Once at 7th Avenue and 34th Street, while waiting for an Uptown express (I was going to 42d St) I saw an off-duty LIRR trainman intently looking down the tracks. There was a electrical arc off in the distance and it told him all he needed to know. He headed over to the local platform and sure enough a 1 Train arrived a minute or two later. About 5 minutes later I was still standing waiting for a 2 or 3 when a second 1 Train came in! I think I missed my Metro-North train at GCT by a couple minutes and then had to wait 40 minutes for the next one. Okay, so next time I was at 34th Street I looked down the tracks and, when I saw a flash of light, I headed over to the local side. Got there just in time to miss an Uptown 3! ;=D
And why would you want to encourage passengers to use the local? This isn't Queens Boulevard; the locals are quite crowded already.
Forcing people to make mad dashes through narrow underpasses isn't my idea of good crowd control.
The answer is that the platforms are separated to encourage passengers to transfer between local and express trains one stop up, since the railroad transfer points would be crowded enough without cross-platform transfers in addition. (Little did the planners of the time realize how crowded the platforms at Times Square would get once interdivisional transfers came about.)
There are two changes I'd make. First, install annunciators in all of the underpasses, so passengers can wait downstairs and take whichever train comes first. Second, don't lock off the northbound local platform from the south underpass at 34/7 nights and weekends just because a nearby station exit is closed.
Was that originally the answer? If trains from 53 St. used the lower level of 42 St. SB then the transfers are vertical. At 50 St. the CPW local and Queens local/express are on different levels. At 42 St. the 53 St. line might have been sent via the lower level making for another vertical transfer. 34 St. is a crossunder transfer. It might have been originally planned for Queens locals to have no cross-platform access to the express until 14 St. I'm surprised they didn't carry their experiment to its logical end: expresses on one level and locals on another. It would've been an extension of what they did on CPW.
But there don't seem to be very many local-express transfers along the 8th Avenue line -- it's just not worth it for most, unless they're on an express and they're going to one of the three local stations. The last time I transferred between local and express at 42nd, I transferred from a NB A to a NB C on a Sunday to go to 59th, since the C has a clear shot but the A sometimes gets stuck behind a D. Turns out that, not only was there a D blocking the A's path, but it was holding for a connection for the C. (Once again, the local wins the race.)
Local-express transfers are a lot more common at Times Square and probably at Nevins.
Why 86 St isn't an express station I don't know.
I think that's what he was saying: keeping people on the local trains i.e. as opposed to getting off the local to change for the express.
Well I did put the word encourage in quotes for lack of a better word to use. I say that the anticipation of Penn Station crowding caused that but you're correct about Times Sq.
Forcing people to make mad dashes through narrow underpasses isn't my idea of good crowd control.
Why should people do that when the next express station is only one station away? I think people should use good judgement [and common sense] in making such a choice. Maybe the layout's intent was to discourage going through the narrow underpasses.
Answers are in the first paragraph of that page.
(1) The tunnels are very shallow, right below street level. There is no room for the mezzanine necessary for the normal NY style express platform with two island platforms and four tracks. Both subway stations at Penn Station were built after the railroad station opened and could only be placed above the railroad tunnels and right below the street level. Atlantic Ave. is similar but the subway and railroad stations opened around the same time (1908 and 1906 respectively).
(2) Three platforms were thought necessary to handle heavy patronage to/from the railroad stations - and also discourage express/local transferring. In each case the next station northward is also an express stop where transfers between local and express trains are possible due to the conventional island platform layout. Next nortward stations are Nevins St., Times Square, and 42/8th Ave.
The narrowness of the street forced that tunnel configuration. Putting the express trains below the locals was a simple solution but you could argue that they should have done something like Central Park West (which was built later).
How? First, there are no express stations under Central Park West. Second, passing CPW express trains subject waiting passengers to an aural assault.
No, but there could have been. Just put in an island platform between the two tracks instead of a side platform for the local. You still only have two tracks per level.
"Second, passing CPW express trains subject waiting passengers to an aural assault."
Agreed. This is a drawback which can be eased a bit by using continuous-welded track and by making sure your rolling stock gets regular care from the truing machine.
No, but there could have been. Just put in an island platform between the two tracks instead of a side platform for the local. You still only have two tracks per level.
But wouldn't that have meant the station(s) would need to be deeper than they currently are? If not, the stairs to the street would break the surface in the middle of CPW.
Until I read your post I never thought about this, but are the Central Park West stations the only IND underground stations without a mezzanine?
No, there are a few others. Fulton St on the Crosstown, for example.
West side: Franklin, Canal, Houston, Christopher/SS, 18, 23, 28, 50, 59 66, 79, 86, 96, 110, 137, 145, 157, and all Lenox Line stations except 148th.
East Side and Brooklyn: Nostrand, Kingston, all 2/5 stations except Sterling and President Streets, Bergen, Hoyt, Wall, all Lex Ave local stations except for 68th, 96th and 103rd streets, all underground Pelham Local stations. If you want to count elevated stations, add Jackson, Prospect, Simpson, Freeman and 174th Streets to the list.
IND
Dyckman-200th st, 135th st, all CPW local stations except for 110th st, 50th st, 23rd SAt (both 6th and 8th Ave stations), Spring, Clinton/Washington (Fulton St only), Nostrand/Fulton, Kingston/Throop, 46th st/QBL, Northern Blvd, Rockaway Park, Bergen St/Smith St.
BMT
Marcy Ave (elevated), Union, Prospect and 25th st stations on the 4th Ave line, Rockaway Parkway, Wilson Ave, Graham Ave, Grand St, Halsey St, Rector, Cortlandt, City Hall, Prince, 8th, 23rd and 28th st (Broadway Line), Park Place (shuttle)
Whew, can I catch my breath?
Fulton St, Flushing Ave, Myrtle-Willoughby all on the G line.
Vernon Blvd-Jackson Ave on the 7
Metropolitan Ave on the M
The CPW solution is only workable because there are no entrances to the trains from the east (Park) side of CPW. That's also the only way the BMT City Hall station works the way it does (I know, that's a different situation).
Also, at 86th it's quite reasonable to wait for an express or a local, whichever comes first. You can wait at a point halfway down the stairs and have time to go either up or down, wherever the train comes first. Or, even easier, you can wait at a point right at the top of the stairs and watch the other person who's already at the mid level of the stairs. When that other person starts to move, you know an express is coming in.
www.forgotten-ny.com
Some years back didn't the TA install audible annunciators (is that redundant?) at many stops? Seems like the Bedford Park 4 station got them, which I used quite often back then, when the 4 was known as the Muggers Express and it was s'posed to be a safety feature -you could stay downstairs where it was safer until your train was due. The thing is, at 34th & 7th the things are always going off. I've tried listening to them but I can't make heads nor tails out of them.
Why don't they copy MetroRail in Washington and have lighted signs telling you when the next train will arrive and what train it is?
That would require knowledge of what kind of train is coming and how far away it is even when it's not about to enter the station. Maybe when they're done with the CBTC on the L they can try this out, but for now we're stuck with stopgaps like the annunciators.
The annunciators do have displays though, which a little arrow and something like "DOWNTOWN EXP" if something is coming on the express track. It's just that they have no idea what's really coming ... an express train, a rerouted local, or, in the case of the downtown express track at 34th and 7th, a work train that will end up in the middle track between there and Times Square and never reach the station at all.
But where are they? I don't care WHAT train is coming in, only what track. I'm usually only going a few stops.
At Whitehall Street, the multi-color LED display in the southern entrance (near the SI ferry) usually shows just the date and time, but doubles as an annunciator for trains in both directions.
At West 4th Street, there are annunciators just after you enter the turnstiles at the West 3rd St entrance.
At 86th St and Lex, they're right inside fare control on each side, but also above both the top and bottom of each of the stairways at both ends of each platform. This is very useful for the many people transferring between the local and express levels (but incredibly frustrating when everyone sees "DOWNTOWN EXP" on the annunciator and goes downstairs only to find a work train pulling in, while the rerouted express is coming in on the upper level).
34th Street stations were built to accomodate crowds arriving at Penn Station. An additional platform *was* needed. And cross platform transfers were intended to be discouraged.
Now look at if from an arriving commuter's viewpoint. They *already know* if they need an express train or a local train, and so can go to the correct platform. Train frequency (especially on the IRT when built), was so frequent in those days that waiting for the first train was a moot point: Either track could expect an arrival within 90 seconds.
The IND was built so that there would be no purpose in switching to or from a local in the CBD. there is no advantage to that.
Elias
-Adam
(allisonb500r@aol.com)
The people running the system seem to be able to make quick decisions. The projected ridership was off so much that three weeks into the operation of the system, the hours of operation were extended by a half hour in the morning (5:30 start instead of 6:00) and two hours at night (12:30 end instead of 10:30).
Also, on Friday night the pedestrians attending downtown Superbowl festivities weren't intelligent and/or sober enough to stay off the tracks, so service on the last 12 blocks was terminated.
From what I've been reading in the Houston Chronicle, this line is NOT a boondoggle.
No way is this a boondoggle. The system is meeting an immediate need, and probably needs extension as soon as funds permit!
(Unfortunately, my source for some of the comments, the Houston Chronicle, wants $$$ for archive stories, so I can’t post links.)
www.freewebs.com/islandtransit
enjoy!
What else?
IDK, kinda like what steveboatti said, it's transit.
D U H, any idiot could figure that out. This forum doesn't serve Green Day Punk fans.
I didn't really get interested in it too much until this summer when I went back for the first time in a LOOONG time. I saw the AMA, Metrobus, and Tren Urbano and wanted to learn more.
Interesting. Why did you go back there: was it personal or purely railfanning?
From there it just blossemed into everything. I created the website to place my ideas. There is really no transportation network that unites the towns of PR,
What about here in NY?
so I was hoping one day maybe some of my dreams would become reality.
How about getting your own domain? I'd like... NIMBYKILLER's spicy Paella of PR Transit.
Enjoy
Does anyone here know anything about this exhibit? Website? Location? Anything?
Thanks!
After all, that's my main beef with it - it doesn't GO anywhere. I like being able to get off a crush loaded F and get a seat, but it doesn't do me much good when 95% of the time I need the J M and Z and the damn V ends one stop short of my destination.
I believe that is the cube root of pi... :-P
The Crew:
I’m presuming that there is a similar plaque for Challenger on the back of Opportunity’s high-gain antenna, but NASA hasn’t released a picture yet.
I guess it’s another reminder that space travel is not like airline travel, there are significant risks and people do die.
This is Bowling Green
If it matters, I was on this train at roughly 11:45AM.
Transfer isn't supposed to be availiable to the ferry
By the way, have any tips on recording on R142/R142A cars? Like where should I be standing relative to the PA speakers and where should I stand in the car?
That gives you a total choice of 3 speakers on both the R142 and R142A; all of which are directly under the overhead units.
The "A" cars are your best friend, especially on the R142, but you can work in the "B" cars in the R142A as well.
www.forgotten-ny.com
Regards,
Jimmy
http://thejoekorner.quuxuum.org/suball.htm
AA - became the (2nd) K
BB - became the B
CC - became the C
DD - never regularly used
EE 1 - Continental Av - ?
EE 2 - Continental Av - Whitehall St
FF - never regularly used
GG - became the G
HH 1 - Court St - Hoyt/Schermerhorn Sts
HH 2 - became the H (AKA Rockaway Park S)
JJ - Canal St - 168/Jamaica or Crescent St or Atlantic Av or Rockaway Parkway
K 1 - 57 St/6 Av - 168 St/Jamaica Av
K 2 - 168 St - Chambers St
KK - became the (1st) K
LL - became the L
MJ - Metropolitan Av - Bridge/Jay Street
MM - never regularly used
NX - 57 St/7 Av - Coney Island
QB - became the Q
QJ - became the J
QT - ? - Coney Island
RJ - became the <R>
RR - became the (R)
SS - became the (S)
T - 57 St/7 Av - Coney Island
TT - Chambers St/Nassau - 62nd St or Bay Pkwy or Coney Island
The DD marking was used very briefly in December of 1962 when a water main break at 6th Ave. and 23rd St. forced some alternate routings.
The JJ operated between 168th St. and Broad St. during non-rush hours.
The QT's north terminus was Astoria. The pre-Chrystie St. QB also terminated there.
The T ran to Astoria during weekdays and to 57th St. on Saturdays.
The TT also operated as a shuttle between 36th St. and Coney Island during late nights and Sundays.
QT ran via Tunnel as Brighton Local when the Q (Brighton
express) was running cos of missing bridge capacity (north side)
http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/maps/historical/1967.gif
And this one includes the KK, CC and others:
http://www.nycsubway.org/perl/caption.pl?/maps/historical/1968.gif
I am interested in identifying exactly what types of subway cars are running on my beloved "A" line (8th Ave IND). I have looked at the photos in the "cars" section on this website, but the R44s and R46s look fairly similar -- similar enough that I can't really figure out which ones are in use on the A. Yes -- I admit I'm a newbie & need glasses!
Are there ID plates in the cars anywhere giving the car type? I often see ID plates on the outside wall of the TO's cab giving the car manufacturer & serial number. HOwever, I don't recall seeing the car series listed there. Where would I look for an ID tag? Or do I just have to "know" based upon the photos on the website?
Thanks for your informed answers!
SDB
The R44 is exclusive to the A. This link below should have all of your answers
www.nycsubway.org/cars
http://www.nycsubway.org/cars/bytype.html
I noticed on that web page that the "R" numbers have some gaps. What does this mean? Were they contracts which were never funded? Or maybe contracts for capital equipment other than cars?
SDB
Most of the R contract #'s in between is for work equipment like diesels, cranes, etc.
David
Interior vestibules:R44: There is glass between the doors and the seats.R46: No glass.
Exterior belt:R44: It's painted gray and looks duller than the rest of the body.R46: The belt, like the body, is shiny stainless.
Cab door:R44: You need to be Calista Flockhart to fit through.R46: Wide cab door.
And, if you check the builder's plates for the original builder:R44: St. Louis Car.R46: Pullman-Standard.
Mark
R44: It's painted gray and looks duller than the rest of the body.
R46: The belt, like the body, is shiny stainless.
Remember however that there is a 4-car set of stainless steel R-44's. The car numbers escape me at the moment, but they appear quite frequently on the Rockaway Park shuttle.
And they sound nothing alike.
BTW, when you go to the Transit Museum or on a MOD trip most of those cars ONLY have names, e.g. D Types; Lo-Vs; Standards; Arnines; etc.
They are going to start using those names ... as soon as one of their staff sees the first cow fly !
(I was playing a joke with some of the names, just to see if anyone was listing) ... Mooo
This is a falacy. Two transit systems operate in two states yet are not under the jurisdiction of the FRA, PATCO and WAMTA. I don't know that WAMTA did, but PATCO was declared to be an "Interurban or Electric Railway", one of the requirements being isolation from the national railroad network. "Interurban or Electric Railways" do not fall under the jurisdiction of the FRA.
FRA control SHOULD have gone away once the system was severed from everything else, but hasn't, probbably because the FRA doesn't want to let go of it for some stupid reason or another.
Title of Law: Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995
Law #: 104-88 Passed by Congress:
104th Congress (1st Session - 1995)
November 6 1966: President Johnson signs bill creating
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
Governors of Maryland and Virginia sign November 17 1966 and commissioners of District of Columbia sign November 22 1966.
John
My pleasure.
There is an old saying, ignorance of the law is no excuse. With the Internet the law is at your finger tips.
John
I believe there are track connections (via switches) between PATH and the mainline railroads, but those connections are not used in revenue service.
SIR Is under a waiver (is it?).
The MetroRail, St Louis, and PATCO are captive systems therefore not subject to FRA rules.
They don't, that's the irony.
This is true of museum railroads as well. E.g. an insular
museum railroad with no connection to any other rail carrier
and entirely on private r-o-w with no highway crossings could
still be under FRA for steam boiler rules. I can think of
a large midwestern railway museum that has a track connection
to (what is now) the UP. This connection, IIRC, is a simple
switch that is kept padlocked. This museum railway is not under
the FRA although some aspects, such as highway crossings, are.
In the portion of PATH's line between Journal Sq. and Newark that
shares ROW with the Amtrak/NJT/etc. trackage, is there not a
crossover between the two?
As was explained to be by that guy in South jersey who built the railroad on hs farm, he could do whatever he wanted as long as he did not cross a public throughfare (like a road or waterway or railway). However, his steam engine did fall under STATE regulations regarding the operation of steam boilers which required some sort of liscenced inspection and operation.
I couldn't location the exact federal reg, but this line is repeted over and over again in many different places for a lot of the ancillary regulations re: rail transport.
(a) The term ``carrier'' shall not include any street, interurban,
or suburban electric railway, unless such railway is operating as a part
of a general steam-railroad system of transportation
BTW, yes the regularion still reads steam-railroad :-)
Dairy farmer Bob Stanton and his steam engine.
before the paint job
No one gets rapid transit equipment by rail any more, the cars are so specialized that the railroads can't and won't handle them.
Silk Road and other specialized trucking companies are making a small (or not so small) fortune moving rail (rapid transit and streetcar/LRV) moves. Silk Road has custom built trailers designed specifically for railcar moving, including 50 foot roll-on/rool off ones.
Gotten a new car at your friendly local trolley museum lately? 10-1 Silk Road moved it.
I don’t know if it was Silk Road that handled delivery of the CAF cars to WMATA‘s Greenbelt Yard from CAF's assembly facility in Hunt Valley Maryland. But yes there are "roll on roll off" lowboy trailers that can handle 75’ 80,000 rapid transit cars.
Some where in my image collection I have some pictures of one of the CAF car on a trailer in the unloading area at Greenbelt that was taken from the Capitol Beltway.
John
I find that hard to believe. Freight railroads will move everything from coach buses to John Deer tractors to aircraft bodies to wind turbine assemblies.
But they won't move 302.
After that, the transit industry went (almost) to inside bearing trucks and in some cases, non-air braking systems (except for NYCTA) and the railroads refused to move them.
So, the transit industry went to the highways to receive their new rail equipment.
Show me one transit property that received new cars by rail on their own wheels in the last 35 years and I'll believe your statement.
Back in the old days, the NYCTA got their cars delivered by rail, on their own wheels. St. Louis Car and ACF had their own gondolas that had an MCB coupler on one end and a Tomlinson (Hook type) coupler on the other. The subway cars were coupled and a gondola was on each end. The air brakes worked just like any other freight car, as far as the engineer knew.
After the cars were recieved, the gondolas were coupled together on the Tomlinson end and returned to the builder and the whole operation was started again.
One gon was coupled on each end of the cut of NYCT cars. The NTCT cars had their air brake systems set up for train line braking and the motors were cut out.
This took place in the early 1980s.
For more information go to:
http://www.rockhilltrolley.org/roster/1009.htm
Regards,
Matthew Mummert
I thought some of the R142s (or A models) actually arrived by rail. Were they not put on flatcars?
Did the M7s arrive by flatcar or were they put on 85' trailers over the oad with a lead car escort?
Somehow I don't see 60 hours of classroom training as equivalent to medical school and residency. But if you do, hey be my guest.
Having said that, railroad engineers have a lot of serious responsibility (and lives) on their hands. It is a non-trivial job worthy of respect.
"Hours of operation are approximately 4 AM to 3:40 AM."
Do they really close for 20 minutes? Or is that just their way of separating the morning hours of one day from the late night hours of another day?
I think it was also a legal reason to evict the homeless that would camp out in the station. I didn't know.
Not too long ago, maybe 10-15 years, when the homeless crisis was at its peak, Metro-North decided to close down GCT from 1:30 to 5:30 every morning so they could evict the homeless. Previously, it was open 24/7 and there were trains leaving at around 2:30 and 4:00.
Today, while there are still a lot of homeless, there are a lot of less blunt instruments that could be used to keep them out of GCT, Having last trains at 1:30 is sort of ridiculous in a city like NY where nightlife often goes on till 4 and many night shift workers in the finance and media indutries either arrive at work or leave for home between 1 and 5 a.m. And the LIRR runs 24/7 -- somehow they deal with the homeless at Penn. MNRR should at least extend the closing time till 2:30 if not go to 24/7.
1. All A trains should go to the Rockaways.
2. C trains should all go to Lefferts. Some Cs could be C diamond and run express.
3. V trains, or at least every other V, should provide extra local service to Euclid Ave. The crossover north of Jay Street doesn't seem any tougher than what they are trying to accomplish in switching the N from the express to local track so it can go to Astoria.
Anyway I am still surprised that Lefferts Blvd. needs just as much service as the Rockaways. One would expect that since the Lefferts branch is merely three stops, but the Rockaway branch is nine stops plus four from the shuttle, including Howard Beach, that Rockaway trains would be significantly more crowded.
The Lefferts line serves bus routes from other parts of Queens. The Rockaway routes doesn't.
Assign the "V" 8-car R32's. The "J" can extend to the West End line when need be with R42's released. With the net reduction of trains between Essex and Broad, shuffle equipment around and give some of the the "C" trains 10 cars at times and places that they need it.
Considering that the B and D run the same line after Pacific street up to the Bronx like it's always have, and the only scheduling difference is the late night issue, why not keep the names the same? It would confuse a lot less people on the West End and Brighton lines, since we're used to having the D on Brighton and the B on West End. There seems to be no real reason to call a "D running on the B as a D" a D.
Basically, she wants to know why they couldn't simply re-designate the existing D line as a "B" and the existing B line as a "D" for the purposes of generating less confusion once 2/22 arrives.
Responses would be most welcome.
Since lately neither the B nor the D has gone to Brooklyn they might have figure, "Let's start over". After all the Brighton has had the QT, QB, Q, QJ, M (two different types: Brighton-Chambers Exp before 1967, then later Brighton-Myrtle Local), D, and Q-diamond. What's another letter between friends. The West End has had T, TT, B, W, so same difference.
There are always lots of competing logics; they flipped a coin and chose this one.
Considering that the B and D run the same line after Pacific street up to the Bronx like it's always have, and the only scheduling difference is the late night issue, why not keep the names the same?
The B doesn't run late nights, so who cares? There's only one line. Unless I'm thinking of something different.
It would confuse a lot less people on the West End and Brighton lines, since we're used to having the D on Brighton and the B on West End.
What about the riders in The Bronx and Manhattan? Should they be inconvenienced just because of this?
There seems to be no real reason to call a "D running on the B as a D" a D.
Yeah, but it appears the MTA is retaining these routes as they are at the northern terminals. It wouldn't hurt, but maybe your friend could write the MTA if she feels this way. Of course, if she was this confused, she would have to ignore every little measure the MTA has taken for advertising this measure, including all of the posters, banners and brochures throughout the system; not to mention the replacement of most in-house maps on subway cars.
I guess ya had to BE there. Heh. But it *is* amusing how the D train has CAPTURED every BMT line except for Unca Fred's ... I'm seeing a loud announcer, paper-view, and a wrestling match here when the D train comes to Bensonhurst. =)
*NOBODY* is safe from the D TRAIN! Boowahahaha ...
Heh, when there's a G.O. on the D West End line, then the D will have no choice but to use the Sea Beach line in one direction.
MOO!
Changing it means that the B would be the new CPW X and the D the CPW L.
This confuses more the people, cos they have a longer history with the
current service on the CPW/Concourse, than the West End and Brighton it haves with B & D.
David
Duh, I can't figure it out. :)
They are two different geometric shapes! What's NOT to figure out? =p
The LOCAL owns and names the Brooklyn Lions, and the Express gets visiting rights.
LIVE WITH IT!
There are lots of discussions here of problems (or perceived problems) with subway service as it stands, often with proposed solutions. One problem that some have picked up on is inadequate local service in some corridors.
There are also discussions of waste (or perceived waste) in subway service as it stands, often with proposed solutions. One sort of waste that some have picked up on is underused services.
Sometimes the two happen to share a corridor: an underused express passing through inadequately served local stations. Bumping the express over to the local tracks kills two birds with one stone.
"Same as now" has both routes ending at 34th Street. By definition, that precludes use of either Brighton or West End.
"Uptown" didn't have a "Culver" or a "West End" or a "Sea Bits" or a "Brighton" ... the train WAS the LETTER ... that's why folks get up in arms with train swaps "up north" ... it's an A train - A to 207th. D to 205th ... ya just can't screw with that without torches, peasants, "South Bronx in YOUR neighborhood" as retribution for phucking with Mother Transit. :)
Regards,
Jimmy
LOL
BTW: Renaming the V as T and rerouting it from 2 Av to CI via West End
is no vendetta. I have listed the QB service as it is today. So no
complains about it.
Just did the math for that response.
18 (F) Trains Per Hour(TPH) = 3.3 Minutes(3 minutes and 18 seconds)
12 (E) Trains Per Hour(TPH) = 5 Minutes
15 (E) & (F) Trains Per Hour(TPH) = 4 Minutes
That means that E line saw a minute decreased while the the wait time for an F has increased by 42 seconds.
"Do you expect me to go into the Montague Tunnel,Blofeld?"
"No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!"
:0)
"If I die then the N train replaces me."
"I Trust he will be most sucessful".
That's a little like Jackie Robinson ofering an opinion at a Klan rally...
You know people [especially in the Bronx] wouldn't like to see the D become a part time line, it might sound silly but its true.
Wouldn't it be more consistent to have a uniform full-time service at 10 out of 11 Concourse stations than at only 5 out of 11?
Wouldn't it be more consistent to have a uniform full-time service at 10 out of 11 Concourse stations than at only 5 out of 11?
Is that a suggestion to remove express service via Concourse? If so, you know the people won't have it at all.
Well I think the rason it hasn't been done has been discussed alredy Lincoln, community outcry is the main reason.
No proposed service change is good for everyone. Should the planned February 22 changes be cancelled because Sea Beachers lose direct access to lower Manhattan and West Enders lose direct access to Broadway? Of course not -- even though some people are inconvenienced by the change (and they're inconvenienced a lot more than simply having to sit on the same train an extra three minutes), the net gain is positive, so they're going to have to adjust.
For rush hour peak-direction travelers at 6 Concourse stations, the B is the only line.
Take a step back from the letters. The Concourse line always has local service, and the Concourse local always serves all Concourse stations but one. The Concourse line only sometimes has express service, and the Concourse express always bypasses six Concourse stations.
It sure seems to me like it would make sense to give the full-time local service a full-time name and the part-time express service a part-time name.
Just like on the Brighton.
And what about 205th Street? the D is primary because it runs on Concourse more than the B does. What about 138th Street in the Bronx? sometimes it is served by the 5 only, sometimes both, sometimes the 4 only.
When the SAS comes, the (T) could be the full time Concourse local, or the longer running express(like the <6> in the Bronx)
Who cares what borough it's in? Is the D train operated and funded by New York City Transit or by Bronx County Transit?
And what about 205th Street?
What about it? It's one station that enjoys a consistent service (even though that consistent service has an inconsistent service pattern) at the expense of six that don't.
the D is primary because it runs on Concourse more than the B does.
D is a letter. It doesn't matter if the Concourse local goes by a different letter each day of the week -- the Concourse local is a full-time service and thus it should go by the same letter full-time.
What about 138th Street in the Bronx? sometimes it is served by the 5 only, sometimes both, sometimes the 4 only.
What about it? The rush hour 4 uses the middle track through 138th so it doesn't get bogged down behind 5's entering a sharp curve followed by a merge. The entire line north of 138th gets more reliable service at the expense of an inconsistent service pattern at one station. Would the entire Concourse line become unreliable if the full-time local were given a consistent full-time letter? The 4 and 5 go to vastly different places north of 138th, so they can't be renamed on a whim; the B and D Concourse locals differ by a whopping one station.
When the SAS comes, the (T) could be the full time Concourse local, or the longer running express(like the <6> in the Bronx)
The SAS will not be going to the Concourse line. The Concourse-Jerome corridor has more than ample service already, to both the East Side and the West Side; it doesn't have the demand for four services.
But the Bronx in general does, and a Concourse to SAS merge, once the SAS is operating to 125 St is much, much cheaper than dropping another tunnel across the Harlem River into the Bronx.
The Jerome Line and Concourse are not the same line; however they are close enough together so your comment about serving both East and West is not entirely inappropriate.
The MTA will look at this and say, "Hmm, the Bronx wants additional subway service. It's an additional $4 billion to run a brand new subway line to the Bronx; $300-500 million to merge the Concourse line into the SAS." In an environment where MTA will be fighting to fund the SAS and the 7 extension, there's really no contest here.
The SAS merge to the Concourse Line wins hands down.
In fact, the MTA is considering this option and the borough prez staff in Manhattan have told me that they and their counterparts in the Bronx are thinking about it too.
What about it? The rush hour 4 uses the middle track through 138th so it doesn't get bogged down behind 5's entering a sharp curve followed by a merge. The entire line north of 138th gets more reliable service at the expense of an inconsistent service pattern at one station. Would the entire Concourse line become unreliable if the full-time local were given a consistent full-time letter? The 4 and 5 go to vastly different places north of 138th, so they can't be renamed on a whim; the B and D Concourse locals differ by a whopping one station.
Besides that, 138 St/GC doesn't need all of those trains in the rush hour stopping there since it has relatively low volume.
I don't see how service would be unreliable on the 4/5 b/c of one station. I agree I won't think that the B/D would become inconsistent with the same letter at all times [as the full time route].
But this is a two-edged sword here. The would be no new lines needed above 125th st (it does not compare with QBL ridership), so one of the four lines will have to be merged with the Q and one line is lost below 125th st as the T will go to the Bronx. (What the you-know-what??????).
I don't think the MTA is actively looking at this — there are already more active subway expansion plans than the MTA has money for.
The most you can say, is that the proposed alignment of the SAS's northern terminal, pointing westward, makes extension along 125th St a realistic possibility at some date in the indefinite future. Like maybe 15-20 years from now, which is about how long it'll take to complete the existing menu of projects if we're lucky.
I agree that the Concourse Line doesn't necessarily need four services, but Concourse riders obviously would benefit from having an East Side commuting option. Anyhow, we're talking decades into the future.
So in other words, you would like to see the B as the Concourse express [since its part time] and the D is the full time local.
David
NO NO NO! Thats NOt So! That's a BALD FACED LIE! : )
When the (D) ran on the CULVER LINE it NEVER Stopped at DeKalb!
:)-
Elias
How stupid are passengers required to be?
People were confused when the V was introduced through 53rd Street and the F started using 63rd Street. They got used to it.
People were confused in 1987 when the N and R switched places in Queens. They got used to it.
People were confused in 1988 when the E started running to Archer Avenue. They got used to it.
People were confused when the AA became the K, and then when the K was eliminated in favor of midday B and midday/weekend C service. They got used to it.
People were confused when the B and C switched places north of 145th Street. They got used to it.
People were confused when the 2 and 5 switched places with the 3 and 4 switched places in Brooklyn. They got used to it.
Most passengers are not railfans. They're adaptable - if you tell them which train to look for, they'll look for it.
There are a couple of threads over at RD where they still claim the F has been affected negatively by all this; even saying the number of F trains has gone down with the V around. I'm sure this is false, since the trainsets the V has came from the G.
And you wrote:
"Most passengers are not railfans. They're adaptable - if you tell them which train to look for, they'll look for it."
Does that mean that railfans are not adaptable? ;-)
And by the way, a good number of passengers ARE stupid. I deal with commuter rail passengers every day, I see what's out there. Their I.Q.'s could be 200, it doesn't matter. Their *COMMON SENSE* flies right out the window when they step onto a train platform.
Since unification, and especially since the Chrystie Street connection opened in 1967, this choice had to be made many times. Maybe because the IND was the city line, it appears to have gotten ascendancy over the BMT. Virtually every choice of route changes has kept things as close to status quo for former IND users (Bronx, Manhattan, Queens) and changes were continuously made to route designations in Brooklyn. A previous poster pointed out that Brighton has had eight or so different letter designations of trains running on it, and the West End isn't far behind.
It has to be the BMT-IND thing. Otherwise, why would Brooklyn riders be bright enough to get used to all of the letter changes and Bronx riders aren't sharp enough to have one change on the Concourse?
I'd take the service improvements over keeping my old letters any day.
The service cuts you are talking about in the Bronx were all made to the old IRT, anyway. Many of the Brooklyn improvements you mention are to what are now IND lines (A,C,D,F). In the meantime, Rogers Junction (IRT) hasn't been touched. I am right there with you in wanting additions and improvements in the Bronx. My dad's family is from the Bronx.
If the IRT (A) Division didn't have different tunnel clearances and could use the same rolling stock, probably the same thing would have happened to it.
Where do people come up with this stuff?
Now will they actually be used on West-of-Hudson services, or will they eventually get painted into NJT corporate logos like the former Metro-North-labeled Comet IIIs were…? (Remember those?)
Also, is there an unofficial “Shoreliner III” name waiting in the wings, or do all Comets west of the Hudson get stuck with the Comet name…? (like the Shoreliners that used to be east of Hudson, NJT started calling them Comet IIS IIRC)
As far as NJT's Comet V's go, it seems like they tried to keep them together in the beginning but then gave up. As far as MNR's coaches west of the Hudson go, I think they have always kept them on just the PJ and PVL trains. So what has to be done differently here? Maybe I just don't understand what you are saying.
Bill "Newkirk"
What I think he meant, and what I would like to know, is whether any "west of the Hudson fleet coaches" were ever transfered to "east of the Hudson" service either temporarily or permanently up until now.
Thanks.
There's a whole untidy continuum of categories of electric rail transit, often with rather mushy boundaries and many borderline instances: street railways, modern light rail, people movers, rapid transit, interurbans, and mainline suburban electrification.
Alan Follett
Hercules, CA
Sprague is credeted with the invention of the trolley pole in his electrifation of the Richmond Union Passenger Railway in 1888, although he may have actually developed the idea if a spring loaded pole with a wheel that pressed uo on the single wire.
The last known use of trollers, btw, was DC Transit, which used trollers in the conduit carhouses. Once a car was off the transfer table, which was conduit equipped the plow, was unpluged and a troller was plugged in so the car could be moved over a pit track. This was used until 1962.
If you compare them with PCCs or modern LRVs they certain seem un-trolley-like, but they are not rapid transit cars for several reasons: street-running on-board fare collection, overhead wire, and no passage between cars and, of course, the type of service they provided.
I know you can always find exceptions (OH wire in East Boston and Cleveland, old BRT el trains on street, etc.), but in their context those PST cars were definitely trolleys. If you look at some of the trolleys that ran on the streets of Brooklyn (5000s) and Manhattan (Broadway Battleships) you could similarly make the trolley vs rapid transit argument.
Frank Hicks
A video tape I have about the history of The Trolley tells about a city that had cars which had a kitchen area that served breakfast in the morning. And if I'm not mistaken it was a city car, not an interurban.
The car with the kitchen was a Dallas Railways publicity stunt in cooperation with General Electric, who was pushing electric appliences for the home.
The equipment supplied was custom built - everthing ran on 600 volts DC.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
That the car had couplers and ran MU does not make it an RT
car. There were many examples of MU streetcars. To me, the lack
of any high-level loading ability disqualifies it from considering
as a Rapid Transit car.
A car which flirts much more with the RT distinction would be
North Shore 709.
Sorry for dragging ya in, dewd ... but it's somewhat TECHNICAL and SOME of us STILL come here to the shrine in hopes of some "technical dish" like you, Jeff H. and a handful of others STILL offer - but and bolts - you know how it was in RTO ... we weren't ALLOWED to know what that red handle REALLY did under the longitudinals on Arnines - if the door died, throw it, open panel, throw wingy-thingy, indication fairy smiled, buzz-buzz. It was like that. We GO now, OK? :)
I just miss the "old" subtalk where I'd learn every visit about the details of the old gals and WHY I had to uncork a door by looking for the newspaper in the track and NOT have to cut it out ... WHY cab speedos will read streetlights and all the other morsels that attracted so MANY of us here in the first place. I *really* miss that aspect of this place - the MEAT. :)
I can understand with petrified political hacks running the "home office" that my own PERSONAL attraction was "war stories from the trenches" of my fellow TWU members just giving forth "a day in the life" ... I found those to be more "humor" than indictments, the proverbial "get it off your chest and chill - we care here" pressure relief - over the years, I ENJOYED sympathizing, comiserating, and sharing how it was years ago ... but all that's gone now with our current never-ending-state-of-fear imposed by our "leaders" ...
TRULY sad though is that folks BELIEVE this qwap of "today's an ORANGE DAY! Anita Bryant sex so" ... is our leadership SO out of it that after growing up in the 50's, 60's and 70's that we've all FORGOTTEN what a "MUSHROOM CLOUD" is? And DESPITE the ferocity of those we've cheesed off in the world, can a mass-destruction in a relatively small area *REALLY* compare to the former realities of 50,000 mushroom clouds and EVERYBODY'S dead? I just can't SEE how a bunch of diaperheads can somehow be SHOVED into our faces like they are the RUSSKIES of the 50's. :-\
In other words, cannot fathom why folks on the rails can't talk about it anymore. Our "enemy" is WAY too smart to hijack a subway train. In reality, what are they gonna do? Shoot a wheel detector? Hell ... GAMBLING in Islam is forbidden. :)
1]The ticket machines, CCTV cameras, call boxes, and electronic signs are installed at all stations. No maps or other printed matter is there yet.
2]The idea of running simulated service during the current shitty weather is paying off. It tells everybody involved in the operating of the line how the equipment is doing under the extreme conditions we're going through. This is better than doing this in the spring and summer, and having breakdowns in the winter, at least any defect is taken care of now and its performance is monitored during the bad weather.
3]I recently saw the new NEC schedule [effective 2/15] online and I was appalled that there was no mention of the River Line. I sent an e-mail to NJT notifying them of this grevious oversight. I hope that NJT makes a mention of the line when the schedule changes again.
4] I wish NJT would release some of the literature pertianing to the line [promo literature, schedules, etc.] so people can begin to plan their trips on the line. Keeping this stuff a "state secret" until opening is really hampering any building of ridership for this line, especially since this line needs all of the ridership it can get.
5] The cars really look comfortable. The seats are more like the seats on MCI buses rather than the usual light rail seats found on the NCS and HBLR cars. The cars also has luggage racks on the front section [near the motorman's cab] and has places for wheelchairs and bicycles.
6] I'm going to promote the hell out of the line on my own. I plan to let the alternative papers in town [Phila Weekly, and City Paper] about its low fares, and more frequent service than SEPTA, and hope to lure some of the college crowd into riding the line as a cheap trip to NYC. I know, that with this line operating, my visits to NYC and North Jersey will be a hell of a lot more frequent.
If you got anything to comment about on this subject, feel free to post on the board.
Also, does anyone at NJT headquarters at Newark seen any of the literature up there yet? If you did, please post them at the board.
Mark De Loatch
mdlbigcat@comcast.net
Remember the opening was postponed twice.
Chuck Greene
Also it's a race to open on time.
: )
Mark
Chuck Greene
Bill "Newkirk"
Bill "Newkirk"
I found a one with a M-N theme that I also liked (I have three on my wall: Bill's Subway; M-N & LIRR). I saved a spot for the NH one, but they either didn't do one this year or I missed it at my local hobby shop.
Personal business brought me to New York last weekend (1/23-25) and gave me some good opportunities to ride the subway as well as do some exploring on Sunday. Surprisingly, I was able to pick up some "rare mileage", that is, tracks (usually short sections such as crossovers that do not see scheduled service).
Arrived LGA about 8:30p Friday. 9:00 Q33 to the E to my hotel at 53rd/3rd. No rare mileage tonight. Crawled from Roosevelt to Queens Plaza - no idea why (F had gone through about five minutes earlier). I assumed timers until I rode it again on Sunday and we flew through there.
Saturday, my main item of business kept me off the subway until evening when I was going to Chinatown for a banquet. 6 from 51st to Canal was routine. Uptown 6 was running express Brooklyn Bridge to Grand Central so had to take the 6 south first to BB (if I had been thinking fast enough as I walked down the J platform on my way to the 6 platform, I would have hopped on the downtown J that arrived as I was on the platform). I had hoped we could ride around the City Hall loop but we were told to leave. An uptown 6 was just arriving but sat there for several minutes so it was clear trains were holding on the loop for several minutes. Two bits of rare trackage - crossover from the local to the express north of BB and again from the express to the local north of Grand Central.
Sunday started with me riding the Pelham line, a line I had never ridden. Downtown 6 trains were running express from 177th to 3rd so that was fun. To the TA's credit, at 177th and Hunts Point, trains were opening on the uptown platform giving people to/from the skipped stations a cross-platform connection. But at 3rd Ave, we crossed back to the local track which seemed strange. I assume the weekday diamond 6 stays on the express at 3rd Ave. If so, then the crossover entering 3rd Ave was another bit of rare mileage.
I then planned to ride the Dyre Ave line but when no uptown express had arrived at 125th in 20 minutes (about 11:15am, both 4 and 5 should be running every 12), I gave up on that decided to do Flushing instead. Rode a downtown express to 59th, then W to Queensborough Plaza. The 7 was terminating at QP on the lower level so I was able to ride wrong-rail out of QP and then cross-over picking up some more rare mileage. Rode to Willets Point (I wanted to see the station connections to Shea and Flushing Meadows Park), then back to 74th. Willets Point sure is a desolate station when nothing is going on. At 74th, it was downstairs to the E. To my surprise, the express tracks (both sides) were taped off in an unpublished G.O. (they appeared to be doing some work to the ceiling in the station). E arrived on the local - to my surprise, the T/O had to stick his head out the door and listen to what the conductor was announcing to make sure both the C/R and the Tower were on the same page. At the same time, we got Green over Yellow and it was over to the express for another bit of rare mileage. Unlike Friday night, we flew to Queens Plaza. Per a G.O., the E was express in Manhattan while the A went local and Rutgers so leaving 50th, still more rare mileage as we crossed to the express (and got a view of the site of the removed switch to 42nd lower). Quick express ride to Canal and then the final bit of rare mileage as we crossed to the local.
Running the E express and the A and C via Rutgers leaves no service downtown at Spring Street. Are the three routes (A, C, and E) really too busy not to have all three run local?
Next was PATH. Definitely a wierd feeling walking from the E to the PATH. Rode the next train to Exchange Place, then back to WTC so I could see the arrival from the railfan window. Then it was time to head to Newark. I had just missed a NWK train so I took the next HOB train to Exchange Place figuring it would be warmer waiting there (it was until the next train left WTC and acted as huge ram pushing frigid air into the station). At Newark, I took the next NJT train to EWR, monorail to the terminal, and home to Chicago.
With my riding of the Pelham line, I'm down to three short sections of IRT I have not ridden: the entire Nostrand Ave branch, Lenox Ave from 135th to 148th, and White Plains Rd north of Gun Hill Rd. Why did I only go to Gun Hill? Because it was many, many years ago and I went there to change to the "8" (that was before I knew enough of the history to know that "8" was just a designation on the map and it was actually the last running segment of the 3rd Ave el - but fortunately I did ride it (and the Culver Shuttle too on another day)).
You did splendidly for a non-local, including that Q33. Welcome aboard.
MTA has a plan to improve the way trains clear Harold Interlocking, which will help both commuter rail and Amtrak service. David Gunn insists, quite rightly, that MTA needs to assume all costs and liability for work done on Amtrak property (he has no choice: Amtrak has no money to contribute).
Discussions are going on now, and it's likely an agreement will be in place before this issue becomes an obstacle. The NY Times says "roadblock," but it isn't one yet.
URL at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/nyregion/01amtrak.html
NY Times link
If you were in charge, how would you use Harold Tower? What kind of tech or procedural innovations would you use?
This would put the controler right in the middle of the action where he can make more efficient decisions.
Did you not ask this same question two months ago? That is what I seem to remember. Get someone to show you how to save web pages off the computer, if you do not know how to do it (hint: Go to “File” on the menu bar and then choose “Save As”, then you can have them all the time).
The answer now is the same as last time: No. Since MOM is to be a diesel service that does not go to Manhattan but instead will terminate in either Newark or Hoboken, new tunnels under the Hudson River have no bearing or effect on its service.
Also, where did you get the year 2015 for new North River Tunnels and 2010 for unspecified “near-term improvements” (and what indeed will be improved)?
WHY DID THE G USE 6 R46'S BEFORE THE V CAME IN. I JUST HOPE THE MTA DOESNT DESTROY AN UNUSUAL INE LIKE THE G BY CUTTING IT DOWN TO 2 OR 3 CARS.
WHEN THE W IS REVITALIZED IT SHOULD USE 8 60 FOOTERS AND OR 6 75 FOOTERS
WHY DO I ALWAYS HAVE TO RUN UP TO CATCH A C TRAIN
Until September 2001, the 3 ran 9-car trains (either 9 singles or 4 singles and a 5-car set) of R-62A's, because some of the tracks a Lenox Yard can't handle 10-car trains.
With the new cars coming in, it had already been decided to lengthen 3 trains. After 9/11, the 3 was the only express, so full-length trains were especially warranted then, and it was operationally easier to merge the 1 and 3 fleets than to keep them separate, so the change to full-length 3 trains took place a bit earlier than planned.
WHY DID THE G USE 6 R46'S BEFORE THE V CAME IN.
Why not?
I JUST HOPE THE MTA DOESNT DESTROY AN UNUSUAL INE LIKE THE G BY CUTTING IT DOWN TO 2 OR 3 CARS.
Most R-46's are in 4-car sets, and a few are in pairs. There are no R-46 singles.
WHEN THE W IS REVITALIZED IT SHOULD USE 8 60 FOOTERS AND OR 6 75 FOOTERS
Why?
WHY DO I ALWAYS HAVE TO RUN UP TO CATCH A C TRAIN
I don't know. The C runs underground for most of its length, so most of us have to run down to catch it. And I do mean run, because there's no telling when the next one will show up.
So if they now run 10-car 3 trains, how do they handle the short yard track issue?
A few 3 trains in the evening terminate at 96th and run light to the Bronx. (At first they ran in service, but I guess that confused the passengers. I'm not sure, but I think they run in service back down in the morning.)
See, now I changed it to Arial
[font face=Arial]Text[/font]
Remember, use these <> in your tags instead of these [] brackets or it won't work.
WHY DO I ALWAYS HAVE TO RUN UP TO CATCH A C TRAIN
Because its 8 cars that's why.
Which is known by AMTRAK as WAS ;)
A interlocking being the interlocking connecting the south end of the lower level platform tracks in Washington Terminal to the south throat that connects to the main line at Virginia tower.
John
Michael
Washington, DC
Wantto win the Super Bowl, next year, Panthers? Invest in mass transit. Make sure it serves the stadium.
A public-service message brought to you by Football Fans for Mass Transit.
:0)
Mark
Mark
You don't know what you're talking about. MBTA is a cobbled-together, tinkertoy system. The E from Heath St to Arborway was "temporarily" bustituted 19 years ago, and (DUH!) it's still on the maps. I once waited 42 minutes for a train that runs on posted 13-minute headways, missed the last train back to South Attleboro by three minutes, and had to stay overnight. They can afford to build a new subway to replace the Causeway St el, providing no new service, but can't afford to connect North and South Stations, a vital service that's missing. The fare structure is almost as complicated as SEPTA. Don't get me started on the buses...
And I would be the last person who is confused about the Green line fare structure. If I am confused, then forget it, everyone is confused.
If you think 19 years was a long time since the E line was "bustituted", then I will post a link that is totally unbelievable, and is a NYC website yet.
Be back at 1 PM for that DUH! of the decade.
That's not MBTA. That's the highway folks. MBTA was lucky even to get that much.
:0)
The site is: http://www.nydailynews.com/
Pssst. It's an unedited and CLOSE-UP version. However, since this is a family website, I will not provide the link at this time.
-- David
Philadelphia, PA
Who won, anyway? :)
Mark
And there are a lot of tax payers in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg area that are pushing back. From what I have read and heard on the radio on this project there is a lot of strong opposition to the light rail line.
John
Mark
It will pass a couple of blocks from the stadium, along the route now used by the heritage trolley line. Here's a view that shows both the trolley and the stadium.
: )
So what drew you to that conclusion that anything on the Q line is bad?
I was just looking through some pictures of the Pittsburgh LRV system, and saw this one of a stone platform and canopy.
I'm a big fan of stone construction, when done correctly. It's beautiful and durable. A block of granite will last forever under most conditions. Polished correctly, it can be cleaned of graffiti. Unlike tile surfaces, a chip or scar doesn't result in revealing an ugly under-surface, but rather simply more granite. It couldn't care less about water. It can bear a load. If it's thick enough, you can hit it with a car, and it'll shrug it off.
Now, for all these benefits, you'll have to pay. Concrete is cheaper, and much more moldable; but it lacks the lifespan of serious stone construction. The MTA is moving away from exposed concrete surfaces, anyway. The problem is, where stone IS being used, it's being used poorly. the stone tiles I mentioned before often adorn the bottom of walls, and edges of staircases. The problem here is that they are very thin, maybe 1/2 an inch, and lack proper backing. I've seen them start to come apart; a hard enough kick or enough water eroding the backing with ruin it.
While the IRT used stone for some of their street-level station houses, they embroidered it with terra cotta, which wore away quickly. There is very little other stone in the system.
I HAVE noticed, however, that the MTA is experimenting with more stone. In the new Atlantic/Pacific complex, there are two major uses. One is for an ass-ugly wavy lower-wall covering, with a rolling, sin-wave top; below the wave is a gaudy marble, and above it is white tile. The other is a strikingly beautiful gray, heavy stone, probably granite, forming a wall and corner of the pedestrian passageway under the IRT lines. I've NEVER seen anything like it anywhere else in the system. It's both lovely and strikingly different; it contrasts with everything else.
After seeing stations like MARTA's natural-stone Peechtree Center, does anyone else think that the MTA might be better off looking to use more durable, beautiful stone, rather than bathroom tile?
Discuss among yourselves.
Mark
Bob Sklar
I had written MTA in December, requesting that they include AirTrain in full detail on their maps. The December version of The Map that I have shows AirTrain, but not in that kind of detail. I see they've fixed that.
I will send a thank-you note to my contacts and ask them for the Feb map, with the new Manny B service on it.
It shouldn't be depicted as a diamond since the trains are the same trains that run the whole route. Diamonds it seems now are for peak variants (like the <Q>)
But the <5> in Brooklyn IS a peak variant. It doesn't go to Brooklyn all the time. Just in the rush.
The <Q> is a peak variant because it varies from the regular full time route while it still operates, it is actually used to distinguish a service.
This was brought back on the previous map, December 2003.
I also saw the new map on the Hindu-Arabic numeral V train.
The blue railroad tracks and blue box symbols represent "Commuter rail service" (and stations), not TA rail service.
also 6 trains stopping at bleeker st still say transfer is available to the BDFand Q trains now it says transfer is available to the F,V,and Grand St shuttle it will then soon say BDFand V trains
It is not a book about equipment nor a book which ponders car assignments, route designations and other issues which are frequently the rage of discussion here. But there are articles about Harry Beck's trip through the system, Phil Copp's 25+ year project detailing the appearance of the stations and the column recounting my own surreal connection with the subways and life.
The article on the ugliest station in the system which has contributions by Subtalkers is included. In other articles, David Pirmann, Carlos, Clayton and Larry are quoted.
It is primarily a book about the people who use the subway, the people who operate the subways and the people who entertain in the subways. Randy grew up in a Texas town of 1400 and hoped to live any place where he could walk out his door and see people he didn't know. I mention that, because I think his columns are fueled by his yearning to experience the mysteries of people not known. From my own experience, I can say he succeeds in getting a feel and understanding for his people and presents their vision of life and their world in a non-judgmental way.
In the introduction, Randy describes the amazing social milieu that millions of riders are thrown into. Rush hour is an experience which brings people of radically different backgrounds together and is the cauldron out of which the "New Yorker" emerges.
In this year celebrating the 100th anniversary of the subway system, Randy Kennedy's book is a celebration of the humanity of the millions of the people who either ride and endure the system, work in and struggle to survive the system and those of us who are fascinated by the system.
Randy Kennedy will be reading from the book at the Transit Museum on Saturday February 21st at 1:30 PM.
I will be there to continue making a public spectacle of myself.
I will look around later this week at some B&N stores to see if there is a copy out there.
This book sounds similar to "Subway Lives," written in 1991, which is another great book. If you haven't read it, I would definitely recommend checking the used book websites, such as ABE, to try to get a copy. It will be well worth your effort.
I'm afraid you might have company this time. But I do hope he mentions you and your R9 cab in your book.
I've revised the copy of the book that I bought. I ripped out all the pages not having to do with me. It's now a much more readable book.
It's been quite a weekend, what with the CBS interview and the appearance of Subwayland. I think the moment is ripe for me. I've decided to join the race for President this year, and will begin my campaign on the Q train tomorrow. I hope some of motormen and conductors at this board will slip in occasional annoucements supporting my candidacy. In return for your support, in the words of Ed Norton "As long as I am president of this country, you can rest assured that you will be a motorman/conductor for the rest of your life."
** I think this is the first time I've ever used "notwithstanding".
For example, if you quote someone asking a question, does the question mark go inside or outside the quotes?
He said: "Can I leave early"?
He said: "Can I leave early?"
(Is it correct to use a colon"
I hope Karl B is around.
Please do! I'll bring a camera for evidence!
avid
Peace,
ANDEE
Mark
Dammit ... we've got to extend the Sea Beach to MARS ... then it'll be OK. :-\
Mark
Mark
Mark
And, why exactly are they doing the lawsuit NOW, it's been winter for ages!
??
Refrigerants (HFC-134a, CFC-12, HCFC-22, and many others) don't "go bad." You'll need to (recover and) recharge if refrigerant leaks out, or if dirt or moisture gets into the circuit.
Recharges are virtually unheard of in some systems, like the ones used in current window air conditioners and refrigerators. There, the compressors are hermetically sealed, the refrigerant circuit is entirely metal, and connections are soldered. In automotive systems, the compressor needs a (prone-to-failure) shaft seal because it's pulled by the engine, flexible hoses are used in part of the circuit, connections aren't as impermeable (and are sometimes quite awful), and the entire system is subject to vibration and other awful things that happen in a car. Still, even in the car, recharges shouldn't be considered routine maintenance.
If you're asking purely about automotive applications, the answer you're looking for is that if you leak CFC-12, you'll leak HFC-134a at least as quickly. Get the leak(s) fixed.
Mark
Is that why many stores feel so HOT in the summer? I used to enjoy shopping years ago when you could actually feel COOL in a store - now I'd rather stay home with the AC on full blast!!
Chalk it up to energy conservation more than anything else. HFC-134a will cool less effectively in a system designed with some other refrigerant in mind, but it doesn't take much to engineer a system with desirable characteristics around 134a.
On the other hand, it's easy to cut costs by turning the thermostat up a degree or five.
Mark
These are even better, since they contain no chlorine and can't produce the chlorine radicals that lead to ozone destruction.
Mark
Interesting timing though, i was just reading a story about a state's DEP head quitting his post to run International Paper. Apparently he's been corrupt with them and a bunch of other companies looking the other way for a long time. Maybe the subways need to raise fares for more payoff's.
http://www.timesnewsweekly.com/NewFiles/OURNEIGH.html
http://www.timesnewsweekly.com/NewFiles/013TRACKS.html
That Q-type car had A LOT of modification! :)
Uh-oh...
Great photo!
Submission for February 2004 has begun, so post them photos!
So here's the scenario: Giuliani wants to run again, and would want to do so as a Republican (which he is). To avoid a primary battle with Giuliani, Bloomberg returns to the Democratic Party, since he was a Democrat anyway until he switched to avoid the Dem primary in 2001.
So it's Guiliani the Republican vs. Bloomberg the Democrat or a Third Party Candidate in 2005. What Do You Think?
Obviously, aside from stylistic differences, the election would have enormous implications for the city and, obviously for rebuilding and transit.
He would have been an unknown against a big field of Democrats.
Why didn't he switch parties after he was elected?
Why? There is a Republican Governor and a Republican President. Bloomy had every reason to continue to pretend to be a Republican unless he was forced to switch. In 2005 he might be forced.
Personally, I think wanting to be Mayor of New York reveals a significant personality disorder, but if you like it, why stop?
Rudi caused more diversion and polarization in NYC than any other mayor. During Koch and even Dinkens relations between the police and the minorities were actually getting better. But Rudi completely disenfranchized the minority community against the police more than it ever has been.
In summary New York would have been a lot better if Rudi didn't run as fast as he did on 9-11.
They don't trust Republicans with their money.
They don't trust Democrats with their lives.
How public sentiment swings between those is a better predictor of electoral success than most.
They don't trust Democrats with their lives.
They don't trust Democrats with either.
This is a very, very touchy issue with Long Islanders as many (if not most) people think the pay scale of county cops is way out of line. There was a time in the 80s/90s when there was a 'pay race', wherein Nassau cops would get raises, and then this new higher base salary level would be used to set the Suffolk contract when that came up (and vice-versa).
Correct me if I am wrong, but is it true (or was it true) that the arbitrators cannot use 'Ability of County to Pay' when setting the salary disputes (this is what I read in Newsday - I do recall most contracts going to arbitration)?
Anyway, lately this police 'pay crisis' seems to have been overshadowed by the counties' Medicaid Payments crisis, which again promises to swamp the counties' taxpayers' ability to pay. Oh Goody.
>>>>Rudi took PERB to court saying it was unconstitutional because of home rule. After two appeals the courts declared PERB unconstitutional.
I'm not sure if you worded this phrase correctly, but what you wrote above was Rudy considered NYC PERB unconsititutional, and, in fact, it was...
Wasn't some modified form of PERB eventually enacted for NYC?
The city's long had a Medicaid crisis, now the suburbs are finding themselves in the same boat. Medicaid's a prime example of a program that was started with the best of intentions but has turned into an unstoppable rapacious monster.
That's a crock. The final days of the Koch administration saw the Yusef Hawkins murder in Bensonhurst, which led to a straining of race relations. Dinkins is the only mayor to have oversaw a legally-sanctioned pogrom in 1991. Rudy's concentration on law enforcement over racial pacification probably save thousands of lives during his mayoralty.
If all goes well I won't be a NY resident any more by the time this election comes around ;-)
Giuliani was good in some ways, bad in others. Those in the know realize he sold out the future of the city ten times over to pump up his own popularity. That is the future we are living in now.
On the generational equity issue, I'll take Bloomberg or Miller. No older pols, like Ferrer or Thompson. I'm tired of having the governmetn run by those looking to cash in and move out. Bad enuf the state is run that way.
Well if that's the case we can re-elect the best mayor (after Fiorello) the city ever had:
ED KOCH
Try to read that quote with his nasal accent.
And yeah, great picture! You may not believe it but I was 14 years younger then, too! (Small world). ;-)
Just remember:
o Loal government does all the work;
o The federal government collects all the money; but
0 The state government has all the power.
And our state government stinks! How do you like paying higher taxes and fares not for services or investment, but to pay off higher debts and unfunded pension liabilities? Guess who made those decisions (and many others?) Pataki escaped judgement (again), but the least we can do is vote against the incumbents in the legislature. Or write in Daffy Duck if they are running unopposed.
1. Fiorello La Guardia-----hands down.
2. Rudy Giuliani
3. Ed Koch
4. All the rest.
The worst. John Lindsay and Abe Beame and "Dinky" Dinkins
You mean Florida's son on Good Times? He's in the projects of Chicago yelling dy-no-miiite!!!
Oh, you mean the NYC mayor. Last I heard he fled to Europe after resigning.
I thought someone would have mentioned Hylan by now!!!
Best New York mayor money could buy!
But I don't think Cheney is going to back out short of real bad health.
Cheney is good for Bush's health. There seem to be a bunch of crazies who think Bush is the heart of evil, sort of like certain right wingers though about Clinton. But none of them are going to shoot Bush while Cheney is next in line. Lesser of two evils.
Rim Shot!!!
I guess he learned it from his dad. Dan Quayle was daddy's insurance against getting shot!!!
For the hopelessly young, "Presidential Timber" was the term that was used before we learned fancy-shancy words like Gravitas.
If Cheney drops out Bush should pick Condaleeza Rice for a running mate. That's if looks don't count, of course because although she is more than qualified she certainly isn't any eye candy!!!
www.forgotten-ny.com
Yes
www.forgotten-ny.com
www.timesnewsweekly.com
The January 29, 2004 issue of the Queens Chronicle has on page 4 an article about the proposed renovation of the Myrtle-Wyckoff mini-complex (L to M line transfer point, and "depot" for the B26, B52, B54, Q55 and Q58 bus lines). The architect's rendering resembles the American Legion building on the south side of Fairview Avenue between Madison Street and Putnam Avenue, across Fairview Avenue from the Ridgewood library, near the Forest Avenue station on the M line. The link is :
www.queenschronicle.com
www.timesnewsweekly.com
www.queenschronicle.com
Also, Mr. Smith mentions the planned extension of the IND along Pitkin Av. past Euclid Av, but he stops short of mentioning the dreaded (aaaaaaargh!) 76 St. station!
Bob Sklar
It was part of the Triboro Plan of lines to be built by the city but operated by private transit companies. The Centre St line, the 4th Ave line in Brooklyn and the existing Lexington Ave line, as well as the Pelham and Jerome Ave lines in the Bronx were also part of it.
More info
It didn't walk up and examine it to avoid attention but from what I see it looks just like a camera, with the lens and tiny cables behind.
CAn anyone confirm this?
Example of this stuff: http://www.safetyvision.com/onboard/roadrecorder.html
Probably a test.
Isaac
til next time
It would be nice if someone can puts a little camera at the front of the coupler and stream it online though ;-)
#4136
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
"Four options for a direct rail link from lower Manhattan to Kennedy Airport will be unveiled this month and one will be selected in April for development, Gov. Pataki announced yesterday."
Several other media outlets reported similarly. The end of the month has passed, and as yet the four options have yet to be unveiled.
In a report dated August 26, 2003, the Regional Plan Association identified no fewer than nine options, although many of these were variations on a smaller number of basic ideas. Probably the LMDC is looking at many of those same options. (You'll find that report on www.rpa.org. Click on "Transportation," then "Lower Manhattan Transportation Needs," then "Lower Manhattan Transportation Issues.")
Whatever you think of the idea, it's doubtful Pataki would have announced it unless a report were indeed imminent. I'd imagine we'll have something in the next couple of weeks.
What you are advocating is that Airtrain should take over all of the Queensboro Bridge. The Queensboro would be overloaded, if all lanes were occupied. That's why one of the outer lanes cannot be used for vehicular traffic.
Well not ALL of the Queensboro Bride, But I suppose it could be built over one of the outer lanes.
No ALL of the Queensboro Bridge. When I said the Bridge was overloaded I meant that the structural members that support the entire bridge would enter the region of plastic deformation. They would not recover, when the load was removed. This would lead the the Bridge's ultimate collapse.
But I suppose it could be built over one of the outer lanes.
How are you going to support these tracks - with skyhooks?
That said, to put rail traffic on the QBB, car traffic would need to be curtailed, with serious knock-on effects all over Queens and Manhattan.
The bridge is considerably weaker now than it was, when heavy rail traffic last ran on the bridge some 60 years ago. Some of that weakness is as a result of the rail traffic. However, most of the problem is due to design shortcomings that have been documented since 1908, a year before the bridge was completed.
That said, to put rail traffic on the QBB,...
Is that your idea of a structural analysis?
I was pointing out that it's impractical for a whole bunch of other reasons, even if the bridge technically could handle it.
The last performance occurred 24 years ago, when 1 automobile lane was removed from the lower inner roadway and the upper level pedestrian walk was removed. It was determined at that time that the maximum live load that the bridge could take would be 9 traffic lanes. Dead load was minimized to the point of looking at the lamp mounting brackets for the lower outer roadways.
The only fictional collapse of the Queensboro that I'm aware of appeared in Not The New York Times and occurred during the Runners Marathon.
I meant Skyhooks. There was a novel about a hijacked airliner being corralled in mid-air by a Sky Hook device. I don't recall the explanation of how it worked.
As for airtrain, I still hold my position on the fact that the only place it should go to LGA with a stop at Flushing Main St station. They really should encourage MTA to run the A on the Howard Beach branch. They'd probably have to build a new loop though along the existing one, or can specially designed cars run on both?
My proposal -- build a link to the Montigue Street tunnel with a bellmouth toward Pierrepont Street under Cadman Plaze (I have a detailed proposal how to get there). A super shuttle can run on the Nassau Loop and terminate on the H tracks north of Chambers -- during all bnut rush hours the Airtrain could run though too. Pierrepont street is on a direct line to the Vietnam Memorial on Water Street -- and the bottom of the projected Second Avenue Subway. If demand warrents, a link can be made there later.
Ending LIRR service to Atlantic Terminal is not and never will be an option
Elias
Mark
I heard it on the radio, but apparently the Grand Forks Herald doesn't have a website, and the Bismarck Tribune only posts a few selected stories.
Elias
Grand Forks Herald
Mark
Elias
ROFL! How high was that woman!?
An article in Monday's Courier-Post about continuing problems with crossing gates says they want to run a similated week without serious problems before they start. Fat chance.
Channel 6
I'm going to DC with my college's politcal science department's spring break field trip. (They let me tag along to take advantage of the group hotel rate and Amtrak fare, even though I'm actually in another department.) We're arriving on the Crescent on the 13th and leaving on the 16th. I was planning to take a day trip to see the River Line on Monday the 15th, but if the new opening date sticks, I'll go up on Sunday instead and see if I can get a souvenir or something. Pictures, at least.
Previous plans called for trains every 15 minutes during peak commuting hours in the morning and afternoon and every 30 minutes at other times.
That's still the goal, Warrington said. But at first, trains will be scheduled to depart Camden and Trenton every 30 minutes throughout the day.
And here's a clause for Jersey Mike: The $600 million River Line has been decried by critics as a boondoggle...
If there's anything we've learned from "critics" in every other city in the US, is this:
If no one rides it and the ridership for hte year is 10 people, it's a bonndoggle.
If like Houston they are suffereing from overloads(before superbowl) and you can't even get on the trains, it's a boondoggle.
If the system spurs billions in development, it's a boondoggle.
–The Houston Light Rail system was described as a boondoggle by anti-transit people with an axe to grind before it opened. Thankfully it appears that they have been proven wrong–though the real criterion is ridership numbers after the system has been established for a year or so (though if I were a system manager looking at the initial numbers, I would be seeing if I could order more equipment and increase service frequency!)
–The River Line does seem to have had its share of problems, some of which were unforseen (bridge parts toppling over), and some of which seem like they are working out how to do things for the first time. I don’t know why the crossing gates are randomly lowering on cars, apparently with no trains around according to the news reports I’ve read, but I would have thought that by now there would be a standard set of engineering best practices that would prevent such problems.
I’m also a little sceptical of the route that the River Line will be taking, and whether it will manage to find the patronage it needs.
We still can’t call it a boondoggle yet: that’s an evaluation that must wait until next year.
Mark
Remember, this line is primarily intended as an alternative to I-295 for commuters to Trenton and Camden, and to a lesser extent, Philadelphia. It is not intended as a bridge between NJT and PATCO for folks travelling between NY and Philly (although people with a lot of time and not enough money will use it that way.)
Arrggggghhhhh....
My other question was, why the BSL instead of the MFL. All the buses connected to the MFL. Everyone used the MFL if they dind't take the regional rail or car. We all knew about the MFL, and even talked about the M-4's when they first came out. Psychologically, the Broad street line is impossible to get into my head that it can be linked up in the Northeast. Is the only reason because they have express tracks? I never even rode this line.
-- David
Philadelphia, PA
But I agree with you completely that the Broad Street Subway stations need a lot of rehabbing.
Mark
I can't find any articles referring to this 60% business other than those on the Schuylkill Metro. I also don't see this on APTA or searching the Senate.
My guess is that they want to cut the funding on this particular project for local reasons.
I didn't think the SVM was silly, in fact, I thought it was quite forward thinking, and a refreshing break from the lowest common denominator, bare minimal 'commuter' rail systems out there. Such systms, while they may have low startup costs (though generally not), don't attract ridership, and make exceptionally poor utilization of equipment, i.e., they're very expensive for the results achived.
The DVARP's complaint about the proposed service being too frequent was assinine at best. High frequency attracts riders, and idling equipment is money wasted. Further, they could provide no evidence that diesel operations would be cheaper (and in general, they're not), and they provided no real reasons why their proposed locomotive would actually work, whereas dual modes have not in the past.
I've brought up these questions before, and believe me, they avoid answering them. likely because the answers are stupid at best.
I don't get the big need for rail to Reading anyway. Ever been there? It's a royal dump dead anyway.
Why even bother expanding SEPTA? They can barely run the current system. adding more trackage to non maintain will only make matters worse, stretch resources more, and achive little. I'd rather see efforts being turned towards getting SEPTA running at least semi decently, before system expansion.
I'd like to know where you got this from. It doesn't appear in any of their newsletters. In fact DVARP gets the credit for forcing some very practical changes in the Silverliner V design. SEPTA has a good engineering staff, but with 25 managers having to vote on everything, things get bogged down.
"he DVARP's complaint about the proposed service being too frequent was assinine at best"
DVARP is not complaining about that. Yu're taking that completely out of context. What they actually said was that extending conventional commuter rail service and improving on existing stations was far more cost-effective, and I fully agree. Te federal government finally killed off the SVM, and SEPTA had to go back to the drawing board. They are not against electrifying that route.
Of course, where SEPTA would get the money to do anything is in question...
"'ve brought up these questions before, and believe me, they avoid answering them. likely because the answers are stupid at best."
As opposed to the rank stupidity of some of the things you've posted here? Your posts are of two types: incredibly insightful, smart, and even scholarly (I love reading your stuff on electric power; wh couldn't you have been teaching physics when I was a freshman at UCLA?) and the ones bashing Amtrak and a few other topics so incredibly, blindly biased that there is no question you know you're BSing even before you write it. Happily, you do much more of the former than the latter.
So look in the mirror and clean yourself up before you go afer DVARP.
" don't get the big need for rail to Reading anyway. Ever been there? "
Yes. It's a struggling mill and factory town. But the Vanity Fair mall is pretty good and Don Nigro demonstrated that adequate rail service could bring traffic back into downtown. I was on one of those shopping trips.
"hy even bother expanding SEPTA? They can barely run the current system. adding more trackage to non maintain will only make matters worse, stretch resources more, and achive little. I'd rather see efforts being turned towards getting SEPTA running at least semi decently, before system expansion."
That's the one sensible thing you've said amid all the ignorant nonsense in this post (and shame on you for it!) SEPTA does havesome serious operationa problems they need to fix. They have some great, talented people there (I know some of them personally and like them and respect them) but SEPTA's structure and governance, and the politics involved make improvements difficult.
Kudos to DVARP for actuall making a difference. They could actually teach you something (if you stopped ranting long enough to listen, that is).
This question has serious implications. SEPTA's need for expansion is partly the result of sprawl. In my opinion it's equally important to improve the city to lure residents and businesses back into the area that is already well-served by SEPTA's existing rail and bus lines. This migh relieve some of the pressure for system expansion and help SEPTA make more effective use of what they already have.
Mark
You're blaming the hardware for the stingy operational decisions of those that fund transit. The reason there is poor service and equipment utilization is because most startup agencies lack the funding/wilpower to provide adequate service that can build ridership. Heavy rail diesel hauled commuter technology is not the issue. The issue is the 3-5 trip peak direction only service that most new systems try to pass off on their ridership. Take a look at MARC and VRE. First, there is no money for weekend service. Second, CSX gets bitchy about service on its main freight trunk lines, which it actually be well within its rights to. All service on the CSX/NS lines are peak period only and often peak direction only. This is because CSX/NS don't have the tolerance/capacity to deal with stopping local trains all day.
The key to ridership is service, not some untried technology with massive startup costs. If you provide all day service lasting till about 1am with 30 min peak headways, 60-90 min off-peak headways with a few extra peak express trains and then have 60-120 min headways on Sat/Sun you'll get the ridership. The problem is that capital money is relitivly easy to get, but operational money is extremely hard to get and there are all these taboos on transfering capital money to operations money. It really pisses me off when agencies have $$ to fix the shit that ain't broke, but are then forced to raise fares and cut service.
An extension of the R6 using commuter rail rolling stock and catenary wire makes the most sense. DVARP supports this, in fact.
Do ou get their newsletter? If you read it you'd know what they do.
Heck, Orlando spent more money on studies than an actual system would've costed. Tampa Bay comes up with plans and maps and everything to build a system, but does it yearly for 30 years. We could've had a bigger system than NY by now, all we got is a 2.2 mile trolley that has 25HP on each motor. Everything get's studied.
Wait a second, speaking of the SEPTA area, what about that Woodhaven road. How many times has that baked in the oven. For decades now I've been saying i'm going to attend the opening ceremony of that road.
How much stuff actually get's the green light after it get's included in 2025 long range plans anyway?
Their wanting to use new technology was not silly. But in a region where there are a lot of operational deficiencies, where local subway service needs expansion badly and where existing rolling stock could be used by extending commuter rail in its current form, the SVM proposal was DOA - and still is.
If you had $87 billion dollars, and the heart of Andrew Carnegie, what would you do to better our nation?
How much rail infrastructure could you build in the US also(and please don't waste it all on SAS!).
I've been curious.
Which is anybody who makes $115,000 or more a year. Hardly rich.
Anyway, back down to 115k a year, nationally people who make that kind of money don't ride transit anyway.
They do in NYC.
I'm glad you responded though, I wanted to include in there another exception.
Park and Ride lots
People who work and live in fancy places in the city(any city with a strong core).=
Then if I had some change left over I'd pick a small uniteresting city like Jackson, Mississippi where I used to live, and I'd carry out a little experiment. I'd build dense mixed used developments downtown, a rapid transit system, and again endow the schools to draw people in. The point of the experiment would be to see just how small and how sprawling a city I could turn into some place interesting and fun to live using good urban planning. In other words, to see just how capable all the things I usually call for really are by pitting them against a real challenge.
Mark
But I think you two would still have a huge surplus of money after all those projects.
Mark
: )
My school books were always outdated, too. When I was in the third grade our English book had a sample sentence from a future newspaper, reporting the launch of the first human trip to Mars. The fictional newspaper was dated 1979. The real year was 1980.
Mark
By 1964, experts say man will have established twelve colonies on the moon, ideal for family vacations. Once there, you'll weigh only a small percentage of what you weigh on Earth.
Slow down, tubby! You're not on the moon yet!
The moon belongs to America, and anxiously awaits the arrival of our astro-men. Will you be among them?
Maybe she drove to the Moon.
If you had $87 billion dollars
Eighty-seven billion dollars dollars…? How much money is that, exactly…? :-P
Also, asking what one would do to “better our nation” makes the question very non-specific to rail, which means it can diverge into education, defense, other social reforms, etc.
But if you are talking rail, then $87 billion can buy about twice the amount of HSR infrastructure and rolling stock as the US-of-A would probably need – and to help with maintenance, guess what is going to go in on the interstates…yup, toll booths…not only for raising revenue but also for slowing down those maniac tractor-trailer drivers…(Oh, there would be quite a bit left over, so just put in any dream projects here, related to rail projects in various cities.)
Yep, that's one of my wishes: Have everything that's for sale in a 99 cents store be made in America. And if I managed to make a go of it, who knows? The idea could spread. Anyway, I sure do miss seeing labels that say Made In U.S.A. Hate going shopping lately.
How to waste money through Amtrak:
- Penn Station Tunnels
- fix Metro-North New-Haven line issues
- newer rolling stock to reduce shortages
- electrification to Chicago, Montreal, and Richmond
- California electrification
- some sort electrified rail system along I-40 and I-85 corridors in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Caroina which connects with the NEC at Richmond, VA
- purchase as much track as possible from freight RRs for better passenger service
- VIA Rail gets some money for Windsor-Quebec City electrification
- bribe people at FRA to loosen standards :-P
Soo much money, it's never going to happen.
In exchange, he (or she) would get:
- A school nearby good enough to send an average number of kids to college.
- A public transportation stop good enough to get everybody downtown (or to a major shopping hub in a city without a downtown) and to an airport within 30 minutes.
If I was going to LA, I sure would let you know on this board, and call you privately about arranging the meeting place and date/time.
And for one thing, I keep my appointments when I announce them, maybe I might be a few minutes late, but I sure will not hold you up until 12 Noon.
Subtalkers, it appears they had a mix up as to time of the trip.
Some of us have to WORK for a living!! We like roofs over our head and food on the table....etc.
Sea Beach Fred is a school teacher...and works weekdays.
I am a transit driver and work weekdays.
I'm sure George has a weekday job too.
So don't get excited.
Congratulations!!!
Mistakes get made. Get over it.
Surfliner was standing room only....in BOTH directions!!
Yet the Metrolink train that followed us home had plenty of seats.
Besides, the Surflienr cars are a hell of a lot more comfortable.
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
If you cats had used cell phones, you would have found eachother.
did you guys think to use cell phones at the station?
you can see the whole trackbed area.... but can you see people standing
in a platform vestibule?
This matter is ancient history. It's over. It happened. It cannotbe undone. Humanbeings made a mistke.
B.F.D.!!!~
Grow up and give this subject up.
I think the problem is that you and they got the time mixed up. In your post, you say that 10:30 AM was the agreed upon time. However, if you check the thread about the "Fred and Bob show hits LA", you will see that under your own post, you were supposed to be at the station at 10 AM, and not 10:30. I don't know if you guys made subsequent plans or not, and since I wasn't involved in the arrangements at your end, I have no idea who was at fault. I am just trying to set the record straight as to why nobody was there at 10:30.
I still hope to get to meet you in the near future. I really admire your work.
1) How well connected is Madison to transit?
a)NJT bus services around Madison, if any?
b)Non-NJT public transportation, if any?
C)Paratransit/ taxis/airport limos etc.?
d)Time between trains? Transit level of service?
2)Ridership levels over time: how have they changed?
3) Has NJT invested in Madison? If so, in what way?
a) Does the town have any active relations or partnerships with
NJT?
4) Has NJT gauged customer feelings in any meaningful way, especially
relevant to Madison or relevent to the line(s) on which it stands?
a) Polls?
b) Surveys?
c) Analysis of customer complaints?
d) Other?
5) Firsthand data gathering could also be useful (such as analysis of
pedestrian traffic in vicinity of Madison station, etc. Downside is that
we'd need a map of vicinity, and don't expect to catch the whole route of
everyone. I've put dots on maps to represent pedestrian routes in general
before, in Hudson River Park in Manhattan, so I know what I'm talking
about.)
6) insert your own questions here :-)
Thanx!
-Richard R. :)
It was a work train.
Trevor
Jersey Mike could probably outline a reasoble way to reconfigure the Jamaica station approaches so trains could move faster. Mike, would you like to chime in here?
There are two sides here. The north side is for Penn/HP/LIC trains that will continue on main line to OB, HEM, PJ, KO, and Montauk via. Hicksville. These trains will use Tracks 1-4 (assuming that all 8 tracks are available for use.) All Montauk trains will no longer use Babylon branch, they will stay on main line to Divide then KO to Babylon.
South side (Tracks 5-8) will have Flatbush trains going to Babylon, LB, and FR. So, Hempstead will use Penn istead of Flatbush, while Long Beach, and Babylon will get Flatbush. However, because of heavy traffic along the Babylon Branch, most peak trains will use Penn instead of Flatbush.
Biggest plus is that trains will not have to cross over, such as a Penn train going to Long Beach that is competing with a Hempstead train from Flatbush will not have this problem with my suggested track and route usage.
And what do we do with the westbound trains if all tracks are taken up by eastbound trains??
http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/pressreleases/0402/02.asp
I read the Word document version of the full report and was very impressed with the detail. The only element that was missing, was a diagram of the track layout at the derailment site, which would have helped with the visualization of the incident.
wayne
I recall noticing that on some of the older currently-running cars (R32? R38?), adjacent non-meeting door leaves seem to be linked. If a door leaf hits an obstruction and stops, its buddy leaf at the other side of the seats and window will also stop. The leaf that it meets with isn't affected.
What's going on here? Do the doors share a motor? Is there a really long linkage connecting the two leaves?
Mark
There is. It runs under the bench seat. The R40's and 42's have it, too.
You mean meeting panels latching against one another?
Mark
That also explains why there's so much less under-seat bulk beginning with the R44s. I always suspected something important must be in there. Resistance heaters don't take up that much space, and it's not like resistance technology had improved significantly by the 1970s.
Door operation as I understand it was explained by Joe Korman in this nyc.transit post. Does that same description apply to the under-seat and in-wall operators?
My understanding of the newest cars is that they use overhead worm drives. How does this system preserve pushback, or does it not?
Mark
Pushback is dead! None of the cars in the current fleet will
allow the door to be pushed back. Pushback was required with
the older door mechanisms because they were not precise enough
in sensing panel position. They could give indication and
still have a purse strap wedged in the door...pushback allowed
the passenger to remove it in a hurry.
I'm not asking what this "S" means, I'm asking why it was chosen, as opposed to any other letter.
David
APPROACH AT ALLOWABLE SPEED THEN CONTINUE ON MAIN ROUTE
It doesn't mean "speed". We usually take it to mean "straight", as opposed to the same signal with an illuminated D, which means "diverge".
And as for "D" meaning "diverge," it certainly does (well, "diverging route," anyway), but most time signals don't have a "D" aspect.
David
I'd love to do what you want, and I will -as soon as they get rid of the penalty when I hit the damned signal that doesn't clear at the allowable speed. There are just too many places where the signals don't clear at the posted speed, and Bulletin 60-03 notwithstanding, I don't want to visit the friendly folk at Labor Relations.
I got a question:
Why do t/o's travel slow even after a timer has cleared?
Ex: CPW express S/B from 145th to 125th. All signals are green, but T/o's keep trains around 18mph well after timer clears.
Yes, but there's a huge gap between these timers.
Also, they permit much faster speeds than those actually performed.
wayne
I've got three years in and have always operated this way and have had no incidents or problems.
I've got three years in and have always operated this way and have had no incidents or problems.
The use of "D" aspects doesn't show up until the late 1960s.
It was part of some new thinking in the signal department. About
this time aspects such as illuminated "20" or "15" began to be
used on new contracts as well.
Ain't got old rulebooks to go by, but that's what I *think* I remember ...
David
But like I've said before, I'm real hazy on the RULES of the railroad (aside from this, I'm SURE I can still pass the signal test, heh) after all these years, but the IND had an abundant supply of "S" ... ideal operating mode though was to hold it back and watch the "S" die, although the witch wouldn't clear to green for ya (wonder if there was ever a bulb in that head?) if the "S" extinguished, your musical pitch was just right and you could expect either a yellow or another one of the "gauntlet candle 'S' lit" ... but IND had no compunctions about throwing reds at ya, it was DESIGNED to do that. They'd clear if you had any brains, OR a pulse. :)
Mystery solved on the "D" (forgot about that - Alex was RIGHT, duh.) here:
http://www.nycsubway.org/tech/signals/timesig.html
It IS "stop here if you don't expect to diverge" ... like I said, been a LONG time, many many other "careers" under the wings since I *had* to know this stuff. Wowsers - I've forgotten *SO* much - but at the same time, after a trip to Branford a year or so ago operate once again after a 2001 jaunt with an R143 on MTA property, I've also realized that the "rules and meanings" can fade away to meat-rom dust, but actually operating a train is like riding a bicycle ... Once you're done schoolcar, you never forget how to run a train. That at least is something I hadn't forgotten how to do - SAFELY. :)
The newer signal sytems also use it for grade time, such as Queens Plaza Manhattan bound express. If you see one shot red w/number instead of two-shot yellow w/S, then watch out for the blind trips. This means not that someone is in fron of you, but the route is established for the V to cross over beyond the station. Most of the time, it starts off as one-shot, but turns into two-shot by the time you enter the station.
On the West End, heading up towards Bay 50, the red/20 is displayed at the same time as the yellow/S before it. That is one of the newest systems installed, so I guess they will use both two-shot and one-shot at the same time, in case you do pass the yellow too fast.
ST is any conditional cutback of the signal's control line.
GT is always in effect.
The R/20 displayed after the Y/S at Bay 50, is a result of that same artifact Jeff H described on another branch of this thread.
The R/20 is a two-shot GT and one-shot ST signal. With no train ahead the signal is red, waiting for the first or second shot timer to run. The 20 is displayed since the conditions for the signal to clear on station time are met and the signal is still red because the GT hasn't run. In this case it is likely that the 2nd GT shot and the 1st ST shot are in fact the same timer.
Modifying the circuits so the the 20 lights only for ST, would add unnecessary complication and expense. At any rate, If the TO blows the 1st shot, and is approaching a R/20 signal timing the 2nd shot, the signal is not "lying" by displaying the 20. It just may clear in less time if for example the GT speed was 25 or 30mph.
Cming south from 7 Ave to Prospect Park, you encounter the following;
GT 40, Y auto, R/R, ST 20, R auto, R/20 repeater, R/20 auto, G auto.
The R/R clears to Y/G/S at about 40, the first R auto clears to Y/S at about 40 (most times - sometime, neither clears correctly). So now you're doing 40 - the posted limit - witha Y/S in front of you... that doesn't clear! Pull madly on the brake and hope everything works.
OR
when R/R clears, begin slowing down, pass first auto at 22 and you can get the R/20 to clear at 15 when you get to the repeater. Wrap it back up into the station.
Since the posted limit is 40 for the GT two-shot, why does that last red clear so slow? Ther's nothing in front of me, the nearest switch is 1000' away (with two autos and a homeball in the way).
The ST number is only lit because the signal is red with the control line clear. It conveys absolutely ZERO information about what speed is required to clear the signal on GT.
There are no circuits to light the number based on a train missing the 1st shot.
There is a funny artifact arising from the way these illuminated
station time numerals are wired. You may notice that when an
approach signal or home signal that has one of these numerals
was being held back by the tower and is then put reverse, with
the track ahead being clear, that the numeral will light momentarily,
then the signal will clear from red to yellow or green.
This corresponds with the stop arm driving time.
:-)
There could be jackets and hats: "Signal Station Time Lighting Clarification Project" with a picture of a R/20 head and a ? with a circle slash over it.
But I digress.
Does it have to be vital? Let's ask Stephen Baumann.
I can think a way to fix this without adding a relay:
Get rid of the HST relay and, for that matter, the illuminated
numeral. After all, the IND did station time for years without
an extra aspect. What's wrong with that "T" sign? Maybe a small
sign beneath reading "Please feel free to creep up"
"Limited offer! This Signal Only! Some Restricting Speed Applies!"
"Go directly over the IJ, Do not stop, Do not collect 200 seconds (of delay)"
B etter
O ff
S omewhere
E lse
You're right that timers are checked to be de-energized and "wound-down" but the contact is elsewhere. A signal will not clear at all if by clearing it would allow entrance into a section that has a stuck timer.
"An S signal is a signal bearing a letter S used in conjunction
with a block or home signal which, when illuminated, indicates
that the next Grade Time beyond may be cleared by an approaching
train operating at a predetermined speed. This signal is used
on the IND division only."
The same rulebook notes that a LUNAR WHITE LIGHT...is used
on the BMT division only.
An October 1944 revisions page adds
"A D signal is a signal bearing a letter D used in conectoin
with a Block or Home signal which, when illuminated, indicates
a diverging route, and that the next Grade Time Signal beyond, may
be cleared by an approaching train operating at a pre-determined
speed. This signal is used on the IND division only."
In March 1948, the lunar white rule was ammended"
"AN AUXILIARY WHITE LIGHT.....is used on the IRT division and
BMT division only"
Do you have any BMT rulebooks that give their explanation of
time signals?
Becuase the TA is so strict about trailing points, it conversely plays fast and loose with facing points. You could be hauling @$$ twoards a red homeball protecting facing point and have it go over, and that's completely ok and protected by design. [and that's with no pissant wheel detectors either!]
But like I said also, I've been wrong before so it wouldn't be news - but I swear I remember being told to NEVER pass a "D" unless you expected to diverge or you'd be stuck with it. Only exception I remember to that rule was northbound into 59th from 7th Avenue. There, it was common to be sent to the wrong track due to "congestion" and you were expected to ACCEPT a wrong lineup "for the good of the service." :)
Elaborate please? Do you mean because approach signal levers
don't lock facing point switches?
Exactly. You are fully protected because the collary is ALWAYS true= All signals lock trailing points in their overlap.
If you pass the "D" signal and that also happens to be the approach
signal then the tower would have to run time before the lineup
could be changed.
The BMT did use a "lunar white" for the same purpose. Using a letter has the advantage of being able to use different letters for variation of meaning; specifically, "S" is all purpose, but "D" means the same thing when there is an interlocking situation and "D" represents timing on a diverging route.
Forget about timers and lunar for a second. I've got a more generalized signal philosophy question. (Yup, another one from the bag of ponderous but unasked questions.)
If a route has been set, why not let the bottom head show it even if the top head is showing STOP? Is there something fundamentally wrong with a signal saying "I'm not clear now, but when I do clear, I'll clear to the diverging route," R/Y?
The best reason I've been able to come up with is that old-style IRT home signals (each route gets its own head) can't convey such information, and the use of R/R there infiltrated the new style of home signalling.
The second-best reason I've come up with is that in signalling, "if it's not all red, it's not red at all." That's really only a half-justification, though, because NYCTA (and the BoT before them, and the operating companies before them) could have come up with virtually any rule, and if they decided that R/G and R/Y would mean STOP AND STAY the same as R/R while conveying route information, it would have been so. It's not like they had to maintain compatibility with any other signalling standards. At best, general practice served only as guidelines, and the "if it's not all red" rule was more of a mnemonic from roads where the R/G and R/Y aspects would have meant something different anyway.
It seems to me that if a route has been set, there can only be advantages to lighting the homeball before the (automatic, timer, whatever) clears. I don't see the drawbacks.
Mark
You are correct that the combination of routing and slotting
is descended (ca 1914) from the older aspect system of R/G, G/R etc.
It was the BRT which invented this aspect system, not the BOT/IND,
and they did so in anticipation of the dual contracts which
included the first extensive subway running for the BRT (I am
ignoring the Centre St subway which had opened a few years earlier)
Allegedly this new aspect system would be easier to understand and
work better with color light signals (the older IRT subway signals
were essentially compact semaphores). In retrospect I think the
aspect system was a big mistake, one which the IND ripped off.
Since at the time the BRT was using standard ARA aspects for
interlocking signals on the elevated (what would later be called
"IRT aspects" by railfans), it would have been extremely confusing
to have R/G mean Diverging Clear on the elevated but "Stop and
expect a straight route" on the subway.
What do you suppose would have been a better choice at the time (and why?) The old IRT (what you called then-standard ARA) aspects?
The original IRT heads used colored lenses in front of a single light source, correct?
Since at the time the BRT was using standard ARA aspects for
interlocking signals on the elevated (what would later be called
"IRT aspects" by railfans), it would have been extremely confusing
to have R/G mean Diverging Clear on the elevated but "Stop and
expect a straight route" on the subway.
Indeed it would have. I hadn't considered that the "conversion" didn't take place overnight.
Mark
The subway signals used prior to the dual contracts on the IRT
are compact semaphores. Instead of a rotating blade, the operating
mechanism was vertical and operated by a pneumatic piston.
This placed one of two colored roundels in front of a bulb in the
upper portion of the head, the light from which was focused by
a clear lens, while in the lower portion one of two
reflective targets were displayed corresponding to semaphore
blade positions (i.e. a horizontal bar or a diagonal bar).
The IRT used 2-aspect lower quadrant semaphores on the el (which
they took over in 1901) and this was a continuation of that practice.
A typical automatic block signal had two heads. The top was
HOME and the bottom DISTANT. The bottom head was also mounted
in front of the plane of the upper head to create a riser for the
operating rod, thus creating an assembly with two lenses and
two targets that sat on top of a signal case.
There is not too much information about these pneumatic semaphores
as they evidently got rid of them quickly once color light
signals were adopted. Some of the heads were recycled as
color-light heads. The lens of the top half was given a green
lens the target was replaced by a red lens assembly with bulb,
the lens of the lower half became yellow and the lower target
was covered over by a number plate. One of these signals survived
into the 1990s at 5 Ave on the Flushing line.
Signal 121C (the signal described above) survived for a couple of years into this decade as well.
That has always been cited as a reason why the BMT aspect system
is easier to understand. However, I could turn around the
"dim or obscured" argument you made in favor of the "IRT" system.
With the BMT system, it is possible to mis-read a Y/G as a G
automatic if the top head is out or obscured. By the time you
realized this, it might not be possible to reduce speed quickly
enough to avoiding tripping on the next signal at danger.
>One thing I think would be a good idea is elimination the
> bottom head on home signals that only protect trailing points,
> or are used as holdout signals
This was standard practice on the IRT. What distinguished an
interlocking signal from an automatic was the presence of a red
number plate with white lettering, bearing the letter "X" and
the controlling lever number (of course always with an L or R
since the IRT was a US&S customer).
heavy drinkers.
I have a print which shows 2-shot GT implemented with 3-position AC line relays. So chalk one up for the BMT.
The lit "S" was a B of T invention for sure.
Could it be to distinguish it from the 2 train order lights?
This is done so that any aspect color is distinguishable from
the bare bulb color. In the event that the colored lens is broken
out for some reason, it prevents mis-reading the signal.
Some of the "S" stencil aspects coming into Queens Plaza now look more bluish-white, so perhaps they are beginning to use LED's as backlights for existing time aspects as well. (The new LED's installed elsewhere are bare diodes arrayed as an "S" or number; rather than a backlit stencil.)
A *long* time ago -- so long ago, it was on an R1/9 on a D train -- the motorman told me it meant "series" signal. Series, I suppose, as in multiple blocks as opposed to single-block timed signals (which at that time I had only noticed on the BMT).
Michael Wares
David
David
David
The indication is "approach at allowable speed"
There is no definition of the what the "S" stands for.
Also to clarify: the signal displaying Y/S is NOT A GRADE TIME SIGNAL, the NEXT signal is a GT which causes its predecessor to display Y/S.
The normal state of any GT signal can only be red.
Thanks,
Julian
There's pictures of all the New Tech test trains.
Unless you want pics of the R110b in a deteriorated state. They are stored OOS and will never be used in revenue again. They were test trains, not revenue equipment.
When the G runs 6-car R-46s/8-car R-32's again, the V is extended to Brooklyn, the C to Lefferts, and all A's run to Howard Beach/the Rockaways, THEN they can say that "they are no longer needed". Until then, no such nonsense...
While that's true, last night crews were in the process of removing the R-110B conductor boards from the A and D lines... doesn't look like a good sign.
I looked at those already. Only 16 images... =( Then again, that's better than nothing. I personally like the photos at http://www.nycrail.com better (those were recently taken in the yard).
They are stored OOS and will never be used in revenue again.
Then why bother to keep them? Why not sell it back to Bombardier, or rebuild it and put it back on the (A), or cheaper, the (C)?
-Julian
http://www.railfanwindow.com/gallery/album34?page=2
http://www.railfanwindow.com/gallery/album34?page=3
http://www.railfanwindow.com/gallery/album34?page=4
Sorry that I haven't captioned them as such yet, which would have enabled you to search my site for them.
Good one. Those trams in Germany are nicer than what we have in NJ. It's too bad I can't read the German website or any of the postings
For pics (text in german):
http://mitglied.lycos.de/dfstrab/f/f.htm
http://mitglied.lycos.de/dfstrab/w/w.htm
Boy, this seems mad dangerous, depending on alertness (even German alertness) rather than automatic interlocking and trippers. Although I'm not surprised by anything on a streetcar after I saw the T/O in Daly City on the SF Muni use a pole to move his switch.
If never seen the F7 in use and i don't know the exact rules for it.
It's something like the key-by-order of the subway
Mark
Besides throwing switches, they're also useful as rerailing tools. Got an axle off on girder rail? Stick a couple of switch irons under the wheel, and back up slowly. The wheel will follow the switch iron and actually go back on the rail head.
They can be used to clean the flangeway on girder rail.
They can also be used to subdue unruly passengers, but we won't go there.
The map also clearly states that only lines with route changes are shown on the poster, and that the other lines have been left off.
So why was the R included? Just for completeness in showing the entire southern BMT? That seems poor justification for giving a false impression in what will surely be a confusing time.
No more short-turns at Whitehall either.
They say the R will recieve extra service but we'll see whether the Rarely loses its infamous moniker ;-).
So far I've seen:
English/Spanish
English/Chinese
English/Russian
I have the Spanish and the Russian version.
Question - do the cars carry each interior route/station list sign, or does the change have to be made in the yard or terminal?
I'm not an everyday #2 rider, so any answer would be appreciated.
Is there a program for the 2 to Dyre?
http://www.mta.info/alert/alertmnr.htm
CG
They're just getting more realistic.
This morning seemed good. On my outbound journey, it looked like inbound trains were originating on time, which they haven't for a while.
The snow isn't light and fluffy any more either after yesterday's thaw, which will help.
"The party car was up and running-- for dozens of Web freaks, hackers, geeks and others like them--- a time and place to meet, mingle, act up, wind down, express themselves, dangle from poles, rage against the machine or do none of that, anonymously, anarchically, all in he cramped,swaying confines of a subway car hurtling underneath this stridently counterculture city...."
If that whets your appetite here's the link to the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/29/national/29BART.html
LED Binary Clock
I got intrigued with what the display would look like as time passes. Anyway, I spent a couple of hours trying to find this thing locally, and ended up buying it from ThinkGeek.com on the internet. Then I frittered away the day today waiting for the package to come. It's really neat.
For more info and a link to a free downloadable version check out the manufacturer's website:
http://www.anelace.com/index.html
I wonder if it could be miniaturized into a watch or a much larger clock?
Were you able to download the desktop version?
No, didn't download - requires scripting and flash which is a no-no security wise here - will see about getting it on one of our lab rats later since those are designed to get infected. :)
...but like any good anti-SUV guy, John can find a way to blame his friend's negligence on an inanimate object.
At least it wasn't one of his usual tall women don't like short guys who ride public transit posts...
There's no reason to be fourth in line in a pileup, other than driving with head up ass.
Actually if you go back on some of the News 12 LI forum's old posts you'll see he has mentioned how his height hinders his social life.
That's our little John from Wesbury for ya. :-)
http://www.citizenet.com/news/articles/101002/education2.shtml
"Ben and Ryan, best friends since first grade, dashed toward the Steeplechase — the first of four stations where they learned about different aspects of horses and their care. Other stations dealt with horse breeds, stables, care and transportation.
At the Steeplechase station, Middleburg horse owner and trainer Don Yovanovich detailed the sport's history.
"Two men were riding their horses home in Ireland and were arguing over whose horse was the fastest. They raced between two church steeples," he explained."
If you need more information, I'm pretty sure that Jeff Rosen could help you out. I think Steeplechase Station is one of his passions.
**********************************************************************
Welcome to the New Year and (finally) more fun and games on the
high iron. The holidays were busy and full of good times for the beautiful
bride and I while simultaneously being chaotic and hectic. Despite it
all though, a good time was had. Here's hoping that yours were full of
the good times and lacking that of the aggravation.
The changing of the calendar has also brought about yet another change
in job assignments for me as well. I have returned to the road working
train 336 between Glenn Yard and Champaign, laying over and then coming
back the next day on train 331. So once again I am back to being gone
a lot.
I know I am really tardy in getting this one out, but I have been extremely
busy as of late. Hopefully we will be getting on track again and producing
these little columns again on a regular basis. I would like to thank all
of you that took the time to inquire though. Some of you were concerned
that I tossed you off the list or that perhaps I had taken ill. Fortunately
it was neither, just too much to do in too little time. And now, on with
the show.
The theme of today's topic sounds like the title to an old Chambers Brothers
song from some thirty-five or so years ago. Trust me though while dealing
with time, this lesson won't be of a musical nature. Instead, we will
deal with the timetable. And as a special bonus visual aids are being
included to assist us with today's lesson. The fine folks at RAILROAD.NET
have again offered their outstanding website to assist me with today's
presentation. Be sure to take a look around their site when you get a
chance as they have done quite a fine job with it.
Throughout the years there have been two types of timetables used by
the rail industry, employee and public. Public timetables are the ones
published for the general public that advertise the schedules for passenger
trains. From this comes the term "On the advertised" when making a note
of actual arrival times of trains at scheduled stops. If the train is
on time according to its timetable schedule, it is on the time advertised.
Public timetables might also include a list of services offered on the
trains, at the stations and oftentimes, a summary of fares. Today in North
America, most public timetables are those showing the services provided
by Amtrak, VIA and commuter railroads. There are still a handful of private
sector inter-city passenger railroads in operation and you can find their
timeta bles out there. Ontario Northland and Algoma Central are two railroads
that still operate independently of a federal railroad passenger corporation.
You can view their timetables at http://www.agawacanyontourtrain.com/fs_passengerservice.html
for the Algoma Central or http://www.northlander.ca/
for Ontario Northland services. And of course, you may go to www.Amtrak.com
or www.viarail.com to view schedules
and gather information of North America's two passenger major passenger
carriers.
In today's high tech world, public timetables can easily be downloaded
and printed out using a computer. Hard copies are still printed up and
made available at train stations and also through travel agencies. On
some railroads timetables were called timecards as opposed to timetables.
This could possibly be the result of them being printed on a card stock
type of paper. Hence the phrase "carded X number of passenger trains"
was derived from either the paper used to make the timetables or the name
timecard, or perhaps both.
Now the employee timetable is a totally different creature altogether.
These are published "For the government of railroad employees only" to
borrow a quote from the industry. The employee timetable would be the
instruction manual that supports the rulebook. It contains vital information
and instructions used to govern the operation of trains and engines on
a specific portion of track, across a railroad division or even across
an entire railroad system.
The employee timetable governs various aspects of the operation of trains
and engines. Included in the employee timetable (ETT) are speed limits
and restrictions for trains and engines, train schedules, special instructions
and changes or amendments to any operating rules. They also include instructions
peculiar to specific portions of a railroad. For many years, a timetable
schedule of a train was its authority to occupy and proceed on a main
track. In the past twenty years or so, most railroads have departed from
this method. Timetable schedules are merely for information to the train
crews. More often than not in today's timetables, a disclaimer is included
on the page that shows schedule times stating "Time shown is for information
only and does not convey any authority."
There is a varying array of philosophies when it comes to the employee
timetable. Some railroads use multiple timetables to govern their property.
In the first thirteen years of their existence, Conrail subscribed to
a regional format. Conrail divided their railroad into regions such as
the Northern, Northeastern Atlantic, Western and Southern. Within these
regions were divisions. As an example, in 1980 the Western Region of Conrail
was comprised of four divisions; Chicago, Cleveland, Toledo and Fort Wayne.
As Conrail evolved, the divisions within each region were modified and
in some cases, eliminated through reorganization within the company. Mergers
of divisions and regions within the system occurred as Conrail downsized
itself over the years. Eventually, Conrail reorganized its structure completely
and eliminated regions altogether. Newly created divisions consolidated
smaller divisions within a region into the new structure. This reorganization
reduced some of the management employees required to operate the company.
That seemingly age old quote of "Reducing the layers of management" was
stated as a reason for the restructuring.
So Conrail in their region days used regional timetables. After the reorganization
they went to a divisional format. Many other roads have used a divisional
format as well. Norfolk Southern predecessors Southern and Norfolk &
Western used the divisional format and NS has kept that philosophy since
the two roads were merged. With the inclusion of the 58% of Conrail they
obtained in 1999, NS has continued with the divisional format. The division
timetable contains all the information relevant to that particular division
with regards to all the previously mentioned aspects. They will also include
any special instructions that apply system wide as well.
Being that some railroads have a great deal of special instructions peculiar
only to a specific portion of the railroad, their philosophy is to only
keep that information readily available to the employees that operate
on that particular division. The theory is that a division timetable keeps
the total size of the timetable down to one that is manageable, one that
makes it easier to carry in your grip. Now just remember though, this
is a theory.
Another ETT format is the system variety. Some railroads like MoPac and
Union Pacific, (prior into their merging into the mega-goliath they are
today) used a system format. Both railroads used regional, district or
division formats prior to their adopting a system format. The Santa Fe
also went to a system format after years of using a divisional format.
Since merging into the monsters they are today, BNSF and UP have returned
to the division type format. UP goes by the name of service units for
their divisions though. Obviously somebody took the education their diploma
indicates they received and put it to good use by coining this new millennium
type term to replace the division name. However, a division by any other
name though would still be a division.
And there have been different philosophies regarding the overall format
of the employee timetable with regard to how it is assembled. For years
railroads used a booklet type of format with a card stock type of cover.
These were usually staple or perfect bound and came in two popular sizes;
pocket or magazine. The pocket style is narrow in width and fits quite
easily into your back pocket. The magazine style is usually an 8x11 size
that can only fit into your pocket if you fold it in half.
In the 1970's a new format of ETT was created, the binder style. There
were a couple of varieties of this with one being the ring binder and
the other a post binder. Several eastern began using the binder format
including Penn Central and Erie Lackawanna. With the binder format, the
philosophy was that instead of printing an entire new timetable, just
the pages that required revisions could be changed. Any and all revisions
and changes were printed on new pages and the now obsolete pages were
simply removed being replaced with the revision pages. While the initial
cost of implementing the binder format was a little more costly, the overall
cost was reduced as only what needed to be changed was changed.
Penn Central was probably one of the first to make extensive use of the
revision pages. Being that PC was essentially falling apart in the early
70's, numerous speed restrictions were being placed into effect. Yellow
revision pages that carried all of the speed restrictions and any other
type of restrictions were used and added to the timetable.
Today, most railroads have embraced the binder format. In addition to
the timetable and special instructions, operating, air brake and train
handling and safety rulebooks have been added to the binder so you now
have a one stop operating manual. Exceptions to this are CSX and UP. While
they have the various rulebooks in a binder, the timetable and special
instructions are in separate magazine style books that do not fit into
any kind of binder.
Some roads though, use a spiral bound timetable. Kansas City Southern
and Canadian Pacific have such ETT's. They have card stock covers with
spiral bindings. The pages in such timetables cannot be changed out.
And since merging into the massive beast it has become, UP seems to have
taken a step backwards with their timetables. Today's UP ETT's appear
as if they were created by a junior high school kid working at his PC
after completing his homework. Yes, it looks cheap and quickly done. Quite
the dummying down of what once was one of the better ETT's.
So now let us begin our tour of the employee timetable and how it works.
My plan is to eventually do several columns dealing with the timetable.
This one will describe a very user friendly timetable. It is my intention
to look at a couple of others in future columns to compare several philosophies
on timetable structure. There is far too much information to present it
all in one column.
You can follow along by clicking onto the first link http://www.railroad.net/santucci/tt13.jpg.
This photo shows us the cover of Missouri Pacific system employee timetable
number 13, dated June 15, 1979. Every ETT contains a timetable number.
Whenever a new timetable is issued, it will have a new number. This number
may be either the next number in sequence or a new series of numbers,
usually beginning with the number 1. In this case, timetable number 13
succeeded number 12. The date on each timetable also includes an effective
time, in this case 1201 a.m. It is of extreme importance that a date and
time effective are included with a timetable. The rules state "A timetable
is in effect from the moment it takes effect." While this statement may
sound redundant, it means exactly what it says. In this case, timetable
13 takes effect at 1201 a.m. on the morning of June 15, 1979. Until that
moment, timetable number 12 is in effect. Once timetable 13 takes effect,
timetable 12 immediately becomes useless and cannot be used under any
circumstances.
You'll observe the term "Central Standard Time except Mountain Standard
Time on Horace Subdivision." While most of the MoPac was operated in the
Central Time Zone, the Horace Sub, of which all but sixteen miles were
operated in Colorado, was located in and operated under the Mountain Time
zone. To compensate for this one hour difference and have the timetable
take effect system wide at the same hour, the notation about Mountain
Time was required. This means it went into effect at 1201 am everywhere
on the system, but just not at the exact same moment system wide.
With the moment the new timetable takes effect, any and all scheduled
trains must now assume the schedule of the new timetable. In some cases,
their schedule may be changed or even eliminated with the new timetable.
Under such circumstances, train orders would be issued to such trains
in the hours in advance of the new timetable actually taking effect to
authorize them to operate as an extra train. If an order was not issued
and there was no schedule for them in the new timetable, that train would
be required to be in the clear of the main track by the moment the new
timetable took effect or provide flag protection as they no longer carried
any authority to occupy the main track.
Notice the word "System" above the timetable number. This tells the employees
that this timetable covers the entire MoPac system and not just a division.
Had it been issued for only a specific portion of the system, there would
be the name of a division or region (or both) instead of the word system.
Before MoPac adopted the system format for timetables, they would state
what region and then the divisions and subsidiary companies within that
region were governed by the new timetable.
Then there is the notations of "For the government of employees concerned"
and also "The Railroad Company Reserves the Right to Vary Therefrom as
Circumstances May Require." The first quote is pretty obvious and for
those of us veterans of the industry, we fully understand that second
quote as meaning, "Do as I say, not as I tell you."
At the bottom is a list of some of the senior officers of the carrier.
MoPac, when adopting the system format for their ETT's in 1969, opted
to go with a plastic coated paper cover instead of the more common card
stock cover. The plastic coated cover tended to hold up much better. This
format and numbering system lasted for twenty-three timetables and into
the MoPac/UP merger in December 1982. With the initial issue of system
timetable #1, the MoPac buzz saw emblem adorned the cover. When the screaming
eagle emblem was adopted, it was then used. After the UP took over, the
MoPac name was retained but the UP shield replaced the screaming eagle.
Also, the names of subsidiary companies owned by MoPac were included
on the cover. Names like Chicago & Eastern Illinois, Texas & Pacific,
Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf and Missouri & Illinois appeared under
the "Mi ssouri Pacific Railroad Co." name. As these components were fully
merged into MoPac over the years, their names disappeared from the timetable
cover.
Clicking onto http://www.railroad.net/santucci/tt13-9.jpg
brings us to the division officer page and also the table of contents.
The divisions are listed as part of the different regions and the officers
that headed up those regions and divisions are listed. On the table of
contents page, you can see the organization of the divisions within each
region, then the alphabetical listing of each subdivision. You'll notice
that some subdivisions retain the name of their original railroad. The
Midland Valley, NO&LC (New Orleans & Lowe r Coast) and TNM (Texas
& New Mexico) were just three individual railroads or parts of railroads
that the MoPac took control of over the years and eventually fully merged
into the system.
Click http://www.railroad.net/santucci/tt13-2.jpg.
These pages are the station and special instruction pages for the Chicago
and Pana Subdivisions. You'll notice the subdivision names as well as
the Chicago and Illinois Division names. MoPac arranged their timetables
in division order. All of the subdivisions of each division were grouped
together with the higher priority lines listed first followed by the branch
and secondary lines. The Chicago Division was unique in that it was comprised
of only one subdivision, the Chicago Sub. All other divisions on the MoPac
had multiple subdivisions.
On page 2 in the subdivision special instructions are the listing of
speed limits and restrictions for the Chicago Sub and a portion of the
Pana Sub. The speed limits and restrictions are indicated by two sets
of numbers separated by a dash. For example, MP 153-17.This indicates
milepost 153, pole 17. At one time most railroads had a pole line parallel
to their right of ways. These were telephone poles that carried communication
lines. The pole line included signal, telephone, block or track phone,
yard phone lines and back in the day, telegraph lines. Those phones known
as the block or track phone was the Dispatcher line. You picked up the
phone and listened to make certain nobody was talking, pressed the button
on the handset and stated your location. If you were at Glover (GLUH-vur),
you would just say "Glover" and then wait. When the Dispatcher was free
to speak with you he would respond "Glov er" and you then proceeded to
identify yourself, your train and then state your business. The yard line
was a similar communication system but this line only connected the towers
and freight agencies. The Dispatcher had no link to this line. And being
that as the case, some interesting conversations were had pertaining to
some of the Dispatchers.
The amount of poles per mile varied, usually between 40 and 50. A few
miles might have 52 while others might only have 48. In same cases, the
line was only around 40 poles, stretching to 42 or 43 in some miles. These
poles were used in designating the exact geographic location of switches,
the beginning and end of speed restrictions or speed limits, the beginning
and end of train order protection for on track workers and also stations.
To make it easier on train crews, every tenth pole had a stripe on it
that corresponded to its count. The tenth pole in the mile had a single
stripe; the twentieth pole had two stripes, the thirtieth three and so
on. This was so we didn't have to count every single pole per mile when
it came to dealing with speed restrictions and the like. Today most of
the pole lines are long gone and tenths of miles are used in their place
as location designators. Some railroads g o all out and give you quarter
and half mile markers as well as the mileposts in each mile; some, but
not all.
Included on the subdivision special instruction page are locations of
yard limits, the number of main tracks and their designations, signal
systems in service as well as other operating requirements that may be
in effect. There is also a list of locations not listed on the station
page that are significant. MoPac showed these as "Business Tracks." These
would normally be locations of industries, team tracks and the like. You'll
also notice the Cissna Park Industrial Track and information about it.
While not a main track, it was necessary to mention this track as it was
more than just a spur or business track.
Hot Box and Dragging Equipment detector locations are noted. It was very
important to know the exact location of the detectors for braking purposes.
It was always recommended to avoid excessive or prolonged air braking
when operating over the detectors. You also wanted to avoid stopping on
the detectors whenever possible. Detectors are covered quite extensively
as to the signals displayed on them and what was required when a train
was stopped by them.
The MoPac used route signals that informed you of what you're routing
would be as opposed to speed signals that tell you exactly how fast or
slow to proceed. Information about the speed through switches and what
type of switches were in service such as remote controlled power switches
or spring switches was placed on the subdivision special instructions.
The number of the switch or turnout indicates what speed is allowed when
turning out through it. More information about the types of turnouts and
their corresponding speeds is provided in the system special instructions
at the back of the timetable.
The subdivision special instruction page states the type of signal system
in service. The exact location of such signal systems is also listed.
We move on to the station page now. The lines drawn next to the stations
on the station page are track diagrams. While not all roads use them,
MoPac made great use of such diagrams. These diagrams indicated single
and multiple main tracks, locations of sidings and what side of the track
they were located, lines that branched off the main track and/or sidings
and also the crossing at grade of other rail lines. Solid lines breaking
off from the main tracks indicated another route that connected to the
subdivision. The dotted lines indicate the crossing of another railroad
at grade. The initials of the railroad or railroads that crossed at each
particular location are listed next to the station name. On the double
track portion of the subdivision, the solid lines that connect the two
tracks at various locations designate the location of crossover switches
between the main tracks. The angle of them in dicates the direction of
the crossovers.
The color highlighted areas on some of the track diagrams are used to
indicate the type of signal system in service on that particular track
segment. Orange was used to designate CTC (Centralized Traffic Control)
while green was used to indicate ABS (Automatic Block Signal). Areas with
no color at all were non-signaled track that was controlled by train order,
yard limits or some other method of operation that did not use signals
controlled by track circuits. This territory is referred to as "dark territory,"
a name derived from the lack of illuminated signals.
The portion of the route between Chicago and Dolton Junction is shown
with no color. While this segment had automatic block signal rules in
effect, it was actually owned and operated by the Chicago & Western
Indiana Railroad. This information appears on the subdivision special
instruction page. CWI rules, timetable and special instructions were in
effect on this portion, hence the lack of color, just as in the portion
of the Pana Sub on page 2 that is not colored.
If you look at the far left side of the station page on page 2, you'll
notice a bracket with the words "Joint MP-L&N." This segment of track
is jointly owned by the both MoPac and Louisville & Nashville and
was pointed out here. The MoPac was the "senior" owner of the two roads
and pretty much called the shots. The Uniform Code of Operating Rules
used by the MoPac and various other southwestern roads was in effect as
was the MoPac timetable and special instructions. At one time there was
a separate MoPac/L&N Joint Chicago Subdivision timetable in effect
that covered this portion of the railroad. Between 1969 and 1976 they
were joint C&EI/ L&N timetables before the C&EI flag was lowered
permanently by parent MoPac. L&N employees were only required to carry
the joint timetable during these days, but MoPac employees were required
to carry both the system and Chicago Division timetables. During the days
of the joint timetable a notation on the station page mentioned the joint
timetable being in effect. The use of the joint timetable ended in 1979
with system timetable #13. All the information was placed into the system
timetable negating the requirement for the joint timetable.
Direction for the subdivision is indicated at the top of the page. In
the case of the Chicago Sub moving from top to bottom is timetable direction
south while coming up from the bottom of the page is north. Each subdivision
is assigned a north-south or east-west direction. The assignment of direction
generally directly correlates with the actual configuration of the route.
While some lines will meander into all directions, specific direction
has to be assigned. If the route is generally north-south or east-west
in overall configuration, one of those designations will be used.
Some roads have designated their entire railroad as either east-west
or north-south. It didn't matter if some lines operated contrary to the
compass direction. Wisconsin Central was one such road. The entire railroad
was an east-west route in my days there even though some subdivisions
were actually more of a north south configuration. As a result, some trains
actually changed timetable directions during their journey going from
being a westbound to an eastbound train. T011 and T012, the trains operating
between Fond du Lac, WI and Gladstone, MI were a prime example of that.
T011 was a westbound departing Fond du Lac but when it entered the Shawano
Sub at Neenah, WI, it became an eastbound train. The timetable direction
from Neenah to Argonne, WI, where the Shawano Sub ended was eastward.
So a westbound train out of FDL became an eastbound train from Neenah
to Gladstone. And likewise the westbound T012 became an eastbound train
when entering the Neenah Sub at its namesake city en route to Fond du
Lac.
Observe the column on the left that shows miles. Every subdivision has
mileage calculated from a specific point. In the case of the Chicago Sub
as shown here, it is from Dearborn Station in Chicago. While Dearborn
Station had long since closed and the trackage used to access it had been
removed, it was shown as a matter of reference.
In between the station names (just under and above each name) you'll
see a set of numbers. For an example we'll use Villa Grove and Block.
Just below Block and above Villa Grove is the number 9.5. This number
indicates the distance between the two stations, in this case being 9.5
miles.
On the right middle of the page is a column with alpha-numeric numbers.
MoPac assigned a number peculiar to each location on a subdivision. There
were no two stations anywhere on the system that had the same designations.
Each alpha-numeric code, known as its "CIRC-7" code, was unique. Yard
Center is ZA-18. If there was another location designated at milepost
18 on any other subdivision, it used an alpha code that was different.
For example, Percy, IL on the Pinckneyville Sub was also located at milepost
18 on that subdivision. However, it was designated as C-18. On the Chicago
Sub, milepost 18 was located right at Sibley Boulevard, Illinois Rt. 83.
Sibley was the location of the main office building at Yard Center at
also the sight of a major interlocking also known as a control point.
As it worked out, it was also the operating center of the yard, even if
it wasn't exactly the geographic center.
The CIRC-7 was used as part of the TCS computer system designed and used
by MoPac. This system was created in part, to eliminate the potential
for confusion with regards to station names. Being that the MoPac was
a rather large railroad, over 11,000 miles, there was the distinct possibility
of two or stations having the same name, only in different states and
on different subdivisions. The CIRC-7 designation eliminated the possibility
of misrouted cars. Unfortunately, I cannot recall what the individual
letters in CIRC represented.
Siding designation and length is indicated in the last two columns on
the station page. Other auxiliary tracks that were designated sidings
were indicated in this column. Being that there were multiple auxiliary
tracks adjacent to the main tracks at both Yard Center and Chicago Heights,
they didn't use siding designations but rather called them yards. The
notation "Cars" was the car count each siding held. This car count was
based on fifty foot car lengths, the average size of a freight car back
then. There was also a designation in fe et which was actually quite important.
When setting up meets, the Dispatcher did not want to try to meet two
trains at a location where neither train would fit, although it has been
attempted many times over the years.
At the two sidings in Momence you'll notice the letter "n" and "s" preceding
the car counts. There were sidings along side of each main track. To differentiate
between the two, the one along the northbound main was called the northward
siding and the one along side the southbound main was the southward siding.
At the bottom of the station page you'll notice the number 339.0. This
number indicates the total mileage of the subdivision in miles and tenths
of miles.
You'll notice a wide array of symbols or characters located next to the
station names as well. Clicking onto http://www.railroad.net/santucci/tt13-8.jpg
explains all of these characters. The use of these characters helped to
simplify the station page keeping it less congested. It also saved space
in the timetable so that they didn't have to use full descriptions on
every station page throughout the entire timetable. At a glance, we'll
take JAY as an example. Based on the characters listed and the track diagram,
we see a crossing with the EJ&E Railway at Jay. Based on the characters
listed, we can see there are yard limits in effect here, a manual railroad
crossing at grade, a wayside base radio and also an open train order office.
The manual crossing at grade was with the Elgin, Joliet & Eastern,
which was controlled on sight manually by the Operator assigned there.
The wayside radio base was that of the one located inside the tower located
at the crossing known as "Jay Tower." The Operator at Jay Tower also copied
tr ain orders and delivered them to MoPac and L&N trains here. Now
if you had to write this information out on the subdivision special instructions
for every location, it could quickly become quite cumbersome.
A list of roadside signs used in conjunction with everyday operation
is included on the character explanation page.
At the point in time this timetable was in effect, the Pana Sub between
Pana Jct. (pronounced PAY-nuh) and Mitchell Yard was owned and operated
by Conrail. Their timetable and rulebook were in effect, so any special
instructions, speed limits and speed restrictions were found in their
timetables. MoPac employees operating over this railroad were issued and
required to carry Conrail timetables and rulebooks. In the early 80's
MoPac purchased this segment of track from Conrail and subsequent timetables
carried all of the information required. The portion between Mitchell
Yard and Granite City, IL was a jointly owned by Conrail and Illinois
Central Gulf. Again, there was a separate timetable in effect for this
portion. The Terminal Railroad Association of St Louis (TRRA) owned the
remaining portion of the route MoPac used to access St Louis on this subdivision.
The station portion of this page conveys no authority for MoPac trains,
it merely provides information.
Next, click onto http://www.railroad.net/santucci/tt13-5.jpg.
This brings up some additional special instructions. The map shows the
Kansas City Terminal trackage. As you can see it appears to look somewhat
complex. This map helps to explain the lay of the land as it were and
also includes special instructions about proceeding through what appears
to be quite the labyrinth. You'll also notice on page 31 there is a notation
about operating on Union Pacific trackage and the requirements to have
the Joint Tenant Line Rules in your possession. This book has the appearance
of a timetable and includes rules and special instructions for operating
on UP trackage in the Omaha Terminal area. Somewhere in my personal collection
of railroad timetables and rulebooks, I have a Joint Tenant Line book.
Now click onto http://www.railroad.net/santucci/tt13-6.jpg.
We see the Dallas Subdivision which hosted Amtrak. The times listed next
to the stations are the scheduled times of Amtrak at those locations.
The letter s next to the time indicates this is a regular scheduled station
stop. The letter f next to the time designates this as a flag stop. Trains
will only stop on request. If there is nobody on the train getting off
at that location or nobody visible on the platform to the approaching
train, they do not stop. By 1979 there were very few timetable scheduled
trains operating on the MoPac system. Most of these were the first class
Amtrak trains.
On either side of the station page are the designations for the scheduled
trains that convey their authority. The direction, class and train number
are included. As you can see, number 21 is a first class train operating
its schedule in a westward direction.
If you look at the track diagram at the bottom of page 46 you'll notice
an additional track in between the two main tracks at several locations.
These are actually sidings located in between the mains. Such siding placement
offers incredible flexibility in moving and dispatching trains. You'll
also notice the station BOP. This is not an actual town, but rather the
sight of a large General Motors assembly plant. In 1979 GM was building
the Regal, Cutlass and Grand Prix models at this plant. It was known as
"Bop" but actually just a station within the city of Arlington, TX. For
what its worth, Arlington is supposed to be geographically equidistant
to both Dallas and Fort Worth.
Clicking onto http://www.railroad.net/santucci/tt13-7.jpg
brings us to the Brownsville Subdivision of the Kingsville Division. Here
we see both CTC and dark territory operation. If you check out the subdivision
special instructions, you'll notice a significant amount of information
dealing with the operation over foreign railroads as part of this line.
Adding such information negated the requirement for MoPac crews to have
to carry Santa Fe timetables with them while on this trackage.
Being that MoPac operated via other railroads under trackage rights agreements;
provisions were made to accommodate the delivery of the proper information
to the crews that would be operating the trains. In some cases like above,
such information was conveyed through the subdivision special instructions.
In other instances, the amount of information (e.g. rules, speed restrictions
and other special instructions) was too extensive to place on the subdivision
special instructions pages. Instead, such information was posted in the
system special instructions portion in the back of the timetable. Information
for some of the Santa Fe trackage rights pertaining to rules, signals
and other special instructions takes up over two pages in the system special
instructions. Rules and spe cial instructions pertaining to trackage rights
on the Frisco takes over a page a half and the rules and special instructions
pertaining to trackage rights on the Kansas City Southern and their Louisiana
& Arkansas subsidiary take up nearly two and a half pages. At one
time, a joint MoPac (and subsidiary Texas & Pacific)/KCS-L&A timetable
was issued for the segment of the railroad in which both railroads operated.
Adding the information to the system special instructions negated the
need for an additional timetable.
Now we go to the system special instructions at http://www.railroad.net/santucci/tt13-4.jpg.
The system special instructions cover a wide variety of topics. As you
can see from the two pages I have posted here there is a great deal of
information about speed restrictions. Certain types of equipment will
have speed restrictions that must be adhered to for various reasons. There
are also instructions dealing with the special handling of certain types
of loads as well as some types of locomotives.
Each item in the special instructions will have a number and often also
a number with a letter assigned to it. If the special instructions must
be superceded for any reason, a train order or Superintendent's Bulletin
would be issued. Such an issue would include the specific system special
instruction number and, if applicable, letter. Such a train order or bulletin
would read something to the effect of "Timetable no 3 System Special Instructions
item no 8 is changed to read "
There is a section in the system special instructions that explains hot
box and dragging equipment detectors. The proper procedures for inspecting
a car or cars and if applicable, the entire train when stopped by a detector,
are clearly explained and fully covered. The detectors themselves are
also explained.
Changes, deletions and any other revisions to the operating or safety
rule books are also handled by the system special instructions. Being
that we were using a rule book issued in 1968, by 1979 there had been
significant changes and modifications issued to supercede what was originally
issued in that book. In the timetable we are studying today, there were
no less than six and one half pages of revisions to the Uniform Code of
Operating Rules.
A section is included that deals with the operation of engines in various
aspects of the job including short time load ratings, operation through
water, shoving and back up movements and even restrictions in using the
whistle. You probably noticed one of the characters on the page explaining
them was the number 9 in a circle. This is item 9 in the special instructions
that covers no whistle ordinances at specific locations. There is even
an item that deals with the operation of rail testing cars and equipment.
The qualifications of Engineers is also discussed as part of item 7.
While only one paragraph, it was quite comprehensive in what it had to
say.
And finally, go to http://www.railroad.net/santucci/tt13-3.jpg.
You'll notice the names of company doctors and their respective locations.
You'll also notice a speed table at the very bottom of the page. This
table converts elapsed time into speed in miles per hour. The main reason
for this conversion table is to cover the possibility of having a speedometer
fail en route. There are mileposts every mile and you are required to
have (in the days of this timetable) a railroad approved watch. Should
your speedometer not be working, you can easily check your speed just
the same using this table and your watch, timing the miles.
Whenever a new timetable is issued, a notice or bulletin is posted in
advance of its taking effect. We don't just show up one day and they say
here is a new timetable. In the days of this timetable, we were still
using train orders. A train order was issued 24 hours prior to and then
six days after its taking effect. The wording was something to the effect
of "Acceptance of this train order confirms that you have timetable no
13 (or whatever number the new one taking effect was) in your possession.
In those days MoPac was very generous and you had no problem getting
a new one. The Operators, Trainmasters, Yardmasters and Callers all had
cases of them in their offices, so there was generally no problem in getting
a new one or several of them. I always took several as one went into my
personal collection and the other went into my grip, after studying it
of course.
Over the years, many railroads issued new timetables twice a year to
correspond with the time change between standard and daylight savings
time. As the freight railroads exited the passenger business, those that
issued the twice a year timetables began to stray from the twice per year
policy. Now it is not uncommon to see the same timetable remain in effect
for a couple of years or more.
The employee timetable is required to be in your possession while on
duty along with the operating rulebook, safety rulebook, air brake and
train handling rules and any other required books. The other required
books will vary from railroad to railroad. The books or circulars that
employees are required to carry are listed where else, but in the special
instructions of the timetable. Failure to carry the timetable, rulebooks
and other required materials can result in disciplinary action being taken
against the offending employee. If an employee is caught by the FRA not
having the required books, they have the right to assess a fine against
the offending employee.
It seems more and more in recent years that whenever a new timetable
goes into effect, within days or hours, bulletins are issued to amend
the mistakes that appear in the new timetable. It used to be that proofs
were checked very closely for mistakes before they "put it to bed," but
that seems to no longer be the case today.
I have publicly suggested in the past that before a new timetable is
printed and distributed, proof copies should be handed out to several
of the better Engineers and Conductors working each subdivision for their input, revisions
and corrections. By using the people you pay to adhere to this timetable,
those who use it daily, you would likely get a much more accurate timetable.
There would likely be no need to be putting out bulletins correcting all
the mistakes before the ink is dry on the pages. While it is possible
that some mistakes do occur at the printing house, more of them come from
the railroad. However, it is likely my suggestion will not ever be taken
up.
In any event, the timetable is a vital component of railroad operations
and all employees should take the time to study and learn it. While there
is no way one can recall every item within the timetable, you should be
able to know where to look to find the information you need without having
to fumble through the thing. To quote a line Conrail used at the beginning
of all their timetables, "Know your timetable."
And with that, we now conclude today's tour of the employee timetable.
Again, I wish to thank Michael Roque, Otto Vondrak and all the fine folks
at Railroad.net for graciously hosting the accompanying photos.
And so it goes.
Tuch
Scenes of LA Metrorail, and NY Subway can been seen. I'm glad to see these commercials supporting public transit, vs. that other group who had disinformation about Public Transit.
In 2005, the N will be.
The Council Member for Coney Island is all for it. He says:
“What we should do is establish a direct line from Manhattan to Coney Island — express trains for the Brooklyn Nets,” Recchia said.
So maybe we'll get the Sea Beach express back. Diamond-N/NX would be fastest.
I like the idea, and had thought of it even before this announcement. As the article said, there is more open space out there, so why not build on that instead of mowing down an up and coming neighborhood? (The same on the other side of Flathush. Why mow down Fulton and Willoughby for skyscrapers when there are plenty of lots on Schermerhorn?).
They should just find something smaller (that would fit in one block) to build on the LIRR yard, as it would be nice to see that ugly space filled.
One person suggests buinding on "the failed Atlantic Center Mall". Is that really failed. The new addition hasn't even opened yet. Maybe then it will be better. The arena should have been on that whole site, as that was where the new Ebbets would have been, and it was all mostly empty for so long. But it would be ridiculous to demolish such a huge complex that is still being built now.
But the professional basketball arena would be the thing to bring some winter activity to Coney Island, and help revitalize the whole area.
How much Second Avenue Subway can you get for that price?
Sounds like they're taking their cue from Amtrak... Only the first run, and they had it stuck behind a freight train. :-)
-- David
Philadelphia, PA
Still, a great achievement.
If you're starting in Manhattan, your express ride is the LIRR; the cheaper, slower option is the subway.
Go to Howard Beach and watch all the travelers who prefer to carry their luggage down the stairs than to wait for the elevator.
OFF TOPIC discussion board for RAILFANS
RailfanWindow.com Gallery of Photos
High-floor buses aren't useful to everyone with luggage, but they're fine for most. Low-floor buses are better, of course, as long as they're run often enough to satisfy demand.
And what if you can do neither safely with bags? And even if you can, do you want to? Of course not; the TA is steadily making more stops ADA compliant.
Your post misses the point and the topic entirely.
AirTrain isn't about superiority over any form of bus technology but over the use of a bus which cannot deliver schedule or seamless connections. The bus itself as a vehicle can be accommodating.
One thing of note is that a low floor bus generally is arranged with fewer seats available. You can have an articulated low-floor bus to get around that.
Many bus routes around the world somehow manage to consistently maintain their schedules; many train routes manage to consistently fall off-schedule. It must be magic.
False statement at Kennedy; and the amount of infrastructure needed would cost nearly as much to construct as AirTrain.
Stephen Baumann has provided good data here on relative operating costs; rail (esp. automated rail with no drivers) costs far less than buses to operate annually, so even the modest construction savings your approach would be gobbled up by operating costs of a less efficient system.
If you have specific data that contradicts what Stephen posted or that the PA provided in the EIS, feel free to post it.
If you want to know what the PA thinks specifically about that, write a letter and ask them.
Greyhound is also faster to Boston, and is probably faster to WDC as well. Long distances, I think Greyhound in general is faster.
I think a High-Speed Line is neccessary.
Source for this??? According to www.greyhound.com, the fastest trip from NY to Boston is 4:20. The fastest trip Amtrak offers is 3:30.
I would add that Amtrak is also considerably more comfortable.
Why? You terminate from north the A, from south the S - connect them and
run an alternate service to Far Rock and Rock Park.
This board always talks about putting subways on the AirTrain tracks. Why replace the whole A fleet with dual modes when only 4 of the 10 cars could even platform?
The greatest potential is the reverse: build a small fleet of dual mode AirTrains, and run them on the subway tracks.
So the A train will share the local tracks with the C while AirTrain has priority on the express tracks. What hours would you propose?
This is the same question that comes up if the JFK Express operates with subway cars.
Actually, a Jay St to Howard Beach non-stop train (or 1 stop at Boradway Jct) would only be a few minutes quicker than a regular A express. So you could run it right in front of a regular A train and it would never catch up to the previous A, except in rush hour.
As for re-instating the JFK express, remember that the northern terminal of 57th & 6th is no longer available.
Regards,
Jimmy
Too many E trains there? Send more to 179th street!
I encourage the MTA to see if they can make it work.
[Maybe they put the kibosh the earlier rumored effort to run special train-to-the-planes because they're busy planning to jam the LIRR into the Cranberry tunnels. Then again, maybe it's the AirTrains they would put into Cranberry. They would have to run during rush hour to address the Brookfield paradigm, but would cost a lot less than $5 billion. We'll see if it's one of the options the Governor unveils.]
Too bad nobody thought of this years ago. Instead of 4-car platforms at each terminal, AirTrain could have been built with 10-car platforms each spanning two terminals.
And if AirTrain had used the same propulsion system as the subway, then nothing would need to be replaced at all.
Wait a sec. I thought of it three years ago, and I'm sure many others beat me to the punch. Too bad nobody was listening.
Happy reading.
Even if not in NY, you can still call and ask how to get a copy. If they ask for postage reimbursement, it's well worth it if you're interested in this.
Any EIS has to assess the impacts ($$$, service, construction, environmental etc.)of various alternatives. The Preferred Alternative is what they want to build; they have to identify and examine in detail other Alternatives, including a No Build (Do Nothing, Status Quo) alternative.
First there's a draft EIS. The public gets to submit comments. The agency doing the EIS (MTA, PA etc. must address, in writing, comments by the public). The Final EIS incorporates all of that.
The PA included the Rail Option as the preferred alternative (that's what the agency wanted to build). A bus option was looked at too, but was rejected because it lacked the efficiency, convenience comfort, of the preferred rail option. It also, operationally, costs more to operate.
I encourage you to take a look at the document. Whether or not you agree with it you will learn a lot about what the EIS process entails.
With due respect, no one asked how an EIS process works in general. We know that.
No one asked whether it is posssible to obtain an old document from government authorities. We all realize that, with sufficient effort and expense, it can be done.
Rather, since you have this particular document at your fingertips, and most of us don't, several people have asked if you wouldn't mind telling us why certain options were rejected.
If you answer is "Sorry, I can't be bothered," why not say so?
That may be true, but if the powers that be (Pataki) tell MTA to do it, it will be done.
WHOA !, to supplement the IRT fleet or replace the R-62's ?
Bill "Newkirk"
I hope they have full ATO with only the TO having to open and close the doors (he/she won't need a hand on the controller). I also want them to be like SEPTA's M-4 with a small cab and railfan window. OPTO with a narrow cab is possible-look at the Baltimore Metro.
Just in time for the 2012 Oympics!
Just thought I'd let everybody know that I've secured a place to live in New York City, and I'll be moving up there on Monday, February 16th. I'll be sharing a decent-sized two-bedroom apartment with an NYU student in the Sunset Park neighborhood of Brooklyn. The apartment itself is only two blocks from the 53rd Street station on the (R) and four blocks from the 59th Street station on the (N) and (R). Once the tracks on the Manhattan Bridge are re-opened, I'll be able to have a nice one-seat ride on the (N) express all the way into Midtown and beyond.
With any luck and perhaps a little divine intervention, I'll hopefully have a job waiting for me when I arrive in NYC. I had four interviews with architecture firms over the past couple weeks, and at least a couple of them seemed to go very well. Of course, I'm also sending out resumes to additional firms in the meantime. Wish me luck.
I'm very excited about moving to NYC, and your continued prayers are greatly appreciated. The only possible downside, of course, is that if I ever get bored with New York, the next city I move to may need to be London. :-)
Peace,
-- David
Philadelphia, PA
-- David
Philadelphia, PA
Are you goingto go for some WTC or transit-related architectural work?
$2.8 billion, plus the Freedom Tower...lots of work, need assistant architects for the details?
$2.8 billion, plus the Freedom Tower...lots of work, need assistant architects for the details?
Most of that work is going to the big corporate firms, and I'm looking more at smaller firms that specialize in smaller-scale projects. Right now I'd rather be overseeing small projects on my own than doing widget details for a big project like that.
I'm not sure I'd even want to be associated with something with an Orwellian name like "Freedom Tower", and I don't care much for what has become of that design, anyway... Not sure I could bite my tongue long enough to work on that project. :-)
I'd love to do work on Calatrava's design for the PATH station, but I don't even know what local firms are involved with that one. Hopefully not the same ones involved with the "Freedom Tower" debacle.
-- David
Philadelphia, PA
You can contact Calatrava's firm and find out how to qualify as a subcontractor.
(guess ya had ta live there to get it) Heh.
You have also arrived just in time for the trolley operator classes at Branford in March.
Does anyone ever get bored with NYC? "He who is tired of New York is tired of life", as Dr Johnson didn't say.
But if you did come to London you would certainly find a varied and interesting rail scene. You'd have big problems finding an inexpensive place to live, though!
Oh, I dont know, surely Atlanta or Charlotte or Dallas would fit the bill quite nicely ...
Funny though, how those of us born and raised in "fun city," we've NEVER been to the top of the Empire State Bldg, never gone to Liberty Island, coiuld give a qwap about "Lion Kink", and MANY of us have NEVER seen a Broadway Play (school fieldtrips excepted) ... heh.
Now let's talk about CHARLOTTE ... hahahahahahaha ... couldn't restrain myself - BEEN there. Heh. OK - Really really POSITIVE thing to say about Charlotte, ("HOME of Jim and Tammy Bakker" *AND* "Home of the BILLY GRAHAM EXPRESSWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!") is "Bubba's Barbecue." Best swine in the south, "Please visit our GRITS plantation, and THANK YEW for visiting AMERICA!" (heh) ... Best damned BARBQ I ever had, tho' - kept going back for MORE! (slurp!) ... :)
But besides Bubba's, what ELSE does the SOUTH have *NOW* that Shrub's shipped off the textiles, machine tool making and other precision technical crafts to CHINA? Whoops. When the bubbas find a WHOLE lot more "time on their hands in the devil's playground" suddenly reality lights - those "jobs" in the southeast US lasted for only a few years. Hell - SATURN had to fold to the ghads of GM since them "hicks" in GOP land are wimps anyway. :(
Gotta love it - Shrub is doing to the southeast what his party did to the northeast in the NIXON/FORD years (Genuine newspaper headlines - "FORD TO NYC - DROP DEAD" *just* like Shrub's done to us NYC/NYS taxpayers - sphincter tingling sufficiently yet? WATCH the next 3 years for sphincter tingle - I've ALREADY seen the numbers, yike! :(
But PLEASE ... the SOUTH is getting from their "republicans eat their offspring" reality already - check the employment numbers of all those corporations the south is "Lezzie-fairying" ... heh. Those that fled the rustbelt are DOING IT TO THE SOUTHLAND! :)
Gotta love it ... wonder if the crackers are STILL gonna pull the ENRON lever at the polls this year. Heh. REALITY at a Wal*Mart price says the SOUTH will *finally* figure out precisely what that "painful rectal itch" REALLY is. :)
Maybe those people who were born and raised in "Fun City" are sheltered, uncultured boors, but many people born and raised in New York City have been to those places.
Really really POSITIVE thing to say about Charlotte, is "Bubba's Barbecue." Best swine in the south
I guess there's nothing positive to say about Charlotte.
Besides, too many Republicans and religious nutcases down in those parts for my taste.
-- David
Philadelphia, PA
The Sun Belt may not be everyone's cultural or political cup of tea, so to speak, but there's just one thing to remember: They have jobs. We don't.
New York State as a whole was slightly worse than average, despite 9/11 -- almost the losses were in NYC, most from August 2001 to August 2002. With all the business pushed out of NYC by the disaster, the NY suburbs and NJ lost almost nothing.
People seem to have realized that NYC is the place to be. So no one is leaving. They are just riding it out.
Who did best in the recession? Places that benefit from lots of government spending, either because they have the elderly (Florida, Nevada, Arizona) they have defense of they just suck up lots of tax dollars (ie. Upstate NY). Energy areas did well too (Wyoming). Just like the 1970s, when I ended up in the Sunbelt too for my last two years of high school (Tulsa, OK).
Shoot me if you like, but I believe that the difference in life circumstances between those living in the United States and those living in places like Africa, Latin America, and Asia, which grew wider in the past century, is going to close in the next century, one way or the other. And unless we start thinking of them as human beings equally deserving of our concern, its going to the the other. It may not affect me, but it will affect my children.
And in any event, if any jobs are lost to the scab Asians, they will be jobs New York previously lost to the non-union, scab southerners. Under the circumstances, I'd say we in New York deserve a better price where we can get it.
In:
- Filmmaking in LIC
- Cheap higher education on Long Island, the Bronx, Westchester
- Biotech in Jersey and Brooklyn
- Finance, still
- Small theater in Brooklyn and Manhattan
- Small consulting
- The fashion industry ain't going away when all those Africans, Latinas and Asians get some bucks in their pockets
- The artists and musicians ain't runnin' over to Camaroon any time in the near future. They're coming here.
- Specialty manufacturing
- Technical services
- Health care
Every single one of those things needs educated people and transportation -- to the BOROUGHS -- desperately, to keep going.
IT, software, and Telecomm started to feel the pain nationwide around March 2001. Many of those poor folks are still unemployed.
I have family "down yonder" ... THEY are getting laid off now ... they're not taking to it any more kindly than Kodak employees in Rochester. "MARS? Whattabout HERE?" seems to be the common refrain THROUGHOUT the country ... even the damned plucked chickens are coming in from south of the equator these days. :(
BUBBA seems to be NOTICING! :)
Maybe in general, but in my line of work -- unless I wanted to spend my life designing strip malls or cookie-cutter McMansions -- my best job prospects are not in the Sun Belt.
The US cities with by far the strongest architectural communities are New York and Chicago, and to a lesser extent, Boston and Los Angeles. If you're a young architect looking to get established in the profession, those are the places to go.
In reality, if I ever got truly tired of New York, that probably means I'd be tired of urban life in general. If that was the case, I'd most likely head off to somewhere in the Pacific Northwest.
-- David
Philadelphia, PA
Keep in mind, however, that you have specialized skills. New York offers good opportunities in many fields. Finance, publishing, performing arts, and others. On the other hand, New York's persistent inability to provide jobs for the unskilled and uneducated, an issue that's persisted for decades in all types of economic conditions, is its curse. Times readers on the Upper West Side may enjoy denigrating "McJobs," but what they can't or won't realize is that being a "Wal-Martian," for example, is vastly better than being out of work, or working off the books in some crappy bodega for two bucks an hour.
--
Peter Rosa
prosa123@yahoo.com
Remember what you said about a smaller percentage of New Yorkers having Cable TV than in other parts of the country? Those places you've mentioned (except for Atlanta) are only good for sitting home and watching television.
Welcome home.
BTW, where you'll be in Sunset Park is just a stone's throw from the Bush Terminal facilities where alot of development-related things should be happenning over the next few months.
Once you have employment and can afford to eat, check out dim sum over at the Ocean Palace on 8th Avenue due east of you. Of Fiorentinos on Avenue U. a long walk from the Avenue U. station on the N (past the F train). Or, change at Pacific to get to Juniors over DeKalb Avenue.
Finally, if you'd like to stop by a church, check out the whopper of a Catholic church on 5th Avenue just up the road, the biggest in Brooklyn.
Well, in my price range, my choices were pretty much limited to any place that didn't have a 212 area code. But I reserve the right to move to Manhattan at some point in the future.
Once you have employment and can afford to eat, check out dim sum over at the Ocean Palace on 8th Avenue due east of you. Of Fiorentinos on Avenue U. a long walk from the Avenue U. station on the N (past the F train). Or, change at Pacific to get to Juniors over DeKalb Avenue.
Cool... Know of any good pizza places within delivery/take-out distance of 55th Street and 4th Avenue? I'll need to have a way to reward those who help me move in.
Finally, if you'd like to stop by a church, check out the whopper of a Catholic church on 5th Avenue just up the road, the biggest in Brooklyn.
Cool, I'll have to check it out.... Although as a member of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, it would take one whopper of a church to impress me. :-)
(Of course, size and quality are two different things, and I always love exploring various sacred architecture.)
-- David
Philadelphia, PA
I've attended services at a number of Episcopal churches in Manhattan, and some of them are incredible. St. Thomas Fifth Avenue, St. Mary the Virgin, and Trinity Wall Street are all very impressive. St. Bart's near GCT is rather unique, and Heavenly Rest up near the Guggenheim is a very interesting blend of neo-gothic and art deco.
-- David
Philadelphia, PA
A coed I hope!! :)
-- David
Philadelphia, PA
Chicago to Philadelphia to Brooklyn -- moving up in the world. We still miss you here in the Windy City. Say hello to Brooklyn for me.
-- Ed Sachs
Any help is greatly appreciated.... Thanks!
Peace,
-- David
Philadelphia, PA
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/03/nyregion/03subway.html
Giuliani, DEFINITELY (6) 33%
Giuliani, Leaning (0) 0%
Will Not Vote (2) 11%
Bloomberg, Leaning (3) 17%
Bloomberg, DEFINITELY (2) 11%
Candidate of a Third Party (1) 6%
I'd move someplace else (4) 22%
Click to Cast Your Vote, Please.
What if, by some trick of eminent domain and nimbys-be-damned, the MTA rebuilt, in their entirety, the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 9th Ave Els in Manhattan, the 3rd ave el in the Bronx, and the Myrtle, 5th and Lex Ave Els in Brooklyn? (which would mean putting the el down the middle of a housing project where Hudson Avenue used to be and running trains across the Brooklyn Bridge)
How would these areas, the way they are NOW in 2004, be affected? Which areas would prosper and which would suffer?
www.forgotten-ny.com
However, since your talking that it could be done as a fait accompli, that there would still be problems along the lines, because there would be noise, etc.
Now while we're imagining, would we assume modern els? Or the way they were when taken down? could they be reinforced? Could we use modern equipment or not?
But I'll say one thing, it would solve the SAS problem, and lots cheaper.
In my 'imaginary story' we'd build them the modern way, as noiselessly as possible.
www.forgotten-ny.com
-- It would be a great boon to 9th Avenue, which is almost the least-desirable north-south thoroughfare in Manhattan (aside from 10th and 11th Avenues).
-- It would be very detrimental to 6th Avenue, which has excellent subway service and doesn't need an El
-- Although 2nd & 3rd Aves do not have subway service, reconstructing the Els would make these streets less desirable. Rents would go down.
-- In Brooklyn and the Bronx, where an El was torn down and not replaced with subway service, the neighborhoods would be better off if the Els were rebuilt.
OTOH, a really nice, small, quiet monorail in the middle of the avenue might be a different story.
Els can be built more noiselessly these days; it's the lack of sight lines the nimbys would object to...
www.forgotten-ny.com
The £10 billion minimum cost remains the major stumbling-block. Find this story at This is London.
What's more, apparently there is a Crosslink 2 which would connect Victoria and Kings Cross stations. If both crosslinks were built, apparently Tottenham Court Road would become some sort of mega-transfer station...
Currently, the mere existance of the M25 does much to make long distance rail journeys look uncompetitive to the general public, and my car-driving friends treat the prospect of any rail journey that requires two changes or more with derision. If we had one east-west line, and two north-south lines (Thameslink 2000 long distance: Leeds/Sheffield/York to Brighton/Dover/Eastbourne etc.) and West London-Link (Liverpool/ Manchester/Birmingham/ to Southampton/Portsmouth) then I think there would be a genuine possibility of emptying the motorways.
What a good idea. We might even get electrification north of Bedford... (but I'm not holding my breath).
The only part of BR with any expertise approaching LT is the people responsible for Charing Cross/Cannon Street. I think you could quite happily swap management and not notice a difference. People running Liverpool Street to Shenfield might be able to manage something like the Bakerloo Line, but nothing more demanding than that.
I do feel that an east-west and two north-south axis services is possible and affoardable. The major downside would be that West London Link users would have poor access to Central London. Any suggestions (without doubling up by running additional services to Waterloo/Euston? We have to have simplicity and frequency to get my friends out of their cars.)
Needless to say, the Evening Standard does not support Ken Livingston's re-election.....
There is also a report in the Financial Times that seems more informative and less biased.
The £10 billion estimate applies to Crossrail One, as shown on the Preferred Route Map. That's $18.375 billion at today's rate of exchange, more than the cost of the full length Second Avenue Subway.
The map shows eight new underground stations, so dividing the total cost by the number of new underground stations gives £1.25 billion = $2.3 billion. On the same basis the SAS would cost about $1 billion per station for each of the 16 stations.
Why the big difference?
Crossrail is to be built for 12-car full sized commuter trains, so both tunneling costs and stations costs are likely to be higher than for a normal subway. Also most of the 32 Crossrail stations on existing surface lines would have to be lengthened. And the two southerly branches, Kingston and Ebbsfleet, would have to be converted from third rail to 25KV catenary.
London Regional Metro is a consortium that has an alternative Crossrail plan. LRM would build only the core line through central London from Paddington to Liverpool Street, and connect it to the main lines.
While the core route is well established, a great many options have been considered for the branches. The latest report suggests that some branches are more worthwhile than others, and in particular the Shenfield branch is worthwhile but the Kingston branch is not. I would argue that neither the Ebbsfleet branch nor the Kingston branch should be built. I would also be quite happy if the underground station at Whitechapel (not shown in the LRM plan) were omitted. That would eliminate three underground stations, leaving only the five core stations at Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon and Liverpool Street.
Then there would be just one line, going from Heathrow to Shenfield, and the cost would be reduced by a few billions.
Its far from clear to me what problems exactly Crossrail One II is intended to solve, and I love rail projects, so just think how skeptical the people who actually have to pay up will be. The Ebbsfleet and Kingston branches seem to be intended to solve problems that do not exist.
Crossrail Two used to be the nice straightforward Chelsea-Hackney tube. I suspect it would have a better chance of being built if it stayed that way.
As a person who doesn't drive, and actually uses trains, the major problem facing travellers is those rail terminals. They overload the Underground, turn any luggage-laden long distance journey into a nightmare, and offer uncompetitive journey times compared with the M25. A 10 billion pound project should be aiming to get rid of at least two of them.
It is supposed to relieve overcrowding and prevent businesses from "relocating to Europe".
Or, in their own words: "There are serious implications in not building Crossrail. Congestion on an already overcrowded system will worsen and conditions for passengers will suffer. There is also the potential that, faced with a failing transport infrastructure, international business will relocate to Europe, away from the UK altogether."
I can see the case for relief of overcrowding, but that is a problem confined to parts of the proposed line.
It would be difficult to prove that Crossrail will prevent businesses from "relocating to Europe". Perhaps they should be more worried about losing business to India or China than to other parts of Europe.
When I was at school I learned that Britain was a part of Europe, and since that time I heard that Britain had joined Europe, but apparently I was misinformed in both cases!
Now everything has got really really vague. I guess that the scarmongers had to play the "losing jobs to Europe" card, but does this really depend on overcrowding at Liverpool Street?
I don't think this project has a chance of being funded. Our very own SAS.
Only the British government can safeguard against job loss in India or China. Within 10 years, the U.S. will lost over 1 million IT jobs and no one is doing a thing about these high paying jobs going overseas. I suspect the same will happen to the British if nothing is done to protect their workers. I predict the american "computer programmer" will suffer the same fate as the horse carriage repair man.
>>>The original Thameslink scheme connected Blackfriars and Farringdon stations was a cheap somewhat patchy scheme. The route was formed by a disused route which was last used before World War One. The signalling and track cost just £4 million. Most of the capital was spent on the 60 dual-voltage Class 319 units. The service was basically formed of joining the pervious service north and south of the Thames.<<<
Also that Thameslink is (or was) run by Go-Ahead Rail, and that there has been a planned expansion/rebuild called Thameslink2000 that seems to be on hold. And most of the offical Thameslink site is down.
And that was about it.
So, what is Thameslink?
Is it just continous commuter service from the area North of the Thames to the area South (as implied by the Thameslink2000 maps), what kind of passenger rolling stock does it use, was it around during British Rail times, how on Earth did they find an UNUSED route across London, how does it fit into the whole Regional Operating Company/Rail Network concept, or however Britian styles its many railroad companies nowadays?
In other words, is it anything special?
Yes, but it only runs at most 4 TPH suburban and 4 TPH long distance, being limited by having to share tracks in the south.
as implied by the Thameslink2000 maps
The Thameslink 2000 project, if built, would aim to run 24 TPH through the link, and most would be 12-car trains.
what kind of passenger rolling stock does it use
Main line trains that can take power from third rail (south of the link) or catenary (north of the link).
was it around during British Rail times
I think it has been running for about 15 years. British Rail was split up in the mid nineties.
how on Earth did they find an UNUSED route across London
The north and south parts had separate passenger services with a gap between them.
The connecting tunnel (the link) was originally built for (steam) freight trains, and had steep grades and sharp bends.
how does it fit into the whole Regional Operating Company/Rail Network concept, or however Britian styles its many railroad companies nowadays?
Thameslink operates the trains, National Rail maintains the tracks, and the Strategic Rail Authority is in charge — until the next reorganization.
Thameslink as it currently exists was built on the cheap, but does provide a useful additional facility. Unfortunately the ramshackle arrangements lead to poor timekeeping on Thameslink services. Thameslink 2000 (which might realistically be renamed Thameslink 2020) is the proper job. It would link to more routes on the north side (presently just one), have modern stations capable of handling 12-car trains, and be able to handle 24 tph instead of eight.
The major obstacle to its creation is the series of flat junctions that Thameslink has to negotiate south of the Thames. After leaving Blackfriars station and crossing the bridge across the river, southbound Thameslink locals go straight on, via an unimpeded route, to Elephant and Castle. Unfortunately, this route does not lead to a nice fast line to Brighton, nor does it provide connections to most of southeast London's commuter routes. For those things, the Thameslink needs to go to London Bridge station, which is why the Thameslink expresses go there. But that means they have to cross Metropolitan Junction to get on to the Charing Cross-London Bridge Line; then negotiate the notorious bottleneck of Borough Market Junction; and then, after London Bridge, cross some more flat junctions to get off the Southeastern main line and on to the Brighton main line. All these merges conflict with other commuter services. This limits the Thameslink expresses to four tph offpeak and two tph peak (though in the peaks some Brighton-Bedford trains do use the slower Elephant & Castle route), as well as damaging timekeeping. The major expense and difficulty in the Thameslink 2000 plan lies in the reconstruction of these junctions.
The Thameslink 2000 plan envisages a new station at Farringdon, separate from the historic Metropolitan Line station that it currently uses, though still providing good connections to Underground services. I have always assumed that the reason why Crossrail One is planned to have a station at Farringdon is to provide connections between Crossrail and Thameslink. I think the conception is based on Paris's RER - a "supermetro" system with limited stops in the central area providing faster, longer distance services trough the heart of the city. Thameslink 2000 would be the north-south arm of it, and Crossrail One the east-west arm.
I agree with Max that the long-proposed Hackney-Chelsea line should have been kept as a proposed tube line, not converted into Crossrail Two which will never get built. Tunnels should be built to main-line dimensions only when there is a good reason to do so; to build subway lines to that specification simply raises their costs so astronomically that they never get built.
Either Fred & Bob screwed up, or you did.
We are all human, which means we all screw up once in a while.
GET OVER IT!!!!
Are the trucks themselves scrapped?? Used on other trains??
Always wondered!!!
Please answer!
Keep them as spares perhaps........
Are the trucks themselves scrapped?? Used on other trains??
If it's heading toward scrap, then it is probably made into liquid metal or recycled. Don't know exactly what they do though, maybe someone else has more depth with this issue.
Train Dude??
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/03/nyregion/03subway.html
Some of the swipers of today, as they are nicknamed, have stumbled upon a MetroCard quirk in which someone can bend a discarded card a certain way, then swipe it through a card reader three times quickly and somehow end up with a $2 credit.
This sounds like the software is suceptable to buffer overflow attacks. The bent cards register one of those partial reads...the three time swipe causes the overflow and the result of the overflow is a $2 credit. Many of my current security classes here down at the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute talk about how most developers continue to repete the mistakes of the past and code in languages suceptable to such attacks. Of course if you need fast operation you almost have to use C or another unsafe language.
Ahh, the JHISI.
But even WORSE, instead of using trusty ANSI C, some bozoids actually use WINAPI which has a strncpy "equivalent" called strcpyn() and of course the bastardized Microsoft lstrncpy() which have their own unicode-based buffer overflow flaws ... but it ain't the language that's unsafe - it's a shared fault between bastardized MicrosoftAPI and lazy programmers who don't understand that you *MUST* check for exceptions before copying or moving chit into memory.
NEVER trust the kernel to do the right thing, you have to code it yourself. :)
Most programmers would allocate the variable to 256. BUZZZZzzzzz. You forgot to allocate memory for the trailing NULL ... but the correct answer is no longer 257 thanks to MS patches and unicode. The CORRECT answer is that you must allocate 258! Why? Character strings already had to allocate for a NULL, but with unicode, strings must be null terminated (and this often has to be done by strcat()'ing a null in the first place because unicode is byte pairs. In other words, to ENSURE that you won't smash the stack, you have to put TWO NULLs in there to make things "microsafe."
Even Microsoft doesn't do this. Explain a few things, does it? :)
That's why at least the code that comes out of OUR house isn't making a splash in the computer rags for this exploit and that exploit ... and we use Borland ANSI C, not this silly "don't know where the inheritance came from" C++ object stuff. Generates nice clean ASM ...
Borland just generates code - it YOU screw up, it'll warn ya that you've done something ... well ... "not smart" at minimum ... secret in writing REAL code is to make the warnings at compile time stop - ESPECIALLY in Borland (as we use here) which actually has a clue of the potential "whoopsies" when compiling.
J-Builder is pretty good ... but we've REALLY got to get somehow back to topic - "geek stuff" don't cut it here, and sorry to also say, I'm 30+ years past academic discussions - since the economy STILL sucks, and the media is STILL peddling "antivirus" as protection whilst there's those of us here in the "anti-TROJAN" biz who can actually STOP it, ain't got time for the acadmics, life here (I *ONLY* appear on subtalk while at WORK, I have *no* computers at "home." Security uber alles. :)
Just make sure that whatever you build (advice to ALL - DAVE PIRRMAN "gets it" too) allows those who surf with "scripting" ENTIRELY OFF for their safety all the page with the (noscript) tags intact ... UNTIL Macrochit gets its act together and allows settings of "something want to download. Is it OK for this mystery redirect to download?" and *DANG* ... sucker click YES ANYWAY. :(
That's WHAT I do for a living - making it go away. :)
But VC++??? Heh. Surely you jest ... ("yes I do, and stop calling me Shirley") ... moo. "THANKS for playing, Don Pardo - tell him what he's won."
Save your anti-MS rants for something you something know about!
Arti
Frankly, I think working with pointers is cool, especially when array[-5] is a valid statement!!
The problems with C as a language stem from the early days, when programmers used little tricks, which were inherently unrealiable: stepping through character strings just looking for the zero terminator, without having an bounds check, as one example. Unfortunately the habits haven’t died…
There’s something to be said for languages like Java, which force all pointer references to be defined and explicit and don’t allow the programmer to trample over memory. Java garbage collection may not be perfect, but the run time is getting better (which it should as the people who are maintaining it have a focus…). Unfortunately, Java doesn’t have programmer settable lower bounds for arrays, but all references are checked–and you could make a strong argument for encapsulating the code for something like the temperature example I gave above into an object, keeping all the scaling in one place and therefore easier to maintain.
Just my 2½¢ worth, based on my (OMG!) 25 years in the business!
One problem is that strncpy does not add a final null, if the source string is longer than the number of characters specified. The fun really begins when one tries to use the destination string which does not have a terminating null. Moral is one cannot use strncpy and assume that it makes code safe vis-a-vis buffer overflows.
It's not redundant, if it's required to make code work. The limitations of strncpy are clearly spelled out in the function description and specification.
My own preference is to do a memset on the destination followed by a strncpy. This has the advantage of forcing an exception, if I inadertantly decide to execute that address or use it as a pointer.
This is true of Assembler too, of course and even Java, since the "garbage collection" feature of the latter isn't as perfect as people are led to believe.
Even Basic let you "peek" and "poke" into memory. Opportunity coupled to a problem.
Have you ever coded in C? Do you even understand what a buffer
overflow is, or how you would maliciously trigger one to exploit
a hole in a piece of software?
AFAIK the "bent-over card" loophole was closed several years
ago. The reporter may have gotten the story wrong. The bug
was discussed here at length. You could consider it a "security
hole", but it is not one that is related to bounds checking,
buffer overflows or the like.
I can, though I spell it with an a.
Given the history of the NYC subways, vandalism should have been expected. Machines that aren't immune to all but the most violent of vandals (those with sledge hammers or dynamite) are just designed poorly.
Arti
Arti
The old system didn't have discounts for multiple purchases or subway-bus transfers. You probably end up ahead anyway. If it's really a problem, pay with change.
Kind of.
«You probably end up ahead anyway. »
That's what I figure + occasional free ride due to malfunctioning fare box.
Arti
Legislation is pending in Albany to elevate the crime to a misdemeanor. Even so, police officers made 2,033 arrests for fare swiping last year, with the monthly arrest average jumping from 134 to 194 after tokens were eliminated. Officers also issued 1,600 summonses for fare swiping.
Paul J. Browne, the chief spokesman for the New York City Police Department.
It already is a misdemeanor, why is the TA wasting the Legislature's time.
Then why go to Albany to make a new law to make swiping a misdemeanor. First, it's already a misdemeanor. If they read NYS Consolidated Laws they would know it. Second, what's the difference in not prosecuting a misdemeanor as opposed to not prosecuting a violation?
David
If that was the case, swipers would jam the MVM's. Then stand at the turnstiles and collect from the customers. At a busy station they would clean up. Of course TA wouldn't get any of the moneys. The moneys would go into the swiper's pockets. A true case of theft of service. The Point of the turnstiles is to collect fares.
As for the MTA, it should expand the permanent Metrocard program (with fares deducted monthly from checking accounts/credit cards a la EZ Pass). My wife will be getting a monthly metrocard in the mail from her Transit Check program. A permanent Metrocard, replaced every 3 years or so, would be better.
Douce Man replied:
If that was the case, swipers would jam the MVM's. Then stand at the turnstiles and collect from the customers.
If turnstiles were letting people in for free, why would anyone pay some scam artist to let them in? Are they trolls under bridges?
A few less-intelligent people and a few out-of-towners might fall for it, but in the end, it would be LESS profitable for the scammers than breaking all of the MVMs is now. But for all that, it still wouldn't discourage the scam: scammers would just need to break fewer machines, or sell swipes at a slight discount.
And at the same time, people who wouldn't ordinarily run the swiping scam might be motivated by the prospects of free rides for the cost of vandalizing a few machines.
Mark
Because the few less-intelligent people and a few out-of-towners know the subway isn't free and they have to pay somehow. The swipers at the turnstiles would be doing hand collections insisting the customer pay them instead of the Agent in the booth.
Install survalance cameras at stations with frequant issues
In addition have the machines report back to central their status. this will allow quicker tracking and repairs plus create a vandalizm profile to add survallace cameras
The new legislation with escualting penalties similar to moving violations where the fine increases with each violation will deter 95% of the fare swipers
MVM's are the best thing to hit the subways in years. It removers the need to deal with rude station agents
Mark
Correct. It's 18 minutes IIRC. But if you buy a bunch of unlimited ride Metro Cards, and rotate through them, you can swipe people through at a pretty fast clip and make money.
"Not only do the swipers often offer a discoubnt. they are also the only way that i can enter the station."
I have a better way. If I see that happening (no way to pay and get in) I contact a police officer to arrest the swipers and remove them from the station. The officers can then let me through (I give them the fare or they might just wave me through).
The machines still have to be fixed, of course.
And how much time would that take? Too Long. Besides. I really dont have a problem with them using a loophole in the systemto their and more importantly to me, MY advantage. why is is any different than them themselves using the card?
"Besides. I really dont have a problem with them using a loophole in the systemto their and more importantly to me, MY advantage"
It isn't to your advantage. There is no loophole there. It hurts you in the long run, and by cooperating with them you help them harm other people. These swipers are not nice people, they don't care about you, and if they felt safe doing it, it would be no big deal for them to hurt you and steal your money.
You don't know what else they are doing.
If I hit you over the head to take your Metrocard, that is definitely to my advantage, since I get your Metrocard, and I am taking advantage of the "loophole" that no cop is watching to see me do it. Why should I care if you have to go to the hospital? Big deal. Insurance or the city will pay for the ambulance anyway.
Do you think I should behave like that?
I am NOT going to waste that much time calling for the cops to punish a community service.
It isn't to your advantage. There is no loophole there. It hurts you in the long run, and by cooperating with them you help them harm other people. These swipers are not nice people, they don't care about you, and if they felt safe doing it, it would be no big deal for them to hurt you and steal your money.
So... I dont see how this is in any way swiper specific.
The rest of the post has nothing to do with the topic either.
Do you have a problem with their vandalizing taxpayer-funded equipment so they can ply their "trade"?
If you want the fare to be free, you can write your elected officials (city council, state assembly/senate, etc.) and ask that taxes be used to cover 100% of the cost. Then rides would be free, and you wouldn't need a MetroCard at all. If they refuse to help you with this, and you think it's important enough, you can tell them you won't vote for them in the next election.
Mark
Another way of combatting swiping, though not a complete solution, would be to require people to have valid MetroCards in their possession at all times when within fare control.
I consider them to be a menance.
Mark
That situation does not exist. It's imaginery. Every situation that looks like that is caused by the swiper breaking the machine himself.
David
At my home station, Newkirk Av, there are a few 'swipers' and have offered me $2 siwpes a few times and I don't know if they deliberately mess up the machines. The MVM's break down fequently and many times BOTH machiens don't work and I see a transit worker tend to the machine every week. However I won't say that its all swipers causing the sabotage, we just don't know.
If those people weren't there, there WOULD be a way to purchase fare media, to wit, the MVMs. The "swipers" are the ones causing the MVMs to become unusable (I won't say "broken," because that implies an electrical and/or mechanical defect -- this is deliberate sabotage), thus creating the situation in which people are unable to purchase MetroCards and therefore must either rely on the "swipers" to let them in, have the "swipers" arrested and have a Police Officer allow them entry, or go to another station or entrance.
I fail to see what the "community service" is here.
David
Mark
Crime stopping is OVER so we can watch for terrorists. :(
You'd *think* we'd add "a 100,000 cops" ala Clinton ... nope - we're digging deeper spiderholes on MARS for VP "Dick" instead. Wonder WHY these people get away with it? It's OPEN SEASON for crime! Can't let terrorists see the BIG BOARD, and we're too busy looking for weapons of mass distraction to be BOTHERED with muggers and "petit larceny." :(
Mark
I don't know about the higher fare. But the customer is more likely to take advantage of the reduced fare than the normal fare. Maybe I misunderstood you somewhere.
Mark
I consider them to be a menance.
I agree with you with respect to the unlimited ride metro cards. But I see nothing wrong with someone buying a volume discount pay-per-ride card and selling the individual swipes for $2.00 making a profit on the difference.
Years ago in the days before E-Z Pass when tokens were still sold on the Triborough Bridge there were individuals who would purchase the tokens at volume discounts and then re-sell the individual tokens to cars waiting on the cash lines, making a profit on the difference. IIRC this activity took place with the full knowledge of the TBTA.
Would this be acceptable? In not what is the difference?
No difference, both are illigal.
But it is still cheaper for the MTA in both cases because the cost of addtional station agents and toll both clerks outweight the revenue lost.
Station agents cost more then they sell on the average day. The fact that people buy at least 10 rides at a time and 50% of the riders have monthly passes which they buy at MVM's(for the insurance) makers the cost of having station agents to deter swipers (which they don't) costlier then letting the swiper swipe away.
The solution is stricter penalities and automated enforcement. Recoed the swiper on camera and then have a police officer sweep in and charge him with multiple counts.
Be consistant and you put them right out of business. Also install hidden camera's on freuently vanalized MVM to catch vandals. A simple alarm sound when the bill hopper gets jammed is also fairly effective.
Yes, some people with wet bills will trigger the alarm, but that is not the end of the world
No difference, both are illigal.
I'm not so sure the TBTA token re-selling was illegal - it was done IN FULL VIEW and with the implied consent of the MTA police...
For something to be legal it must have express written consent. Implied Oral Consent only works in international waters.
LincolN's answer? Who cares as long as I can get on the subway.
95% of riders on any given day do
over 50% of riders have unlimitied rider monthly metrocards.
As much as the swipers steal, it is this far less then having a station agent selling fares
The solution having graduated penalties for swipers and install digital survalance camera's that can be used to peocecute all illegal swipers
David
The maintaince of the machines is essential to elliminating more useless station agent positions.
It needs to be a two prong aproach
Maintainace and enforcement.
Once the enforcement of vandalism is handled, a more precise maintance schedual can be put together baised on mvm usage data. Some stations will bennifit from more MVM's to reduce the maintance intervals.
I see a machine out of single rides or cash hopper full a testiment of riders liking the MVM's. Walk into any station in manhattan three out of four people buying fares go to the MVM.
David
Peace,
ANDEE
Sorry for the delay in posting, I have been away and/or off-line now for a few weeks.
Anyway, the last 14 R-40Ms (4530-4533, 4536-4543, 4548/4549) left East New York for Coney Island last week. I was given a date of January 26, 2004 (feels nice to write that) and the move was confirmed on January 29.
There is still no confirmaton on what will go where for the Manhattan Bridge reopening, but this transfer is very likely related to it.
The "rumblings" have been that approximately 36 R-68s will be moved from Coney Island to Concourse for the D (and CCY will also start taking lay-ups from Coney Island for the B, of course). The remaining R-40Ms along with some R-42s will go from East New York to Coney Island to replace them.
For those wondering how it is East New York can suddenly spare a bunch of cars, they have been effectively replaced by the 208 R-143s, but final transfer was delayed by the R-42 Floor Replacement Program. The fleet at East New York has historically been in the 560-570 range, and with all of the R-143s running (except that last CBTC Test unit), ENY has been overinflated to 612 cars for almost a year.
Regards,
George Chiasson Jr.
(Widecab5@aol.com)
avid
avid
A smoky fire at the Herald Square subway station sent people scrambling to the street early this morning.
Nobody was injured in the blaze which broke out on an escalator inside the station at 34th Street and Sixth Avenue at about 12:40 a.m., fire officials said. It was put out about 20 minutes later.
Noxious smoke billowed from a below-ground escalator that connects the upper level of the station to the lower level. Scores of commuters had to be evacuated from the platform.
Power was never cut at the station, but trains on the D, F Q and W lines had to be re-routed for about 40 minutes, MTA spokesman Mark Groce said.
The cause of the fire is under investigation.
Ilan Kayatsky and Jamie Schram
Peace,
ANDEE
Peace,
ANDEE
-- David
Philadelphia, PA
But...
The Daily News criticized its expenditure last week. Do we need a $2B terminal for a commuter line whose furthest venture to the west is Newark, NJ?
I'd say not; to be blunt, the extravagant terminal is being constructed because of what happened there 2 1/2 years ago, not for any great need for one.
Actually, the 'temporary' station there now is rather spiffy, and with some modifications, can be made permanent.
OTOH, Penn Station, which connects NYC with the rest of the country, deserves a more grandiose building, and one has been on the drawing board for years, but the Post Office doesn't want to vacate the proposed space.
Actually, I'd rather scrap the Calatrava hub and the transit hub on Broadway and use the billions to build the LIRR tunnels to Manhattan from Brooklyn and Queens, and build the SAS.
www.forgotten-ny.com
Congress made that impossible.
How, and why?
www.forgotten-ny.com
Don't like it? Go back in time and persuade your elected offficials to do differently. This was a lower-Manhattan rebuild appropriation, not a "do whatever you want" appropriation.
The time to debate this was three years ago. Now it's just mental masturbation.
www.forgotten-ny.com
Perhaps it would have been better if USDOT had handed over an appropriation with more flexibility. (??? that can have drawbacks too - maybe we'd all end up just debating different projects and nothing would get done. Focus has its pluses)
But the agency did not, and the local political leadership, instituting a very focused rebuilding plan with public support, produced the plans to spend it. Ce la vie.
At the very least, the benefit of spending the money to build the Calatrava station will start to erase the eyesore of the current hole in the ground.
Does that cause your mind's eye to go blind?
(only if you don't use protection)
:0)
Now, you could argue, notwithstanding its broader scope, that the Calatrava terminal is an extravagance. But you need to ask yourself, Why do we build great civic structures? Why is Grand Central Terminal so grand? For that matter, why is City Hall so grand? Why is the main post office at 8th & 34th so grand? In every case, the function could have been served by simple utilitarian structures. Yet, in all of those cases (and many others I could name) we built great buildings.
If you believe none of those structures should have been built, then you are at least consistent. But there is plenty of precedent for building great architecture for civic purposes, when utilitarian structures would've done the job. It goes back as far as the Egyptian pyramids, the Greek temples, and the Roman coliseum. I would guess it is ingrained in human culture that we want (or most of us want) to make great public structures grander than just their basic function would strictly require.
Well, their scopes, ie. their coverage areas, were similarly grand. GCT served the whole country; City Hall was built for a city only recently relieved of its status as US Capitol; the main PO serves the USA as well.
I can't compare the Calatrava terminal to the Egyptial pyramids.
The Calatrava terminal will serve PATH and the ferries, as well as link to the other transit hub on Broadway. But it's pretty much a local depot. Even if they do tunnel the LIRR under there or link JFK (I doubt it) your scope would be extended only as far east as Greenport and Montauk.
Calatrava's extravagant structure broadly outstrips its function.
www.forgotten-ny.com
www.forgotten-ny.com
GCT never served Phila, Wash DC, and points south. Amtrak removed Albany/Buffalo trains from GCT relatively recently, but removed Boston trains early on.
IMO the money could be better spent on connecting PATH to the Lexington local line, as recently discussed, assuming of course that the connection is feasible and that it could be built for $2 billion (including a non-terminal WTC subway station).
That plan is best described on this New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers (NJ-ARP) site.
Terminal stations are generally not a good idea for urban lines, as there is the problem of distributing people to places other than the terminals. For example you can look at the problems of distributing people from the numerous London terminals.
In Lower Manhattan two terminals, PATH WTC and the City Hall loop, happen to be aligned in such a way that they could be connected, giving a through route which would be more useful than two terminating lines separated by a quarter-mile gap.
Truth is that $2 Billion would not cover HALF the estimated $5 Billion of the estimated cost of building a new LIRR tunnel connecting the Atlantic Ave branch to Lower Manhattan, and $2 Billion would be a drop in the bucket with regards to the SAS.
The fact is the Feds gave the Port Authority the $2 Billion to improve upon what was destroyed on September 11th, not to build an entirely new rail line to Long Island.
To fund a LIRR connection to Lower Manhattan and or to fund the SAS the City and State have to go through the normal process of submitting planning and enviromental analysis to the DOT who passes it recomendation on to Congress and the President who can include it in a budget.
Alot of groups are upset at the abuse of the September 11th funds and Liberty bonds that are being used by the City and State for things other than what it was intended, the NY Times who is building a new Office tower in Mid-Town and who were planning to build the tower before 9-11 applied for the money and were approved by the City. The MTA is using some of the 9-11 money to rebuild and reconfigure the South Ferry Station, $450 Million.
The $2 Billion for the new World Trade Center hub at the World Trade Center is not all going towards the construction of the structure Santiago Calavatrava designed, the $2 Billion includes under ground concourses connecting the World Financial Center, World Trade Center and Fulton Street MTA complex.
Excellent point. You presented the legal and political situation better than I did.
This isn't quite true. The total Federal commitment is more like $5.5bn. Of that sum, quite a bit is being spent on facilities that weren't damaged on 9/11. Lest we forget, this was very controversial. Some people thought that the Federal government should only pay the costs of putting things back exactly as they were. I, for one, am grateful that our leaders showed a bit more imagination.
I think, within reason, New York could have gotten the green light to spend the $5.5bn on practically any infrastructure that was plausibly related to the revitalization of Lower Manhattan. Understandably, there was heavy debate about which projects should make the cut. Pataki even tried to get a high-speed rail link to Schanectady in the mix. That one got dropped pretty quickly.
As recently as December, Sen. Schumer suggested that we have our priorities wrong, and projects such as the South Ferry rehab should be dropped in favor of spending more money on the JFK connection. The main problem is that, by most estimates, this project could easily cost $5.5bn all by itself. Do we want to shoot the whole wad on one project? I don't think so.
I believe there were also several groups who clamored for a PATH-IRT connection to be in the mix. As others have noted here, there are serious constructability issues, and I believe this project would cost a whole lot more than is now allocated for the Calatrava terminal. Also, for it to be possible, significant funds would need to be spent on PATH and subway infrastructure outside of the Lower Manhattan arena (rolling stock, signalling, etc.).
I don't think it would have been politically possible to allocate rebuilding funds to the SAS, because the SAS was an existing project before 9/11, and most of the costs & benefits of the SAS are north of Lower Manhattan.
It was not possible to do that once the appropriation was in place and DOT had handed over the check. That money must now be spent as specified.
Reminds me of this recent story: Joan Kroc, the McDonald's heirress, left$2 billion to the Salvation Army specifiocally for building community centers, definition of which is very narrowly written. Newspaper accounts seem to indicate that the some in the Salvation Army are not thrilled with that definition - but there's not much they can do about it (other than refuse the money entirely, which won't happen).
Wrong. Unlike some other projects that were seriously considered, the SAS was never a serious candidate for inclusion in the appropriation, and it would have been a severe political blunder to do so.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, it was a stretch to get Congress to fund projects like the South Ferry and Fulton St rehabs that go beyond rebuilding what was destroyed. But at least these projects are targeted at the revitalization of Lower Manhattan.
The SAS was already an ongoing project on 9/11, and the majority of its costs and benefits are uptown. If the SAS had been part of the proposal, it would seriously have undermined New York's credibility—much like the Governor's Schanectady link, which he (quite wisely) yanked it off the table.
I did, and have, and do. You've got the order of events backwards. "Period."
Until you research it, you won't know. And you haven't.
It's fair to try to re-establish the Lower Manhattan connection. When I walked through the temporary PATH station, with that huge space, I got excited for the first time since I saw Grand Central -- and that's just from the concrete barn (I never saw the PATH station before 9/11/01). I think an exciting symbol of the NJ-Financial District link is a good use of 9/11 money.
I like the fact that Light will reach the tracks, but the bright and seemingly white tone of everything doesn't fit in with a train terminal, where grime will certainly set in quickly.
One thing that makes Grand Central so great is all the shops inside it. With all the retail already planned elsewhere in the site, I can't see the same thing for this downtown terminal. At least the fact that it reaches 150' in the air means that people will be able to find it relatively easy.
Calatrava is one of my favorite architects practicing in the world today, so of course, I'm very biased. I'm strongly in favor of his scheme for the PATH terminal, and I think it's by far the best design of anything that's been presented for the WTC site so far.
As for the price tag, well, ce la vie. $2 billion is a lot of money, but given the signifigance of the site and the number of people who will be using this facility, I think it's worth it. I'm convinced that Calatrava's PATH terminal will become one of the city's foremost architectural masterpieces and will likely be a destination in itself. 50 years from now, I doubt people will be all that concerned with the price tag. And besides, it's federally funded. A billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
Based on the slide presentation on the Porth Authority website (see link below), about the only real complaint I have is that the interior space looks a bit too stark and white. However, this is probably just how it was rendered. With some well-placed small retail kiosks and some indoor trees, it would be a lively and beautiful space.
I tend to agree with Kevin Walsh's point about Penn Station, though. However, I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. If Amtrak and the MTA had any sense (and a couple billion in funding), first thing they'd do is knock down MSG and that hideous office tower, and hire Calatrava or another architect of similar caliber to design a proper gateway to the city in place of the current rat maze.
I'm not familiar enough with the Farely Post Office plans to comment on the proposed design scheme, but my biggest issues with the idea have to do with the location: It's a full long block further west from Midtown, and I still have a hard time seeing how they'd connect with the platforms that are under the existing station.
Here's that PowerPoint presentation of the new PATH transit hub. (Note: Best to save this to your hard drive before attempting to view.)
-- David
Philadelphia, PA
"Based on the slide presentation on the Porth Authority website (see link below), about the only real complaint I have is that the interior space looks a bit too stark and white. However, this is probably just how it was rendered. With some well-placed small retail kiosks and some indoor trees, it would be a lively and beautiful space. "
Not every detail has been worked out yet. It would be perfectly OK for you to make a written suggestion to the PA and to Calatrava's firm in that regard. Your being an architect does give you some professional credibility here.
The worst they can do is ignore your letter. Bt who knows? Maybe somebody will agree witb you. You lose nothing except the postage stamp and envelope.
It's so white and airy, it seems like so much wasted, empty space. The old PATH station concourse was full of shops, and always seemed to be well trafficked. There's nothing in the new PATH station. Just a lot of air and white.
And, like the earlier post said, how will you keep all that white clean?
The old Penn was actually colored PINK when they built it. But they let the grime accumulate, which contributed to the decision to raze it. They just didn't want to clean it, among other things...
www.forgotten-ny.com
I suspect that's just because of the particular renderings they presented. In architectural renderings, it's common practice to delete all the "stuff" that distracts from the architecture itself. Also, since the renderings are computer-generated, such "stuff" adds massively to the processing time and the size of the drawing files, so it's often left out.
Once the station is actually built, I'd be very surprised if it didn't include some retail shops, newstands, plants, seating, and other things that make it a lively urban space, rather than just a museum gallery.
And, like the earlier post said, how will you keep all that white clean?
Based on many of Calatrava's previous transit projects, I'm assuming the surfaces will be made of cast concrete, which won't be quite as harsh of a white color as shown in the renderings, and won't need freequent cleaning. However, if the exposed white surfaces are made of certain newer materials like Alucobond™ metal panels or Neopariés™ glass-ceramic panels, then keeping the place clean should be as simple are occasionally wiping it down with a soapy cloth. Another possibilty would be using a light-colored granite for the exposed surfaces, which wouldn't be as pure of a white, but would be a high-quality finish and shouldn't need frequent cleaning.
My guess: The underground surfaces will be made of cast concrete, while the above-ground structure will be made of white metal. But time will tell...
-- David
Philadelphia, PA
The $2 Billion was the Port Authority's share, the rest is the City.
Thought that the city was broke . . . ?
Rather like a barnacle with feeding-combs extended, I thought.
"Actually, I'd rather scrap the Calatrava hub and the transit hub on Broadway and use the billions to build the LIRR tunnels to Manhattan from Brooklyn and Queens, and build the SAS"
Nothing for the New Jersey side, eh? No thought to joining the NJ Transit Hoboken Division with the LIRR Atlantic Avenue Line . . . ?
There are several ways to complete the above sentence, and I agree with all of them at least in principle.
Rail terminals offer a unique opportunity to create impressive architecture. However people are forced to use the terminals even if their destinations lie elsewhere. This creates bottlenecks and crowding on the distributor lines that serve them.
A better solution is to build through routes wherever possible rather than terminals. An excellent example is the RER in Paris, a network of commuter lines passing through the city center in order to eliminate the need to use rail terminals.
In the case of the PATH terminal, one solution (already proposed) is to connect PATH to the Lexington local line, thus connecting the line terminating at the Hudson loop to the line terminating at the City Hall loop, eliminating two terminals.
SEPTA has an element of RER to it - look at the way the commuter tunnel functions.
In fact, LIRR has a minor element of the RER: Consider that LIRR trains serve a busy junction like Mineola, the Jamaica, then Penn or Atlantic Av (and within 10 years, GCT). These are not close together like SEPTA's.
Or how about 125 St and then GCTfor Metro-North?
However, this does not mean that the terminal system is wrong for New York, in part because there are so many of them. Grand Central, Penn Station, 125 Street, Fulton-WTC (in a few years), Jamaica, Atlantic Avenue. All in all they serve NYC very well.
London has thirteen terminals, and they usually bring you from your suburban starting point to within a mile or two of your central destination. Then you take the tube. This results in the inconvenience of changing trains and overcrowding on the tube. New tube lines were built to relieve overcrowding but the inconvenience remained. The Crossrail plan is intended to overcome this problem, like the RER does for Paris.
In New York the exact same problem exists. East Side Access is a small step in the right direction, in that it will help by taking you to a less inconvenient terminal. But wouldn't it be even more convenient if the same trains could stop at (say) Grand Central, Times Square, Penn station and Hoboken. If you split the service between multiple terminals, as at Penn and Flatbush Avenue, the frequency of service has to be reduced.
The original reason for building rail terminals was that business interests opposed railways in business districts. So terminals were built elsewhere, on the edges of the business districts. When railways were electrified and put underground, that reason no longer applied, and terminals became tiresome bottlenecks where masses of people had to transfer to crowded subways.
For these reasons I oppose building a terminal in any case where a through line could be built instead and be more useful.
Well, if Grand Central and Penn are ever connected, that would be an additional step in the RER-style direction. An additional twwo tracks under the Hudson would help too.
There was an article in the Stamford Advocate this morning (sorry, don't have a link) about how the Connecticut riders (poor babies) are starting to get fed up with the winter breakdowns and lack of communication. It says that the New Haven rolling stock was delivered in 1973 and the trains have a life expectancy of twenty years. Is this substantially correct?
The first sentence is correct.
The second is a matter of opinion. Most aging equipment can be repaired and refurbished until the structure gets so rusty it's unsafe.
Certainly the seats are no less comfortable than they were 30 years ago (they weren't great then, they're not great now).
If door motors burn out due to snow getting into the works, that's a design flaw, not an aging issue.
I've personally seen nothing convincing that says the MNRR fleet can't be repaired and has to be junked. And unlike most other people here, I ride it every day.
If they don't slick down the seats when they clean them, they're comfortable enough, and not too many are falling off. Unlike the LIRR in its worst days a couple decades ago, when, apparently, you could barely sit down for the condition of the seats.
IF the equipment had been maintained, 30 years is not critical. 40 is the operative limit.
BUT, there was no maintenance during the various fiscal crises - the early to mid 70's, the early 80's, the late 80's and early 90's. And, many of the parts are no longer made.
So, what you have is a situation where Connecticut (which pays 60% of the capital costs) must (a) spend $$$ for emergency repairs, (b) spend $$$ to rehab the aging fleet for another five years of service, and (c) spend $$$ to buy replacement equipment which, because of the special order, will not arrive until 2009 at the earliest.
I must admit I'd never heard about that. So what happens if a part that is no longer made fails? They just move the car to the yard and cannibalize it for parts?
Is that cost-effective?
I like to know where all this money is going to come from? If you think about it, 2009 is FIVE LONG YEARS away so they better get used to the delays.
I hear these same complaints with NJ Transit riders who use the Main Line and ride the Path with me in the morning. Folks. If you live in the burbs, why are you working in the city? I don't get it how people can subject themselves to living all the way out there and spend so much money and time commuting to the city. The stress of a mandatory train schedule and unreliable service would be too much.
Same reason (in reverse) some of us live in the city and work in the burbs.
Like to live in the city. Found a job in the burbs. Prefer commuting to moving.
This does not mean I advocate that we rebuild them and use them for another 30 years. But they are still here and functioning, no doubt.
I know a bunch of you are interested in NYC signage, lamps, etc. in addition to trains (there's even the whole Forgotten NY page dedicated to them).
I, for one, would like to see some of the more ornate, classic lampposts come back.
Well, not EVERYBODY has heard of
www.forgotten-ny.com
- Illuminated street signs that hang over the threshhold of the intersection, indicating the name of the intersecting street.
- Pedestrian traffic lights that count down the number of seconds before the vehicle traffic light changes to yellow.
- If the intersecting street is a state/county/US/Interstate route, have it's appropriate icon and number on the sign as well
- Show street addresses on the signs, and an arrow indicating the direction in which the numbers increase
- Bright lights thatshine down to the street, and not up into the sky.
[- Illuminated street signs that hang over the threshhold of the intersection, indicating the name of the intersecting street.]
--Such large street signs, though maybe not illuminated, are seen in many NY suburbs.
[- Pedestrian traffic lights that count down the number of seconds before the vehicle traffic light changes to yellow.}
-- These are now in Yonkers.
[- If the intersecting street is a state/county/US/Interstate route, have its appropriate icon and number on the sign as well]
--These are seen in New Jersey.
[- Show street addresses on the signs, and an arrow indicating the direction in which the numbers increase]
--Lots of cities have these. In fact, the 34th St. and Grand Central BIDs have installed some in Midtown, and the city has installed them Downtown.
[- Bright lights that shine down to the street, and not up into the sky.]
--Sound like common sense to me.
And now in the city itself, on Hylan Blvd and Eastern Pkwy, these are either already installed on or planned to be installed on Ocean Pkwy, Victory Blvd, Northern Blvd and the Grand Concourse (no, not Queens or Linden Blvds).
Been to Chicago and Washington the last couple of years; both towns have that at selected intersections.
I don't think giving pedestrians a break is in NYC's ethos, though.
www.forgotten-ny.com
Quite agree.
[mandatory on-topic discussion]
Also, I like those stations that have kept their old-time platform stanchions, such as Sheepshead Bay, Qveensborough Plaza and 9th Avenue. The new goose neck lamps don't do it for me though I appreciate he effort.
www.forgotten-ny.com
Now for main CBD's (that would be most streets in Midtown and Downtown) I'd like to see some old fashioned style lights with mercury vapor like those already in use
And for main roads and highways like the LIE in Queens and the West Side highway, I'd go with LPS streetlights like these
Guess MVM's need quite a bit fine tuning to repel those vandals who jam those machines. The quirk in those Metrocards don't help either. I'd suggest to NYCT that 3 consecutive swipes within 30 seconds will automatically deactivate the card for good, and a 1 hour mortarium, instead of the current 18 minutes, for same station use on Unlimited cards.
NOTE: The above link requires free registration to the NY Times Website to read this and many other articles. As a plus for those who are new to the NY Times, you can customize what articles you would like to be sent to your email address every morning, like your morning newspaper delivered and it's free too.
WHAT? So a person should be penalized for dirty slots or poor swipe technique?
and a 1 hour mortarium, instead of the current 18 minutes, for same station use on Unlimited cards.
So what happens if someone realizes they forgot something and have to leave the station? They're stuck for an hour?
You're exactly right.
It did perfectly well without an MTA for over 300 years, 64 of those with a subway.
True. Hoever, I would argue that New York's economy would not be as good as it is if the commuter rail lines were of the quality they were circa 1966, with the Penn Central and LIRR making Manhattan a terrible place to commute to. NYC relies on its suburbs for a vibrant economy, as well as vice versa.
We take our time over things in the UK, but we get there in the end....
Living rough is, I presume, the British term for skell.
Amazing. Not only because of the good luck (would they have been able to determine Mr Fallon’s identity if he had not had the brain operation and therefore an unusual clip?) but also because of the patience of the research over 26 years!
They have... 2004-1987=17. ::-)
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
Ask SIR Mick Jagger... :)
P.S. We both have layabouts with titles, but at least we can vote ours out of office. :D
So you come over here and have to face the Internal Revenue Service inspector: much more complicated and time-consuming.
…and not pay US$200 a year just to watch the telly.
…for some programming that assumes I have an intelligence level above that of a gnat. Seriously, I pay about $70/month for some extra channels on a cable system, none of which approach the BBC (of my 20-years-ago memory) in terms of general interest and quality.
And that doesn’t say anything about BBC Radio, though at least I can listen to the majority of that output through the Internet. I would pay money for a subscription BBC Radio service that gave me unlimited access to the Corporation’s output from the last 30 years.
As for Sir Mick Jagger as a layabout with a title, that’s all he got: a title and probably a medal and a certificate signed by Brenda. He doesn’t, thank goodness, get an office with it, so there’s nothing to vote him out of.
Now if you could just get around to voting your current layabouts in office out I would be very grateful…
We do that early and often. The new layabouts are like the old layabouts, but at least they usually look a little different with every new batch.
...and we even have an extra President for people who don't like the current one ... guy named "Bartlett" or something... ;-)
Can you top that???
TV is the only land that man would ever get elected as President.
It was called Canada back in the 1700s also.
History Explorer: "Disaster: No Escape"
Traveling underground can prove extremely dangerous--when subterranean disaster strikes, victims have nowhere to run. On November 18, 1987, 31 people died in London's King's Cross underground (subway) station when a fire started on one of its escalators. Could tighter management have helped avoid the tragedy?
Perhaps it may have lowered the death toll, but having wooden escalators in an underground station was just asking for trouble.
The answer is probably "yes". The fatal combination was: (1) wooden escalators; (2) accumulation of rubbish in the space underneath the escalators (especially newspapers, which are pretty flammable); and (3) permitting smoking on the Tube. Better management would have eliminated number 2. After all, numbers 1 & 3 had been around quite a few years. In fact, the action taken afterwards eliminated numbers 1 & 3. Whether rubbish still accumulates under escalators is hard to say, since those areas are not on public view. In general, cleanliness on the Tube doesn't look too bad, but the newspapers under the escalators may have been the Tube equivalent of brushing the dust under the carpet.
In general wood is a relatively safe material in fires. It tends to char and will eventually burn through, but provided there is enough of it, it maintains its structural integrity much longer than either steel or aluminum.
Why was wood a particular problem in this case?.
It was old (and as such very dry), covered with either varnish or oil-based paint (I don't remember which from the reports I read at the time), and the source of ignition was directly beneath it.
Until next time...
Anon_e_mouse
So Chris, you'd recommend using steel or aluminum in the fireplace?
1. AirTrain to Howard Beach; A to Penn Station
2. AirTrain to Jamaica; E to Roosevelt; 7 to Woodside
3. AirTrain to Jamaica; E to Roosevelt; 7 to Main (how far to Flushing station? This seems to be the cheapest route.)
4. AirTrain to Jamaica; LIRR to Woodside (only 50 cents more than the subway, and a new ride for me!)
I await with baited breath your responses. Thanks.
Any airplanes you see flying over the station will be headed for LaGuardia, Runway 04.
Then again, you could take a taxi, but that's prohibitively expensive.
Wait for your train on Platform B, and enjoy the ride!
Fast. Lots of Jamaica-Penn trains stop at Woodside, so you won't have to wait long for one at Jamaica.
The RR is better than the subway for any luggage you might have.
Also, connections to the subway are mildly inconvenient at Jamaica and Flushing.
If you take the 7 to Main Street, The LIRR station is 2 blocks south on Main.
If you take the LIRR from Jamiaca to either Woodside or Penn Station for the train to Great Neck, you might have to wait awhile before that train comes in. Port Washington service runs about once an hour.
However, the bus itself is an issue because it's so SLOW! Like I said before, I wouldn't recommend travelling through Flushing. Go via Woodside.
Just remember, PW train run every hour on weekends.
CG
I'd say Option #3 is best:
Take Airtain to Jamaiaca, switch to E to Roosevelt, then #7 to Main St. While on the #7, stay in the middle, by the C/R position.
Getting out at Main St, you will see the elevated LIRR station one block south, go to the Ticket machine FIRST and purchase your ticket before you board the train. Enter from side after passing underneath elevated structure, I thin the machine are also on that side.
CG
"The station combination you have chosen is invalid. Please call the LIRR Travel Information Center at (718) 217-5477 and ask for a representative for more information."
So you have to purchase two seperate tickets.
Tickets like this can be purchased at ticket offices, and I believe the TVM's will sell them as well. I don't know whether or not the WebTicket function will let you buy one (or if it will price it correctly).
Newkirk Plaza David correctly points out that the website gives you an error message when you request a fare for this trip, but they do exist.
CG
If everything ran smoothly, you could get on an AirTrain at 1:57 at JFK, arrive Jamaica at 2:10 or so and then be in Great Neck at 2:57.
CG
Rich
Ben F. Schumin :-)
http://www.newsday.com/other/special/ny-iholi0930story.htmlstory
another school car at Canarsie shot
#3 West End Jeff
But TODAY, "school cars" (which were converted pieces of equipment with "show and tell" bit smounted IN the car (compressor presure gauges, WHICH point in the cam was active, and other great "show and tell" bits) OH, how EASILY us "NYCTA rubes" were fooled by the *ONE* accurate piece of Pelham 123 ... "I'm checkin' the passengers, getting on and off. Front and back. Shuttin' the doors. Rear section first, and front section. And the doors are closed. Now I'm checking my indicator lights to make sure all the doors are locked. I remove my switchkey, go back out the window for a distance of three carlengths to make sure nobody's getting dragged.
TODAY, they have door simulators, back in the day, we had SUBWAY cars with LIVE geese (and supervision - showing us "how to") for "school car" (ride and LEARN) ... gotta love it ...
Door simulator 1
Door simulator 2
For us, it was a simulated platform back on the loop at Coney, a dummy setup at 14th Street, and of course the grand "off-sides" opening ceremonies. :)
We got the yahd training and got to ride with a "real" conductor - much like the scene out of "Pelham" ... then, turned loose on the unsuspecting with our set of keys and the book of sayings of the Chairman, along with our Mickey Mouse watch. Heh.
#3 West End Jeff
#3 West End Jeff
Robert
Gs 1 through 3 being AMUE, SMEE, and R44/R46 cannibalized "old new tech?"
Mark
What was contract R-130?
Basically visual appearance.
The G4 cars have electronic signs, automated announcements, and interior strip maps that light up.
G3 cars have a large end rollsign opposite the motorman's cab and originally came with side rollsigns that fit in one of the side windows.
G2 cars originally came with end rollsigns above the end door, and side rollsigns next to the windows, with a place for them built into the walls of the car.
G1 cars didn't have end rollsigns (with the exception of a few BMT car types), and didn't come in under an R contract.
As for the end, so far I only remember seeing A, H, Far Rockaway, and World Trade Center.
What model do you have?
205 Street
Bronx
Bedford Pk
Blvd
145 Street
Manhattan
207 Street
Manhattan
168 Street
Manhattan
36 Street
Brooklyn
57 Street
6 Avenue
21 Street
Queensbridge
57 Street
7 Avenue
Queensboro
Plaza
Ditmars
Blvd
Queens
Plaza
71 Av
Continental
179 Street
Queens
Jamaica
Center
Eastern
Parkway
8 Avenue
14 Street
Metropolitan
Avenue
121 Street
Queens
Essex
St
Chambers
St
Franklin
Av
Broad
Channel
Euclid
Avenue
Rockaway
Shuttle
Rockaway
Park
Far
Rockaway
Lefferts
Blvd
Grand
St
34 Street
6 Avenue
World Trade
Center
Bay
Parkway
9 Avenue
Brooklyn
Broad
St
Myrtle
Av
Rockaway
Parkway
Prospect
Park
Brighton
Beach
Coney
Island
Kings
Highway
Church
Av
Smith
9 Street
95 Street
Brooklyn
Whitehall
St
Quite welcome... I'll see what I can do.
They were all in the same typeface
Shuttle
Special
Not In
Service
There are some good pictures of Public service's elevated trolley line that travelled the Palisades from Jersey City into Hoboken.
Folks. I don't know if you realize how long the journey is to get from Palisade Avenue in Jersey City to the Hoboken terminal today using NJ Transit buses! I estimate you'll probably spend about an hour and a half between waiting for the bus and the time it actually gets down the Palisade to the Hoboken terminal during rush hour. It was actually a faster commute 50 years ago than it is today!
http://www.lightrailnow.org/
I don't know that I'd go far enough as to call it a Holocaust, especially given all the other connotations given to that word by contemporary events in the world at around the same time. How about we just leave it at 'National City Lines takeover and liquidation'? Sure some trolleys were destroyed in fires to keep their systems from being operated again, but most of the systems were just sold for scrap, much more of a liquidation of assets. NCL was in it for the money, and they weren't going to keep a billion dollars worth of scrap steel in the form of rails, copper in the wire and assorted equipment from the trolleys out of their pocket by just burning and melting it all down then throwing it out.
Those !@#holes made a mint off the destruction of 50 years of investment in transit infrastructure. Enron, Parmalat and the other corporate scandals pale in comparison to NCL's folly. While Enron and the others affected stock prices for maybe 5-10 years top, causing a few small investors to lose their shirts, and causing a few million people to have to work a few more years before retirement. NCL's wholesale destruction of the trolley system and their insane profiteering off that destruction have caused a social, economic and even political schism that we're only now taking the first steps to repair, more than 50 years down the road. There can be little doubt that this schism has affected every person born in the US in the past 50 years in some way, at least half those people in a major way, given that the US has some 300 million people in it today, it would not be stretching the truth to say that around one billion people in the US have been affected for better or worse. I strongly suspect worse, given my own observations of life in a car oriented suburb, and life in a transit supported city neighborhood, which are, admittedly quite thin evidence.
Also remember that the #7 Trolley survived to become the NCS of today, and now they're righting the wrongs of the past to semi-reinstate lines long past branching off the NCS trunk.
It was actually a faster commute 50 years ago than it is today!
You're largely preaching to the choir, nobody should have to tell a railfan (or even a transitfan, provided that transitfan is for efficient transit) that buses suck. Here's hoping for a HBLRT MOS 4 and 5 driving the LRV lines deep into NJT bus territory and putting some of those MCIs out of work (or even crossing the hudson in a Muni-Metro/63rd St-like tunnel [a 4-tube tunnel for NJT? commuter in the bottom two, HBLRT in the top?], obviating the need for NJT's PABT buses). Or NCS and NERL getting expanded, perhaps southwest of the city, putting more buses out of work. I also got my currently crazy plot for a Camden Trolley system, can't forget South Jersey, no matter how hard the north tries!
At least NJT is one of a few TAs in the country who is really trying to make LRT work, righting past wrongs, and also make sure it's integrated into their other modes of transit (such as Hoboken Term and Jersey City linked by LRV). The only other system I can think of to come into being in the past 20 years would be TriMet in Portland, and they have the advantage of being a growing town as opposed to a grown town, as well as having nearly fanatical land usage laws which make suburban sprawl very undesirable (for the developer for a change).
Now we just need to get SNJTLRTS operating, prove it's worth, expand it to Gloucester City at least, and send it to Ewing and the West Trenton R3 Station.
I spoke to a cab driver in Bayonne and he told me the HBLR took away 20 pecent of his business. Many residents used to cab from Bayonne to the Newport mall and now use the lightrail. I also discovered that NJ Transit has experienced a lower ridership on the express bus line that takes riders from Bayonne into Manhattan as a result of the HBLR.
This is all good news.
Could someone shed some light on this baffling situation?
Also, what is the point of putting a green "R" sign and a "GT 35" sign in exactly the same spot facing the same direction on the same track? I believe I saw this somewhere around Jefferson St(Ave?) station.
There would have been a diamond X-over south of the 6th Avenue station. Otherwise, operation was similar to what is now at 8th Av, without that relay track.
The marker signals, IIRC, are Q1-18 and Q2-18. They probably figured that now that you're on QW, it no longer needs to be displayed.
The GT sign indicates that there are timers as you enter the station. Probably, the sign is there because the timers clear at such a slow speed a number is not necessary.
Those are my assumptions.
**********************************************************************
Hopefully they'll cut any plans to re-signal, re-switch and close any towers. NORTH PHILADELPHIA is hanging on by its knuckles, it needs all the help it can get
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df02022004.shtml#Damn
**********************************************************************
Damn this whole "Winter" thing, why couldn't we have seen it comming. WHY, WHY, OH GOD WHY!!!
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df02022004.shtml#Snow
**********************************************************************
Shit, I hope I can get home on Friday for my ski trip.
AEM-7 locomotives are doing reasonably well under the circumstances. 19 were out of service last week, which is 37 percent – six more than Amtrak's “goal.” Six were out for scheduled maintenance, but the same could not be said of the15 HHP-8s. Ten were out of service; and only two for scheduled maintenance. Amtrak’s goal is four HHPs out of service t any one time.
A report from the Midwest said that Amtrak contacted a major private car owner to see if he had any cars available for lease to Amtrak so they would have sufficient equipment to protect. He didn't. Currently, 112 active roster passenger cars are out of service on the Northeast Corridor. 18 are Acela Express, leaving 94 conventional cars out of service. Of those, 44 are for scheduled maintenance.
**********************************************************************
I lost track of this TEA thing like months ago.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df02022004.shtml#Capon
**********************************************************************
Wen we set out to fuck up a country we don't take any half steps do we :-)
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df02022004.shtml#Iraqis
Or better still, since no one's seen an pics of the M-1's actually being scrapped, maybe they're headed to Iraq. Now Iraqis can travel from Basra to Baghdad in M-1 push pulls and hear over the P.A. in their native tongue the words "engineer......can I have a M.A. reset please !"
Bill "Newkirk"
Seriously, I would doubt that our surplus equipment would work very well in Iraq. How well environmentally sealed is it against dust?
**********************************************************************
Cool, I hope that this new index will actually reported on and not generally ignored.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df02022004.shtml#Mineta
**********************************************************************
Everybody wants Amtrak, but nobody wants to pay for it, sigh.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df02022004.shtml#Corpus
With each muttered curse from a passenger as a missed train rumbles past, the token's flashy, flexible replacement — the centerpiece of an ambitious vision of a 21st-century transit system — is securing its place in the city's landscape as something to complain about.
"It affects everybody," said Rey Labron, 39, a messenger in Harlem, as he stood in line at a subway booth at East 125th Street because all three MetroCard machines in the station were scrolling the red message "Out of Service" on their L.E.D. displays. "It makes you go to work late when you have to wait on a big line."
To be fair, some repairs involve repeated problems at the same machines, and most of the time the machine is not completely out of order. More often, it is not taking bills, or is refusing to dispense single-ride tickets, or is experiencing some other problem that does not make it absolutely impossible to buy a MetroCard - although that may be little solace to the rider whose bill a machine will not take. And often, the problem cannot be blamed on the machine but rather on the scam artists who have tampered with it. With repeats figured in, officials estimate that about one-third of all the machines are getting some type of service each day.
MetroCard machine repairs have nearly doubled since tokens were eliminated in May, and New York City Transit is looking to increase its crew of MetroCard machine maintainers by 60 percent, to 108, at a cost of $3 million, even as many of its other departments endure cutbacks.
Call it the price of change.
The half-century-old subway token was no match for the MetroCard, its high-tech replacement. MetroCards are critical to transit officials' visions of a 21-century subway system, in which riders buy their fare cards from vending machines, follow electronic voices and signs and ride trains that are controlled almost completely by computer. As part of this effort, the transit agency closed 45 subway booths last August, replacing them with MetroCard vending machines. Seventeen more are to close in coming months.
But by now, most New Yorkers are deeply familiar with occasional MetroCard frustration: entire rows of machines out of order; long lines behind the only working machine or the only one that will take cash; getting to the front of the line to have a machine eat your $5 bill or to discover that it will not take your credit card.
"Just give me my token and let me use it," said Darryl Gates, 39, a journeyman at the Fulton Fish Market, looking to buy a single-ride card from a machine that was being fixed on a recent morning.
The root of the problem, officials said, is not the machines themselves but vandalism and the demands of a 24-hour transit system. Over all, they said, the MetroCard system is a huge success. "There's always going to be issues," said Steven Frazzini, vice president of MetroCard program management and sales, pointing out that the machines processed more than 101 million transactions last year. "They're getting a lot of use."
The nation's second-largest municipal rail system is Chicago's, which carries 1.5 million riders a day, compared to more than 4 million in New York. In Chicago, fare cards are sold only through vending machines, and repair crews respond to about 60 calls a day for 340 machines, a spokeswoman for the Chicago Transit Authority said. In Washington, whose subway system transports 650,000 riders a day, fare card machines work 99.6 percent of the time. But Washington's system and parts of Chicago's shut down overnight. All three cities use machines made by the same manufacturer, Cubic Automated Revenue Systems.
After the vending machines' initial rollout in 1999 in New York, they were failing far more often than transit officials had promised - once every 2,000 transactions, instead of every 10,000 transactions. But after some adjustments, the machines now fail at a rate of about once every 12,000 transactions. The number is deceptive because it does not take into account common headaches like the bill handler getting jammed with an old bill.
"A customer has five one-dollar bills, two fives and a ten," said Paul Korszak, assistant vice president of MetroCard sales and customer service. "It just takes one of those out of a sweaty pocket to introduce a jam."
The problems have created more than a few busy days for the mobile teams responsible for keeping the machines running. Louis Maldonado, 39, and his armed partner, Michael Hickman, 61, were camped the other day in front of two machines at the William and Fulton Streets entrance of the Broadway-Nassau subway station. After fixing a half-dozen machines at another station earlier in the morning, they arrived to find the two machines not taking bills.
The problem turned out to be vandalism: Mr. Maldonado reached into both machines and fished out MetroCards stuck in their bill-handling units.
Of 25,382 repairs in December, 16,936 involved the bill-handling unit. About 45 percent of these - or 30 percent of all repairs - were caused by tampering. The tamperer's goal is to break the machine so that riders will be forced to use the services of a person who just happens to be waiting nearby with a handful of unlimited-ride day passes offering to swipe people through for $2.
"They start a transaction," said Antonio Suarez, chief officer of automated fare collection equipment maintenance for the transit agency. "Instead of money, they introduce a card or a foreign object."
"What these guys will do is they will purchase multiples of those cards and just switch them as they're swiping people through and charge them two bucks apiece," said Paul J. Browne, the chief spokesman for the New York City Police Department.
The scam was in full view on a recent afternoon at the station at 125th Streeet and Lexington Avenue, where a group of men jostled to swipe riders through the turnstiles. All three MetroCard machines in the station were out of commission.
Officials say the scam represents an evolution of the extinct art of "token sucking," in which a person would clog the token slot with a matchbook or even glue. After the stymied rider walked away, the token sucker would clamp his lips over the receptacle and suck the token out, then turn around and resell it. The scam produced repair headaches similar to those the transit agency is experiencing with MetroCard. Repair crews used to fix turnstiles at a clip of about 250 a day, about 60 percent of them because of paper stuffed in the token slots.
Some of the swipers of today, as they are nicknamed, have stumbled upon a MetroCard quirk in which someone can bend a discarded card a certain way, then swipe it through a card reader three times quickly and somehow end up with a $2 credit.
A man who called himself Charlie and said he was 31 demonstrated for a reporter at the station at 103rd Street and Lexington Avenue.
"I can make $200 or $300 a day," he said. "This morning, I got here at 11. By 11:30, I made $25. Then I went to 125th Street. Up there, I made $30 in 15 minutes."
"The most I ever did was $250," he said. "That day I worked from 9 in the morning until 5."
Transit officials confirmed the problem but said it had not been fixed because that would make it harder to swipe legitimate cards through the turnstiles.
Officials for Washington's Metro said that their fare card dispensing machines were almost never tampered with and that fare swiping was not a problem, largely because riders were required to insert their fare cards when they went through the turnstiles to the subway and when they exited. Officials in Chicago reported a similar lack of vandalism.
After finishing with the two machines at Broadway-Nassau, Mr. Maldonado and Mr. Hickman moved on to the Chambers Street station of the C and E lines, where swipers had struck as well. Mr. Maldonado had planned to start on the southern end, where one machine was out, but after calling in to his headquarters, he learned of an "all out" condition on the other side. When he arrived, he found three broken vending machines, two of them unable to accept bills and a third unable to accept bills or dispense single-ride cards.
Swipers can be charged only with a transit violation, "unauthorized fare media," which carries a fine of $65 or occasionally a jail sentence of one to two days, Mr. Browne said. Because the crime does not rise to the level of a misdemeanor, he added, an officer must see the fare swiper in the act more than once to make an arrest.
Legislation is pending in Albany to elevate the crime to a misdemeanor. Even so, police officers made 2,033 arrests for fare swiping last year, with the monthly arrest average jumping from 134 to 194 after tokens were eliminated. Officers also issued 1,600 summonses for fare swiping.
Another frequent problem is with what officials call the "fare card transportation module," which processes, encodes and dispenses MetroCards. Problems with the fare card system account for about 13 percent of repairs. The rest are typically for the single-ride-ticket dispenser, the coin-accepting mechanism or the receipt system.
Officials said they had tried to build redundancies. If the bill accepter is not working, customers can use credit cards. If the MetroCard dispenser does not work, they can buy single-ride cards. In the rare case when a machine is completely out of service, they can go to a station agent, or try one of the 600 express machines throughout the system, which take only credit and debit cards and seldom have problems.
But the problems with the bill handler are clearly a concern because about three-quarters of transactions at MetroCard machines are in cash. The best they can do, officials said, is to get to the problems more quickly.
The turnaround time for fixing a machine has improved. Machines were out of order anaverage of 15.7 hours in June, a month after the token was eliminated. That dropped to a low of 10.4 hours in November, largely because officials switched to an overlapping shift system that made sure workers were on hand at busy hours. They also asked their workers to work overtime and added extra weekend crews.
Mr. Maldonado and Mr. Hickman finished up with the three machines at Chambers Street and headed south to the World Trade Center station. Swipers regularly position themselves at the unsupervised entrance, so they decide they should check it before they move on.
Sure enough, five out of six machines had error messages.
"They were here," Mr. Maldonado said.
He set down his bag and got to work.
The New York Times
Thank you for supplying the text anyway.
**********************************************************************
I've almost left a number of things on an Amtrak train. When you approach the station there's usually a rush to the exit which can be distracting.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df02022004.shtml#Amtrakplays
That is one lucky violinist. Kudos to Amtrak!
Someone was looking after that fellow - and his violin.
The story was covered in detail in Baltimore, and the Amtrak people were rewarded with front row seats at the performance.
**********************************************************************
Why the hell is McGoofball acting like such a jackass? I mean he FLIES to DC? What a jerk wasting taxpayer $$ like that.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df02022004.shtml#NJ
Read it again. McSleazy took an earlier train. State Senate president Codey flew to DC.
Thank you for supplying the text anyway.
**********************************************************************
Nice to see that someone is recognizing Amtrak as a legitimate travel option.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df02022004.shtml#Travelocity
Ben F. Schumin :-)
**********************************************************************
Jesus!! 1000 5th graders hepped up on doughnuts, bet the crew had fun. I wonder if they had an entire chartered train or something.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df02022004.shtml#Train
Thanks for posting that one.
**********************************************************************
This is a great programme. I would have definitly taken advantage of it had it been around 5 years ago.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df02022004.shtml#Amtrakhelps
**********************************************************************
This made the rounds on Trainorders a week or so ago. Anyone who works around freight lines know that any sort of security is a joke. The RoW's are unsecurable. There is simply too much "surface area". It also also fun playing hazmat bingo with trains cause all the tank cars need to be plainly laveled. I also don't know why they are focusing so much on tunnels. A hazmat release inside a tunnel is preferable to one in the open air or alongside a river. Moreover, while local DC leaders are trying to ban rail hazmat shipments through DC they are totally oblivious to the greater danger posed by hazmat trucks. Just 2 weeks ago a typical recklass trucker drove his tanker off an overpass and onto busy I-95 incinerating 4 innoscent drivers in the resulting fireball. Furthermore, most of the really really nasty stuff isn't transported in the bulk qualtities provided by rail tank cars.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df02022004.shtml#Graffiti
Tank cars loaded with things like chlorine gas are a hazard -but to focus on one thing and not consider the whole picture is dumb (and all too common).
So we ban hazmat trains only through DC. What happens?
Common idiots would say, The trains will just go around DC instead. Sure they will. That's extra mileage. Extra costs. Companies going to pay a lot more money to ship materials?
Probably not. They're use trucks instead. Now instead of one train, you have what 50+(or however many) trucks going down the highwas of the area. That's real safe, what happens the moment a car cuts off the truck like they do daily? Train hulls are a lot stronger than tankers. I forget how many more layers are involved.
Or, we could just move all the industries that require these chemicals to move to China too.
This is one of these things that sound good at first reading, but when you see the cause and effect, it's going to suck. As Dick would say, "big time".
**********************************************************************
For all you who didn't know UP has been showboating over the last month or so. Bah, the challenger couldn't hold a lighted twig to the PRR Q2.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df02022004.shtml#Patswin
**********************************************************************
What they don't tell you is that you'll be working 29 consecutive 12-hour days.
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df02022004.shtml#Jobs
Sounds a lot like airline flight attendants - only these guys at least get paid decent salaries...ofcourse I would say they work harder than the airline attendants do, overall.
Not really. Many are paid barely above poverty levels, except for very senior flight attendants.
Anyway, I rode R142 6314, and noticed that the transfer announcements were done by Dianne Thompson (the voice of the 2 line) at almost every transfer stop except for Fulton St, where it was still done by Charlie.
She announced the transfers at Park Place, but they don't sound ANY different (asides the voice)
Charlie: "...transfer is available for the A, C and E trains. Connection is available for PATH trains..."
Dianne: "...transfer is available for the A, C and E trains. Connection is available for PATH trains..."
NO idea why they bothered to re-record. -_-
Then the announcement at Times Sq seems dubious. Dianne announces it as "Transfer is available for the 1, 7, 9, A, C, E, N, R, Q, W and Shuttle to Grand Central..." The way she says it, it makes it seem as if ALL those trains go to Grand Central when it clearly isn't the case.
Final note: the R142s are much easier to record announcements with the PA being pretty loud. Plus all my recordings came out real well (to me at least). It's a shame they were all lost (damn my stupid computer... >=\ )
"Believe it or not, all computers are stupid."
I.A.W.Y.P.A.H (I agree with your post and her.)
>Wow. I never knew Charlie Pellett did station announcements...until now. :)
On the (2) trains with old announcements, Thompson goes:
"This. Is a Bronx-bound (2) express train."
On the (2) trains with new announcements, Thompson goes:
"This is. A Bronx-bound (2) express train."
Ohhh...I think I know why. I'll elaborate later.
And as mr brian said, the old announcements have Charlie doing the transfers, but the new announcements have Thompson doing transfers. (Most of the time, anyway.)
It's the same on the (4) and (6). Charlie used to do ALL of the transfer announcements, but once the new announcements were installed, it was "Miss I Sound Pissed Off" from the (4) doing MOST transfer announcements, but Charlie still does some...especially on weekends. Weird, because some announcements didn't need changing at all, so why re-record them?
And then there's the whole "changing of the (5) voice" thing, and the whole "The next stop is" versus "The next. Stop is" which occurs in the new announcements.....it's all hard to keep up with.
sample1
sample2
sample3
And this is what I felt was the best sound I recorded all day. =p
I just listened to Sample 3, with Thompson announcing the transfers at Times Square, and it's different from when I heard her last time at Times Square!
I clearly remember her putting a strong emphasis on the words TRANSFER and CONNECTION the last time I heard her at Times Square. But this one is different.
And yes, the same transfers were announced.
"This is Times Square - 42 Street. TRANSFER. Is available to the (1)(7)(9)(A)(C)(E)(N)(Q)(R)(W) and Shuttle to Grand Central. CONNECTION. Is available to the Port Authority Bus Terminal."
Nope, definitely not her. The (2) is announced completely by Thompson on the trains with updated announcements, and she teams up with Pellet on the old announcements.
And there's no way to confuse Thompson with Kleiner anyway. They sound WAY different.
"More noticeable improvements for the customer will be better directional signage, more visible and consistent Delta branding, the addition of bus connection to the new Air Train, road repair and more."
Huh? Why would you need a bus to take you across the street to the AirTrain station?
CG
Delta had been planning to build a new terminal to replace T2 and T3, but the idea was dropped after 9/11 before any actual work began. The fact that the airline now proposes to spend $300 million on improvements to the existing structures probably means that the new terminal idea is dead.
T5 is vacant, although JetBlue uses some of its gates for aircraft parking.
I haven't heard much about its ultimate fate -- though the fact that no provision was made to connect it to the AirTrain terminal (the station for Terminals 5 and 6 is right in front of T-6) probably confirms that its days as an inservice terminal are finished.
CG
If it were to be strictly a shopping and restaurant or museum venue, it would still need to offer passengers access from other places in the airport. Somehow, I don't see people on a tight schedule wanting to get on a shuttle bus to go there, eat lunch or dinner, look at the exhibits (I'm being hypothetical here) and then catch the next bus back to AirTrain and thence to a departure gate. Especially if that trip were to involve leaving the "sterile" zone ad having to go through security again.
It was what I flew into the first time I came to NYC, back when there where a couple dozen TWA flights a day, and porters, and ticket agents who took time with you. Obviously it's a problem how you keep a virtual museum running in the middle of an airport. But we've kept a transit museum running right smack in the middle of the world's biggest subway system, haven't we?
One possibility is to connect it to Terminal 6 somehow, much as American Airlines is now dooing with Terminals 8 & 9. You could see it happen if JetBlue keeps expanding.
It may be impractical as a terminal, but it is a work of art.
Amtrak
Alaska Railroad
Airtrain
VIA Rail Canada
Virginia Railway Express
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Washington Metro Area Rapid Transit
MARC
Long Island Rail Road
Deutsche Bahn
Danbury Railroad Museum
Trinity Railway Express
New Jersey Transit
South Florida Regional Transportation Authority
Danbury??
If real...He got a second chance. Hope he got some help.
link
< a href="www.somesite.org" >link< /a >
<ahref="www.somesite.org">link</a>
When I get to work early, I can usually catch one of the last N trains going local on 4th Avenue. This goes through the tunnel, so it takes me to Whitehall, and that's good. Meanwhile, the W goes by express.
Now if the D were local and not the N, if I ended up on a D I'd have to change trains. Meanwhile, the N is still supposed to go through the tunnel overnight.
In any event, can someone tell me what the overnight service pattern will be on 4th Avenue in Brooklyn relative to today?
D - local from 36 to DeKalb from 2239 to 0512
N - local from 59 to DeKalb from 2128 to 0523; through tunnel from 2232 to 0501
All times are departures from respective south terminals - you get to do the running time math to your favorite station.
I will get the D train info this week from BP Tower, if they will let me. Paging Train Dude, beep beep!
I guess that goes with relaying it at 59th.
(D - local from 36 to DeKalb from 2239 to 0512
N - local from 59 to DeKalb from 2128 to 0523; through tunnel from 2232 to 0501)
I usually get down the stairs at, say, 6:40. Unless those running times are much longer than I think they are, it appears that under the new service plan only the R will be on the local of the three.
Does that mean the M will start up earlier, rush hour frequency R service will start up earlier, or a big gap will form?
Sean O'Sullivan story in The News Journal
Unfortunately, the article also says that the end of 2004 may see the end of “slam door” carriages–the ones that passengers can open themselves–on safety grounds.
What happened? Have the British become so stupid that they can’t be relied on not to open the door while the train is not stopped at a station? How did I manage to get to school every day for 5 years without stepping out of the wrong side of the train?
The big problem with the new Southern trains is that they need considerably more power than the trains that they are replacing, resulting in a very costly power upgrading scheme for wherever they are to be used.
The main reason for replacing the slam door trains is that they are old. I'm far from convinced that we really need these replacement heavyweight power guzzling monsters on many of the services that they run, e.g. all stations coastway. Tyne and Wear Metro vehicles are much lighter, very comfortable, and seem to be lasting well enough. Why not use a design like that?
(2) A lot of the problem with new trains is a consequence of the balkanisdation of British Rail into lots of different companies. There was no coherence to the acquisition programme - each company made its own separate choice of what trains to buy. If standard types had been ordered in larger numbers, they wouldn't have had to iron out the bugs in so many different models of new train.
And of course the power supply problem in Kent and Sussex should have been foreseen.
And to think I was feeling smug about G.B. in the eighties. They're going to fix their problems and we're going to be hauling oxcarts.
More likely, a delay occurs because some joker gets on to the platform when a train is just starting off and opens a door. They always got really upset at this at Charing Cross: There would be whistles, bells, and shouting platform staff.
Issues include reliability of the new trains, and late delivery. "Botched privatisation" and insufficient investment are blamed.
http://www.railpro.co.uk/issues/jan2004.html
Check the article called 'New Scrap'. All about SWT's contraversial plan to park their 3 year old Junipers (inital cost 90 million pounds).
Some intersting tidbits:
SWT Junipers - just over 4,300 miles per casualty!
Gatwick Express Junipers - 17,609 miles per casualy last year (recently up to 34,469 miles)
Some differences in operations, but also likely some difference in maintenance (like one's good and one's not).
There's also an article on the slam doors ('Old Scrap').
for double crossovers,
and for Junctions,
and for pocket tracks,
On these diagrams the WMATA nomenclature is "X" = Route letter, "NN" = train control RTU (Remote Terminal Unit) number, and then the signal number, The Baltimore Metro uses a the same basic labeling nomenclature with a couple differences. There in no route letter, the train control RTU are based on a two letter abbreviation of the station name, for instance OC 2 would be the signal at the crossover just north of Old Court Station on the outbound track 2. The signal number are the same as WMATA but the track number are opposite. for instance WMATA would be XNN 02 on track 1, Baltimore Metro NN 2 on track 2
John
If it's worth anything, I can help you with the track designations. They are referenced from Five Points as if you are standing at 5P and facing down each line. You can see from the platforms at 5P where the 0+00 chaining station is marked off on the third rail. On the East Line, the eastbound mainline track is designated ER (for East Right), the Westbound mainline track is EL for East Left, and center tracks are EC for East Center. The West Line is WR, WL and WC for westbound, eastbound and center tracks respectively. You can figure out that the South Line is SR, SL and SC. The North Line is NR, NL and NC. I'm not 100% sure about the Northeast line, but I would imagine that it starts at the junction south of Lenox and its designations are NER, NEL and NEC. I'm not completely sure about the Proctor Creek line, I but would guess that it is PR and PL, there are no center tracks on this line.
The only place where you see signal head labels with numbers that high on WMATA are in the yards. The highest number you will find on a main line interlocking signal on WMATA is D98 48. D98 48 protects the trailing inbound movement in to D And G junction (D98) from the Blue Line G Route track 1. This movement would be against normal flow as track 1 is the outbound track.
I think you are correct about the Proctor Creek line, based on the route labels in Kai Brackschuize track map
Looks like John is going to have to make a road trip to Atlanta.
John
Yes, from the eastbound platform.
I still prefer the old US&S system where signals were named according to which "lever" controled them with L or R added as to which lever position cleared the signal. The new PATH WTC system uses the R/L terminology. PATCO also uses the L/R system not for each interlocking but over their entire line starting with 2L/R at 16th St and ending with 90 L/R at Woodcrest.
John
Daniel Greene's subway paintings
Penn Station Model & O. Winston Link Museum
Parsons fascinates me. He stood tall and saw far into the distance and left this city with a transportation masterpiece. He was a true visionary and we owe him much.
Anyway, here's a link to the NYPL for more information about the exhibition. Their dates seem to differ from dates that the Transit Museum sent out in a flyer last month.
William Barclay Parsons
Channel 41 had the longest segment with a many of shots of the interior of an AirTrain, exteriors of the AirTrains, stations, tracks, ticket machines, and electronic sign-age. Unfortunately, I do not understand Spanish, so I don't know what they said but the pictures were great.
WNBC said the cost will be $6 Billion.
Randy Mason
There are four options. In each case, the AirTrain would hook up to the Atlantic Avenue branch of the LIRR. The story discusses three ways to get the trains into Lower Manhattan:
Via the Cranberry St tunnels (the Brookfield proposal), which would force the C to be diverted to the Rutgers St tunnels
Via the Montague St tunnels. I believe there is enough capacity that this could be done without canibalizing existing subway service.
Via a new East River tunnel.
The Daily News wasn't able to find out what the 4th option was, except that it was a variation on one or more of the above.
Isaac
I don't know. If so, the whole system is incompatible with everything else around it.
Not so much, nor so significant, as they'd have you believe. What's your point, anyway?
Airtrain? 750VDC. As always, these figures are nominal.
And they use 2 different systems for their power.
Yes.
Can LIM and conventional trains mix?
Sure, why not?
The presence of the reaction rail does not preclude the use of conventional traction propulsion.
Of course, on any car equipped only for linear-induction propulsion, it would be impossible to operate in the absence of a reaction rail. Expect any track-sharing service to either use hybrid vehicles equipped with both linear-induction and traction motors, or to ditch the linear-induction altogether and operate solely with traction motors even in the presence of a reaction rail.
Mark
Duh!
Given the new service plan Feb 22, your opinion is reasonable and supportable. Good signaling and well-timed operation would be important.
There is no obstacle to a dual-mode car.
As a former engineer, I wave my PRIVATE PARTS as WELL as well as my HAT to the "AirTrain" designers ... they did it FLEXIBLE! Whooops! MULTIPLE WAYS TO WIN ... *BAD* engineer! BAD, BAD, BAD ENGINEER! It was SUPPOSED to explode and embed copper, lead, and steel in every direction. Dammit! You gave the opposition WAYS OUT! :(
As a former technocrat, I've reaped the multishaftings over and over for providing technical solutions to "will it float?" or NOT. ENGINEERS "overbuild" designs. And always get in TROUBLE for doing so. I would FULLY expect that you could run an R68A on airtrain's tracks, and will it float (or - "is it bouyant?")? Only way to tell is put one up there - bet it will float (and as always, NO wagering)
But Pigs is probably corect here - the DESIGN allows for D trains. :)
* Aren't Airtrains run via an automated system - no humans operating at the controls? I doubt this can be allowed. Airtrains would have to be run by humans and this would create a major stink over why the trains are also not run by humans at the airport - a big pain.
* Signal systems - are signalling systems compatible between Airtrain and the subway system?
* Capacity - Tunnels other than Rutgers are at or near capacity. There seems to be no room to add additional trains at peak periods without reducing service to key stations as Airtrain can be expected to run non-stop - bypassing waiting commuters - an ugly situation.
* Inter-operability with the subway - current standard size cars may be too long to even navigate/fit on Airtrain curves so subway eqpt can't be mixed with Airtrain eqpt.
As for routing - consider that the object is to bring trains to a downtown terminal from the airport. So the Old Rockaway ROW is a poor fit except where it's part of the current A line.
Which is stupid. The emphasis should be on providing rail service to places people actually want to go.
The incompatibility of LIRR and Airtrain equipment is a legitimate obstacle, but one which must be overcome for any of the proposed plans. With ESA complete, capacity will be plentiful.
You'd get a transit line through Brooklyn and Queens that follows the traffic patterns of anyone who has a car.
Isaac
Problem is:
The powers that be are in control and won't be talked out of bringing the train downtown. They are making a political statement here to prove the point that they want to fix up the mess caused by the trajedy of Seeptember 11 and that they want to pour some $$ into the lower Manhattan area in form of construction. So it's probably as much about that as moving people to and from the airport.
As for building new infrastructure - the point is well taken - but again impractical due to the powers that be. They want to say they've done it all - but actually spend as little as possible doing it. If the solution is less than perfect - they have a tactic:
Say what you want the public to hear as many times as necesary - until they accept is as empirical fact. Examples:
* JFK was killed by a single bullet (according to the Warren Commission)
* Ronald Reagan didn't raise taxes (oh yeah??!! but he raised mine?!?!)
* We need this funding to build the Second Avenue Subway (yeah right - we've been funding it since 1932 in various transit bond issues - still no SAS)
Sorry in advance for my off topic rant at the end of this post - but I felt like I had to do this just once - -
Which is stupid. The emphasis should be on providing rail service to places people actually want to go.
Which is so far off-base, it's hilarious. Lower Manhattan is the third-largest business district in the USA. Millions of people want to go there.
Midtown Manhattan (the largest business district in the USA) already has comparatively superior transit connections, and it is also pretty well tapped-out, with no room to grow. The growth opportunity is in Lower Manhattan. The better the transit connections, the better the growth.
Furthermore, Lower Manhattan is going to be under construction for the next 10-15 years. Any sensible plan should consider transit options before the cement dries.
The incompatibility of LIRR and Airtrain equipment is a legitimate obstacle....
Thank goodness SubTalkers keep pointing this out. I'm sure the planners otherwise would have overlooked it.
Actually, with the exception of the WTC site, there is very little room to add development in Lower Manhattan. Midtown still has much more buildable property, especially if CBD zoning and infrastructure is expanded to the West Side.
After that, it is Long Island City and Downtown Brooklyn.
But there are still areas of blight and poverty. The arrival of the SAS at 106 St and 116 St would be very good for the area. In fact, the developers would be getting busy years before the stations opened for business. Open the first operable segment to 96 St and watch developers start looking at properties further north. Start finishing the existing tunnels in the 100s-110s and the developers will get busy.
Yes and no. after all, there's Harlem, and then there's east Harlem. They are distinct in some ways.
"To be more you require access in a reasonable commute from the whole region, or at least a large part of it."
Harlem and East Harlem already has great access along a north-south access. Excellent subway service, and Metro-North's 125 St station - plus 125 St is a Lex express stop, renovated with ADA access.
The SAS 125 St terminal would offer improved access to Metro-North and set up a possible east-west service expansion. However, the latter is far in the future.
So your definition is met. However, it is not met as well as in downtown or in downtown Brooklyn. greed, midtown is preferable due to better east-west connections (and ESA on the way...)
"And that's the way the office rents shake out too."
False statement as of a few years ago, and false today in regards to lower Manhattan. 125 St commercial rents were as high as anywhere in the city. And they are certainly higher than downtown. They were higher than downtown in the years when the WTC towers stood empty. This was part of the irony surrounding Harlem.
That should read Agreed, not greed.
Simple as that. No taking over the LIRR atlantic av line, no taking a subway tunnel, none of that BS.
The agencies involved won't be paying for any lengthy special
ROW to move these trains. What we're most likely to see is some form of a revived JFK Express ("Take the train to the plane" - anyone remember that) which puts to use the existing A service including an extension connecting to Airtrain.
But even in this scenario - there will be equipment incompatibilities. It's pretty clear to me that the Airtrain eqpt won't be allowed out onto the subway as unmanned trains. I've also heard that existing eqpt won't fit on some of the turns (radius too tight) for the new Airtrain.
Other incompatibilities would also need to be overcome - including but not limited to signalling.
It already is. A trains to Rockaway Pk. are extras. At best there are 3 per hour, in one direction only.
On one hand, it smacks of a double theft.
On the other hand, even at rush hour you could probably run three additional (Air)trains per hour through the Cranberry without affecting subway service, as long as there were no dwell time issues. The Airtrain could then run to the lower level at 42nd Street and terminate there. Additional trains could run off-peak.
As for the Montigue, it will have capacity once the bridge is open. But a one-seat LIRR ride just doesn't work. So you are talking about a new subway line, though perhaps one that doesn't have a free transfer from other NYCT services but does from the LIRR.
Given four plans for an expensive and unnecessary line, I hope that the the fourth option is the "no-build" option!
Then again, the MTA is preparing to spend $400 million to reduce capacity from 30 tph to 24 tph on a route that's crush loaded at 20 tph.
Wake up, politicians!
A brief summary of the plan is here:
http://www.tstc.org/bulletin/20040112/mtr44201.html
Remember - our "anointed" don't care about Brooklyn - it's under democratic control, thus can go to hell ... "Cranberry" is the buzzword rather than a NEW tunnel (which could, if properly designed) serve both LI *and* perhaps join Staten Island to Manhattan, eliminating a very expensive ferry for which "farebox recovery" is nonexistent ...
But yeah, if Brooklyn can't get to Manhattan, let them take the G and the people mover to get to Manhattan from Hoyt ...
DISCLAIMER:
"high-raps" from politicos and their aides in local taverns under heavy influence of alocholic beverages is NOT a substitute for reality ... "heard in the office" does NOT mean that it is a law ... merely the ponderings of the Paturkey Peekskill clueless who are in power
now, don't LIVE in Albany, and don't give a QWAP about Brooklyn or any of the OTHER "boroughs of the great unwashed" ... these are REPUBLICAN times ... get over it - if you DON'T live in the suburbs, then you're a damned liberal and to hell with YOU.
But yeah, A/C train byebye, hello LIRR is the "path of least resistance" being explored to make certain that suburbanites can leave the office at 1PM and be in front of Homeland security for four hours at 2PM ... and to hell with you. :(
All I got was a smirk and the "little bit of this" hand gesture ... (if ya know whut I meen) ... so far though, the PLAN is to hijack a subway line and just use that. After all, NYC don't vote republican, so to HELL with them. That's the attitude - "you're either *WITH* us, or *AGAINST* us, BRING IT ON. :(
I don't think Cranberry can possibly make it through community review. Montague (which probably is less costly) will be the way to go, and can be done without hijacking subway service.
But my "source" works for the internal "think tank" of the NYS Senate. They're employed to study a situation and make recommendations for the "legislative intent" piece behind bills that get printed - their job is to look at the possibilities and determine which ones to "recommend" as an "action plan" ...
What I was told was that the "A/C tunnel" (Cranberry) was the BEST choice among technocrats that have looked at it and determined that the LEAST "street disruptions" (anyone remember the 63 St tunnel getting connected to the E/F/G/whatever and the HELL it wrought from time to time whilst being built?) would be to dig from *near* the Atlantic LIRR terminal, route to Cranberry and SHARE the tunnel ... nobody ever *heard* of FRA until I brought it up nearly a year ago.
They went, looked, talked to FRA and determined that a waiver COULD be granted if certain conditions were met ... we didn't talk much about THAT angle ... I was amazed that there was any belief it would be granted at ALL ... but I digress.
Cranberry *IS* the "most likely plan" and has been discussed a few times. There's a "study group" on the issue now, plus consultants. All I can tell ya is that Cranberry is *still* the leader until all the reports are in. They'd *LOVE* to build a *NEW TUNNEL* for this, but unfortunately, the Shrub Administration won't fund subway tunnels *UNLESS* they're on MARS and Ahnold Schwartenegger is the motorman. :(
Like all the little "trial balloons" I share here, it's nothing more than "the current plan" being thrown around. I'm privy to "trial balloons" and since our friend is right there in the helium factory, I'm at liberty to throw them out here and see what happens. :)
The whole "BRT" thing that I posted a week or two ago was CLOSELY watched by my friend and his/her cohorts and HEH! It was a doozy, As my buddy said, "Man! That was a REALLY BAD idea now that I think about it." Died in two days as a concept. THANKS, EVERYONE! :)
But yeah, Paturkey wants, Paturkey GETS and to HELL with anyone in the way. NYC re-elected him, he's yours. :(
Forget community review. Doesn't the City of New York own the subway? Would the state seize it for the benefit of suburban Long Island, after New York City taxpayers paid for it (10 times over the way this place refinances debt)? Come to think of it, doesn't the city own the Atlantic Avenue branch too?
After running around all the possibilities, I have concluded that the best solution is a super-express subway from Jamaica, along the Atlantic Avenue Branch, north to Myrtle and into the Montigue tunnel beyond Court Street station. Merge (super-subway vs. DeKalb) and diverge (BMT Broadway vs. Nassau Loop) with no dwell time, and you'd get lots of TPH. The super-subway would be a cross-platform transfer for LIRR riders at Jamaica, and would go in from there. If compatibility problems could be solved, you could also run the Airtrain through, at least off peak. Since it's a shorter train, it would be more cost effective than an eight or ten car subway moving in LIRR riders off peak.
As a new premium service, the super-subway would not carry a free transfer, so it would be used primarily by LIRR commuters and Airtrain transferees, along with those moving between Jamaica, Downtown Brooklyn, and Lower Manhattan. For bus transferees, I recommend building the 3rd track on the Jamaica line, as discussed. You could even do a loop, with 6 Js and 12 express Zs on the lower level for bus riders, and 18 super-subway trains for the LIRR and Airtrain riders on the upper level, at peak hour.
The W would take the place of the M in Brooklyn. So along Nassau Street, the suburbanites would have the northbound platforms in the AM and the southbound platforms in the PM pretty much to themsevles. I'm sure they'd appreciate that.
Methinks you (and other subtalkers) are more tolerant of getting on a crowded subway full of Afro-Americans than the average resident of Nassau and Suffolk County earning over $100 G per year. That is what this is all about.
Why pander to their racial fears?
Here's a cheaper solution:
1. Re-signal the Fulton St express. This permits higher speeds.
2. Connect the Liberty el's center track to the Fulton subway.
3. Run the AIRtrain on the Fulton subway as an express, charging extra fare to ride such trains.
Certainly not Rutgers: there's no room for A/C/F. Under the proposed plans, AIRtrains and 8th avenue expresses would share trackage. The original proposed connection is a tunnel branching off the Atlantic LIRR at Vanderbuilt av, connecting to the Fulton subway between Clinton-Washington and Lafayette Av.
Aren't Penn's Platforms already extremely crowded? I don't know: I don't ride commuter rail.
Nearly 150,000 riders use cranberry each direction, daily. These people have to go somewhere. If AIRtrain's going to use existing tunnel, it's going to have to learn to share with DC powered trains.
Undoubtedly. Don't AIRtrains use an entirely different propulsion system anyway?
The answer is to convert AIRtrains to Subway specifications. Should have been built that way in the first place.
Simply connectimg the AIRtrain to the "A" at Howard Beach is much cheaper.
If they have not been signed off, you can advocate them or find fault with them. Once signed off, it's too late to do either.
This will ruin A/C service permanently. Airtrains will have to merge with A trains at Vanderbilt, then with C trains at Hoyt-Schermerhorn, and we'll lose LIRR service to Brooklyn. I can't believe anyone is seriously considering this plan.
No, LIRR would still use it, while AIRtrains move 1 block over to Fulton.
Utilizing steel wheel/steel rail technology, the AirTrain system will have third rail current collection at 750 volts dc.
You've been in the sausage factory though long enough to know the difference between floating lead balloons on the ceiling versus what actually happens. :)
Left hand, meet right hand.
I know that you know that the type of propulsion (DC traction, AC traction, Airtrain-style linear induction, or even fanboat propellor) has nothing to do with how the electrons are delivered. Even some of your own equipment manages to get by on your third rail with AC propulsion. Don't feel left out, I'm sure Concourse will get its share soon enough.
Mark
They could use the airport funds however they rules dictate the funds be used for airport travelers only, meaning no LIRR commuters could use the tunnel if it's been paid for by airline ticket surcharges.
The point about the Rockaway branch is mute now because the Airtrain has already been built to Jamaica station, when the LIRR finally connects with Grand Central there will be room to send Airtain to Penn Station. All that would be needed is to physically connect the two lines at Jamaica and solve the compatibility problems.
The point of this recent announcement is for service to LOWER Manhattan, thus the four plans.
2013 seems to me awfully optimistic, even if everything goes perfectly.
The fact sheet refers to "families" of options (e.g., the "New Tunnel family of options", the "Cranberry family of options"). That's because there are multiple alignment possibilities after the trains get to Manhattan. For instance, a new tunnel could lead to a stub-end terminal at WTC, or it could connect to one or both of the E line or the SAS.
It is easy to dismiss the benefits of this project. Anyone who doubts the importance of commuter rail stations should study the evolution of midtown Manhattan after Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal were built. Done right, the impact can be huge. The range of options being considered do a lot more than merely a point-to-point ride from WTC to the airport.
It would be wrong to assume that this service would operate with existing rolling stock. Comments here that the existing AirTrain would be incompatible with the announced options are therefore misplaced. I know that SubTalkers pride themselves on their encyclopedic knowledge of rails and trains, but trust me: transit planners have noticed that the subway, the AirTrain, and the LIRR are not currently compatible. This critical point has not eluded them.
Does this mean a one-seat ride between Lower Manhattan and JFK or a one-seat ride from Lower Manhattan to Jamaica?
study the evolution of midtown Manhattan after Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal were built.
But this commuter rail station is being planned in an area that is already at a very advanced state of evolution.
Indeed. Brains with 20% more synapses than the average abound here. The third rail helps a lot.
:0)
During business hours. At night and on Sunday, there's more action in West Hempstead.
There are only two tracks. Others have already posted the obvious problems with sharing the tracks. Let's hope they are not thinking about using one track for subways, the other for LIRR, each running bi-directional (yeah, sure)
OR are they thinking of running subway trains from Cranberry tunnels up the LIRR Brooklyn route then connecting to the J line, displacing the LIRR trains, instead of the other way around? Hello Super Express!
"Four options have been identified to provide direct access to Long Island and JFK Airport. The options also provide improved service between Downtown Brooklyn and the LIRR hub at Jamaica, Queens. The options are as follows:
* New Tunnel - Service between Lower Manhattan and JFK & Jamaica using: the AirTrain /JFK route, the converted Atlantic Branch, new tunneling in Brooklyn, a new East River tunnel, and new tunneling in Manhattan.
* Montague Tunnel (Currently serves the M, N, R subway lines) - Service between Lower Manhattan and JFK & Jamaica using: the AirTrain /JFK route, the converted Atlantic Branch, new tunneling in Brooklyn, the Montague Street Tunnel, and MTA-NYCT Broadway and/or Nassau Line.
* Cranberry Tunnel (Currently serves the A, C subway lines)- Service between Lower Manhattan and JFK & Jamaica using: the AirTrain /JFK route, the converted Atlantic Branch, new tunneling in Brooklyn, the Cranberry Street Tunnel, and MTA-NYCT Fulton Line (A/C).
* Montague and Cranberry Tunnel Combination - Service between Lower Manhattan and JFK & Jamaica using: the AirTrain /JFK route, the converted Atlantic Branch, and both the Cranberry and Montague Street Tunnels.
All options, both those using existing MTA-NYCT tunnels and those that build a new tunnel, make extensive use of existing infrastructure. Under all alternatives, the Atlantic Avenue Branch, currently operated by the MTA-LIRR, would be used between Jamaica Station and Downtown Brooklyn. The alternatives make use of four different tunnel options for crossing the East River between Brooklyn and Manhattan. All options will provide either station or pedestrian connections to the Port Authority's World Trade Center Transportation Hub or the MTA's Fulton Street Transit Center. . .
A critical next step of the study is an in-depth analysis of any effects that these proposed alternatives may have on existing New York City Transit operations. The selected alternative will complement existing and planned transit services.
Construction and project cost estimates for each alternative have not yet been developed. The next phase of the analysis will focus on alignment, construction, and other environmental issues, return on investment/cost, ridership, and relationship to other regional transit network planning issues. A full assessment of all the issues that need to be addressed prior to the implementation of a new service will be evaluated in the formal environmental review process that will commence in the spring following this study.
The selected alternative, along with a financing framework, will be announced by the end of April 2004. In addition, a timeline for implementation including construction start date and the beginning dates of potential interim/early phases of the new service will be released in the spring."
Notice they talk about the "converted" LIRR Atlantic Ave. branch, and use of the Broadway or Nassau St., or Fulton St., lines of the subway. From this I deduce they plan to convert LIRR branch to a subway and run subway-compatible (possibly hybrid) trains through the chosen tunnel, then via the ex-LIRR tracks to and onto the Airtrain system. I also deduce, from the last few paragraphs, that there is still a hell of a lot of study to be done.
The deal circa 1990 = NYC parasites who want to beat the system get welfare, the rest of the state gets everything else.
The deal circa 2004 -- the rest of the state gets everything, the suckers in NYC pay.
Actually, in 1990 welfare really didn't cost so much afterall. Fuckeramos.
There is no need for the line and there is not enough money to build it. Most of that $4.5 billion FEMA money is already earmarked. The Port Authority might make a small contribution. Are those downtown landlords big political contributors?
There's no doute that this line WILL be built sometime in the next 10-15 years....
and another says:
Clearly, there is no unmet transportation need for this line.
Personally I don't think that either statement is clearly true.
But I don't see how such a plan can be justified as a candidate for federal funding, so where is the money coming from?
The Federal Government pays for lots of things that are strictly justified by any essential federal need.
That said, I suspect that most of the funding for the AirTrain extension, if it is built at all, will have to come from bond issuance, higher airport taxes, and so forth. The city has offered to put in about $500 million, which is not insignificant, but is clearly only a fraction of the funds needed.
bond issuance, higher airport taxes, and so forth.
Whoever issues bonds must pay the interest. I would prefer airport users to pay, not the general public.
The city has offered to put in about $500 million
And I heard that the Port Authority has offered another $500 million.
clearly only a fraction of the funds needed
At one time they were hoping for some of the $4.5 billion FEMA money, but most of that is already spoken for.
the AirTrain extension, if it is built at all
It seems to me that there is a fair chance that it may not be built, despite being a priority of Governor Pataki. I would like to know if anyone has done a cost/benefit analysis, because I seriously doubt that the benefits would exceed the $6 billion cost.
I am not sure how well unmanned vehicles would mix with conventional trains, if that is part of the plan!
However, that is only on dedicated ROW. When you start mixing train types nd controls, extra safeguards must be in place.
Like many who've posted on this thread, you're presuming that this plan would be implemented with existing rolling stock. I don't think that's very likely.
They have L trains announcing an M train station, and M trains announcing the L train station. What a world!
How long have the M Shuttles used the R143's?
"This is a Manhattan-bound L train. The next stop is Wyckoff Avenue."
If you take approximately the same train every day it is understandable that you may get incorrect announcements on that interval. The regular C/R be out for a long time due to medical or disciplinary reasons so there would be an extra C/R every day. Or maybe if he or she is the regular C/R, he or she is not setting it up correctly and no one has corrected them.
If you hear incorrect announcements, you could let the C/R know. They may not be aware of what's being said. When you hear that stuff every day you stop paying attention to it like retail employees with the Muzak.
I was aboard cars 8249-8250-8251-8252 on the M train on Saturday, jumping on at Wyckoff, going to Metropolitan, and then to Myrtle. I noticed that, going towards Metropolitan (8249 being the lead car), the train I.D. announcements started, “This is a Metropolitan Avenue-bound M train,” and while going towards Myrtle (8252 leading), the Wyckoff Avenue station was referred to as, “Wyckoff Avenue.” I was later on a different M train (I didn’t get the car numbers) which referred to the northern terminal as “Middle Village-Metropolitan Avenue” and the Wyckoff Avenue station as “Myrtle Avenue-Wyckoff Avenue.” I assume that these cars have the later program. This supports my theory that the announcements have been switched between the two lines. The “Myrtle Avenue-Wyckoff Avenue” announcement should be on the L, and the “Wyckoff Avenue” announcement should be on the M, but on some trains the announcements are switched between the two lines. Interestingly, on both programs, the Metropolitan Avenue station was referred to as “Metropolitan Avenue,” regardless of whether “Middle Village” was announced as the destination or not (i.e. Trains that I.D. themselves, "This is a Middle Village-Metropolitan Avenue-bound M train" refer to the station as simply, "Metropolitan Avenue").
The accident -- which occurred around 5:45pm on the Hubbard Street S-curve immediately north of Merchandise Mart station -- involved northbound Purple and Brown line trains. The Purple Line train "bumped into the Brown Line" train, according to CTA® spokeswoman Robyn Ziegler.
It appears the striking train was traveling at a "low speed," CTA® spokeswoman Sheila Gregory said, although how slow was unclear. "It looks like one rear-ended the other one," she said. "Preliminarily it looked like we've got 17 or 18 injuries that appear to be minor. We're still evacuating people." By 7pm, it appeared that as many as 35 people may have been injured, all minor.
The impact of the collision shattered glass windows on the train cars. Rescue workers erected ladders from the sidewalk to the tracks to help passengers evacuate the train cars.
A third train was backed up to the site so riders could walk through it toward a nearby stop, Gregory said, but some riders also were visible walking on the elevated catwalk. Power to the third rail was cut off shortly after the accident.
Passenger Sharada Nethaway was in the last car of the Purple Line train. It had just pulled out of the Merchandise Mart, she said. "I was sitting when I felt a big bump. I just knew that we crashed. Everyone was calm. There was no panic," she said. Fire department spokesman Kevin MacGregor said some passengers complained of injuries but none appeared to be serious.
Due to the accident, Brown Line and Purple Line service into and out of the Loop was temporarily suspended. Purple Line trains were rerouted to operate via the Red Line subway. A bus shuttle was put in place in both directions between the Merchandise Mart and Fullerton stations by 6:45pm to compensate for the loss of Brown Line service.
Power was restored to the northbound track around 7:30pm, allowing he effected trains to be moved to Chicago station to discharge the remaining passengers. The trains involved in the collision were then taken to Howard Yard to be laid up for inspection. Power was restored to the southbound track at 7:55pm. The first runs to traverse the incident site, following inspection of the right-of-way by maintenance personnel were Brown Line Run 420 in the northbound direction and Run 434 southbound. All Brown Line trains were returned to normal service at 8:45pm. The bus shuttle remained in place until about 9:15pm.
The incident Tuesday is similar to another in 2001, when a Brown Line train rounding Church Curve near Orleans and Oak rear-ended a stopped Purple Line train, injuring dozens. [Source: Chicago Sun-Times, CTA]
I note the speed restriction in the photo just posted.
http://subway.com.ru/chicago/pages/chi009.htm
-Larry
subway.com.ru
Is the whole CTA cab signalled?
Jim K.
Chicago
By this morning, all the idiotic talk shows would have been aired with all the lawyer commercials (you know, "if you've been injured in an accident...") so by this evening the number should jump to 3,000.
http://www.chicago-l.org/mishaps/loop.html
Alan Follett
Hercules, CA
Yes, a heavy beam was installed diagonally in the outside northeast quadrant of the curve following the accident.
Alan Follett
Hercules, CA
The corner they collided on is pretty blind. It's two tight turns - not the max allowable, but pretty tight - in an "S" curve as the tracks move west from running over Wells to run over Franklin immediately after leaving the Merchandise Mart station. There are enough buildings around them that you can only see the curves themselves once you're in them, and not the straight-aways leading into or exiting them.
When the TA was having all their Union Square, West End line, and Eastern Division wrecks with R40 and R42's, preventive steps were taken with regards to train speeds and acceleration capabilities so that 2 red lights were sufficient to follow a train.
Kiley himself admited to writer William Finnegan that he was surprised at some of the conditions he found. First of all, he was struck by the stoic, 'keep a stiff upper lip' attitude of most Londoners (which may or may not be a good thing), quite a contrast to the pulic he was accustomed to while at NYCTA. He cited an example: Victoria Station is forced to close at nearly every rush hour due to severe overcrowding and Kiley was caught in a frightening crush there. He was amazed to see Underground workers form a human chain to hold back a tide of commuters trying to reach a packed platform. Kiley retreated into a a control booth where dispatchers work in full view of the public. He thought, "We'd be dead by now if we were in Times Square." Here, he said, "there was no complaining. Other than the shuffle of feet, there wasn't much noise." '
Anyway, it's in the Feb 9, 2004 issue of New Yoker. I tried to link or paste the story but there's no on-line version. Guess you have to buy the issue -or visit the periodical section of the local library.
Anyone who equates the Tube to the Third World has obviously never been to the Third World. The main problem with the Tube is that there isn't enough of it to handle the volume, but in many respects the Tube is far more advanced than the NYC Subway. The Tube had automated fare cards years before New York had the MetroCard. Electronic platform signs in the Tube tell you the next three trains that are coming and how many minutes till they arrive—a capability that New York's subway won't have for many years to come. The Tube's platform and station signage is far superior to New York's, and the average station is a lot cleaner.
If only I could go there in person...
: (
Mark
Not to mention the fact that the next Tube train is likely to be only a couple of minutes' away even during off-peak hours. New York's long and growing headways would be totally unacceptable.
And UndergrounD doesn't have to deal with merges. Not to mention that part of the schedule chaos you see sometimes in NY is a result of track work or rehabilitation. That's something you'll never hear me whine about.
That's something London needs to do a lot more of.
Having said that, LU is a great system and when in London, LU is my car!
It is much much better to have one fare and makes a lot more sense..and don't give me this hog wash about distance. I am sure the distance from 241 White Plains Road to Coney Island is not much further than the distance say from Heathrow in zone 6 to Picadilly in zone 1 except the former costs a single fare and the later costs 2.5 times the local fare. And then there is the necessity of maning (or wamaning) the barriers. Millions could be saved by simply going to a single fare system in London.
I understand that but the article and the discussion was a comparison between New York and London. Also, I wonder how much money is wasted in implementing a zone system. Reminds me of a bridge we once had going into Long Beach Long Island I believe where an audit disclosed that the bulk of the toll revenue was used to pay the people administering and collecting the tolls rather than the stated purposes of the tolls. More often than not, the more you complicate tolls, fares etc. the more it costs to administer.
"Londoners have told me that, if an appointment is important, one must allow forty-five more minutes more than a trip should take...The Tube runs much deeper than the New York subways and passengers routinely find long lists of stations to avoid because of 'escalator problems'..."
Most of the world's major subway systems charge a higher fare to travel longer distances. New York is unusual in that regard. Among systems of comparable scale, I believe New York is unique.
Yikes, are you serious? They may not all be in high traffic locations but then, neither are all of NYC's, but the Metropolitan/Circle/District/H&C lines suffer *huge* problems from merges, and the Northern line as well.
Metropolitan line:
1. Chalfont & Latimer
2. Moor park
3. Harrow on the hill
4. Rayners lane
..which are mostly minor until you get to the Circle line starting at baker st.
1. Baker st ( a HUGE bottleneck for everyone involved ) Met terminal & flat junction with H&C and circle line
2. Moorgate (flat junction to stub tracks on south side)
3. Aldgate diverge from H&C and Met terminal
4. Tower Hill circle merge with district
5. Earl's Court "East side" (Gloucester/HS Kensington Wye)
6. Edgware Road circle/district merge with H&C
District line gets additional complications, in addition to 4,5 above:
1. Aldgate east H&C & district merge
2. Earl's Court "West side" (Olympia/Wimbledon)
3. Turnham Green Richmond branch
4. Acton Town to Piccadilly line
5. Ealing Bway between Central and Piccadilly line
Northern line, north to south.
1. Mill Hill Branch to mainline
2. Camden town north
3. Camden town south
4. Kennington
"5. Ealing Bway between Central and Piccadilly line"
The Piccadilly Line doesn't go to Ealing Broadway. There is a merge between the District and Piccadilly lines north of Ealing *Common* station. (From Acton Town station to the merge, through Ealing Common station, the District Line, Ealing branch, and the Piccadilly Line, Rayners Lane branch, use the same pair of tracks).
There is no merge between the District and Central Lines at Ealing Broadway. Both lines terminate there, but each has its own platforms and there are no conflicting moves between the two lines.
Well, ok, but there's still a merge/diverge of the district and piccadilly line as the district heads to Ealing Bway. I don't know the names of the interlockings so just used the station nearest that seemed most obvious to describe where I was talking about. So this junction is only half as bad as I thought, then.
On the other hand, th