RailRunRob

11 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Most of the routes you mentioned are from Jackie Gleason Depot which has new buses. It's not a Brooklyn thing, I can assure you of that. lol  SBS should not be given any special priority.  It seems that only SBS lines have signal priority, which is inexcusable in 2018.  Let's see how long it takes them to roll out all door boarding Citywide...

So does the Riverdale routes.. I saw the 7 and the M100 the other day on 168th fairly new and fairly clean. If I was charged with crowd control at a festival im going to allocated more people and resources where there's more crowds. The biggest and most fit guys need to work that area to handle what might come. Why would this asset allocation be any different? B46 carry's the most people? Let's get more buses over there that can handle and take on most people? Priority should go to routes that benefit the most riders. Isn't that how you get maximum returns? Those are SBS and Limited routes right now. Logical no?

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

A lot of SBS buses revenue wise aren't that great, since they consist of a lot of people transferring, especially the crosstown buses.  That's why Bloomberg proposed making the crosstown buses free since so few people were actually paying $2.75. They were just transferring from another bus.  Bus ridership as a whole has been declining, and that includes the SBS lines, so we need resources spread around equally.  Most people that use buses don't just use SBS lines.  They do pay attention when new buses come out, and when they see lots of new buses on the SBS lines while other local lines have tons of old buses, they do complain out loud because their thinking is we're paying the same fare as everybody else, so why shouldn't we get a fair share of service and new buses?

To the contrary we're seeing tons of new buses on my local routes B48, B67 B69, B45 maybe it's a Brooklyn thing?  Do these newer buses have benefits that can be used with the SBS routes? More capacity? Better automation, information systems? Using that logic even if SBS route's get more people transferring the fare was paid at some point.  The people on these local routes at some point should see/benefit from these newer buses when they transfer.  There are way more local routes buses are always in the process of being replaced somewhere. SBS are higher used routes I would expect a bit more attention in high traffic areas to mitigate possible ripple effects. Most routes I see or use have decent quality and fairly new buses. B41 and B45/B65 everyone now and then i'll see a older bus nothing crazy.

On 7/1/2018 at 9:40 AM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It comes off as SBS being treated with more priority than other bus lines

Just playing devil's advocate here. Wouldnt you put more resources towards higher ridership and performing lines? SBS lines kinda fit that description in most cases though not all.

55 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Wise choice on your part.

Went ultra instinct up in here.. hahaha. But your 100% correct.

1 hour ago, EphraimB said:

All I'm talking about is that right now the LIRR is more safer than the subway and goes through better neighborhoods.

I've ridden the subways in the 80's and 90's bud..  Trust for the volume of people it carries daily it hasn't been safer in decades.

15 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Late night LIRR trains are definitely worse than the subway... There is no match for the last train of the day to Babylon, sorry.

Ahhh man don't even get me started. Open containers, slurred speech. Even inbound coming into Rockville Center on a Friday is crazy. 

19 minutes ago, Fan Railer said:

Typically power transmission follows an AC-DC-AC path. This is true for diesel electric locomotives and units drawing AC overhead current. AC power is accepted from the overhead line or the main alternator, rectified to DC for the DC link, which then supplies both the traction inverters (which invert back to AC for the motors) and the HEP and aux inverters (which invert back to AC for those loads).

In the case of DC pickup (third rail or overhead), the power supply bypasses the rectifier and enters the DC link.

In the case where multiple AC sources (different voltage and frequencies) are to be used (like with the M8s and NEC electric locomotives, etc), a transformer is provided to take the input AC and output a standard AC setting to the rectifier for the DC link.

2

Gotcha.. I'm familiar with the concept of rectifiers from AC alternators in that path IIRC it's easier to control or Manipulate power this way.. I gotcha that makes more sense.

9 hours ago, Fan Railer said:

I feel the term "propulsion system" is being used too narrowly here. The entire set up should be referred to as "the system". The system is comprised of different components, some allowing the vehicle to accept different power sources. 

Okay so let's build on that general term of the system it's been a while but if IIRC there's 5-6 major parts and areas of a railcars breakdown. 

• Motor and gearbox
• Propulsion 
• Input inductor
• Resistors

and i'll add knife switch in there as well. I know within propulsion itself there's some electronics that makeup it's own sub system DCU, VCU's train control ect.  So I get that. The M8's are probably some of most complex cars out there.  Just looking at the weight difference between the cars I know there's some extra hardware. Almost a extra 20,000lbs (10tons) worth.  So my question is around traction and line voltage and how it get's to the motors?. Does the M8 have one traction converter for both AC and DC power or multiple modules or hardware to deal with that?  That's what I was asking.

2 minutes ago, Bosco said:

The three propulsion systems for the M8 are catenary, and two for the dual current collector.  

So just so I understand correctly there are 3 pieces of propulsion hardware on the M8?

14 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

The three propulsion systems in this conversation are the MELCO packages for the M7, M8, and M9

You know what. Tho rare I have seen like MITRAC systems support both DC and AC.. Like the Electrostar and Eurostar trainsets. So this would be a similar thing I gotcha..

8 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

The three propulsion systems in this conversation are the MELCO packages for the M7, M8, and M9

Melco? As in Sojitz?

6 hours ago, Fan Railer said:

Technically no. Still one propulsion system, but the power transmission system is more complex. Regardless of the power supply rating, the input to the traction inverters is always the same. The onboard transformer takes care of the voltage / frequency changes.

What are these guys describing here with  3 propulsion systems? Wouldnt you need an inverter to step from 700V to motor output as well as conversion down from both 12/25kv?  So one box does both inversion and conversion? (DC and AC)?

31 minutes ago, jamesman8 said:

Yep, M7-M9 all use Mitsubishi, its easier to swap parts that way. I believe everything is the same just the inverters are tuned differently on each unit.

The M8's are a bit more complex I take it... with three different voltage types.. Multiple propulsion systems.

On 6/26/2018 at 8:00 PM, lupojohn said:

M101 badly needs SBS.

Doesn't it parallel the Subway for the most part?

What type of propulsion are they using  with the M9's ? Mitsubishi again?

27 minutes ago, Daniel The Cool said:

It actually took a good amount of damage.

Your right it took on the same amount of water as Cranberry 1.5 million gallons of water. Why or How were they able to delay it so long? What's there method of selection?  Besides Montague that took on the most water.

Now that I think of it.. what's the story with Joralemon? It didn't flood along with 60th and 63rd streets. What were the repairs?

22 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

Now that the 53 St Tunnel, Cranberry Tunnel, and Joralemon Tunnel is completed, the Canarsie Tunnel is next. How many more after Canarsie Tunnel are there left to do?

Rutgers Street I believe? IIRC it took the least amount of damage of the flooded tunnels.

On 6/27/2018 at 7:12 PM, officiallyliam said:

Port Authority claimed that the grade would be too steep for trains, and that's why they dismissed it; this was a poor excuse to not have to go through any kind of integration process with the MTA, given that subway trains negotiate steeper grades than the one proposed.

 

4.5% is a bit steep but your correct trains navigate grades on par with that.. 60th street is 4.25% with the climb from the tunnel portal getting as steep as 4.37% The Manhattan Bridge is as high as a 5.4% in spots. Trains could have handled the grade.

24 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

@RailRunRob @RR503 

Totally agree with everything you two have said re: commuter rail/RER. Its why the current state of SEPTA Regional Rail is so disappointing especially considering they've already cleared the infrastructure hurdle with the CCCT.

The politicians and the public just can't correlate how Transportation affects a region it's growth and output. That's honestly the Problem!  Something drastic has to happen before people get it.  The  Closure is a great Opportunity to start the narrative of Cause-and-effect. But that's a story for another day another thread.

11 minutes ago, Bosco said:

He's currently the VP.

Wow! I'd say that's quite the step up!!

1 hour ago, jamesman8 said:

Then again, in Britain, they have lots of government support, on their "Federal" level. They also have a lot fewer regulations when it comes to finding contractors e.t.c., and their construction process takes much less time.

I don't understand the logic in that? So we're doomed to be subpar? Subpar construction, Subpar service and transportation? You know this type of thinking and regulations do have real-world consequences? How is New York Supposed to stay competitive on the world stage?  So London is and always will be a better City than New York?  Nothing said here is physically limited by anything in the real world. We're not building a floating City here. (Not yet at least) These are man-made issues and laws.. A man passes a law or deal A man can change it or take it away correct?

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Absolutely true. Enough of this suburban exclusionism bullshit -- if the suburbs aren't firmly linked to each other and to the city with transit soon, they're simply gonna fade away. We need robust (bidirectional), frequent (>3tph during the day) train service throughout our electrified commuter system -- or else. 

Not to stray too far off topic, but the implementation of a new fare payment system for NYCT presents a unique opportunity to finally integrate regional rail and city transit fares. What we should be doing is installing entry/exit fare gates at all MTA stations, compatible with a single fare medium. If you tap in and tap out within city limits -- regardless of mode -- you should be charged 2.75. Beyond that, fares should be set as zone-based differences -- say 1.25 per zone traveled, on top of the city zone charge of 2.75 if applicable. If you transfer from bus/subway to commuter rail, you should be charged solely the additional zones traveled by commuter train -- in essence, a free transfer. This'd save millions in labour costs, and would make all MTA services infinitely more integrated and thus attractive. 

With such integration, then you could really start going to town. One of the biggest deterrents to service experimentation by our city's regional railroad services is the fact that the fixed cost of any new train service is extremely high. Not only are you paying the increased maintenance/power charges, but regardless of ridership, you're paying 3+ crew members. Supplanting conductors with fare control would eliminate that barrier and moreover vastly ease the implementation of intra-city heavy rail services by not requiring separate fare control for their operation (assuming that we'd want free transfers from them to the subway). Don't even get me started on the service patterns possible...

Crossrail should serve as a shining example of what it could be both in frequency and integration RER as well. Your 100% it's time to rethink what's current and what was and focus on the future and what's need to optimize this vital infrastructure. The one thing you learn in studying any Civil Engineering discipline is that these are invisible to the public for the most part. If people only knew how important transportation is to there lives and all the spoils they enjoy daily it's frustrating at times.(facepalm) But I think I've stated this before the low hanging fruit IMO creating a third NYCTA rail division with FRA standards (RX & SIR) interline these routes with the LIRR and MNRR and as you stated rethink regional rail and it's integration anything within a 100 mile radius. This could be done. In fact it has too.

8 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

 

And to think that today, in 2018, there are some people who can't stand the thought of commuter rail acting like a subway with high frequencies.

With the population tripling in some cases in the surrounding areas! Have to move these people somehow.

40 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Yes. In the MTA’s defense, the Program for Action — under which this tunnel was built — would’ve vastly changed the LIRR, making it much more of an interurban railroad than it is today. We would’ve had extremely high frequencies, more electrification, and a generally more subway-like service product, factors which may have suggested to planners that all they had to accommodate were basically FRA-standard subway cars (which are indeed what the M1s were — even stylized by the same company which did the R44/46 IIRC). That said, bi-level cars had existed for years then (including, as has been noted by others, on the LIRR), so any body with real foresight probably would have opted to at least leave Penn Station level clearances. Always better to leave provision for unplanned changes — look at how Dual Contracts was all built to BMT. 

Indeed, Even if just for routing flexibility.  The MP70's ran until the 1970's IIRC another 24 inches could have pulled it off for some bi-level cars. I guess looking back the 63rd street barely made it as is with The financial crisis and all the starts and stops. But that still shouldn't stop them from looking into bi-level cars in out of Penn.