Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.


Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


RR503 last won the day on October 30

RR503 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,791 Excellent


About RR503

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Drainage ditch

Recent Profile Visitors

3,425 profile views
  1. I think the move when it comes to the shuttle is attaching it to the itself. Branch Crosstown south of Bedford Nostrand, tunnel down to somewhere between Fulton and Eastern Parkway, and then just reclaim the ROW. Voila, you’ve got yourself a good approximation of the BMT’s crosstown line and in doing so have provided a decent north-south substitute to buses like the 44.
  2. Yes. A4 track -- the northbound express -- has GT40s from 86th St to 116 St, and then GT35 around the bend to 125. Those indeed do exist for capacity reasons -- under fixed block control, allowing trains to get very fast (especially as they approach high dwell station areas) tends to reduce capacity as your control lines get extremely long, thus requiring slower speeds/ST earlier, etc. CBTC would fix this issue without any capacity penalty and could potentially allow speeds well in excess of 50mph really all the way from 59 to 116 on CPW, but for that we must wait. The same is true on Concourse. The R68s are certainly underpowered, and have chronic issues when it comes to hill climbing, but that whole line is slathered in GTs -- two shots and one shots alike. What's interesting from a historical perspective is that many portions of Concourse express actually once had slower time speeds than they do today; a lot of the speed issues there (on a relative level, not an absolute level) are thanks to operator variability, signal positioning -- north of 145, there are some nasty GTs that hide behind curves -- car equipment power and signal reliability.
  3. There's nothing about three track lines that forces you to run rush hours only express service...look at the ! If they MTA wanted to (and I believe they should), they could easily extend the to BPB 19/5.
  4. The amount of $$$ the agency would save by avoiding busing for Brighton tunnel shutdowns alone would make this a worthwhile investment. But alas, that's too much brain.
  5. You'd end up with Parkchester disease, or a f**kton of ugly crossing moves on a high-volume core corridor. The switches are also not at all set up for it -- PM rush northbound expresses continuing to Woodlawn and PM rush locals relaying south would essentially be single-tracking through Burnside unless you long relayed to north of Kingsbridge. They're much more similar than one would think. Between the transfer at 7/53 and the fact that Lex and 6th are only about 2,000 feet apart south of 42, the can compete for a lot of the s markets if it had the frequency and reliability. Even today, someone travelling from Kingsbridge to 51 St is equally well off doing ->59 -> as they are walking to the , taking to the and walking down to 51.
  6. I've always been partial to some route that hits Queensboro or 21 and then heads up 21 to serve that side of Astoria. There was also a map I saw that had it doing QBP-21 and then 86 St in Manhattan to complete a just-outside-the-core loop, which would be....super amazing, especially if paired with a Franklin Shuttle connection. Transfers should absolutely be the first priority though.
  7. This is fascinating, thanks much. Am curious as to what you mean by shuttle train crews -- was the President op something that ran via shuttle from Franklin or as the end of the ? Or do you mean the dead time necessitated by relay+back-riding to a recrew at Atlantic (does Franklin have a crew room?). Also, how exactly do the power blocks in that area work -- ie can I turn a train at Church or President but still have power off on both tracks down to Flatbush.
  8. A question for the old timers here (looking at you @Trainmaster5) : have President St or Church Ave on Nostrand ever been used for GO operation as a terminal? Maybe during one of the flooding projects for Flatbush/Brooklyn College? Is there anything that would stop their use today? (also @mods could you perhaps merge my three replies to myself? Poor organization -- sorry)
  9. My experience would seem to indicate that Astor is generally okay. Operators generally enter that curve having taken a slight brake application as the signals beyond the curve are closely spaced and frequently are restrictive.
  10. These charts are pre-resignalling; the speed differences you observe are enforced by agency efforts to respond to these issues (though WE certainly is a more GT-heavy route than SB, for obvious reasons).
  11. The events leading up to the Williamsburg Bridge crash were a bit more murky than just negligence. OSS had been pushing DCE since '91 to look carefully at the emergency brake systems, and in fact had put together a course of remedial action to increase cylinder pressures as early as '93. Somewhere between the top of DCE and the actual implementation end of things (ie the pneumatic shops), the memo had got lost -- no timetable for cylinder pressure increases had been set, and the people on the front lines didn't even know the mods were in the work order pipeline. On the signal deficiencies end, the IG report puts April of '93 as being the earliest that NYCT could have been fully aware of control line deficiencies in the signal system thanks to a fender-bender at 103/CPW, the receipt of the TTCL report on Lex's signal system in March (a follow-up on the USQ derailment in '91), and an internal analysis using braking curves from the slow-stopping cars that had been tested over at DCE at the time. And then there was, of course, the infamous PB report on the signal system, a summary of whose data I've excerpted below (from a board presentation post-WillyB h/t @Stephen Bauman) All of this IMO would seem to indicate a breakdown of communication in DCE and Signals, which to some degree may be indicative of OSS not pushing hard enough, but it's my impression that OSS didn't have nearly the internal pull that it gained after the collision. The agency is absolutely reactive, but its brand of reactivity has changed over the years -- before '95, it was piecemeal effort on safety, after '95 it was an all out safety blitz, and now, after having value engineered and disciplined the system to within an inch of its life, it's whatever you'd call this managerial dynamic.
  12. System safety signs off on all the speed increases — this isn’t something happing via an obfuscated chain of command. While I understand that there are some areas that are, shall we say, fun-prone, I don’t think that sign compliant operation actually feels all that rough. Remember, the point of the sign effort is to find areas where limits are set below NYCT standards, which dictate a maximum of 4 inches of unbalanced force around curves — or, frankly, not all that much. As far as I can tell, areas such as Nevins on tracks 3 and 4 and GC on 4 suffer not so much from overly aggressive sign speeds as they do from operation that either exceeds sign when rounding the curve or resuming speed before the R sign. All of which is to say I think you’d be fine if you increase and just stay within delineated bounds.
  13. They changed the speed signs leaving the station. 10 became 15 or 20 (can't remember which).
  14. My fingers and toes are crossed that that area gets revamped as a part of Fulton CBTC so we can single track Hoyt-Jay instead of doing those godawful Utica bustitutions.
  15. Look at the purple line. Median arrives at Kings Highway about 4 mins behind, but then end of line padding is such that it gets to Neptune nearly 5 mins early. Then terminal holdouts (holdouts that exist in no small part because trains approach the terminal so extremely early) mean median arrival at Stillwell is only a few seconds ahead.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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