agar io

In the purest sense, you're right. But if the RBB is rebuilt, I still think it would not only be easiest but best to extend either the or down there, which also solves the fumingation problem at 71st Ave.

 

If you can give me a case as to why your plan is better, I'm all ears, but until then, the above seems best.

My plan isn't any better unless the QBL local tracks can fit more trains per hour west of 63 Dr, and the 2 Av Subway is built (so the can be extended down 2 Av via QBL local).

Yes. Also you'd be denying RBB riders a one seat ride to Midtown, thereby eliminating any gains from the route.

The Rock Park doesn't go to Midtown right now as it is. The only serves the Rock Park branch five times during rush hours, so this would actually be an improvement (considering the is the actual designation of the Rock Park ).

I really doubt this, since I can think of multiple places where subway tracks run alongside railroads, or light rail tracks run alongside railroads (Los Angeles Blue Line, MBTA Orange Line, etc.)

From Department of Proposals/Ideas page 503:

The Washington D.C. Metro’s Red is flanked by railroad tracks on both sides separated only by a fence. I’ve even seen freight trains running along side the subway in broad daylight. I don’t foresee too much difficulty with such an arrangement here.

The bigger problem is at Woodside, where there is no space for the subway tracks to run, as I mentioned there. Compared to that, the LIRR/subway sharing a ROW is no big deal. The already does it on the Sea Beach Line.

----

Frankly, they should have done what London did and install wheelchair accessible turnstiles instead of these gates. Such a nuisance...

You mean, actual double-leaf gates that open inward/outward instead of the wheely-stiles we have?

I think we're forgetting here that these four car units pretty much never stay with the same 4 car set through their careers. And that sets are regularly in the shop for inspections or work. I'd say that extra set is a pretty good investment.

I agree, this makes the sets more flexible. But I wonder if the MTA is making an odd number of four-car R179s only because there's also an odd number of four-car R160s. This seems unlikely, but then again, with the way the damaged R143 set sits in the yard for 11 years, anything is possible with the MTA.

This may seem stupid (and maybe slightly off-topic), but are the five-car R188 sets, or the six-car sets, the leading consists in Manhattan-bound trains?

What I mean is that there only seems to be one C/R board at train stations. In the Manhattan-bound platform, are these C/R boards located five, or six, cars from the front of the train? I'm assuming it's the opposite situation on the Queens-bound platform where the placement of the C/R boards roughly correspond to those on the opposite platform.

I say this because the R188s are the only cars in the system wherein the consists must be ordered in a specific order relative to the train's destination. The R62As are irrelevant here since they are in a 5-1-5 setup, so it doesn't matter which direction an R62A train is oriented in.

There is an program via West End/Bway/Queens Blvd

 

...but it's only for northbound trains

 

Southbound trains are screwed. I took it last night going home from work and my train was signed up for 6 Av/West End. They removed stops that aren't on Broadway, but left stops that closely resemble Broadway stops.

 

Example stops using my train from where I got on to where I got off. Omitted stops in red:

 

-Roosevelt Av

-21 St-Queensbridge

-Lex-63 St

-57 St

-Rockefeller Ctr

-42 St-Bryant Pk

-34 St-Herald Sq

-23 St

-14 St

-W 4 St

-Bway-Lafayette

-Grand St

-Atlantic-Barclays

-36 St

 

The problem with it was that the distances don't sync up as the train thinks it's on 6 Av so the stops were coming in at arbitrary times and the conductor made the announcements manually.

The MTA didn't really make a program for "via Broadway and West End" at all, then.

Hopefully the MTA gets things right for future rolling stock and divides the FIND announcements into a modular system (based on physical trackage), rather than programming the whole route at once.

It's how the MTA works. Because with that set out of service, there will always be another 4 car set in the yard that will be out of service.

Not necessarily. Actually it works out perfectly with the MTA. They had 212 cars before, which made 53 four-car sets, or 26 and a half eight-car trains. Getting rid of the 4-car set that was damaged allows the MTA to whittle the R143 fleet to exactly 26 eight-car trains.

The R179 delivery, on the other hand, will always result in one set that's out of service, given that there will be 65 four-car sets, making 32 and a half eight-car trains.

Not necessarily. They could always use that four car for an opto job on the M

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

It would only be used on weekends, though.

Wrong. They are currently still being repaired at 207th Street, they just need a few components is all.

The crash happened 11 years ago. I don't imagine it takes 11 years to repair a train (but then, that's how the MTA works?!). It's probably never seeing revenue service again.

I did find this though: https://gallery.mailchimp.com/53077b4eb8363107e691b3757/files/April_2016_ERA_Bulletin.pdf

 

R-143s 8277-8280, which have been sidelined since a 2006 derailment at Rockaway Parkway, have physically been put back together as a 4-car unit (still located at 207th Street) but are in need of some component replacement to become operational.

This was last year, and it says nothing about revenue service.

Are 8277-8280 ever coming back?

Nope.

They are being used for spare parts for the other R143s.

Mileage. They equipped all of the 143s and some of the 160s to compliment full peak service with spares and a few more spares that will rotate among the BMT East. It's not that they don't need many. In fact they made sure they have more than enough.

 

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

That makes sense, seeing as there are 272 CBTC cars, only 152-160 of which are needed on the during the rush.

I swear I would've pulled the cord if I was on that train.

Thus causing more delays up and down the already congested line. It could've been the T/O's mistake, too.

Better to just take a train back.

They also have them along Fulton St in Brooklyn.

 

As far as the CBTC in the 160s, those that have them installed are used for L service.

Thanks for correcting me on the countdown-clock thing. I saw them on the Crosstown Line too, but I forgot to mention it.

The MTA doesn't seem to need that many CBTC trains on the , though, because they keep appearing on the . I see them basically every other day when I catch the at either Woodhaven or Met Av.

On a totally unrelated note...

Do any of the routes' schedules, besides the SBS routes, limited routes, and the M35, actually show the stops along the line? AFAIK the M35 is the only local bus route that shows every single stop on its schedule.

I know that they are planning to extend Track 2, but I am not sure if it would allow some trains to terminate there while having other trains go to Port Washington.

The extended track 2 will be able to hold 2 terminating trains instead of one. The double crossover east of the station will still create bottlenecks.

Port Washington-bound trains will still switch from track 2 to track 1 just east of Great Neck, as they do now. Meanwhile, trains entering service from track 2 will cross over to track 1 to start their westbound trips.

You can short-turn trains at Little Neck, with a new storage yard built at the site of the current parking lot. The grade-crossing at Little Neck Parkway should also be eliminated.

True, but if the traffic is sparse enough, the grade crossing could be kept (e.g. the Chicago el has grade crossings even on some of its busiest lines because the grade crossings aren't used by many cars per hour).

However, the Manhasset viaduct is the big bottleneck. It can't be easily double-tracked, and the terrain dips sharply so that a viaduct is virtually the only option to get around the Manhasset valley. I could imagine keeping a severely limited LIRR service east of Great Neck, or even a setup similar to San Fran's eBART.

The notices for the    swaparoo are beginning to show up on trains.

There are notices with maps in the stations as well. The maps, though, are one messy jumble.

Are they expanding these wireless relays to the R46s?

It looks like they need to do it to all the rolling stock, or at least the ones with these countdown clocks. I've been seeing them pop up on the 6 Av, 8 Av, Broadway, and QB Lines recently.

----

Also, in regards to CBTC - do all R160 sets, even those without CBTC right now, have CBTC-bypass switches?  Today I saw a CBTC-bypass switch inside the cab of 9502. AFAICT, only some of the four-car sets have CBTC.

The N would no longer go to Astoria. Via an elevated connection to the Bypass, it would run via the Port Washington Branch to Port Washington with short-turns at Great Neck.

 

There is plenty of room for the 15 TPH via the Port Washington Line. 

We gotta solve the single-tracking east of Great Neck first... that's what's restricting most of these tph. Otherwise there won't be more than 8 trains per hour, even west of Great Neck.

Random thought: The LIRR could be made higher-capacity by outfitting multiple lines with 2 tracks and grade separation, similar to the Babylon Branch. I know the Ronkonkoma Branch project is adding a second track, but I'm not sure why they stopped short of grade separation, since the grade crossings would still cause delays after ESA opens

If my ramp proposal is too expensive, I'd connect the bypass only to the QBL local tracks between 71 and 75 Avs, with a spur to the yard leads underneath 75 Av.

I guess if the AirTrain JFK is ever extended at all, which is highly unlikely, it could connect to the bypass at two locations: the RBB via Howard Beach, and the Archer Line via Jamaica.

Also, I would agree with adding stations at Grand Av and Woodhaven Blvd if the money exists.

Building this connection would require digging a space underneath the entire Forest Hills station as well. The track connections itself would replace the yard leads to connect to both the local and express tracks east of the station. But before that, in order to replace those leads, the tunnel could be widened to build a ramp down to the yard tracks from the local tracks. That’s entirely optional, but having 4 redundant connections from the yard connecting to the mainline is probably a good idea to maintain.

The express tracks need yard access, too.

I'd keep the existing ramps east of Forest Hills, get rid of the turnback sidings on the lower level, create a downward ramp in the center of the yard leads where the sidings used to be, build that tunnel to connect the center ramp to the yard leads east of Kew Gardens, then connect the bypass to that tunnel. East of 71 Av, I'd also build an additional pair of ramps rising eastward, outside all of the existing tracks, from the lower level to the local tracks only.

My plan would force trains to dead head to the yard, but maybe they could use the bypass to access the 179 St express tracks instead (only 2 more stops).

"Due to injured passenger at Delancey St, northbound and trains are running with delays."

Does anyone know what that's about?

EDIT: Actually, now it's "northbound trains are running on the line from Bergen St to Court Square, then over the line from Queens Plaza to Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Av.

Expect delays in and train service in both directions."

What a mess.

Posted: 02/05/2017 9:48PM (the notice, not this post)

The Washington D.C. Metro’s Red is flanked by railroad tracks on both sides separated only by a fence. I’ve even seen freight trains running along side the subway in broad daylight. I don’t foresee too much difficulty with such an arrangement here.

I know. And the MBTA Orange Line in Boston is right next to the NEC. (Image) My point is, the MTA would still want to file for a waiver first. It shouldn't be a big issue, but then you have the 51 Av elevated/underground ramp problem that I mentioned.

I notice that someone uploaded a video of a combination of a R160 siemens testing on the and a 10-car R179 testing in Broad channel. The person who uploaded the video goes by the name of "Shamari Kinsey". The original video with the R160 siemens testing on the belongs to Caitsith810, which was uploaded on December 12, 2007. The other original video with the 10-car R179 belongs to gregorygrice, which was uploaded on December 21, 2016. The video description said "Thanks to Catisith810 and gregorygrice for the testing. Not only subscribe my channel, but also those channels." I don't know why this person decide to upload this video and I am not sure if he even ask Caitsith810 nor gregoryrice for the videos. Is this consider stealing?

 

Uploaded by: Shamari Kinsey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZPPDMdRRrE

Without permission, yes, it's illegal and should be removed from the site.

YouTube's official website (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797449?hl=en) says, 

If you plan to include copyright-protected material in your video, you’ll generally need to seek permission to do so first. YouTube cannot grant you these rights and we are unable to assist you in finding and contacting the parties who may be able to grant them to you. This is something you’ll have to research and handle on your own or with the assistance of a lawyer.

 

For example, YouTube cannot grant you the rights to use content that has already been uploaded to the site. If you wish to use someone else’s YouTube video, you may want to reach out to them via our messaging feature.

----

Also, did anyone see R62A #'s 2221-2225 (I think) on the with the red stripes under the car-number decals? Why is the using train R62As without the LEDs?

We need time separated railroad (River Line NJ) Light Rail runs in the day, Conrail Freight runs at night.

The MTA really doesn't like to shut down stations at night, but if it ever manages to obtain a waiver, the bypass can run at all times and the entire system doesn't need PTC upgrades.

Time-separated railroad could work for Triboro RX though, if it ever comes to more than a concept.

Not the case. PATH is under the FRA because it used to share trackage with the PRR (and the PRR used to own the cars on the Newark-WTC service). This is an entirely different scenario.

Thank you for clarifying. I was mistaken, I must have not realized that the PATH used to be a railroad too.

Anyway, I found this "49 CFR Appendix A to Part 211, Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Waivers Related to Shared Use of Trackage or Rights-of-Way by Light Rail and Conventional Operations" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/appendix-A_to_part_211):

5. In situations where the light rail operator is an urban rapid transit system that will share a right-of-way or corridor with the conventional railroad but not share trackage, any waiver petition should cover only the rules that may apply at any significant points of connection between the rapid transit line and the other railroad. A Petition for Approval of Shared Use would not be appropriate in such a case.

So we need a waiver, but it's possible.