Jump to content

quadcorder

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    196
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by quadcorder

  1. 10 hours ago, RR503 said:

     

    The (M) will be almost all to 71st on Weekdays. I’ve heard murmurings about (M)(R) to 179, or (M) 96, but idk yet. We’re talking weekends here — (M) will go to 96 during weekends of shutdown, so people were raising questions about the interface with the (B). As for terminal capacity at 96, you should be good. The 3 services combine to 20 tph — nothing for a terminal with the capacity to turn 30. Remember that all (B)(Q) service ran there during the 47-50 SNAFU with no problems (or at least not terminal related ones) — which totals 23 or 24 tph IIRC. 

    Another idea. Instead of running (B) to 96 on weekends, why not just amp up (Q) service? Less merging, less route confusion, better service. Maybe go from 8 to 12 or something. Sure, it’s not express service, but it’s something that’ll come for a lot less than this spaghetti art. 

    They could run some (M) to 96 weekdays too, might decrease the need for so many (N) and (R) to 96 st?

  2. 38 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

    Rode the (1) train today.. train was late so it did a skip from 96th to 72nd, (3) train comes in across the platform but the (1) train leaves first getting a huge head start, despite that, when we skipped 86th street the (3) train STILL blew pass us as we were pulling out of 86th street and the (3) train was moving much faster than we waswere and by the time we got 79th, that (3) train was long gone.

     

     

    When we got to 72nd the (3) train was closing its doors and pulling out before my (1) came to a complete stop. One of the most impressive express runs I ever seen, it also further strengthen my suspicion that the 62s are slightly faster than the 62As. Even when I rode the 62A on the (4) recently it didn't seem as fast as when the 62s were on the line. I'm talking about the ride though the underwater tube between Bowing Green and Borough Hall. Miss those 62s on the (4).

    You might also consider that the locals would have a lower speed limit and that the local T/O would likely slow down passing platforms.

  3. 5 hours ago, LTA1992 said:

    I can't get behind that. First of all, last I checked, this is a discussion forum. 

    Second, fleet assignments caused by this order are quite relevant. Third, there's been no news aside from whatever is related to last weeks board meeting. 

    As someone stated before, speculation isn't abnormal anywhere. If you don't want to see it, why not just skip it? Until ENY or someone spills la habichuelas, all we can do is speculate. Why should people be forced to not discuss just because some are tired of seeing it?

    That's quite anti-discussion if you ask me. Many of these members are new. You're are likely to push them away with what I've observed within these forums the last couple weeks.

    as a pretty new member myself, this constant bickering about fleet swaps is absolutely pushing me away. I strongly agree with @CTK246 above

  4. 20 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

     

    I understand the math, however, I don't understand the physics.

    Totally weight of a train are you measuring traction force or downward weight?  A lighter car means the motors have to use less power to move the overall train. We're not talking a locomotive or a push/pull operation. Less weight less exerted energy to move the object.  Each 75-foot car has to move about more 6 tons with a 115 hp motor. So yeah the overall train's weight is higher and this would be a factor in any Type I or II railroad due to stopping and breaking the ability of the locomotive itself. but the dynamics is different with A EMU the R68 is a heavier  car due to weight power ratio's that's my point it's a bit more in-depth than the basic multiplication. It's other dimensions Involved.

    Maximum weight load on any bridge in NYC is 80,000lbs/40 tons what's to stop 30 trucks from driving across? Weight is distributed across every truss, cable and tower. Weight distributed through every bogie and wheel axle and truss.  I had the total weight limits for all the bridges I know the Cantilever Queensboro by far could hold more than the suspension's The Willy handle's less than it's sister to the south The Manhattan so there could be a little something there. Increased truck traffic? Okay, those are factors that I defiantly have to take into consideration here. But I don't feel that's the issue a bridge is designed for 10x more than its limits. I'm sure they strengthened the cables towers and pylons to last the next 100 years with the last over haul. 5% shaved off a consist That's a bit modest it's not hard to hit 10-15% HVAC and motors are getting lighter better composites and alloys. The biggest thing in Manufacturing nowadays is power efficiency shave the weight is one of the best ways to get over the line. Less power used and more returned. 

    Those are how much the train weighs. The newer trains weigh more. You keep not understanding that.

    That means that using newer trains won't increase the number of trains that can go on the bridge at once. I'm not sure how that can confuse you.

    6 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

    Right. But I’m taking about people coming off the southbound (J)(Z) and transferring to the southbound (N)(Q) at Canal. That’s where I get off every morning and see this. These people aren’t going to Midtown and it’s not a small crowd. And the staircase simply can’t handle it, especially when a southbound (J) or (Z) and a southbound (N) or (Q) arrive at Canal at the same time. Likewise, in the evening it's the same thing with northbound riders coming up the stairs to get the northbound (J) or (Z).

    And unless their destination is the Union Square area and they (understandably) don’t want to deal with the huge crowds on the (L), why would anyone coming from Williamsburg prefer to take the (J)(Z) to the (N)(Q) over taking the (M)? If you’re headed to Times Square or the Carnegie Hall area, you can still get the (N)(Q) at 34th St if you take the (M)

    Please show me statistics to support your claim that people go from a southbound (J)(Z) to a southbound (N)(Q) ? This seems like a very unusual pattern since almost everyone goes to Manhattan, and most of them go to Midtown (this is emphatically supported by data and is why the (M) midtown reroute is such a success). Almost nobody took the (M) from Insert other media Brooklyn when it ran to Bay Parkway, that's why it was cut back! Why would extending the (J) be any different?

    Why not take the (M)? Well, for one, maybe they live on the  (J) east of where the (M) diverges!

  5. 2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

    As someone who uses Canal St to transfer between the (N)(Q) and the (J)(Z), I don’t think it’s such a bad idea to have some sort of limited rush-hour service to South Brooklyn. Those narrow staircases connecting both sides of the (N)(Q) platform to the upper level (J) platform become completely impassable whenever a (J) or (Z) and an (N) or (Q) pull into Canal at the same time (which seems to happen quite often). And God help you if you have to transfer between those lines and you can’t climb stairs easily or have to use crutches, a cane, a walker or a wheelchair. Though I do agree that 9th Ave isn’t the place to extend the (J).

     

    Most of those transfers are Williamsburg to Midtown transfers for riders who prefer the (N)(Q) to the (M) ... almost nobody is going from far South Brooklyn to Williamsburg via Canal St. Anyone who wants to go from South Brooklyn to FiDi should transfer to the (R)(2)(3)(4)(5) .

    7 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

    Myth ?How are you calculating that? A full train or individual cars? You're not pulling more weight with 2 extra cars. Every motor has to pull  its own weight and that's distributed over the length the bridge. The R179 im sure is lighter than R143/160 by at least a ton or two count the car not the full train.  The Willy B is a Unique structure and the fact the outta roadway isn't supported by cable but by viaducts the with the trackage being centered the weight should be balanced.

    All stats for empty trains. Note that the newer trains have a higher max capacity, so the difference increases when fully loaded.

    R160 weight per car: 85,200 lb. Weight per train: 852,000 lb. The R143 is about 2000 lb lighter per car. The R179 isn't something I could find.

    R68/A weight per car: 92,720 lb. Weight per train: 741,760 lb. R46 is a touch lighter.

    R32/A weight per car: 79,930 lb. Weight per train: 799,300 lb (post rebuild)

    R32/A weight per car: 70,000 lb. Weight per train: 700,000 lb (as delivered)

  6. 1 hour ago, RailRunRob said:

    Why would that be the case? The stiffing trusses and dampeners should be able to handle Subway Car's which are getting lighter in weight. They'll definitely be shedding a few more pounds moving forward as we try to cut more power consumption.     

    Subway cars are not getting lighter in weight. This is a myth that comes up frequently. A full R160 set is moderately hevarier than a full R68 set, for instance.

  7. The decrease in merging on the Broadway Line would allow for increased (Q) service is the idea. This was discussed at one point in the 2 Av thread. However it would be moot once the (T) comes online since then increased (Q) would not be necessary anymore. Sorry for off-topic.

    Re: R211, can someone confirm that the idea is that the subsequent orders can be the open-gangway model if it is determined to be a success, and that is why the order is broken up into several contracts the way it is?

  8. 8 minutes ago, U-BahnNYC said:

    Also, I've got a question: The CPOC meeting said that the 5-car R179s will have to "be tested." Does this mean they have to do the 30-day thing all over again? Weren't the R179s already fully tested and approved since the 4-car sets are in service already?

    Thanks in advance.

    Not the whole 30-day approval process for a new car class, but they run some tests on every train car before it enters service, and the first 5-car set hasn't been cleared yet.

  9. 1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

    Married couples like the R32. But here's the MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION. What do you do with the extra B cars?

    That's what you use to make the 5-car trains in the first place... You already had 8 5-car sets to start. 260 cars in 65 4-car sets is 130 A cars and 130 B cars. Take 120 B cars and 80 A cars -> 40 more 5-car sets. You have 90 A cars and 10 B cars left. Take 10 A cars and 10 B cars and make 5 4-car sets. Then take the remaining 80 A cars and make 40 2-car sets which can be used for either 8-car or 10-car trains. Now you have:

    48 5-car sets

    5 4-car sets

    40 2-car sets

    which can be arranged as

    24-32 10-car trains

    2.5-12.5 8-car trains

    If you want more than 12.5 8-car trains you can just convert fewer trains.

  10. 3 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

    That would be a SECOND local (the (B) would also be a local).

    When the (B) is not running, the (Q) could still be a local as well.

    Main purpose for now would be operational flexibility like I noted, with extensions longer-term.

    Anyway, getting back on topic, 

    DUH!

    That would be EXACTLY why they would be doing that.  There are no stairs I believe between the (1) station there and street level.  

    Why not run the (Q) local all the time, instead of switching on weekends? It's more frequent, and demands CI yard access. If you're doing that, voila, then there's no demand for a local shuttle anyhow!

  11. 1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

    This is not just about that, though that is the short-term goal (plus give the (Q) a valve for an emergency re-route and be able to make the shuttle route a more practical through line to Brighton Beach or Coney Island that would allow the (Q) to potentially also be an express on Brighton (to Brighton Beach with the (B) becoming a second local on Brighton, also to Coney Island) AND longer-term potential do an extension of the current Franklin shuttle line to where it connects to the remaining portion of the Myrtle Avenue EL.

    This is an impressively dumb idea. Rerouting the main Brighton train down the express track would inconvenience the vast majority of riders. We've seen repeatedly how passengers do not want their local trains to terminate within borough. Why do you think Court St Brooklyn, (G) on QBL, 8 Av Local to WTC are no longer service patterns?

  12. 1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

    I'm thinking more in terms of having five nights instead of four for such on FASTRACK.  By starting such earlier on Sundays (usually 8:00 PM) where possible, it gives workers even more time.

    Riders should learn to pay attention much more and read the signs.  If they get upset, in my view that's on them for not being aware of such changes (you learn to make yourself aware of such).  

    There could always be more time for work. It's a trade-off with customer inconvenience. Sure, people would learn to check for updates again on Sunday evening.

  13. 7 minutes ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

    I stand on my statement that the R179's will be numbered 3010-3309.  Ask DJ Hammers what the numbers will be!

    It is also here.  Both webmasters are very reliable and have extensive, up to date sites.  You guys ought to study them.

    All information at the 2 sites I've quoted are much more reliable than the stuff posted on this site.

    http://www.thejoekorner.com/cars/index.html

    Well put. Though this information is not necessarily up to date, anyone who claims it is inaccurate had better bring a source.

  14. 3 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

    That then makes sense.  When such G.O.'s don't overlap like that, however, I would think where possible such FASTRACK G.O.'s should start on Sunday night to give crews an extra night to work on such (and when Sunday is involved, I would start such at 8:00 PM instead of 9:30 on Sunday to give even more time). 

    It would create rider confusion to have to track multiple different closure schedules. Right now, almost all closures are either weekend (Friday night to Monday morning) or weeknight (Monday through Thursday nights). This means you can look up the changes for the weekend and that knowledge will be enough for the whole weekend. The added complexity would definitely add to rider confusion.

  15. 11 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

    In that situation (in this case, Jan. 15-19 and 23-26), I would suspend the (E) entirely and have the (M) run an extended full route to 179 to replace the (E) during Fasttrack on such nights. 

    Also, why not also have such Fasttracks Sunday night into Monday morning to give workers an extra night to get such work done? 

    Weekend closures are still active Sunday night until 5AM. For instance, the 6 Av Line is closed until 5AM Monday. So 8 Av can't shut down until Monday night.

  16. 4 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

    Well, I was evaluating this discussion and apparently we're ALL trying to make a point.

    By the way, any news yet on RBB cause I haven't heard anything in a while

    as you've been told in numerous threads, if there was news someone would have posted it.

  17. 5 hours ago, Jemorie said:

    You're right. Ever since the (W) returned, spare factors have been reduced slightly more than before, hell even after the (Q) was extended to SAS. But with more R179s on the way and with the (L) shutdown, this problem will no longer occur, thankfully. We are certainly looking forward to seeing both the (C) and (G) full-length as the agency can't afford to have displaced Canarsie/14th Street riders squishing onto 480 feet long trains.

    You know that the (L) shutdown will inrease the peak car usage, right?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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