Jump to content

CDTA

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    2,033
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by CDTA

  1. Also as an addendum:

    You could also squeeze two more 10-car R160s out of there to give to the (A) or (C).  Because of the way fleets are currently assigned, compared to current numbers, there are a few 'half-trains' laying around which obviously can't be assigned. Under the above scenario they're just added to the spares, thus increasing the spare ratio by a little bit, but you could also assign them to the (S) , since it does use half-trains. Going off of the above, if you gave it a 4-car R32, a 4-car R46, and a 4-car R68 (all three half-trains left over in the above plans), you could get rid of the 1.5 R160s currently assigned to the line, which would end up giving you two additional trains. However, for a variety of reasons (making Pitkin have three extra fleets for a shuttle, the OPTO issue, etc) it's not very likely to happen in practice so I didn't include it above. Thought it was a neat thing worth sharing though. 

  2. (G) 19 R32s, 2 R160 (all 8 car)

    (J)(Z) 21 R179s, 3 R160s, 5 R143s

    (M) 32 R160s

    (L) 16 R143s

    (N)(W) 33 R46s

    (Q) 21 R68s

    (B) 13 R68s, 8 R46s, 4 R42s

    (A) 38 R160s

    (C) 8 R160s, 11 R179s (all 10 car)

    (F) 40 R160s, 4 R46s

    (E)(R)(D) unchanged

    Uses all currently assigned full trains except for four additional 8-car R160 trains, which could either be idle or assigned to add even more service to any of the 8-car lines.

    Aside from standard planned (G)(J) and (M) increases, this also adds 1 TPH to the (C).

  3. By installing switches just south of 50th St, and between Broadway-Lafayette and Grand St (This would be fairly difficult to do southbound but northbound is fine) you have the (C) run over the 8th Ave Express, and the (M) run via 63rd St and the 6th Ave Express. That, combined with moving the (F) to 53rd St would completely segregate the (E)(F), which allows for a very high degree of operational flexibility. 

    Something wrong on the...

    ...8th Ave Local? Just run all the (E)s via the (F), which can be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

    ...6th Ave Local? Just run all the (F)s via the (E), which can be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

    ...8th Ave Express? Move the (A) and (C) to the local track, then move the (E) to the (F), which can all be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

    ...6th Ave Express? Move the (B)(D) and (M) to the local track, then move the (F) to the (E), which can be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

     

  4. 2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

    The point is the city couldn't manage to run the system on its own and quite frankly, they aren't prepared to do so now.  #1 bus service may be run by the (MTA) , but the City ultimately is the one (via the DOT) that could get bus service turned around and yet they've done next to nothing.  #2 The mayor doesn't even want to put forth more money for the (MTA) as it is and can't stop talking about the $2 billion the City gave years ago.  The City would need to put out wayyy more than $2 billlion to run the (MTA).  It's easy to talk about how this isn't the same city, but not so easy to state that they can actually run the system any better.

    There's a big thing here I think a lot of people are going to pass over. Look at what the City has done for transit with what it DOES directly control, and tell me they'll run the MTA better than the state.

  5. 16 hours ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

    You can't run an 8-car set of R42s on the (G)   due to the fact of there being only 1 cab per car. The C/R boards won't line up at any of the stations.

    Didn't mention it at the time because I didn't think it was relevant, but there's one extra 8-car R42 that wouldn't be used for service that isn't a spare. You could take that train and split it up so all the remaining R42s are 10 cars, then put them on the most crowded runs. (There's also an extra 8-car R32 and 8-car R160 for anyone wondering, again this is accounting for the current spare ratio for each fleet)

  6. 14 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

    It may work.  It would be weird having brand new trains on the B. It does address the need of more trains on the B, especially during rush hour where the wait times is ridiculously long compared to other lines and having the D running express in the Bronx makes the situation worse.

    This would not add any trains to the (B), the R179s would just allow for the (B)'s R68As to be moved to the (Q).

    12 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

    You can't run 8 car R42's on non eastern division lines and giving the (G) most of the R32's wouldn't work neither. 

    Something about having to pull up all the way to the 10 car marker, right? That could potentially be an issue, but I don't see it as a deal-breaker, especially when we're talking a max of 3 on the line at once (potentially lower if you decide to lower the R32's spare ratio and have the R42s as spares primarily). Is there any other reason why the R32s wouldn't work on the (G) other then the A/C issue? Not downplaying the A/C issue, I just want to make sure that's it, because if it is, given the benefits of putting it on the R32s (can make 480-foot trains, keeps them isolated, puts them on a line that doesn't need rollsign changes) they might be willing to overlook it.

    12 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

     

    Making the (A) and (C) 100% R46's (in response to another thread) would be dumb. Those lines are gonna need as much 60 footers as possible. 

    I don't believe the (A) and (C) are crowded enough to warrant moving 60-footers on the line given the operational inefficiencies that come with that. With Jamaica having so many R160s, the 75-footers have to go somewhere, and right now the only proposed line that doesn't have them is the (B) (which only has the R179s because they're already based at CI), and the (G) (which has them for the reasons stated above).

    12 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

    The (G) is better off being mostly 8 car R160 or R179 supplemented with 4-6 sets of 8 car R32's. 

    There really aren't any 8-car R160s left if the (J)(M)(Z) are all NTT (which correct me if I'm wrong but I believe needed to be the case to maximize capacity over the Williamsburg Bridge)

    12 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

    Have the (C) be 7 sets of R179's, 3 sets of of R42's and 8 sets of R32's or 4 sets of R46's and 4 sets of R32's. The (A) is said to have the R32's temporary but that doesn't mean the (C) is ruled out of not having R32's. 

    The (A) could be a mixture of R32's (4 sets), R46's and R179's (5 sets, 6 during the pm rush)

    Wouldn't really work because of the stuff I mentioned above, unless you're putting 6-car R46s on the (G) (which could admittedly theoretically work but I don't think is optimal simply because of rollsign issues, I imagine stopping location issues, and complications after the shutdown, but if it's that important to make the (A) 60-footers that can be overlooked, again I just don't think it's important enough)

    6 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

    The r42s will be retired as well as some r32s, especially now that there's a surplus of trains. Only a few r32s will be preserved for Canarsie tunnel shutdown. 

    From what I recall nothing is retiring until the end of the shutdown.

  7. 22 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

    You can, just keep it to a minimum. It's gotten out of hand as of late with some of these guys.

    I can respect that. Having said that......

     

    (G) 18 R32s, 3 R42s

    (J)(Z) 21 R179s, 3 R160s, 5 R143s

    (M) 32 R160s

    (L) 16 R143s

    which would turn into at the end of the shutdown

    (G) 13 R179s (maintains the 8-car length but brings it back to its pre-shutdown frequency)

    (J)(Z) 11 R160s, 9 R179s

    (M) 23 R160s

    (L) 21 R143s, 3 R160s

    As for the other lines.....

    (N)(W) 33 R46s

    (Q) 21 R68As

    (B) 14 R68s, 11 R179s

    (A) 38 R46s

    (C) 4 R46s, 14 10-car R160s

    (E)(F)(R) All R160

    This would keep things relatively simplified while also meeting the MTA's goals (SMEEs off of the (J)(M)(Z), full length (C) trains) while also matching the planned service levels during the shutdown.  (Also with an added bonus of keeping the R68s off of rollsign changing lines as much as possible)

    During the shutdown the yards would look like this:

    207th - R160, Pitkin - R46, ENY - R143, R160, R179, Jamaica - R160, CI - R32, R42, R46, R68, R179

    And afterwards would look like this:

    207th - R160, Pitkin - R46, ENY - R143, R160, R179, Jamaica - R160, CI - R46, R68, R179

    Seems like the best way to divvy it up to me.

  8. Wait, are we seriously not allowed to post about fleet speculation anymore? Speculation is completely normal and widely accepted across various communities. I don't know how many of you are into video games, but when Nintendo's NX was announced everyone and their mother had at least three ideas on what it could be, and people didn't care, because it was an exciting time and speculating can be both exciting and fun. Yes, plans are subject to change and nothing is final until we see the trains rolling on the tracks, but you could say that about anything. Forums are for discussion, you take that away and what's left? Maybe I'm in the minority here but to me it seems the problem are certain users who seem to be so for or against certain proposals that they stop discussing the merits of the actual proposals themselves and just resort to shit-flinging. Eventually there's going to be an impasse and that needs to be understood. Earlier in the Canarsie swap thread me and Jemorie had a back and forth that lasted about two posts. Why? Because I realized he wasn't going to accept my proposal and that's ok.  It's important to treat your ideas as just that-ideas. My earlier proposal was based off of what were facts at the time, but that doesn't mean the proposal itself was factual. And this goes both ways, it's not a fact that something is happening and it's not a fact that something isn't happening. As long as people realize this and act accordingly there shouldn't be any problems with proposals and speculations.

  9. This really stood out to me

    Quote

    As a result, one of the most striking changes will be invisible to commuters: R211 cars will be equipped with monitoring computers that will relay information in real-time about its performance — a health check of sorts — so that an ailing train can be diagnosed even before it has been hauled back to the repair shop.

    To further tackle the issue, the contract stipulates that the Kawasaki cars adhere to specific reliability requirements, as a warranty. The level of performance that the cars’ critical systems — such as doors and brakes, some of the largest contributors to delays — are required to demonstrate, based in part in how many miles they travel before breaking down, is more than double that of past contracts, according to the agency. If they fail to meet those levels, Kawasaki itself must shoulder the cost of any repairs, instead of the authority.

     

  10. Here's a thought. What about connecting PATH from WTC to Atlantic Terminal, and up the Atlantic Branch? This would be much more useful than the Atlantic Branch in its current form, and it'd allow people from NJ to get a one seat ride to a new office hub, Downtown Brooklyn. You don't have to do any work on the Atlantic Branch itself because PATH is FRA compliant, and you could easily from there expand it to JFK, providing for the first time a one seat ride to downtown, Floral Park, and Valley Stream, not only providing eastern Queens with vital rail service but also allowing the LIRR to speed up service and focus on its main job of commuting customers from LI. You wouldn't have to really do any work either aside from JFK because again, PATH is FRA compliant so you don't need to do anything special for them to run.

  11. This is a bit out there but I wanna know what you guys think

    So I was thinking of running the Flushing Express track into a new tunnel going down 34th st, then, when it gets to Hudson Yards, it loops back around and goes down 34th heading East on a second parallel track, in the morning, and reverse in the evening. A new yard would be built at the ConEd site to store the trains during the mid-day since the whole thing is technically only one track (I don't see why ConEd couldn't just build whatever they needed to on top of the yard). Doing this would double capacity on the Flushing Line since the local can now run a full 30TPH, and the express can run a full 30 TPH all while only needing new track up to Queens Plaza. Plus, since the 34th st section is technically double-tracked, when the express isn't running you can still operate the section independently as a 34th st Crosstown line. AND since the tunneling would be all new construction, you can build it to B-division standards for that little bit of extra capacity since the elevated is already built to B-division standards. You'd also need a huge expansion of Corona Yard, but seeing how right now the surrounding area is all surface parking lots that shouldn't be too difficult.

  12. Haha, I clearly only half read your post because it looks like you mentioned that lol

    Anyways, having gone through the whole thing and taken a look at the systems....

    While the first thing that crossed my mind with the 65 was linking it up with the 55 just for simplicity sake, your idea is much better.  I wouldn't take a bus off of the 10 or 40 though because keeping all the routes at 15/30/60 makes it really easy to connect them all (although I haven't looked at the schedules so maybe they're opting not to do that)

    Having said that I also find it odd they cut the 55 off where it is considering the run time is only 20 minutes. They could've easily extended it to the Alaska Pacific and the Native Medical Center.

    Also odd that since they're using two buses they're not sending one to the hospital/university area and one to downtown, but instead both to downtown (in regards to the 92).

  13. On 10/24/2017 at 2:10 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

    So a restructuring of the Anchorage bus system went into effect yesterday (10/23/17): http://www.muni.org/departments/transit/peoplemover/Pages/default.aspx

    Basically, they consolidated the routes with the idea of providing 15 minute headways on their busiest routes (similar to other cities such as Houston that had a major restructuring of their bus system). The thing is that IMO, they went too far in cutting service to the lower-ridership areas.

    In a report they released, they seemed to be torn between 2 options, an 80% plan and a 100% plan (referring to the percentage of resources put into higher ridership routes). The majority of people seemed to be in favor of the 80% plan, but it looks like they bumped the percentage up to 90% despite public opinion (I saw a map that said something like "90%" in he URL). The options start on page 65.

    On page 38, it's mentioned that ridership of the old #60 on Old Seward is similar to the old #9 on Artic, yet the #60 was completely eliminated between Downtown & Dimond Center. 

    I would personally keep the #60 once an hour north of the Dimond Center, send the #65 up Wisconsin & Northern Lights to Downtown (maybe take 1 bus per hour off the #40, since some people would be able to use that as an alternative, not to mention the #10 in some areas), Actually, come to think about it, if the #55 heads west on 36th instead of east, it could go out to Spenard Road, and provide that extra bus per hour that way. 

    I like the fact that there's one reverse-peak trip out to Eagle River, but at the same time, I don't like the fact that there's 2 minibuses on certain trips instead of one large bus (I guess those buses are doing paratransit during the day). In any case, it looks like Eagle River Connect service was eliminated as well.

    Something funny is that on page 38 they actually mention how the 60's ridership is about the same as the 9 despite having less service, meaning it should theoretically have much more ridership than the 9 if given more service. Pretty interesting how they chose this as an example and then chose not to follow through with it.

  14. 9 hours ago, Lance said:

    To respond to a couple of points, the (G) will definitely see an increase in car demand as it will be used as a bridge between the Canarsie and Jamaica lines during the closure. While it won't be as much as the (J) and (M), the (G) will see increased patronage as a result of the loss of Manhattan-bound (L) service. Also, regarding "reopening the 160 assembly line", that lies in my point about a lack of time to get a different car builder to build the necessary cars. The MTA simply cannot demand Kawasaki to build the cars because Bombardier's unable to do so. If Transit shifts the order to another builder, even as exact clones of the 160s, the design-build-delivery schedule restarts. That means we would have another 18 months at least before they are able to deliver on this hypothetical car order. And that depends on what else Kawasaki is working on for other transit agencies. They are not going to rush our order because we picked a bad hand.

    I wouldn't be so sure, remember.....

    On 7/15/2016 at 12:43 AM, East New York said:

     

    I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take that long, and I will explain a bit more.

     

     

    See below.

     

     

    Actually, it is possible, and Federal Monies don't really make a difference at the end of the day at all. Not only that but the MTA is investing in this as well. If they wanted to, they can do the exact same thing Department of Buses did. he CBG award to Orion was with FTA money, MTA cancelled the order and awarded/transferred the contract to New Flyer citing many issues that could arise with the introduction of buses to a fleet when the company was going through a situation where quality control could be affected. They can legally do the exact same with this contract as well.

     

    Not only that, but Kawasaki could theoretically put the R160 back in production in as little as 6 months. If it was to keep the designation R179, it still wouldn't take too much longer as the architecture is built off a train already in service. Kawasaki already has the ability to start up R160 production in no time, and there was internal talk about what could be done if said order was cancelled. It's not anything new for Kawasaki. They don't have to design a new train, and they already have the tolling for the design. All they have to do is get the supply chain ramped up. Now if the train was of a different class, then it would take them much longer. They could have a pilot in 12 months. At this point, Bombardier has continued to change their delivery dates, and they are having many technical difficulties. 

     

    Kawasaki has the capacity, and experience. The don't have to do anything at all theoretically except re-start the assembly line. This is what Kawasaki says. Thats one of the reasons they blew Bombardier away on the technial evaluation and overall proposal of the R179. Bombardier won because they quoted a lower price, and promised the same delivery schedule as Kawasaki. You know my specialty is surface transit. I'm just the messenger for RTO.

     

     

    It may be better for MTA to just roll with what they have now and just ride it out, but it can still be cancelled if they wanted to do it. 

    Granted, that post is over a year old by now, and I know the MTA can make some stupid decisions sometimes, but given all the issues not just with this contract, but with pretty much every current Bombardier rail order in North America, I'd be shocked if they didn't keep this option open.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.