would ultimately pay for).
As it is, the average fare paid on MTA buses and subways—even after the recent fare increase—is much lower than it was before MetroCard transfers were introduced. The present system offers a reasonable trade-off. The vast majority of trips involving a combination of buses and/or subways can be completed by paying one fare, and the number of opportunities for "1 fare, 2 trips" is minimized.
Indeed. Just the existence of the Lex/60th-63rd transfer saves my wife and me several fares every month, whenever we have an errand to do in that neighborhood.
Yes and no.
Certainly, it would reduce fare revenue, at least in the short term -- but that lost revenue could possibly be recovered elsewhere.
We've been trained by the fare structure to believe that a single trip costs a flat fare -- whether that trip is long or short, peak or off-peak, single-mode or multi-mode. Whenever I make a bus-subway round trip on a single fare, even I feel like I'm beating the system. Based on the fare structure, I really should be paying two fares, but I'm taking advantage of a loophole.
There's only one problem with that line of reasoning: the fare structure is a political creation, with little economic influence. One trip can cost NYCT anywhere from a few cents to tens of dollars to provide, but the fare revenue is the same on each.. A short trip costs less to provide than a long trip; a moderately crowded off-peak trip costs less to provide than either a peak trip or an empty off-peak trip; a single-mode subway trip costs less to provide than a multi-mode trip. (I'm simplifying here, of course.) Applying a single flat fare in all of those cases is a political decision to have those passengers who make short, off-peak, single-mode trips subsidize those passengers who make long, peak, multi-mode trips.
Permitting unlimited, unrestricted free transfers within a two-hour window is a political decision to bring the fare structure just a little bit closer to the economic ideal.
How would NYCT pay for it? That's another political decision. Given what I've said here, perhaps a peak surcharge merits consideration -- say, a 10% surcharge on peak trips and on unlimited cards valid during peak periods.
The fact that every trip costs the same fare, regardless of the distance, is an artifact of the way the system was designed. Most of the world's other subway systems have fare zones, but it's simply beyond practicality to implement such a system in NYC today.
On the other hand, charging different fares depending on the time of day is a very practical suggestion—impossible before MetroCard, but now quite easy to implement. I wouldn't be surprised to see this idea mooted at some point in the future, most likely couched as an off-peak discount rather than a peak-hour premium.
But whether you allow unlimited, unrestricted, free transfers on top of that is a completely different question. However, you slice it, such transfers would deprive the MTA of revenue, and I'm not sure how large a segment of the traveling public is forced by the current system to pay a second fare for what is legitimately one trip.
The system made it from 1904 to 1997 without free intermodal transfers. Free intermodal transfers were instituted as a political gift to a certain subset of the system's ridership. Of course, politicians don't have to pay for those gifts themselves; the rest of the system's ridership is paying for it.
Most of the world's other subway systems have fare zones, but it's simply beyond practicality to implement such a system in NYC today.
Agreed. Fare zones are probably impractical on the NYC subway, whether or not they'd make sense. That's why I didn't propose them in my post.
On the other hand, charging different fares depending on the time of day is a very practical suggestion—impossible before MetroCard, but now quite easy to implement. I wouldn't be surprised to see this idea mooted at some point in the future, most likely couched as an off-peak discount rather than a peak-hour premium.
Use whatever euphemisms you find most comfortable. Seeing as this sort of change would probably be implemented along with a fare increase, it could be advertised in either fashion, or alternatively as two independent fares. I'll leave the choice up to the marketing department; we all know they mean the same thing in the end.
But whether you allow unlimited, unrestricted, free transfers on top of that is a completely different question. However, you slice it, such transfers would deprive the MTA of revenue, and I'm not sure how large a segment of the traveling public is forced by the current system to pay a second fare for what is legitimately one trip.
Not necessarily. They would deprive the MTA of revenue if nobody responded by altering ridership patterns. They might, OTOH, encourage passengers to use the subway for clusters of short, inexpensive trips that they otherwise wouldn't have taken at all, thereby increasing fare revenue.
But, like I said, it doesn't matter. The fare structure is drawn up by politicians, not economists. Free intermodal transfers were implemented because the governor wanted to give something to Queens residents. If a hypothetical governor wanted to give something to Manhattan residents or wanted to make up for the loss on May 4 of a useful fare medium for running errands, he might implement this sort of change.
By your reasoning, NYCT should have never implemented free intermodal transfers. Perhaps you're right. Run for governor and you may be able to implement the fare structure of your dreams!
Free intermodal transfers were implemented because the MTA wanted to encourage people to use the Metrocard. If it wasn't for this, that and the other (transfers, bonus rides, unlimited rides) then the token would not have gone out with a whimper like it did.
As has been said elsewhere here bus to subway transfers are also part of this table. You can even transfer between Express buses.
What you can't do with a couple of exceptions is a "three legged" transfer, i.e. bus to bus to subway or bus to bus to bus. Now, if you are on a bus you can ask for a paper "blue" transfer which will let you keep transfering. But, technically you are only entitled to that blue transfer if you paid cash.
Not true. With a small number of exceptions, you can transfer free from any bus route to any different bus route.
When I was riding buses more often in Nassau, I'd often try to figure a way to do that. I could take the N37 and N35 to Roosevelt Field, for example, and return on the N16. Or I'd take the N4 someplace and return on the N36.
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
You heard right. For purposes of ranking stations, Transit defines "busy" in terms of fare registrations. By that measure, Flushing is the busiest station outside Manhattan, with about 50,000 daily fares. (IIRC, it's also the busiest intermodal transfer point in North America.)
But most of the buses would pass Main Street and Roosevelt before going to Willets Point. It is a business stop and a bus transfer place also. You cannot lock the passengers in their seats to pass Main Street where they would be going downstairs to a train with a chance at a seat, to go to a station where they have to go upstairs to catch a train where all the seats may be already taken.
Tom
:-) Andrew
- Diverting some busses to Willets Point without allowing a transfer at Main St.
- Starting some service at Willets Pt. and not Main St, assuring availability of seats.
Which brings me back to my Second Avenue Subway suggestion. Recall that there is no plan for actual service to Queens on the SAS, because although the Second Avenue and the 63rd Street tunnel would have capacity, and a connection would be built between them, there would be nowhere to put many trains on the Queens side.
So I suggest turning one lane in each direction on the LIE into an express busway, with access from all the north-south boulevards with bus routes. The busway would run directly into a bus terminal in Long Island City, which would include a new station on a short subway branch off from 63rd Street.
If built, this infrastructure would allow Queens riders could get picked up on a bus making local stops along (say) Francis Lewis Blvd, then ride directly to the bus terminal at 50 to 60 miles per hour in 10-15 minutes. From there, one could take the SAS to East Midtown or Lower Manhattan, or change at Roosevelt Island for service down 6th Avenue. A second change would put one in Times Square.
My guess is that such a commute would be as fast as the LIRR, and much faster than a bus to either the Flushing or Queens Boulevard Express. It would, along with East Side Access, pull lots of people off those lines, reducing crowding further and opening up space for growth.
OK, this is an argument I truly don't understand. Perhaps you can explain.
Lots of people who were taking the E all the way downtown, or switching to the IRT, would now take the new train. But what extra people will get on the E or F in the AM rush hour just because there is now a QB to 2nd Ave train.
Population growth. Queens has had it, steadily, for years.
Also population turnover. As Queens shifts from Archie Bunker to immigrant & yuppie, you may see fewer people who insist on driving regardless of cost of convenience, and more people who are willing to use transit. Even in Glendale, ridership on the Q55 is way up, as it the number of riders boarding the L at Mytle.
Also population turnover.
These will happen whether or not some QB trains run down 2nd Ave. How does sending QB trains down 2nd Ave make the problem worse?
On the Flushing line we are informed by Stephen Bauman that it presently runs a maximum of 28 tph. There is much talk of the promise of CBTC on these boards but it lies decades away and the exact increase in service that ought to be expected is not clear. The Queens Boulevard Express, so far as I can tell is at or near capacity. On the local there is omse more capcity, probably, but that is not the preferred route for eastern Queens customers. The Long Island Rail Road lines capacity is something I'm not sure of, but the service is of course skewed toward Long Island customers. How much this will change when ESA is operational is something I don't know.
"This thread notes that the Queens subway terminals are just about the busiest stations outside the CBD. That's Queens -- lots of people and territory, not a lot of subway lines, but nowhere with enough density to justify another."
I think this argument is dangerously deceptive in certain ways-only one that I will note. Maybe along with a subway line, density would increase to some threshold value. ALong some routes, I question whether or not it might already be there, e.g., Northern boulevard. Even with the alternative you suggest, the busway, you claim "It would, along with East Side Access, pull lots of people off those lines, reducing crowding further and opening up space for growth." I do not know why a subway line would not show this trend as well, with much more capacity and over the decades to come (which I think must be our focus-not just the next few years) and eventually cost less to operate considering the number of people it transported.
Really??? Let me give you a different perspective.
NYCT's cost for operating a bus is $13.97/vehicle-mile. Its cost for operating a subway car is $6.79/vehicle-mile. There are approximately 20,000 daily bus-subway passengers at Main St; and 25,000 bus-subway passengers at Jamaica Center and 179th St combined. Almost all the buses go in one direction - east.
That's 45,000 passengers each way. Suppose the lines were extended and the average bus ride were reduced by 4 miles.
How many buses are used. I'm sure that NYCT can produce exact figures. However, let's do a seat of the pants estimate. Assume that over 24 hours the average number of passengers/bus is 15. This means that there are 3000 buses, each travelling 4 miles for a daily cost of approximately 3000 x 4 x $14 = $168,000 each morning. Add the evening and 250 days per year and you get an anual cost of $84 million.
What are the costs for operating the subway over the same distance. Assume 45 people per car for 1000 cars. The cost for operating cars for the full 8 miles to the City line are: 45 x 8 x $7 = $56,000. Add the evening and 250 days per year and you get an anual cost of $28 million.
The annual cost savings is $56 million. At 5% this is equivalent to a present worth of $1.1 billion. If there is 50% funding then break even is $2.2 billion. If there is 80% funding then the break even is $5.5 billion.
One can build a hell of a lot of subways, especially if one uses existing ROW on the LIRR for $5 billion.
Of course, these are real seat of the pants estimates. However, there appear to be real savings for getting people off busses and onto trains. Density isn't everything.
On the web.
The costs are part of the National Transportation database that can be accessed through the APTA web page.. The number of bus transfers is at Main St and the Jamaica are contained in the PCAC "Right of Passage" report.
False statement - I'm surprised you'd claim something so unsupportable. Stephen Baumann's reply is well written and logical. I will submit this, also: places like Queens Village and Ozone Park don't look like they have the density to support subway service - but in fact, they do. Enough people don't use cars there so you'd have plenty of riders with no change in density. Of course, build new stations, and developers come sniffing.
:-) Andrew
Too bad there's nowhere to make an indoor bus "terminal" (like what they're doing at 74/Roosevelt) with weather-protected covers and walkways that cross under/over streets so you don't have to cross the street to get to the trainstation. While riding the Q20 and Q44 through there a couple of times, I have yet to find a bus stop that actually lets you off on the same block as an entrance (and there are at least a dozen entrances). You have to cross the street.
For example, a new one called 'AA Plaza' is springing up where an old flower shop from the 40's once occupied. It's under the Port Washington trestle on the south side. Do we really need more? They attract nothing more but more litter and more impeding pedestrian traffic? Thanks a lot, John Liu! :-/
There is regulation. It's called zoning. However, zoning typically says retail is allowed in a space, without getting specific about the type of retail establishment.
Do you think the NY City Council has a better grasp of exactly what retail establishments are needed where than the forces of supply and demand? The greengrocers won't last unless they are patronized by customers.
Well, I guess my idea was just thrown out the window, unless the store owners could be paid for their lost money and wages if the city took control, kinda like what the city did with the Cross Bronx.
Will NOT happen for the simple fact that you brought up John Liu and to him that would bullshit the small shop owners. There is almost no room to place a depot to begin with and street widening is definitely out of there too.
Geeeeeeeeee...........since your from LI, I was asking myself the same question.
We are dealing with real people in a real world. It is unreasonable to ask people to pick a mode that won't allow tons of bags, cost-effective trip chaining, and time savings because we want to see more New Flyers on the street. The real world doesn't allow everyone to commute by transit for every trip, even in New York City.
Nonetheless, if the parking space were made up for, then this scheme is not such a bad one after all.
As an aside, though, I do not think we help matters out by implicating Mr. Liu's Taiwanese friends, or as was done in a related topic, protest against "Chinese" stores, as if, say, Polish-owned retailers would be far preferable. Perhaps I am in error, and I hope that they are merely superfluous, but these references do not really relate to the matter at hand.
IIRC, the MTA was trying to close down that flower shop last year, but the owners fought back, since they had their business there for so long. The MTA claimed that the shop had to be taken down so they could do important repair work to the LIRR bridge. And now yet another Chinese shop is taking over? I'm fed up with Flushing.
The problem is that Queens Surface uses the blocks near the subway entrances: From the L.I.R.R. tracks to Roosevelt Ave. they have their stops for the Q65, Q25, and Q34, and between Roosevelt Ave. and 39th Ave. they have stops for the QBx1 and the Q66.
On the other side of Main St., between 39th Ave. and Roosevelt Ave. you have the first stops for the Q27, Q27L, and Q17, and between Roosevelt Ave. and the L.I.R.R. tracks are stops for the Q65, and Q25/34.
David
What are the counts for Jamaica Center and 179th street? What about the other Terminal stations in the Bronx and Brooklyn?
Jamaica Center: 11,091,331 (#19)
179th Street: 7,043,211 (#41)
David
Perhaps the MTA should post them all on its website. Why not? In addition to those interested in transportation, I think the real estate industry would be interested, as transit ridership is sort of an instant indicator of neighborhood economic trends.
Perhaps the MTA should follow the example of the CTA. They publish not only the yearly figures but the monthly figures as well on the web. They also publish the the same figures for each bus route on the web. They keep a year's worth of data on the web, for easy comparison.
You've got your mayors wrong. Jimmy Walker was mayor, when the Whitestone Branch was abandoned. LaGuardia made the LIRR plow and fill in the ROW, 5 years later.
The LIRR offered to sell it, but he rejected the offer, saying that "it wouldn't be profitable".
I researched the exstension from Corona to Flushing several years ago, using contemporary local newspapers. The LIRR was the prime force against any extension to Flushing in the early to late 1920's. They were making a profit on the Pt Washington Branch and wanted to keep their monopoly.
The West Hempstead line is single tracked also, as you undoubtably know. I had the opportunity to ride it for the first time a few weeks ago. It was interesting to see how close the houses are to the line (and they are very nice houses as well). Even though there isn't a lot of service on that line, I can't believe that people don't complain about the noise and vibrations.
I assume it was single tracked for the bulk of it's runs, given the few pictures I've seen. I don't know for sure. Here's a pic of the line at the Whitestone station (not the terminal, Whitestone Landing). It appears the section south of here could have been double tracked or put up on an embankment:
Well, this IS the New York area. Probably has more people used to living near railroad tracks than in any other area of the country, besides maybe Chicago. And you get used to it. That area is set in the typical Nassau County housing density, 4 to 8 houses per acre.
As the only north/south LIRR line in Nassau/Suffolk it is a line well worth keeping running. Hopefully, someday it'll play a role in a larger rail transit network built to serve the area. Although that idea seems to be Long Islands' Second Avenue Subway. Still and all, I see Nassau County getting SOME type of additional rail transit system built within the next 20 years.
Well, this IS the New York area. Probably has more people used to living near railroad tracks than in any other area of the country, besides maybe Chicago. And you get used to it. That area is set in the typical Nassau County housing density, 4 to 8 houses per acre.
As the only north/south LIRR line in Nassau/Suffolk it is a line well worth keeping running. Hopefully, someday it'll play a role in a larger rail transit network built to serve the area. Although that idea seems to be Long Islands' Second Avenue Subway. Still and all, I see Nassau County getting SOME type of additional rail transit system built within the next 20 years.
But they offered to sell the entire Whitestone branch to the city in 1928. This may have been a cynical attempt to convince the city to extend the Corona line away from the LIRR's Port Washington line.
By the way, what I think the LIRR was trying to do with its 1928 offer to sell the Whitestone Branch was to preclude the extension of the Flushing line beyond Main Street, not to Main Street. When that offer was made, Main Street was in the process of opening.
By that point, the 1929 plan had to be somewhere in the planning stage. I've never seen anything written about it before 1929, but it's only logical to assume that something was going on between the time that the first phase of the IND was approved in the form that we know, and the time that the first articles on the "Second System" began to appear in 1929 (there were newspaper articles throughout the spring and summer). The LIRR had to have gotten wind of something, and that may be when their sales pitch started (and, bearing in mind that the northern route of the Flushing line extension was planned to take--almost the exact opposite route to the Whitestone Branch, did they tick off John Delaney and the Board of Transportation in doing so?).
Since BART opens - meaning the first trains depart the end of line stations - at 4 AM weekdays, the first trains through the system arrive at the other end in about 1 hour 20 to 30 minutes. This shouldn't be a problem for anyone catching a flight out. Saturdays, the opening is 6 AM, meaning if you have an 8 AM departure, you have a problem as the first train will arrive about 725 AM. SUNDAYS, the opening is 8 AM so the first arrival is about 925 AM. As this is a New York based message board, being an ex NYer myself, I know that popular flight times to NYC are between 7 AM and 915 AM (banks of nonstops to JFK).
Flights from NYC shouldn't generally be a problem (my favorite one was AA15 -no longer there :( - with a sched JFK dep time of 915 PM - rarely left before 10 PM - it was the catch all flight for anyone delayed enroute to NY so they could get to SF that night. By the time it left JFK, there were so few flights headed west that it usually landed within 15 mins of scheduled arrival time even one night when we left JFK 1 hour and 10 mins late!
Bob D.
http://www.brooklynrail.com/images/News_12/Courier_6_16_2003.jpg
They alternated over the years between black with yellow lettering and yellow with black lettering.
He lived in Brooklyn all of this time. In 1931, his number included the letter L. In 1955 his number included the letters QX. During all of the years between the letter K was included in his number.
If NY ever had a blue plate, it must have been after 1955.
Here's a fan site with lots of pictures of US and Canadian tags, both current and historical.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
In recent years it has gone to the other extreme. I had the same PA license plate for 23 years until they switched colors in 2001.
California has that beat. I have seen vehicles from the ‘50s still with their original plates. California never re-issues numbers and lets the original plate stay with the vehicle from original registration until the car is junked regardless of changes of ownership or changes in licence plate colors or designs. I have even seen restored vehicles from the ‘30s with what appear to be authentic plates with new stickers on them.
In a way it makes sense, assigning a registration number to the vehicle much as you do with an airplane or boat, where the numbers are painted on rather than attached with a plate. I noticed in France on my first trip there in 1959, that the vehicles had locally made different sized plates, which fit the individual automobile rather than one uniform sized plate, and some (usually older) cars had the license number painted on a rear fender with no plate at all.
Tom
They issued metal strips in 1952, 1953 and 1955 with a plate munber, state and year to be placed over the year on the existing plate. Indiana plates also had slogans such as "Drive Safely" from 1956 thru 1958; "Lincoln Year" in 1959 and "Safety Pays" from 1960 thru 1962.
Most of our plates are in very good shape. One of our 1964 plates (we had two cars for a time in Indiana) is mangled. Also included are the plates we had in NJ and Connecticut plus one from Colorado off the car my father sold not long before he retired. When I took out my personalized plates 12 years ago, I turned in both plates I had been using without thinking to keep one.
Back in the day when it was normal to get a new set of plates once a year instead of just a sticker to attach to the plates, many people would put their expired plates on the wall of their garage as a mini-history of the ownership of their vehicles. At commercial garages along the Lincoln Highway or Route 66 you would regularly see extensive collections of old licence plates from all the states going back many years to the early ‘20s.
Tom
Incidently, in the 1940's and 50's, 3X plates were apparently issued in Delaware County. When he took them off his cars, he would clean them up, and them simonize them before they were put on the wall. Some of his old plates looked like they were brand new.
Back when I was young, the roof was leaking on my grandfather's hunting cabin; he sent me up on the roof with an old license plate, a hammer and nails, and some Black Jack to spread liberally on the roof before nailing the plate in place. Worked, too!
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Black Jack chewing gum was the duct tape of it's day!
Mark
This wasn't the chewing gum... it was a "patching tar" designed for sealing the flashing around vents and all-around patching. I've used it on the roof of my North Carolina home to reseal the flashing where my range hood vents. Spreads without heating, although it works a lot easier on a hot day (put can on roof in bright sunlight one or two hours before using for best results).
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Mark
California probably has more damned variations of license plates than any other place around -- as once a vehicle is assigned a plate, it keeps the plate for its lifetime.
Take another look at them... they're blue with gold letters...
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
BTW, why was the NY license plate changed from the statue of liberty design to the current empire state design? More anti-NYC sentiment from Albany?
I believe it had to do with the number of stolen or otherwise unauthorized plates in use.
(I believe it had to do with the number of stolen or otherwise unauthorized plates in use.)
They missed a big opportunity. While recalling all license plates and reissuing new ones, they could have based the first letter on the county in which the car was registered. This would have made it easy to spot cars registered out of New York City for insurance purposes. These could be rechecked over time to prove residence.
Of course, they could do that now with out of state plates and do not. A way to make those who follow the law pay extra to make up for those who do not.
Bottom line - they can tell where you live. YOU can't. :)
But yeah, the DMV computers (I worked with them) *DO* know where the three LETTER code plates were shipped and WHICH DMV office issued those three letters. So the reality is if you're NOT whitebread, pick up your plates in Erster Bay instead of Hemphead, or go to the DMV in Riverdale instead of the one on Fordham Road. Heh.
Dollar, dream ... 'nuff said.
The problem with "Z" tags that you mentioned is the result of an incident a number of years ago in Florida where criminals were targeting tourists in rental cars. Eliminating the rental-car-specific tag is no more than a panacea, however, since the rental car companies put enough bar codes and other stickers on the back side of the mirror to make it pretty obvious what you're driving.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Not to mention that the majority of rental cars in Florida are registered in, for whatever reason, Manatee County (just south of Tampa). Florida is one of those states that puts the county of issue on the license plate (or "tag" as they are known down here). A few counties opt not to do this, so it reads "Sunshine State" instead of the county name, Miami-Dade County is one of these.
If the system is so obscure that it takes a computer to tie the plate to an issuing office, the computer should go one step further as it does in California and spit out the name and address of the registered owner and whether there are any wants or warrants for the vehicle or its owner.
Tom
Mark
The only way you can find out the county now (the tags used to have the county spelled out. Ohio has 86 counties, so the county number is a sticker. Saves the state money.) is to get on the Ohio Motor Vehicle Department's Web Site. The table is there.
Correct, the blue with orange letters were issued in 1966 to replace the black with orange World's Fair plates (1964-1965).
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Chuck Greene
Mark
The plate was a state official plate. It had some kind of seal (not the state seal) with the word STATE under it on the left side. The number was not embossed.
Mark
Mark
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Peace,
ANDEE
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
I thought I've seen them on NJT buses...an I mistaken? I've also seen them on other vehicles. In Pennsylvania "omnibus" plates are used for private buses, among other things.
Mark
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Thank you very much!
Mark
Mark
: (
Mark
Light rail included in Aloha Tower plan
What's interesting about the first one is that it involves a developer pushing for transit. Whether or not light rail is right for Honolulu, it's nice to see developers pushing transit instead of suburban-style sprawl development.
The second one is interesting because it is a thoughtful comparison of light rail and bus rapid transit.
Mark
Here are some news articles on Honolulu rapid transit:
Light rail included in Aloha Tower plan
Busways Instead Of Light Rail? Honolulu's Switch Suggests A Trend
What's interesting about the first one is that it involves a developer pushing for transit. Whether or not light rail is right for Honolulu, it's nice to see developers pushing transit instead of suburban-style sprawl development.
The second one is interesting because it is a thoughtful comparison of light rail and bus rapid transit.
Mark
I arrived at 3:25 in time to see Keystone Service train #647 (AEM7 #928) pull in. I left 32 minutes later having seen 8 trains and photographed 7 of them (I neglected to photograph the Dinky).
The Crescent and two Regionals all had AEM7's; two NJT trains had Comet V cab cars, one with an ALP44 pushing and the other with an ALP 46 pushing. The Acela Express (train #2163) had two roofless motors, 2021 and 2024.
Photos are on this Webshots page.
The shrouds apparantly flew off the train while running, I'm not sure if it was at speed, or if they realized that the shrouds were coming off and took preemptive measures. I have to say I prefer the non-shroud Acelas, really shows them for what they are, and they look a bit more like the AEM7s now, which is good. Plus the cab and electrical systems atop the locomotive don't look to out of place due to the idiotic air conditioners paired on each car.
Just more proof that this thing bears about as much relation to the TGV as a Lear jet does to a Concorde. It's a 20 year old, 100 ton locomotive design that will never be truely okay at 150 mph. It is, really an FRA compatible Regio trainset from Europe, nothing relating to the TGV at all, even the P-01 tilting TGV bears no relation to the Acela Express. It's just a beefed up LRC with two power cars at either end, so as to make it look 'TGV.'
Paul
following ad (number 2939) was added to Rail Swap.
SALE/TRADE: Old New York City Subway Car (1920's)
On my property I have an old NYC Subway car. It is a lo-v that ran on the IRT subway. The car was broought here in 1972 after being bought from a local NYC scrapper. Car was indoors in my barn until 2 months ago when the barn was demolished. I sold it to a group in NYC in February and they have not come through. I am offering the car for sale again and this time want only serious buyers. Car is sitting on blocks. Trucks are there as well but not under the car. As far as I can tell and from what I was told, the car is complete minus the seats. The car number is 5606. If I can not have it off my property by August 1, 2003 I will be forced to scrap it since I am selling to developers.
Please email me with any questions.
StansSupplies@aol.com
Asking $1,000.00
Will store for free until 8/1/03
Name: Stanley Feldman
Address:
City: Valley Forge
State: PA
ZIP:
Country: USA
>>FW: Gold Linr Opening Date?
Thank you for your inquiry. At this time we do not have a specific date for
the opening of the Metro Gold Line. It is currently planned to be open to
the public in the Summer of 2003. Hopefully, we should have an exact date
in the very near future. Please click on the following web address for
future updates.
http://www.mta.net/metro_transit/metro_rail/goldline/default.html
Sincerely,
Jody Salazar
Administrative Intern<<
If it was a net loss for you after court costs then why even bother, just to get them in court and get them to also have to pay some laywer? Even if it's the principle there is a point at which you have to look at what you are doing and just for a second consider what 100 or even 1000 people exactly like you doing that does to such an embattled agency, and just stop, principles or no. You still do not have whatever luggage was lost, and you now have lost money in litigation, PLUS you took money from an agency that needs every penny it can ge.
Now I cannot question your decision to sue, I was not there, and I notice that you also said, "...failure to provide proper passage." So it wasn't just about lost luggage, just out of curiousity what exactly is failure to provide proper passage?
I do have to question your intelligence in posting on a railfan oriented messageboard boasting of your successes fighting against an institution that many of us hold near to us. You'll have to excuse me if, IMHO, you come off as slightly less of a crusader for the rights of the little man, and a bit more of a Judas at the last supper of Amtrak.
I can only question his judgement in choosing to follow a letigious path with this, to me such a thing is an absolute last resort. I'd be interested in learning more out the circumstances surrounding his lawsuit, there could be customer service issues involved here, seemingly the quickest way to lawsuits is via poor customer service.
I have to agree in part with Jersey Mike here. Posting on what is essentially a board for railfans with a title like “Victory Against Amtrak” is tantamount to typical troll-ism.
Now if the suit actually gets David Gunn to wake up the CS department of Amtrak in a major way, then it would be a positive thing…but we need some more detail and also some clue as to the motives thereof.
Mark
You can't run a passenger rail system if you don't have passengers, and u wont have passengers unless YOU CARE ABOUT THEM.
Two things did that:
(1) Low fares - $99 from Albany to Orlando
(2) Speed of Travel - 2 hours vs. 2 days
Actually, I've never had a problem flying my usual carriers. They get my bags to me. They offer me a drink. They have toilets that work.
Yes, the coach seats are tight. Yes, the fares are nonrefundable. But for long distance travel it works for me - and for most people.
That's why people fly rather than driving or taking the train.
And please, spare me the high-speed rail speech.
But my original point was that even if we aren't funding passenger rail at the levels needed to provide top-notch service, we should expect them to do the best that is possible given what they have. I was talking more about how well employees treat passengers and such, not things like train frequency and on-time performance, which are often beyond Amtrak's control given budget restraints and having to share tracks with freight lines. And as I said above, it has been my experience that that Amtrak crews have mostly delivered, being courteous and attentive to passenger needs.
Mark
Mark
As much as we'd LIKE people under stress to put on that "Disney smile" no MATTER WHAT, I can't say that I'd blame one or two Amtrak people if they had an attitude. When you grow up in the city, you learn to "spot the grumpy" and stay clear of them. I'm not making excuses, but do take a second or two to look at it from THEIR end of the equation. They've got situations they can't do DOOWAHDIDDY about and if people get in their face, fuses can get short.
Something *WE* can do to HELP the situation though is to be NICE to them, to let them know that *WE* know the score and that they're still appreciated even if their EMPLOYER sucks. It really DOES make a difference in how *YOU* get treated by them ... it REALLY does ...
Couple of years back I had to help my folks move up to the area around Chico, California. I checked Amtrak....would have had to catch the Coast Starlight at Chico at 4:10 a.m. (and that is IF it is EVER on time....), ride allt he way to LA, changing to the San Diegan (then) and getting to the station closest to my home at 9:56 p.m. Fare? $95.00. Oh, and I would have had to buy meals on board.
Called United Airlines. They gave me a 2:00 p.m. flight out of Chico to San Francisco, change planes, and be back in Orange County at 5:20 p.m. Fare? $84.00!! And only three hours and 20 minutes travel time.
Guess which way I went??? Oh, and both planes were on time.
I also thought perhaps I'd take the train to Seattle a couple years ago. Coast Starlight, the fare would have been $159.00 EACH WAY, taking 35 hours (with the one-hour ride from OC to LA and station time at LA) -- plus would have had to buy meals en route. And that 35 hours travel time is IF the train is on time.
Alaska Airlines did the trick, taking 2 hours and 20 minutes for $204 round trip and that included the meals en route. (No, not peanuts or pretzels, Alaska has decent warm meals on most flights.)
I don't care how much of a railfan I am, I will NOT travel long-distance on Amtrak. It's simply too damned expensive and too damned IFFY about even being on time.
So your saying we should accept the fact that Amtrak is full of it instead of changing the system for the better? And what gets me is that most of the railfan community agree's with you. If you used the same ideaology for any other company in the free world you would never see a paycheck worth more than 40,000 a year.
My point is that Rodco action of trying to make some big point out of this was uncalled for and not appropiate and spurred by petty revenge not any sence of civic responsibility.
My point is that Rodco action of trying to make some big point out of this was uncalled for and not appropiate and spurred by petty revenge not any sence of civic responsibility.
You're missing the point. A fare was paid and a level of service is expected. It was not delivered.
Did you bother to read anything from his website? I certainly would have been as miffed as he - especially after the notes received from Amtrak.
I've already posted the dump on your passengers and you won't exist anymore stuff. I think that this proves it again. And why shouldn't we hold them responsible? They are a corporation - same as any other corporation (like the ones that you accuse of trying to stick it to all of us) - and should they not have to comply with their promises?
Your real point seems to be that anyone stupid enough to ride Amtrak deserves an unpleasant ride. Believe it or not, a great many rail fans like traveling by rail because they think of it as a pleasant experience, not because of some near religious belief that Amtrak must survive.
Tom
Seriously though - Amtrak's got a GUNN ... I suspect things WILL get better, but Amtrak DOES need some bucks to hire some car cleaners, fix wreckage that goes out because it MOVES, yada yada. The way *I* look at it, David Gunn is the PERFECT choice for the gig as long as he doesn't throw his hands up in the air and walk away from the wreckage.
AMTRAK is in the SAME situation the MTA was in once upon a time. And I *doubt* subway riders would have put up with what the subways were in the 1970's ANY MORE. GUNN made the difference, maybe just MAYBE he can do it again. Rodco probably got his attention. Sure hope that the route of the pointless arrow is reading some of OUR comments here.
While I agree with Mike that Amtrak is something special, there's *NO* incentive for improvements if we cut them slack either. If riders hadn't told the MTA to SHOVE IT, we might still be riding Arnines. Now y'all know how much I love my Arnines ... but let's get real here - the subway's come a LONG way because folks thought "we could do better" ... and here we are.
With GUNN at the helm of the "railroad with its head up its arse" there's HOPE that what Rodco went through will NOT happen to someone else. If it takes lawuits (more and more every day) to give GUNN the AMMO to go to Tom Delay and say "Look - fix this or we're cutting your Texas trains" then maybe it was for some good. The MTA didn't change course until they had SUCH a crisis on their hands, they HAD to do something ...
But I haven't had a bad Amtrak ride *YET* myself ... and folks know how I can KVETCH ... not ONE bad experience YET for me. Must be the ghods. :-\
My point is that Rodco action of trying to make some big point out of this was uncalled for and not appropiate and spurred by petty revenge not any sence of civic responsibility.
That dog crap bit has nothing to do with what Rodco's saying. Your on this belief that we must accept what Amtrak is doing because it must survive. And yes we do have the right to be shocked and outraged when a train is late. Amtrak has a obligation to provide the best rail service they can, and if they can't do that then Amtrak should go out of buisness and let a more reliable company handle buisness.
You must be running a very high fever or have some other kind of neurological disturbance. You pay (sorry, I mean donate) for a train trip. The standard is the same for each and every method of transportation - I get a seat (so long as it is reserved - I know about unreserved trains), a toilet should I need it, and a clean-ish space to be in. Anything less does not meet my expectations and will result in me being less than satisfied. If I am not satisfied, I probably will not return. With enough people dissatisfied with the service, the service will close.
So rather than allow Amtrak to dump on the passengers, perhaps you should focus your inane rantings to a better place - like lobbying your elected officials to increase the funding for Amtrak. Accepting poor service will only mean the end of train travel. I really hope that you're not so myopic as to not be able to see that.
So if you get your car washed at a certain car wash, and they did a shitty job on your car, would you go back everytime and pay $25.00 and just accept the fact that they can't do a good job? Talk about a sucker born every minute.
Travelers should accept the fact that Amtrak trains will always be 2 hours late? And that's why Amtrak has such a loyal customer base?
Tell me, say you live in a town with twice a day Amtrak service. You know that the train will be two hours everyday. Does than mean you will just move back anything you have planned to do that day by two hours? Nope. Any person with common sense will find their way to the nearest airport and get on a plane that they know has at least 70% on time rate or better.
Don't say you won't ever need one.
Let everyone else sue, but please if you know how bad off Amtrak is, think twice before engaging in frivolous lawsuits.
The fact that I am a Rail fan has NOTHING to do with the suit. I expressed before that i love subways, trains, railroads etc., but the taking of a passenger trip on a dirty, smelly, hot, uncomfortable Amtrak train is not what Rail fanning is about.
If they cannot provide a method of transit equal to or better than the airlines, then they should not be in business. If Passenger rail service is financially feasible, then a private company should be run it.
The bottom line is that AMTRAK was in the wrong and I was not going to take it lying down. I was paying for a service that they failed to provide, it is as simple as that. The fact that they are in financial trouble is not relevant in this situation. Think about it logically and not emotionally and maybe you will understand
Rob
Ft. Lauderdale
PS. Troll? Im 31 years old..
Hmmm. I'll ignore that last crack......
Here's the deal, though. To improve on those conditions you expressed disdain over, it was in your power to reserve a private room accomodation. From what you were writing about it appears that you decided to ride in a coach car. So it was your own choice to throw yourself in with the "common people". See, riding a train longer than a couple of hours DOES require a change, or at least, a suspension of the "air travel" state of mind. You're gettin' there...in a while. Gotta take it for what it is. It really is a marvelous thing, riding the rails across many states, from one part of this immense country to another. Too bad about the medicine, that is most unfortunate. By and large though, I have to agree with the opinion that you mainly enriched a law firm. Shit happens in life and most of the time it's just un-correctable. We go on.
Nah, that's not right. A "roomette" doesn't add "thousands" to the ticket cost. Maybe another $150.00 or $200.00 or so, for a night. Is is worth paying that for peace of mind? I'd say it is if riding with "regular folks" is too upsetting to a person. And for a trip that takes 26 hours it's a viable consideration.
Or else he should stop being so "fussy" about the trip conditions and take it with a smile and a grain of salt. He was traveling from where, St. Petersburg to Albany, NY? That's a long trip. This darn auto culture has made folks so un-used to being around fellow citizens that any exposure brings the lamentations of how "bad" it is riding with their fellow citizens. We're turning into a bunch of little fuss-pots.
The issue of lost luggage is a completely different thing. That could've happen via any travel mode including private car, bus or airplane.
Correct. So how is Amtrak shielded from being responsible for lost luggage like the other modes?
Its not even a question of a railfan preserving rails.
However, just imagine the doors he opened even wider. More people will start suing over lost baggage, and this will spread to the airlines.
A source of loss for the TA is paying out for lawsuits. In the 168th St crew room is an article from the NY Times about a woman who tried to commit suicide in front of an E train. Lied across the tracks, lost some limbs. Family and friends testified she was suicidal. But guess what? She sued the TA and won, for something like 14 million. And there's lots more like that.
Amazing the organization that pays $400/hr to preserve the $2 fare can't find lawyers to win a case for them when it comes to paying out money.
The original poster just brought attention that now you can sue for things like lost baggage and possibly win. I'm not going to post here any ideas, but this could snowball.
I am so there.
Correct me if I am wrong, Jersey Mike and American Pig, but I would venture to say that neither of you have ever served on a jury. I have, numerous times over the years, and I consider it a sacred duty of citizenship. I and my fellow jurors, most of whom have taken time from their jobs, take the task seriously.
It is an unfortunate truism that those who complain the most about the poor quality of jurors are the ones who are the most proud of their ability to avoid their civic responsibility to serve on juries.
Tom
There are no exemptions, not for lawyers, not even for former presidents of the United States.
In return, it's a max of 3 days (usually 1 or 2) if you don't actually get on a case, and it's at most once every 4 years.
Heck NJ couldn't even figure out how to make license plates with 7 digits. A good number of states have 7 digit license plates, NJ tried to use them and they were so hard to read the police demanded they dump them. NJ ran the letters and numbers together, no hyphen, no change in font or size. Ever other state with the 7 digit plates used at least one of these aides to legibility to make the 7 digit plates very readable.
Mark
Would you believe over 70 different kinds, between charity, organizational, and other special tags? Plus commercial and the regular plates, of course.
Each of the special series plates has an assigned two-letter prefix, followed by some combination of letters and numbers; the "Conquer Cancer" plates like I have on my Ranchero begin with CC, for example.
But we are drifting off-topic, I believe.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
I had North Carolina personalized tag PENNSYRR for many years, but I don't have enough vehicles registered there any more... now it's just TROLLEY and MEIORA (my wife's name transliterated in Hebrew).
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
When I served last year in New York County, we were told that all jurors were expected to come in for three consecutive days or serve on a case.
The third day, we were dismissed after about an hour (well, an hour after roll call, which was itself about an hour late -- good thing, since that was the day of the half hour gap in 1 service that i've mentioned here), and we were paid for the full day, but we certainly did have to come in.
When I served last year in New York County, we were told that all jurors were expected to come in for three consecutive days or serve on a case.
I did say usually, not always. I can't actually prove that more than half of jurors in NY State serve at most 2 days, but that's my strong suspicion.
The last two times I was called, we were told exactly what you were told. Both times, almost everybody was dismissed at the end of 2 days. In addition, this time I came in on a Wednesday, and it was clear the Monday crop had all been sent home Tuesday afternoon.
In many counties the rule is 1 day or 1 trial (I actually read this somewhere in the written jury material).
Of course, if you're really unlucky or lucky (depending on your point of view), you get called for a murder case and get to serve for several weeks.
The last time I was called, I didn't have to report (the case that we were all subpoenaed for was settled). Called the first night and they told us to send in the back sheet from the juror notice and we'd be exempt for 4 years.
My fiancee was called for Grand Jury duty in January. She was able to differ her service as she was enrolled in nursing school and really couldn't miss clinical time. She's due for recall any day now.
Part of the problem is that some companies will not pay for more than a certain number of days on jury duty and don't have to - most people today live from paycheck to paycheck... Miss even one full paycheck and mortgage payments, credit cards, utilities, etc fall into arrears...
I'd like to serve on the justice squadron, but I've never been called by the correct county.
Come again? If that's the case, why do I lose an average of 68 weeks a year of employee time (in a group of 200 people, of whom only 70% are US citizens) for people serving on juries? These are well-educated professionals who are certainly not out of touch (and, obviously, not unemployed).
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Well maybe that would cause Amtrak to be more careful.
Did you read the article? As I remember the story, the T/O was told over his radio that there was a suicidal woman on the tracks ahead of his train and did not attempt to slow the train to avoid hitting her until he actually saw her, and then it was too late. Only the most rabid railfans believe the schedule is more important than a (suicidal) person's life, and they are not the ones on juries.
And I am sure the black humorous advice in both the crew's rooms and bus depots is that if you hit ‘em be sure to kill ‘em because the amount to be paid for a death is lower than that for a severely injured person needing medical care for the rest of his/her life.
Tom
But still she tried to commit suicide, failed, and won a lawsuit. That was her own doing as much as the train operator's.
Only the most rabid railfans believe the schedule is more important than a (suicidal) person's life, and they are not the ones on juries.
I'm sure not even railfans would go to that extreme. I would hope not.
Yeah, but you need to call Command Centre to get permission to reverse. :)
I doubt he knew when he first sued that he would get a net loss. I think you and Jersey Mike might be a wee bit too hard on the poster. And you don't know that it's a frivolous lawsuit.
By the way, the few times I rode Amtrak I had a pleasant time with no real problems. And I am a railfan. However I have no hesitation to sue a big corporation. I recently had two interviews with Amtrak in which I didn't get the jobs. I just might sue for age discrimination, anti-Semitism, and anti-railfanism.
I doubt he knew when he first sued that he would get a net loss. I think you and Jersey Mike might be a wee bit too hard on the poster. And you don't know that it's a frivolous lawsuit. If there were damages he deserves compensation. And if they settled it means they agreed 100%!!!
By the way, the few times I rode Amtrak I had a pleasant time with no real problems. And I am a railfan. However I have no hesitation to sue a big corporation. I recently had two interviews with Amtrak in which I didn't get the jobs. I just might sue for age discrimination, anti-Semitism, and anti-railfanism.
And I don't care how much of a railfan ANYONE is or isn't -- if some rail entity causes them property damage or injury through no fault of anyone's but the entity, the entity very well deserves to suffer whatever legal consequences that my result from a law suit.
Amtrak is not some sacred cow. If they f**k up, they should pay -- just like any other company.
1) The various conditions of the service rendered. If there were strict disclaimers of liability and this guy hired a lawyer to get around them I would say that he is just being greedy.
2) There might have been a better way to handle this without going to court so that both sides could "win". Some solutions might have been travel vouchers or some partial payment. All of course depending on the conditions I mentioned in part 1.
3) The guy admitted that he will actually loose money on the suit just to prove a "point". If the point is to make a point I believe that there are much better ways of making a point than just suing, especially in light of Amtrak's state of affairs. Gunn and his new management team have made customer input a priority and has this person spent some time and creativity he could have possibly found satisfaction through non-legal channels such as Amtrak management, local government or local media.
With the information available to me at this point I am saying that the guy handled the situation in a poor/selfish way.
But it would not be a poor/selfish thing to keep some poor C/R or T/Os keys? It is not a poor/selfish thing to seek railfan memorabilia from a track?
Seems that you're all for being poor/selfish so long as it benefits you. So why the hipocracy?
...but is there a difference between being a shell fish and a crustacean?
The number of humorous typos on SubTalk has increased exponentially in the last few days. This one edged out the SFO BART extension opening in the year 3003 in my book.
CG
There ARE times when one has to take legal action -- and one KNOWS they will come out on the short end of the stick -- just to prove a point, and set a precedent so that the situation might be prevented in the future as the entity who had the judgement against them will think about their courses of action.
I'm sure that anyone with a legal background can tell you that many cases tried always rely on some precedent. Without a precedent, it's much harder to come to terms.
I'm sure that anyone with a legal background can tell you that many cases tried always rely on some precedent. Without a precedent, it's much harder to come to terms.]
Almost 99.95% of court cases rely on case law in some shape or fashion. That is common knowledge to persons in the legal industry.
If you were a real railfan you would have cut out the big lawyer fees and settled for compensation in the form of more Amtrak tickets or a cab ride. That way you could have both won. You could get 25 off-peak ACELA Express rides costing Amtrak nothing, but providing you with something of great value.
The fact that you persued this case in the way you did and then comming here to brag about hurting Amtrak only reveals that you are a dickhead. Were you a rational agent you would have seen the luggage and time as a sunk cost and since Amtrak hs no interest in stealing luggage there is no deterrant factor in your action either.
AcelaExpress2005 - R160
As for comparing Amtrak to a religous organization...I won't even go there.
Peace,
ANDEE
The Cult of the Pointless Arrow? :^)
As for comparing Amtrak to a religous organization...I won't even go there.
Both are non-profit orgs that seek to serve their community w/o regard to profit. Sueing a non-profit org is like beating up a homeless guy, it's just low.
Peace,
ANDEE
I would have no problem whatsoever with beating up or killing a homeless guy who was a threat to me or my family.
Most of medicine is non-profit - the institutions, that is. Would you also exclude them from lawsuits?
How about municipalities and their agents (police)? They're non-profit (by your definition). I recall you advocated for sueing over the loss of ability to take pictures in the subway. Sorry, in your world you can't do that now.
Make up your mind...be consistant for once. If Amtrak screws up, they have to pay - just like anyone else.
Sueing Amtrak could mean the end of passenger rail travel in this country for good. Amtrak really does not want to steal passenger's baggage, a point proving lawsuit only "teaches" them something they already know. Unless he had diamonds in his bags, there were probably less lawyer intensive ways to be compensated for his loss.
The most obvious one being Amtrak voluntarily offering just compensation for his loss.
Tom
I simply pointed out the inconsistancy in your replies - something that I've noticed about you for quite some time.
My non-profit comment came for your assertion that because Amtrak is non-profit we shouldn't sue. I simply took your comment and extrapolated it to cover all non-profits. Then you became inconsistant, again.
We disagree on the outcome of this case. It is my feeling that rodco simply exercised his rights. He was right - his bag was stolen by an Amtrak employee which separated him from his clothing, medications, and other personals. They offered him $100 for his bag. I know that I spend $60/mo for medications. So all my other stuff is worth $40?
The conditions on the train seem to be horrid. And the stolen bag prevented him for remedying the conditions that he should have had the ability to fix - changing from vomit covered clothing, putting on cooler clothing, etc. This opportunity was stolen from him. And running a car where you can't control the temperature? Come on...if it were a short trip, you can kind of say "ok". But a long distance train?
Sueing Amtrak could mean the end of passenger rail travel in this country for good. Amtrak really does not want to steal passenger's baggage, a point proving lawsuit only "teaches" them something they already know. Unless he had diamonds in his bags, there were probably less lawyer intensive ways to be compensated for his loss.
Frankly, after Amtrak's letters, I'd have retained counsel. And I really hope that Amtrak learns that they can't dump on the passenger. If they do, they'll be out of business.
In customer service, there is a saying - if someone likes your [good or service], they'll tell a friend. If he doesn't like it, he'll tell 10.
So what's going to kill Amtrak? It's not going to be one lawsuit that was probably (conjecture here on my part) settled for less than $1,000. It will be the blatent disregard for the passenger.
Lawsuits are sometimes the only wake-up call that a company will react to. Perhaps it wasn't such a bad thing after all.
The current crisis in medical insurance is a good example of this.
Anyway, I do not consider going to small claims court "sueing" in the popular civil tort sence. Lawyer fees are minimal for both parties involved and the goal is the recovery of direct damages.
Mt Rodco's action was like going to a soup kitchen and then sueing them when some guy spilled hot soup on him. At the very least there were better avenues of conflict resolution open to him.