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.

RR503

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    2,339
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    75

Everything posted by RR503

  1. No, not beyond providing some level of accountability. ITRAC tracks trains; what's needed here is rigor in making sure that every train actually runs and that trains leave the terminal on time.
  2. The salient point here is supremely crappy terminal dispatching. Here's the supplement for today; none of those gaps were in any way supposed to happen.
  3. That would be too logical. Use stations staff in operational capacities...hell would freeze over!
  4. No contest here. TSSs are, IIRC, trained to operate towers, but their availability for those duties is of course contingent on their proximity to the tower in question, which is to say I'm unsure how much we can rely on them.
  5. Yeah, but that shouldn’t have any impact on speed — aside from it making a cooler noise, of course.
  6. I’m not aware of any infrastructure improvements — just the previously reported sign changes...
  7. The MTA’s real time data feeds don’t measure dwell time so much as they measure time in station. Whenever the countdown clocks show “0 minutes” or “arriving now” or whatever, the viewer begins to register dwell, and whenever the last ‘stopped at’ message is sent in the feed, dwell is over. So take those figures to be a rough approximation of the time from when the train enters a station to when it begins to leave.
  8. This sort of thing makes me angry. 59th St spur is sitting there, empty. Use it for the love of god -- ya can't have gaps like that during rush hour!
  9. The bigger story here is the staffing situation in the system. We have towers run by one person controlling key interlockings here and elsewhere -- Hoyt Schermerhorn, for example. They need a break? Service dies. FWIW, this is yet another reason that upgrades to our dispatching infrastructure are necessary. 42nd St North still runs with an ancient GRS Model 5 interlocking machine and controls a tiny piece of territory. Centralizing to a master tower (as they plan to do for CBTC) gives you redundancy without having to pay someone to provide coverage for the small portion of each day that the primary Tw/O is not at their station.
  10. Love how they assume that ridership won't drop further when they cut service. Factor in that, and savings are negligible at best.
  11. Nah, the WP dropouts are data errors — ignore them. The gigantic gap is the real story.
  12. In the most recent iteration of the full length plan, the was going full length for the shutdown. What exact fleets were going to be used for that operation is frankly immaterial to that question, as it was the movement of the shutdown to weekends -- and thus the fact that MTA couldn't charge the marginal cost of full length s to the capital budget -- that killed it, not some re-assortment of B division cars.
  13. Full length s will come when the money arrives...
  14. Seems to be a combination of padding and GO congestion on southbound 4th. Stringline shows holds at Dekalb (which I'd imagine are padding related, at least in the 's case) and at Atlantic (if I had to guess, trains crawling/sitting). Schedule (padding in black): String:
  15. There are enough 179s in service to make the full length at this point; they are having some issues, but not to the extent (I believe) that they cannot make service.
  16. Ugh. So they're padding the hell out of the schedules again. Lovely, just lovely.
  17. R179 issues don't have much to do with the 's length -- much more the .
  18. FRA stipulations would probably have been removed for this; can't imagine NYCT retrofitting part of their fleet with all the trinkets that come with (partial) compliance. The two certainly aren't paragons of fiscal responsibility, but again I think that we need to contextualize those failings in the potential benefit: is it really the end of the world if MTA is paying 20% more than they should for the combined service if NJ riders can get a one-seat ride from Newark to Grand Central?
  19. I'm aware that they run full length during the summer; question is why should we use the 179s for those trips rather than 46s. There's no real need to test OPTO functionality, as there are (sadly) no carborne functions that are OPTO-specific.
  20. Why would you waste your highest performance equipment on a short, infrequent set of runs? Them wanting them there this weekend shouldn't be taken as being indicative of them wanting them there in the long run.
  21. I mean, is that such a bad thing? MTA maybe has to overpay a little, but we get a good interstate subway. Seems like a win to me. I'd imagine that costs would have changed if the various operating waivers that would have been necessary for such an operation had been put in place, FWIW
  22. Very interesting. I’m surprised (but also somewhat not) to see no schedule difference. What does northbound look like?
  23. The post-4/26 supplements shouldn't show any runtime difference. If I'm not mistaken, before that date there was a supplement in effect that added a good bit of runtime to the . I'd be interested to know the extent to which that's changed, as with the they pretty much left runtimes the same (which, IINM, causes some relatively significant operational issues with trains running ahead of schedule).

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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