Overcrowding on L subway route?

On May 23, 9:48 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On May 23, 1:12 am, "Ed\(NY\)" <ebn...@> wrote:
>
> > (4) Today's speed and no-keying-by rules make it more difficult to support
> > 30TPH anywhere.
>
> Perhaps the rules are unnecessarily too restrictive and should be
> eased?
>
> That would improve traffic flow. Inevitably trains can bunch up and
> allowing a key-by would save time.

Perhaps the rules were instituted in response to various accidents
that happened because of e.g. keying by.

On May 23, 9:48 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On May 23, 1:12 am, "Ed\(NY\)" <ebn...@> wrote:
>
> > (4) Today's speed and no-keying-by rules make it more difficult to support
> > 30TPH anywhere.
>
> Perhaps the rules are unnecessarily too restrictive and should be
> eased?
>
> That would improve traffic flow. Inevitably trains can bunch up and
> allowing a key-by would save time.

Perhaps the rules were instituted in response to various accidents
that happened because of e.g. keying by.

Extending a platform is a lot cheaper than adding a new line. Recent entire
underground station and platform renovations have cost in the range of $100
million dollars for a 600 foot station. For a 200 foot extension at a
budget of somewhere around $35 million dollars per station is reasonable.
The 72nd St IRT cost $40 million to extend platforms, add elevators and new
entrances. If ten of the busiest stations were targeted the cost would be
around $350 million. Add a million a piece for 50 additional subway cars
for an additional $50 million. Definitely something to consider.

In article <4654D2A4.8060000@>, Joseph D. Korman
<joekor@> wrote:


>
> An interesting alternative, I hadn't thought of in my previous post was
> the possibility of mixing a four car set of R-143 and five car set of
> R-160's for nine car train. That might just fit in the Canarsie
> platforms that were built for eight 67' cars. That might allow them to
> operate under CBTC sooner while waiting for the four car sets of R-160's
> arrive.

I don't know if that would actually speed things up, since none of the
R160s delivered to date has the CBTC computers on board. The buttons
and switches are there but the brains are not.

On May 24, 10:53 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On May 23, 11:18 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the rules were instituted in response to various accidents
> > that happened because of e.g. keying by.
>
> Perhaps those rules, of which the subway system managed to work well
> without them for many years, should be reviewed and rescinded to
> increase capacity and reduce delays.

To work well ... except when it happened to have some fatal accidents.

alexander medwedew wrote:
> Extending a platform is a lot cheaper than adding a new line. Recent entire
> underground station and platform renovations have cost in the range of $100
> million dollars for a 600 foot station. For a 200 foot extension at a
> budget of somewhere around $35 million dollars per station is reasonable.
> The 72nd St IRT cost $40 million to extend platforms, add elevators and new
> entrances. If ten of the busiest stations were targeted the cost would be
> around $350 million. Add a million a piece for 50 additional subway cars
> for an additional $50 million. Definitely something to consider.

I was wondering the other day if a partial solution to the L Train's
crowding, and perhaps some other crowding issues, would be to extend it
so that it loops back to some of the other lines. For example, an
extension to Bay Ridge allowing transfers to the 2/5, Q/B, F, New
Utrecht (M, N, D), and the R. Some of the potential riders surely want
to get to those parts of Brooklyn, or to parts of downtown not really
convenient given the present transfers necessary from the L Train.

When you think of the L Train, you think of an east-west trip, but
you're really sort of traveling north to Manhattan.

On May 29, 10:22 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> BTW, along these lines, how does the NYC automated train handle wet
> rail with its greater stopping distances? On PATCO, which is high
> performance automation, the trains must be run manually. When it
> rains because otherwise they overshoot the station because the wheel
> slip kicks in on the slippery rail (esp when it just starts to rain).
> Indeed, I don't know if PATCO's signal system can even handle those
> greater stopping distances. (I was on such a train and the extra
> distance it travelled beyond a station was considerable.)

How does an underground subway get rained on?

Why don't you stick to your Philadelphia newsgroups?

On May 29, 6:10 pm, "Joseph D. Korman" <joe...@> wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On May 29, 10:22 am, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> >>BTW, along these lines, how does the NYC automated train handle wet
> >>rail with its greater stopping distances? On PATCO, which is high
> >>performance automation, the trains must be run manually. When it
> >>rains because otherwise they overshoot the station because the wheel
> >>slip kicks in on the slippery rail (esp when it just starts to rain).
> >>Indeed, I don't know if PATCO's signal system can even handle those
> >>greater stopping distances. (I was on such a train and the extra
> >>distance it travelled beyond a station was considerable.)
>
> > How does an underground subway get rained on?
>
> > Why don't you stick to your Philadelphia newsgroups?
>
> Never rode the lines in Brooklyn, the Bronx, or Queens, have you? Wet
> rails, especially in the fall with leaves is a real problem. However,
> only part of the L with the CBTC is outside. It's an interesting
> question, that will have to be dealt with if the new systems gets expanded.

The question concerned only the subways.

On May 24, 8:54 pm, Michael Finfer <fin...@> wrote:
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > On May 23, 11:18 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@> wrote:
> >> Perhaps the rules were instituted in response to various accidents
> >> that happened because of e.g. keying by.
>
> > Perhaps those rules, of which the subway system managed to work well
> > without them for many years, should be reviewed and rescinded to
> > increase capacity and reduce delays.
>
> I have to say, with 21 years of experience in a field that is totally
> dependent upon the human factor and its propensity for error (medicine),
> that is not a good idea. Those margins have been built into the rules
> to deal with human factors that have caused accidents. The idea is to
> make it difficult to cause an accident even if a motorman makes a
> mistake. Going backwards is a really bad idea. Technology, WHEN
> PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED, is the solution.
>
> Michael Finfer
> Bridgewater, NJ

Great point Michael. Since the more restrictive subway operating
rules were put in place in the 1990s, there haven't been any major
accidents due to human error. Why should we go back to a less safe
operating structure? If they need more capacity, they need to install
the CBTC and get the subway up to 21st Century technology levels for
operation and safety.