Lawrence St Posted October 30, 2018 Share #26 Posted October 30, 2018 On 10/28/2018 at 2:25 PM, RailRunRob said: Pelham Parkway for sure!! Seems they had in on the plan, in the beginning, I wonder that changed? Funding? What is this plan? Its horrific! People lose direct New Haven Line access from Fordham, I dont know what's serving Mount Vernon East to New Rochelle, Hudson Line customers lose access to GCT, I dont know what's serving Spyten to 125th. Please no! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted October 30, 2018 Share #27 Posted October 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Lawrence St said: What is this plan? Its horrific! People lose direct New Haven Line access from Fordham, I dont know what's serving Mount Vernon East to New Rochelle, Hudson Line customers lose access to GCT, I dont know what's serving Spyten to 125th. Please no! Initial plans from 2000-2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted October 30, 2018 Share #28 Posted October 30, 2018 6 hours ago, Lawrence St said: What is this plan? Its horrific! People lose direct New Haven Line access from Fordham, I dont know what's serving Mount Vernon East to New Rochelle, Hudson Line customers lose access to GCT, I dont know what's serving Spyten to 125th. Please no! This would increase service, not decrease. Additional New Haven Line service would go to Penn, and ADDITIONAL Hudson Line service would go to Penn. Penn Station Access will be the most cost effective large Capital Project, using existing lines and adding stations allows passengers in the East and West Bronx better access to Manhattan and opens up reverse commuting. I hope they fund Hudson Line PSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40MntVrn Posted January 23, 2019 Share #29 Posted January 23, 2019 Considering today's announcements to push forward with "West Side Access" plans, what equipment would be used on this branch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainfan22 Posted January 23, 2019 Share #30 Posted January 23, 2019 37 minutes ago, 40MntVrn said: Considering today's announcements to push forward with "West Side Access" plans, what equipment would be used on this branch? The M8 cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40MntVrn Posted January 23, 2019 Share #31 Posted January 23, 2019 1 hour ago, trainfan22 said: The M8 cars. I'm assuming with theyll be retrofitted with the adjustable shoe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulrivera Posted January 23, 2019 Author Share #32 Posted January 23, 2019 2 hours ago, 40MntVrn said: I'm assuming with theyll be retrofitted with the adjustable shoe? Some M8s won’t need to be retrofitted at all as there are ~60 new cars next year which should have dual compatible shoes. Theres also one final ~30 car option still on the table that can be used to help get this service started. Metro-North and CT played it really smart with the M8 contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Ridge Express Posted January 24, 2019 Share #33 Posted January 24, 2019 On 10/30/2018 at 8:52 AM, Lawrence St said: Lots of stations on the West Side... not sure how I feel about that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted January 25, 2019 Share #34 Posted January 25, 2019 21 hours ago, Bay Ridge Express said: Lots of stations on the West Side... not sure how I feel about that Those are all the sites evaluated. The stops will be at 125th and 62nd. I would argue for stops at Dyckman, 155th and 42nd as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted January 25, 2019 Share #35 Posted January 25, 2019 If they can work through the cab signal issue, they should also consider through running trains from Croton to, say, Ronkonkoma with the Hudson phase. Same agency, (almost) same rolling stock... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted January 25, 2019 Share #36 Posted January 25, 2019 1 hour ago, RR503 said: If they can work through the cab signal issue, they should also consider through running trains from Croton to, say, Ronkonkoma with the Hudson phase. Same agency, (almost) same rolling stock... I would have them run through to Hempstead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted January 26, 2019 Share #37 Posted January 26, 2019 This wonderful tidbit from Signal Problems: Quote Well, yes! But: one of the hold-ups was Amtrak wanted the MTA to pay for replacing the century-old Pelham Bay Bridge which it argued could not accommodate the heavier load. Here’s WNYC on how they solved that impasse: > Under the agreement brokered by Cuomo, the Pelham Bay Bridge replacement would be postponed for 10-20 years. Short of Andrew Cuomo standing outside the MTA headquarters and kicking a can of “What The L” Blue Point lager down Broadway, this is about as close to the literal manifestation as “kicking the can down the road” as you’ll find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted March 24, 2019 Share #38 Posted March 24, 2019 On 1/26/2019 at 1:48 PM, bobtehpanda said: This wonderful tidbit from Signal Problems: The MTA should agree to fund a portion of grade-separating SHELL Interlocking, but has refused. Screen Shot 2019-03-24 at 8.31.19 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr Screen Shot 2019-03-24 at 8.31.25 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted March 24, 2019 Share #39 Posted March 24, 2019 @RR503 It sounds like they are evaluating options for a new yard for PSA in New York; perhaps an expansion of New Rochelle Yard? Screen Shot 2019-03-24 at 8.37.07 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted March 24, 2019 Share #40 Posted March 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Union Tpke said: @RR503 It sounds like they are evaluating options for a new yard for PSA in New York; perhaps an expansion of New Rochelle Yard? Wish I knew for certain. MNR, to me, is a strange land. If I had to guess this'd involve incremental changes to existing facilities, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted March 25, 2019 Share #41 Posted March 25, 2019 On 3/24/2019 at 9:28 AM, Union Tpke said: perhaps an expansion of New Rochelle Yard At first, I was wondering what New Rochelle Yard you were talking about, but I guess they consider those three layup tracks northeast of the New Rochelle station a yard. On the subject of a potential expansion, I don't see where MN would get the space for it. The entire ROW in that area is sandwiched between private property and new developments on one side and I-95 on the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted March 26, 2019 Share #42 Posted March 26, 2019 Really speaking, the NHL is fast approaching the limitations of its mainline railroad infrastructure. Yards are great, but until you grade separate the junctions and terminals, simplify stopping patterns and install high density signals, the same basic capacity limits will remain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted March 27, 2019 Share #43 Posted March 27, 2019 On 3/25/2019 at 8:59 PM, RR503 said: Really speaking, the NHL is fast approaching the limitations of its mainline railroad infrastructure. Yards are great, but until you grade separate the junctions and terminals, simplify stopping patterns and install high density signals, the same basic capacity limits will remain. The MTA should pay for part of the grade-separation of Shell Interlocking. When I asked someone working on PSA via email they said that they had just done some improvements there. Grade-separating the junction at Stamford should be done as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.