Grand Central Terminal and New York Penn Station.
fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk
for passenger use? GCT always seemed to me to have more, and yet it's
now only normally served by three MNRR lines, while Penn Station
serves rather more LIRR lines, plus Amtrak and NJ Transit. Does GCT
really have more, or is it jst that the various parts of Penn Station
make it harder to see how many there are? Are all of the ones at GCT
still in use, or are there some which are permanently out of use?
Philip Nasadowski
<a293672b-d7ab-4558...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk wrote:
> How many tracks/platforms does each of these stations have available
> for passenger use
Lots, on two levels. It's not uncommon for MN to announce track
assignments hours in advance.
> GCT always seemed to me to have more, and yet it's
> now only normally served by three MNRR lines, while Penn Station
> serves rather more LIRR lines, plus Amtrak and NJ Transit.
GCT always had more tracks than Penn. Penn has 21, GCT has something
like 3 times as many.
> Does GCT
> really have more, or is it jst that the various parts of Penn Station
> make it harder to see how many there are?
GCT is on two levels, Penn's on one. Penn has 21 tracks. But Penn's a
*station* not a *terminal*.
> Are all of the ones at GCT
> still in use, or are there some which are permanently out of use?
Some seem to have been taken out of use, either to be used as storage or
whatnot. I think they lose a few more with East Side Access.
Being operated by a single agency helps, too. At Penn, you have the
LIRR, Amtrak, and NJT all fighting each other, and none of them wants to
sit down and co-operate.
Tadej Brezina
Does anyone have a plan/map/sketch how this station layout looks like?
Where do the trains leave, looks like everything's underground. Those
maps/pics that google finds don't support my imagination.
Thanks
T.
--
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it."
<Upton Sinclair in The Jungle>
--
(Laptop brezta)
Philip Nasadowski
Tadej Brezina <tadej_...@gmx.at> wrote:
> Does anyone have a plan/map/sketch how this station layout looks like?
> Where do the trains leave, looks like everything's underground. Those
> maps/pics that google finds don't support my imagination.
The unofficial map:
http://www.richegreen.com/MNRRv6.pdf
is a HUGE pdf file, and may/may not be dimensionally correct (though it
supposedly isn't too far off). It show Pen, GCT (both levels), Hoboken,
etc. With speed limits where available, plus notes on the traction
systems, tunnels, etc.
Mileposts and speeds are in mph :)
Some stations are listed as abandoned, even though they have been for
_decades_, simply because the physical stations are in fact still there.
Have fun!
Larry Sheldon
Ob. nit. Mileposts - MPH.
Really?
--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information:
http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Michael Finfer
> In article <4b12e35e$0$1566$91ce...@newsreader03.highway.telekom.at>,
> Tadej Brezina <tadej_...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have a plan/map/sketch how this station layout looks like?
>> Where do the trains leave, looks like everything's underground. Those
>> maps/pics that google finds don't support my imagination.
>
> The unofficial map:
>
> http://www.richegreen.com/MNRRv6.pdf
This is an awesome file. It includes not only Metro-North, but CSX as
far as Albany on both sides of the River, the ex-Erie Newark Branch, the
entire NYS&W Southern Division, PATH, the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, and
a number of other goodies. Combine this with Peter Dougherty's NYC
Subway Track book and you have a really good overview of the area. All
that needs to be added is the Northeast Corridor to Trenton or
Philadelphia and NJT's Newark Division for a really complete overview of
passenger rail in this area.
Kudos to the person who created this map!
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
Philip Nasadowski
Michael Finfer <fin...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> This is an awesome file. It includes not only Metro-North, but CSX as
> far as Albany on both sides of the River, the ex-Erie Newark Branch, the
> entire NYS&W Southern Division, PATH, the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, and
> a number of other goodies. Combine this with Peter Dougherty's NYC
> Subway Track book and you have a really good overview of the area. All
> that needs to be added is the Northeast Corridor to Trenton or
> Philadelphia and NJT's Newark Division for a really complete overview of
> passenger rail in this area.
Hit his webpage:
For more.
He's stated his ultimate goal is to cover just about everything. he has
NJT and the LIRR and part of SEPTA done, now.
> Kudos to the person who created this map!
See above. Send email :)
fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk
> In article <4b12e35e$0$1566$91cee...@newsreader03.highway.telekom.at>,
> Tadej Brezina <tadej_use...@gmx.at> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have a plan/map/sketch how this station layout looks like?
> > Where do the trains leave, looks like everything's underground. Those
> > maps/pics that google finds don't support my imagination.
>
> The unofficial map:
>
> http://www.richegreen.com/MNRRv6.pdf
>
> is a HUGE pdf file, and may/may not be dimensionally correct (though it
> supposedly isn't too far off). It show Pen, GCT (both levels), Hoboken,
> etc. With speed limits where available, plus notes on the traction
> systems, tunnels, etc.
>
> Mileposts and speeds are in mph :)
>
> Some stations are listed as abandoned, even though they have been for
> _decades_, simply because the physical stations are in fact still there.
>
> Have fun!
Thank you, I've just got it at work; 100 Mb Internet connections are
useful :) I'll have a better look at it when I get home. What are
the numbers and letters by the lines, things like INT JO?
I see that 19th street PATH is shown, but 28th street is not. I know
that the platforms at 19th street are still there, with some sort of
plant installed there; I wonder if the station is available for use as
an emergency evacuation point, as some disused stations in London are?
Philip Nasadowski
<d93e0fa7-b296-4030...@e31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk wrote:
> Thank you, I've just got it at work; 100 Mb Internet connections are
> useful :) I'll have a better look at it when I get home. What are
> the numbers and letters by the lines, things like INT JO?
Numbers are generally speeds, INT is 'interlocking'.
> I see that 19th street PATH is shown, but 28th street is not. I know
> that the platforms at 19th street are still there, with some sort of
> plant installed there; I wonder if the station is available for use as
> an emergency evacuation point, as some disused stations in London are?
Maybe. Even the NYC subway has evacuation points in places between
stations...
Joseph D. Korman
http://www.richegreen.com/NJSEPTAV5.pdf
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
John Albert
"Most of Grand Central is a train storage facility, not a
station"
Huh?
Where did you get this?
Ever BEEN there?
I used to WORK there.
Ain't so.
- John
Valentin Brückel
Not in the literal sense. Compared to its massive size however, the number
of train movements (and passengers) there is pitiful.
Val
Clark F Morris
wrote:
During mid-day, check how many trains are stabled there for the
evening rush hour. It is a midday storage yard in many ways.
>
>- John
Clark F Morris
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>John Albert schrieb:
>If used as a station, not for parking trains, it should have about
>2500 trains per day. But the station throat would never allow that,
>not even close.
That number would imply 8 or more tracks feeding the station. What
terminal stations get that number of trains?
>
>
>Hans-Joachim
John Albert
"During mid-day, check how many trains are stabled there for the
evening rush hour. It is a midday storage yard in many ways"
Yes, there are indeed small storage yards located here and
there within the terminal area.
I recall working the "emergency jobs" in the eighties (I'm
sure they're still there today), on which we used to move
trains from storage, out to the ladders, then back onto the
platform tracks for loading.
But many, if not most of the equipment that comes in during
the morning rush goes _right back out_ for midday service.
Actually, with the aging of many of the M-series cars, there
aren't as many "surplus" cars as there once were. And the
frequency of midday service has increased significantly in
the past 25 years. They need to make the most out of what
they have (at least until the new fleet of M-8's is in service).
Also, folks tend to forget that the _real_ storage yards
were located at Mott Haven in years past, at least for most
of the long-distance trains.
In the past few years, the old Highbridge yard has been
developed to handle the "overflow" which will result due to
the fact that some space on the west side of G.C.T. is no
longer available for storage, due to the Long Island access
project.
The real storage yards on Metro-North are at New Haven,
Stamford, Croton and Brewster. Once that equipment starts
moving in the early morning hours, the vast majority of it
_stays_ moving until arriving back at those locations at night.
- John
Valentin Brückel
Can't think of any off the top of by head, but there are numerous terminal
stations handling >500 trains per day with half or even a quarter the number
of platform tracks.
To name a few:
Frankfurt (excluding S-Bahn[1])
632 trains, 350k passengers on 24 tracks
Munich (excluding S-Bahn[1])
466 trains, 350k passengers on 32 tracks
Stuttgart (excluding S-Bahn[1])
590 trains, 240k passengers on 17 tracks
Leipzig
650 trains, 120k passengers on 23 tracks
For comparison a through station:
Cologne
1230 trains, 280k passengers on 11 tracks
Val
[1] S-Bahn excluded, because those are through tracks
d...@blueyunder.co.uk
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>Clark F Morris schrieb:
>
>
>> That number would imply 8 or more tracks feeding the station. What
>> terminal stations get that number of trains?
>
>
>None. South West Trains operates 1700 trains out of London Waterloo,
>off 19 platforms.
>
>
>Hans-Joachim
Actually, Waterloo does have 8 tracks in it's final approach, through
Vauxhall Station, & originally out to Clapham Junction, but the new
approach tracks for Eurostar into the now disused Waterloo
International necessitated one of the Windsor lines removal.
London Victora has either 7 or 8 tracks across the Thmaes Bridge &
down Grosvenor Bank into the station.
Most of the other London terminals have 4, 5, or 6 track approaches,
with 2 minute headways, so they can handle a reasonablr amount of
traffic........
David C (UK)
fur...@mail.croydon.ac.uk
How many does London Bridge have; that always seems a very wide
approach, but I've never counted them?
NY Penn is probably the busiest station I've been to. I'm not sure
how it compares to places like Mumbai.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> NY Penn is probably the busiest station I've been to. I'm not sure
> how it compares to places like Mumbai.
The Jan 2010 issue of Trains magazine (on sale now) has a feature
article about Penn Station and train movements therein.
HAL
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> The crowding at NY Penn is /not/ caused by an especially high ridership
> (by world standards), but by
>
> - misdesign of the platforms.
> - misdesign of the platform access.
> - misdesign of the trains (twice the dwell time of normal trains).
The dwell time of the trains at Penn has nothing to do with their
design. It is constrained by the platforms and platform access.
Philip Nasadowski
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> - misdesign of the platforms.
No kidding. Way too narrow and curvy. I've read plenty of speculation
that the best fix for Penn would be to *decrease* the number of
platforms. Oh, and stop Amtrak from laying up trains at all hours of
the day.
> - misdesign of the platform access.
There's not much on the east side that can be done, but with redesigned
platforms (see above), the west side could be redone, and likely a lot
faster (maybe 20 - 25?). There's a shitload of poorly used space there
now, including unused stub tracks and even an old passenger car stuffed
on a siding there, plus the unused mail/express platform, etc.
The human flow is even worse - every operator there has their own
section on it's own level, with very little commonality and narrow
connections between them. Add in shitty platform access, confusing, out
of date signage...
The best way to redo Penn would be put the entire waiting area on a
single level, and get rid of this crap of NJT needing it's own cute
little waiting area, the LIRR needed its own cute little waiting area,
Amtrak needing its own cute little waiting area, etc. Make it more like
30th street, sans that silly upstairs for Septa.
> - misdesign of the trains (twice the dwell time of normal trains).
On the NJT and Amtrak side, the LIRR ones aren't too horrid. But that
won't be a factor until you address the above issues.
> While NY Penn is certainly the busiest station in the USA, lots of
> places around the globe have more traffic. Most of them are better
> built, though.
Even Suburban in Philly is a better built station. Platforms are WIDE,
trains always leave from the same platform (another one of those things
folks here say "can't be done", but apparently can, even in the US), and
the track level is well lit, and not rat-infested. But it had the
advantage that the PRR saw what worked and didn't work in NY. Or more
exactly, that NY Penn's design just didn't work...
HAL
Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> wrote:
> Oh, and stop Amtrak from laying up trains at all hours of
> the day.
Amtrak does not lay up trains there.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> The crowding at NY Penn is /not/ caused by an especially high ridership
> (by world standards), but by
>
> - misdesign of the platforms.
> - misdesign of the platform access.
> - misdesign of the trains (twice the dwell time of normal trains).
Not quite correct. "Traffic" is much more than a mere body count. It
must also include the nature of the traffic.
Pennsylvania Station was not designed for the type of traffic it is
utilized to handle today.
When psgr rail ridership was growing and plans were being made to
shift Amtrak Hudson and NJT M&E trains to Penn, Penn Sta should've
been expanded or alternative locations utilized.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Even Suburban in Philly is a better built station. Platforms are WIDE,
> trains always leave from the same platform (another one of those things
> folks here say "can't be done", but apparently can, even in the US), and
> the track level is well lit, and not rat-infested. But it had the
> advantage that the PRR saw what worked and didn't work in NY. Or more
> exactly, that NY Penn's design just didn't work...
You apparently never used Suburban Station in Phila before the
commuter rail tunnel opened. The change to through operation, as well
as SEPTA's reduction in total trains operated, made a big difference.
Michael Finfer
> Even Suburban in Philly is a better built station. Platforms are WIDE,
> trains always leave from the same platform (another one of those things
> folks here say "can't be done", but apparently can, even in the US), and
> the track level is well lit, and not rat-infested. But it had the
> advantage that the PRR saw what worked and didn't work in NY. Or more
> exactly, that NY Penn's design just didn't work...
The wide platforms at Suburban Station date from the Center City
Commuter Tunnel project of the 1980's. If you look at the stub end
tracks off to the side, you'll see what the platforms were originally like.
Ditto with the lighting. That place used to be like going into a poorly
lit cave.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Ditto with the lighting. That place used to be like going into a poorly
> lit cave.
Someone had the bright idea to replace the 1930s incandescent bulbs
with mercury vapor lamps. But apparently they used a low wattage type
because it became darker inside, not brighter (confirmed by my light
meter). I guess it did save on power consumption costs, though. The
platforms were particularly gloomy.
When Grand Central's platforms got upgraded to florescent lights, it
wasn't much of an improvement. Only later did the MTA put some
serious lighting on the platforms, made a huge difference for the
better. In the terminal itself, they replaced the incandescent bulbs
with the compact florescents. The color balance is tricky with the
new bulbs; some photographs come out with the greenish cast, but
others are yellowish.
Philip Nasadowski
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> It would have been necessary, to rebuild it to less tracks and wider
> platforms. Thanks to giving up the most important station of the nation,
> and building plenty of stuff on top of it, this might not have been
> possible, though.
It's possible. Madison Square Garden is a dump and could use a
replacement, and frankly the current location has more pluses than
minuses. But, with the MSG complex torn down for replacement, it really
wouldn't be that much more of a headache to just go down the additional
two levels and redo Penn.
Granted *any* rebuild of Penn's going to be a headache. And a big one.
But sooner or later, something's going to have to be done. Trouble is,
the politicians don't have the balls to say it. And yes, it'd be a
multiyear headache for everyone involved. But, the current station is
horridly inadequate, the NJT bunker station won't help (assuming it's
ever built). Some relief comes with East Side Access (if it's ever
finished), but otherwise, Penn's a crowded mess that will eventually
have to be addressed.
Short of tunneling under Central Park, there's really no other location
to put a big train station (lower Manhattan lost it with the post 9/11
bullshit and nobody wanting to lead, as typical for NY/NJ politics).
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> It would have been necessary, to rebuild it to less tracks and wider
> platforms. Thanks to giving up the most important station of the nation,
> and building plenty of stuff on top of it, this might not have been
> possible, though.
Less tracks and wider platforms could be done relatively easily at
Penn but that is not the problem.
The Jan 2010 issue of Trains magazine has a detailed article that
explains the congestion and why it's so hard to solve.
I suppose if they built two more Hudson River tunnels and a big a loop
in Secaucus so that LIRR trains could unload then loop around quickly,
and let NJT and Amk trains unload and loop around quickly in Sunnyside
the through routing may make things easier. But there are other
issues involved, too, like servicing trains.
People point to Phila's commuter tunnel as the "way to go" but Phila
commuter trains are at most seven cars and most are shorter; so the
trains are dumping far less people per station stop onto the platforms
and concourse. There's no way Suburban Sta and Market East could
handle what NJT, Amk, and the LIRR load and unload every day in the
rush hours.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Granted *any* rebuild of Penn's going to be a headache. And a big one.
> But sooner or later, something's going to have to be done. Trouble is,
> the politicians don't have the balls to say it.
It's not so much as a headache as it would be extremely costly. It
was very costly for the Pennsylvania Railroad to build the damn
complex in the first place, but they had the advantage of excellent
credit, dirt-cheap labor, cheap capitol, and few or no labor and
environmental laws. The Pennsy also had the advantage of far fewer
utility and subway lines to deal with.
I still wonder if a bridge instead of a tunnel over the Hudson might
be a better approach, given the all the underground impediments.
Today's electric passenger trains, especially MUs, are able to handle
steeper grades.
> Short of tunneling under Central Park, there's really no other location
> to put a big train station (lower Manhattan lost it with the post 9/11
> bullshit and nobody wanting to lead, as typical for NY/NJ politics).
There are some temporizing steps that are relatively cheap:
1) Improve PATH so it's a desirable ride for downtown people. Have
nice seats. Good connections to NJT trains at Newark. Reserved
coaches at Newark for PATH passengers. Cheap, integrated fare.
2) Encourage the LIRR to use LIC and Brooklyn again with cheap fares
and improved subway or ferry connections.
Philip Nasadowski
<46d680e0-9b9f-4d0b...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Less tracks and wider platforms could be done relatively easily at
> Penn but that is not the problem.
It's the bulk of it. Trains simply sit way too long at Penn. There's
zero reason why, during the rush hour, a train should be sitting more
than 5 minutes, and arguably it should be 1/2 that.
The bulk of the issue is piss poor passenger flow, coupled with more or
less random track assignments, plus a sluggish entrance/exit for trains.
The whole thing was designed for a time when MP-54s went 60mph, most
commuters were tossed out at Exchange Place or LI City to fend for
themselves, and the PRR ran everything, which meant you didn't have 3
agencies constantly blaming each other for the day's delays.
> The Jan 2010 issue of Trains magazine has a detailed article that
> explains the congestion and why it's so hard to solve.
Nobody has the will to tell the LIRR, NJT, and Amtrak to get their
fucking act together and stop screwing around. dangling 4 or 5 billion
in front of NJT for a journey to the center of manhattan, isn't helping,
either.
> I suppose if they built two more Hudson River tunnels and a big a loop
> in Secaucus so that LIRR trains could unload then loop around quickly,
> and let NJT and Amk trains unload and loop around quickly in Sunnyside
> the through routing may make things easier. But there are other
> issues involved, too, like servicing trains.
The LIRR already has a nice yard on the west side, that works very
nicely, and if they'd tune the LIRR side tracks and operations, they'd
do a much nicer job, since it's then just an issue of pulling in the
train, loading, and going.
> People point to Phila's commuter tunnel as the "way to go" but Phila
> commuter trains are at most seven cars and most are shorter; so the
> trains are dumping far less people per station stop onto the platforms
> and concourse.
And the platforms are much much wider - the ones at suburban are
gigantic compared to Penn. The result? You can wait on the platform
for your train, and when it arrives, board fast. About the only thing
Suburban gets wrong is the numerous pylons right at platform edge,
creating shitty sight lines.
The other thing is - wonder of wonders - Septa puts the same trains on
the same platforms every day. For some reason, Amtrak and NJT seem to
be constantly making things up as they go along, and even the LIRR does
a lot of track changes. Coupled with the horrid passenger flow, it
creates a lot of problems when ("For tonight only!") a train gets
shuffled from one platform to another.
Go to SBB or DB or any other competent operator's site and punch in a
few destinations - your trip will be routed from train to train WITH the
track numbers included. Half the time, NJT or Amtrak or the LIRR can't
tell you what track your train will be on until a few minutes before it
leaves (even worse, Amtrak's not announcing the track until the train's
already in the station)
> There's no way Suburban Sta and Market East could
> handle what NJT, Amk, and the LIRR load and unload every day in the
> rush hours.
NY Penn can't, either.
Philip Nasadowski
<71d51f41-1dc2-46ec...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> It's not so much as a headache as it would be extremely costly.
The 4 or is it 7 billion or so to build a deep bunker station and two
new tunnels, for a handful of extra trains an hour, isn't?
> I still wonder if a bridge instead of a tunnel over the Hudson might
> be a better approach, given the all the underground impediments.
> Today's electric passenger trains, especially MUs, are able to handle
> steeper grades.
Today's MUs elsewhere in the world. The stuff the LIRR has isn't going
to do much better than 2%. The Arrows might do a bit better, but
neither really has a very high power to weight ratio, and of course,
anything locomotive-hauled is hopeless.
> There are some temporizing steps that are relatively cheap:
>
> 1) Improve PATH so it's a desirable ride for downtown people. Have
> nice seats. Good connections to NJT trains at Newark. Reserved
> coaches at Newark for PATH passengers. Cheap, integrated fare.
The seats are fine. Path's not a bad system, just a dirty one and one
that the PA NYNJ has zero enthusiasm for running.
> 2) Encourage the LIRR to use LIC and Brooklyn again with cheap fares
> and improved subway or ferry connections.
Brooklyn's new station looks decent, but LIC should have been torn up
years go, IMHO. It's a tons of wasted money to store a few trains over
the weekend, and maintaining the Montauk line to Jamacia from LIC is
simply a waste of money, period.
Put the riders in at Hunterspoint Ave, which is a shorter walk to the
subway anyway - about 150 feet...
Clark F Morris
>On Jan 4, 6:15�pm, Philip Nasadowski <nasado...@usermale.com> wrote:
>
>> Granted *any* rebuild of Penn's going to be a headache. �And a big one. �
>> But sooner or later, something's going to have to be done. �Trouble is,
>> the politicians don't have the balls to say it. �
>
>It's not so much as a headache as it would be extremely costly. It
>was very costly for the Pennsylvania Railroad to build the damn
>complex in the first place, but they had the advantage of excellent
>credit, dirt-cheap labor, cheap capitol, and few or no labor and
>environmental laws. The Pennsy also had the advantage of far fewer
>utility and subway lines to deal with.
A noticeable increase in capacity could be gained by through routing
all NJT trains to Long Island points so that neither the LIRR nor NJT
are deadheading in the peak direction. Adding a station on the east
side (an idea that is at least 20 or 30 years old) for ALL commuter
trains on the line would also spread the load. The main reason for
through routing is not the traffic between LIRR points and NJT points
but the elimination of conflicting movements in the most congested
area. Any suburb to suburb travel that is enabled is a bonus.
>
>I still wonder if a bridge instead of a tunnel over the Hudson might
>be a better approach, given the all the underground impediments.
>Today's electric passenger trains, especially MUs, are able to handle
>steeper grades.
>
>
>> Short of tunneling under Central Park, there's really no other location
>> to put a big train station (lower Manhattan lost it with the post 9/11
>> bullshit and nobody wanting to lead, as typical for NY/NJ politics).
>
>There are some temporizing steps that are relatively cheap:
>
>1) Improve PATH so it's a desirable ride for downtown people. Have
>nice seats. Good connections to NJT trains at Newark. Reserved
>coaches at Newark for PATH passengers. Cheap, integrated fare.
Path is a standing room only operation in rush hours and even with 10
cars per train (assuming all platforms on the line can handle them
which I doubt) there isn't much ability to increase the seating
capacity enough to make it that good a trip.
>
>2) Encourage the LIRR to use LIC and Brooklyn again with cheap fares
>and improved subway or ferry connections.
Ferries seem to be very expensive to run and the subway lines are
already crowded so adding more people to the trains in Brooklyn and
LIC isn't that feasible.
Merritt Mullen
Hans-Joachim Zierke <Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
> > Pennsylvania Station was not designed for the type of traffic it is
> > utilized to handle today.
>
> None was! No station built back then was built for the traffic of today!
Not even Los Angeles Union Station, opened in 1939. Until the great
decline in passenger service in the 1960s, it typically handled about 66
movements (arrivals and departures) a day. Today, it handles about 170
train movements a day, as well as serving as a light rail, subway, and
bus terminal.
The difference is, in the old days, the trains were all long-distance
intercity trains (no commuter trains). Now they are mostly commuter
trains (Metrolink) and regional trains (Amtrak Surfliners).
Merritt
John Albert
"Short of tunneling under Central Park, there's really no
other location to put a big train station "
I already put up a post that the only "rail solution" for
New York would be THIRD major station, and that the only
reasonable location to build it would be underneath Central
Park.
- John
Michael Finfer
> I suppose if they built two more Hudson River tunnels and a big a loop
> in Secaucus so that LIRR trains could unload then loop around quickly,
> and let NJT and Amk trains unload and loop around quickly in Sunnyside
> the through routing may make things easier. But there are other
> issues involved, too, like servicing trains.
LIRR trains run through now to West Side Yard. This would be unnecessary.
Some of the ARC options included a yard for Metro-North trains in
Secaucus, but what few trains Metro-North will run to Penn in the
distant future could easily run through to either Sunnyside or West Side
Yard.
I'm not certain that a loop or yard for these purposes in Secaucus would
be a wise expenditure.
The proposals that you see for the Secaucus Loop will allow NJT Hoboken
Division trains to run through to NYP and make two stops at Secaucus,
one on each level!
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> It's the bulk of it. Trains simply sit way too long at Penn. There's
> zero reason why, during the rush hour, a train should be sitting more
> than 5 minutes, and arguably it should be 1/2 that.
Actually there are a lot of reasons trains need to sit more than five
minutes.
For one thing, they are railroad trains, not subway trains. Railroad
trains are designed to maximize seating, not maximize capacity. A 60'
subway train has four pairs of doors--compare that to the doors on an
85' commuter or intercity car. Further, the car interiors have narrow
aisles.
Another thing is that Penn is essentially a stub-end terminal. The
Trains Mag article explains why that is. The article also explains
how the 12 car trains are too long for efficient station operation.
> > People point to Phila's commuter tunnel as the "way to go" but Phila
> > commuter trains are at most seven cars and most are shorter; so the
> > trains are dumping far less people per station stop onto the platforms
> > and concourse.
>
> And the platforms are much much wider - the ones at suburban are
> gigantic compared to Penn. The result? You can wait on the platform
> for your train, and when it arrives, board fast. About the only thing
> Suburban gets wrong is the numerous pylons right at platform edge,
> creating shitty sight lines.
Not true. When there is a special situation with heavy crowds they do
NOT let people wait on the platform at the downtown stations. SEPTA
does not normally carry the crowds that NJT and LIRR carry.
Also, at Suburban and Market East you do not have conflicting
passenger flows that you have at Penn.
> The other thing is - wonder of wonders - Septa puts the same trains on
> the same platforms every day. For some reason, Amtrak and NJT seem to
> be constantly making things up as they go along
The article explains why that must be at Penn.
> > There's no way Suburban Sta and Market East could
> > handle what NJT, Amk, and the LIRR load and unload every day in the
> > rush hours.
>
> NY Penn can't, either.
Actually, NY Penn _is_ handling the load.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > 1) Improve PATH so it's a desirable ride for downtown people. Have
> > nice seats. Good connections to NJT trains at Newark. Reserved
> > coaches at Newark for PATH passengers. Cheap, integrated fare.
>
> The seats are fine. Path's not a bad system, just a dirty one and one
> that the PA NYNJ has zero enthusiasm for running.
The PATH seats are NOT fine. First, it's hard to get one. Second,
they're hard benches. This is not attractive to passengers. Ask
people who work downtown why they don't use PATH.
PATH cars, as delivered, had a bit more padding and lengthwise, but
this was changed.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> A noticeable increase in capacity could be gained by through routing
> all NJT trains to Long Island points so that neither the LIRR nor NJT
> are deadheading in the peak direction.
NJT and LIRR makes heavy use of the stub end tracks; they could not be
used for through routing. I don't think the tunnels or throat could
support the extra movements. The Hudson River tunnel is only two
tracks, shoving every LIRR train through them would cause problems.
The LIRR have to be through routed too, otherwise all the trains will
end up on LI and no trains in NJ.
An entire new fleet of NJT trains or expensive modifications would be
necessary to enable NJT trains to run on the LIRR. Also, while the
NJT trains are out on Long Island, the LIRR trains would have to serve
NJ, so they'd need modification or replacement too. I'm not sure all
NJT stations that can go directly into Penn have high platforms.
Penn's boarding is split between the LIRR and NJT/Amk on two different
levels. This would have to be changed.
Amtrak's trains, which go in three different directions (north, east,
west), have to be handled too. Only certain tracks go north.
One problem with through routing is that a big delay on one end now
ripples through to the other end. If the LIRR is fouled at Jamaica,
psgrs at Princeton Jct will be impacted; and if NJT is fouled at
Newark, psgrs at Huntington will be affected. That is a problem SEPTA
got when it united the once separate systems.
> Adding a station on the east
> side (an idea that is at least 20 or 30 years old) for ALL commuter
> trains on the line would also spread the load.
Any new station would spread out the load. Any new station would be
extremely costly to construct.
> The main reason for
> through routing is not the traffic between LIRR points and NJT points
> but the elimination of conflicting movements in the most congested
> area. Any suburb to suburb travel that is enabled is a bonus.
> >There are some temporizing steps that are relatively cheap:
>
> >1) Improve PATH so it's a desirable ride for downtown people. Have
> >nice seats. Good connections to NJT trains at Newark. Reserved
> >coaches at Newark for PATH passengers. Cheap, integrated fare.
>
> Path is a standing room only operation in rush hours and even with 10
> cars per train (assuming all platforms on the line can handle them
> which I doubt) there isn't much ability to increase the seating
> capacity enough to make it that good a trip.
Is the WTC line running at capacity now?
PATH has very steep peaks and has plenty of room for midday and
weekend travel when Penn is still a mess.
> >2) Encourage the LIRR to use LIC and Brooklyn again with cheap fares
> >and improved subway or ferry connections.
>
> Ferries seem to be very expensive to run and the subway lines are
> already crowded so adding more people to the trains in Brooklyn and
> LIC isn't that feasible.
Yes, ferries are expensive, but so is building underground stations.
Michael Finfer
> I'm not sure all
> NJT stations that can go directly into Penn have high platforms..
Most do not. The only line that is all high platform is the Northeast
Corridor. The Coast Line between Union and Long Branch is close. Little
Silver may be the only low platform station left on that segment. The
Raritan Line, Coast Line west of Long Branch, and the M&E and Boonton
Lines are mostly low platform.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
Clark F Morris
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>Clark F Morris schrieb:
>
>
>> Ferries seem to be very expensive to run
>
>
>They aren't, if we talk about 1-man-operated harbour ferries:
>http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/HADAG_Elbmeile_600px_1794.jpg
>
>But I doubt, that doing so is allowed in the USA.
>
Is that really allowed anywhere for a sizeable operation? I think
that in both the US and Canada there is a minimum crew to passenger
ratio for safety reasons in case of a sinking.
>
>Hans-Joachim
rsh...@gmail.com
> On 05 Jan 2010 11:30:58 GMT, Hans-Joachim Zierke
>
>
> >Clark F Morris schrieb:
>
> >> Ferries seem to be very expensive to run
>
> >They aren't, if we talk about 1-man-operated harbour ferries:
>
> >But I doubt, that doing so is allowed in the USA.
>
> Is that really allowed anywhere for a sizeable operation? I think
> that in both the US and Canada there is a minimum crew to passenger
> ratio for safety reasons in case of a sinking.
not just for sinking, but anything out of the ordinary
what can one man do?
That would be like flying a jet with 100 passengers with just a pilot.
Stephen Sprunk
A _harbor_ ferry will be traveling a few miles at most, never far from
land or fire/EMS boats, police boats, etc. In such a case, given how
rare such incidents should be, it makes sense to centralize emergency
functions, with dedicated, professional staff, and spread them across
_many_ ferries that will be operating in the area. For service between
Manhattan, Long Island, Staten Island, Liberty Island, New Jersey, etc.
it makes perfect sense.
An airliner is a totally different scenario. If there is a problem on
board, the crew is all there is to handle it until they can land at an
airport, which may be an hour or more away. If the plane crashes (by
choice or not), the crew may be the only manpower available to assist
passengers for hours. It's not like an emergency services plane can
pull up alongside in mid-air and send over assistance...
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> A _harbor_ ferry will be traveling a few miles at most, never far from
> land or fire/EMS boats, police boats, etc. In such a case, given how
> rare such incidents should be, it makes sense to centralize emergency
> functions, with dedicated, professional staff, and spread them across
> _many_ ferries that will be operating in the area. For service between
> Manhattan, Long Island, Staten Island, Liberty Island, New Jersey, etc.
> it makes perfect sense.
A SI ferry crashed into the dock because the captain fainted and the
asst captain was not with him as the rules always required. (Ref Ted
Scull's "SI Ferry"). Had the asst captain been with him the tragic
accident would've been avoided.
Unlike a train, a ferryboat does not have a "deadman's" control nor
any brakes.
As to cross-river ferries (eg NY Waterway), from what I've seen they
only have one person running them (maybe there are more). Those boats
are pretty small and they probably could carry more people with the
same crew. A higher passenger load would likely yield better
economies of scale.
I'm not sure if there's as much river traffic--where ferries would
operate to serve say 42nd street on both ends--as there used to be in
the past. I believe most freight has moved down harbor and most
passenger liners other than cruises are gone.
rsh...@gmail.com
>
> A _harbor_ ferry will be traveling a few miles at most, never far from
> land or fire/EMS boats, police boats, etc. In such a case, given how
> rare such incidents should be, it makes sense to centralize emergency
> functions, with dedicated, professional staff, and spread them across
> _many_ ferries that will be operating in the area. For service between
> Manhattan, Long Island, Staten Island, Liberty Island, New Jersey, etc.
> it makes perfect sense.
>
no, it does not, it is 25 minutes from Manhattan to SI. A lot can go
wrong in that 25 minutes
and as I am sure you are aware, waterborne help is not immediate.
plus traffic in NY Harbor is substantial
that is one of the reasons more then one person is required at the
helm.
> An airliner is a totally different scenario. If there is a problem on
> board, the crew is all there is to handle it until they can land at an
> airport, which may be an hour or more away. If the plane crashes (by
> choice or not), the crew may be the only manpower available to assist
> passengers for hours. It's not like an emergency services plane can
> pull up alongside in mid-air and send over assistance...
>
plus you can have 1000 plus people on the SI Ferry
and for at least 5 minutes that one person will be all there is
furthermore, what are you going to have when the ferry leaves and
arrives on the boat itself, one person to handle the ropes, loading
and unloading??? Who will be running the boat???
You are just inviting problems.
Clark F Morris
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>Clark F Morris schrieb:
>
>
>>>But I doubt, that doing so is allowed in the USA.
>>>
>> Is that really allowed anywhere for a sizeable operation?
>
>
>HADAG:
>
>21 ships, 75 employees, 15 trainees, 17.15 route miles, 6 lines,
>21 landings, 6.8 million passengers / 2008, that would be
>18360 passengers / day.
>Fully integrated into Verkehrsverbund, your subway ticket is valid on
>the ferry. On one line, the ferries operate in 15 minute frequency.
>As you will expect in modern transit, the boats have destination
>displays, passenger information system, and onboard ticket vending
>machine.
>
>The old boats have 2 employees, the "Ferry 2000" boats have 1 employee,
>unless there is a trainee.
>
The side loading ferries used in Halifax, Nova Scotia probably have
only a 2 person crew with about 200 - 300 maximum capacity including
those on the open upper deck. I will see if I have any better
references.
>
>
>> I think
>> that in both the US and Canada there is a minimum crew to passenger
>> ratio for safety reasons in case of a sinking.
>
>For a normal ferry operation on longer distances, the
>Seeberufsgenossenschaft won't accept a 1-man crew for 250 passengers
>either.
>
>
>Hans-Joachim
Jishnu Mukerji
> The proposals that you see for the Secaucus Loop will allow NJT Hoboken
> Division trains to run through to NYP and make two stops at Secaucus,
> one on each level!
Main/Bergen/Pascack trains to NYP will stop only at the lower level.
Jishnu Mukerji
> How many does London Bridge have; that always seems a very wide
> approach, but I've never counted them?
>
> NY Penn is probably the busiest station I've been to. I'm not sure
> how it compares to places like Mumbai.
Depends on which station in Mumbai one is talking about.
I believe CST - the old VT - has at least 6 and possibly 8 by now.
Mumbai Central has 6 or 7 coming in from North and 4 going out towards
Churchgate. Dadar, which is a through station has 4 of CR and at least 4
of WR. both coming from the north and going out on the south towards CST
and Central.
gl4...@yahoo.com
<ae67916c-532b-4a93...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
"rsh...@gmail.com" <rsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> plus you can have 1000 plus people on the SI Ferry
With 1000 plus people, will adding a few more crew help the situation
much? That's an awful lot of aimless people in a bad situation.
--
-Glennl
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
rsh...@gmail.com
> In article
> <ae67916c-532b-4a93-adeb-e288b39b9...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "rshe...@gmail.com" <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > plus you can have 1000 plus people on the SI Ferry
>
> With 1000 plus people, will adding a few more crew help the situation
> much? That's an awful lot of aimless people in a bad situation.
>
> --
here are some of the incidents on the SI Ferry over the last 30 years
and you are suggesting one man operation
Read the following and tell me if you really think the SI Ferry can be
operated by one person
# In 1978, the American Legion crashed into the concrete seawall near
the Statue of Liberty ferry port during a dense fog. 173 were injured.
# On May 16, 1981, the American Legion was rammed in the fog by a
Norwegian freighter.
# July 7th, 1986 a mentally disturbed person (Juan Gonzalez) with a
machete attacked passengers on a ferry. Two people were killed and
nine others were wounded.
# On April 12th, 1995 The Ferry boat Barberi plowed into 4 slip in St.
George due to a mechanical malfunction leaving 4 slip out of service
and injuring a handful of passengers. The doors on the saloon deck
were crushed by the aprons. The accident would have been much worse if
not for the heroic actions of the bridge man who remained on station
and lowered the bridge (While 7,066,000 lbs of Municipal Orange steel
was heading straight for him) to the right height to help stop the
boat.
# After the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center the Staten Island
Ferry transported tens of thousands of people out of lower Manhattan
to safety on Staten Island. The captains docked the ferries under zero
visibility as the smoke and debris from the collapses filled the sky.
The following days passengers were not allowed on the ferries. The
fleet was being used to transport emergency personnel and equipment to
and from lower Manhattan. In addition to the emergency personnel and
equipment the ferries were also being used to transport military
personnel and equipment to Governors Island and lower Manhattan.
Included in this were U.S. Army tanks.
# September 19th, 1997 a car drove off the Staten Island Ferry and
plunged into the water as the boat was approaching the slip. Upon
seeing a car drive off the boat the captain of the ferry slammed his
controls into reverse to stop the boat. The force of the impact of the
car in the water caused the rear windshield to blow out of the car.
This rush of water also carried the driver of the car out the back
windshield. One deck hand was knocked into the water by the scissor
gates at the front of the boat as the car pushed them aside. A dock
builder who was working in the area jumped in to assist the deck hand
and the driver. The driver of the car was an employee of the ferries
when the accident happened.
# October 15, 2003 at about 15:30 the ferry boat Andrew J. Barberi
slammed into a maintenance pier at the Staten Island Maintenance
Facility on Staten Island. The impact of the crash snapped the pilings
at the seaward corner of the pier like toothpicks. After ripping apart
the pilings the concrete slab of the pier tore through the main deck
Staten Island end Jersey side of the ferry. As the concrete slab raced
down the boat it wiped out everything that was in its path. Seats were
ripped up and pushed to the back of the boat. The aluminum
superstructure was ripped open like a tin can. All that could be done
was to run and hope you could be quicker than the concrete slab. 10
people died that day and an 11th person died two months later from
injuries from the accident. One lucky passenger jumped out the window
of the ferry as the concrete slab headed towards him into the water
and was rescued by maintenance personnel at the ferry.
James Robinson
>
> The one-man boats in Hamburg harbour
> http://www.schiffbilder.de/bilder/hamburg-12410.jpg
> don't have any conventional rudder, but are propelled by 2 pod drives
> in a fully redundant setup, plus a bowthruster.
The Seabus ferry operation in Vancouver BC is probably the best example
in North America for crew use:
The ships handle 400 passengers, and have a crew of four, including a
captain and mate in the pilothouse, plus two deckhands. There are no
engineering staff onboard.
Compare that to the smallest ships used on the Staten Island ferry runs,
which can handle 1280 passengers. The Coast Guard requires a crew of 10:
Captain
Assistant Captain
Mate
4 deckhands
Matron (whatever that person does)
Chief engineer
Oiler
And there are lawyers ready to make sure the ferry operators meet the
minimum crewing requirements:
http://www.atsealawyer.com/PracticeAreas/Ferry-Worker-Accidents.asp
Stephen Sprunk
> On Jan 6, 12:46 am, gl4...@yahoo.com (gl4...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>> In article
>> <ae67916c-532b-4a93-adeb-e288b39b9...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> "rshe...@gmail.com" <rshe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> plus you can have 1000 plus people on the SI Ferry
>> With 1000 plus people, will adding a few more crew help the situation
>> much? That's an awful lot of aimless people in a bad situation.
>
>
> and you are suggesting one man operation
>
> Read the following and tell me if you really think the SI Ferry can be
> operated by one person
Note that in almost all of the incidents you cite, it was _humans_ that
caused the problems--and your solution is to add _more_ humans to the
situation, making things worse?
> # In 1978, the American Legion crashed into the concrete seawall near
> the Statue of Liberty ferry port during a dense fog. 173 were injured.
How does adding more crew prevent such an incident? Sounds like a need
for better navigational equipment.
> # On May 16, 1981, the American Legion was rammed in the fog by a
> Norwegian freighter.
How does adding more crew prevent such an incident? Sounds like a need
for better navigational equipment.
> # July 7th, 1986 a mentally disturbed person (Juan Gonzalez) with a
> machete attacked passengers on a ferry. Two people were killed and
> nine others were wounded.
How does adding additional defenseless victims prevent such an incident?
At most, it sounds like a need for cops on board, not more crew.
> # On April 12th, 1995 The Ferry boat Barberi plowed into 4 slip in St.
> George due to a mechanical malfunction leaving 4 slip out of service
> and injuring a handful of passengers. The doors on the saloon deck
> were crushed by the aprons. The accident would have been much worse if
> not for the heroic actions of the bridge man who remained on station
> and lowered the bridge (While 7,066,000 lbs of Municipal Orange steel
> was heading straight for him) to the right height to help stop the
> boat.
How does adding more crew prevent such an incident? Sounds like a need
for better maintenance.
> # After the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center the Staten Island
> Ferry transported tens of thousands of people out of lower Manhattan
> to safety on Staten Island. The captains docked the ferries under zero
> visibility as the smoke and debris from the collapses filled the sky.
> The following days passengers were not allowed on the ferries. The
> fleet was being used to transport emergency personnel and equipment to
> and from lower Manhattan. In addition to the emergency personnel and
> equipment the ferries were also being used to transport military
> personnel and equipment to Governors Island and lower Manhattan.
> Included in this were U.S. Army tanks.
How does adding more crew prevent such an incident?
> # September 19th, 1997 a car drove off the Staten Island Ferry and
> plunged into the water as the boat was approaching the slip. Upon
> seeing a car drive off the boat the captain of the ferry slammed his
> controls into reverse to stop the boat. The force of the impact of the
> car in the water caused the rear windshield to blow out of the car.
> This rush of water also carried the driver of the car out the back
> windshield. One deck hand was knocked into the water by the scissor
> gates at the front of the boat as the car pushed them aside. A dock
> builder who was working in the area jumped in to assist the deck hand
> and the driver. The driver of the car was an employee of the ferries
> when the accident happened.
How does adding more crew prevent such an incident?
> # October 15, 2003 at about 15:30 the ferry boat Andrew J. Barberi
> slammed into a maintenance pier at the Staten Island Maintenance
> Facility on Staten Island. The impact of the crash snapped the pilings
> at the seaward corner of the pier like toothpicks. After ripping apart
> the pilings the concrete slab of the pier tore through the main deck
> Staten Island end Jersey side of the ferry. As the concrete slab raced
> down the boat it wiped out everything that was in its path. Seats were
> ripped up and pushed to the back of the boat. The aluminum
> superstructure was ripped open like a tin can. All that could be done
> was to run and hope you could be quicker than the concrete slab. 10
> people died that day and an 11th person died two months later from
> injuries from the accident. One lucky passenger jumped out the window
> of the ferry as the concrete slab headed towards him into the water
> and was rescued by maintenance personnel at the ferry.
How does adding more crew prevent such an incident? Sounds like a need
for better navigational equipment.
Larry Sheldon
> Note that in almost all of the incidents you cite, it was _humans_ that
> caused the problems--and your solution is to add _more_ humans to the
> situation, making things worse?
Our whole leftist system of government is based on that premise.
Broke/ In debt? Bankrupt?
Spend more money--preferably somebody else's, but spend mor money.
Technology doesn't catch terrorists? Add more technology. The more
expensive (see above) the better.
--
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to
take everything you have."
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Joseph D. Korman
The ferry has three on the main deck, two to tie the boat in and one to
supervise. Once the boat is secured, they open the rope barriers and gates.
On the upper deck, there are two. They secure the safety gates to the
sides of the ramps and untie the rope barrier to let the passengers off.
I'm not sure how many employees are behind the scenes in the engine room
and other than the two in the pilot house.
There are two employees on the dock, one on each level to adjust the
ramps to the tide height. The one downstairs, also controls the ropes
that pull the boat into the dock.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
Joseph D. Korman
ladies' room. I suppose they also clean it.
Clark F Morris
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>rsh...@gmail.com schrieb:
>
>
>> furthermore, what are you going to have when the ferry leaves and
>> arrives on the boat itself, one person to handle the ropes,
>
>A modern harbour ferry does not use any ropes.
>
>
>> loading
>> and unloading??? Who will be running the boat???
>
>For loading and unloading, a hydraulic ramp is lowered, in sight of the
>operator. Light and audio warning for ramp operation, just like at train
>doors.
>
>
>> You are just inviting problems.
>
>The "F�hre 2000" boats operate since 1997, and have transported millions
>of passengers without noteworthy incident.
>
>They are much safer than the old boats, thanks to extremely high
>maneuverability, redundant machinery, and a triple projection at the
>helm: The radar result is projected into the harbour map, plus the
>ships own position (from differential GPS with an accuracy of 1m).
>
What is the provision for the captain blacking out or having a heart
attack? A rail vehicle will just stop. On a bus if everyone is lucky
a passenger will grab the steering wheel and somehow figure out how to
brake the bus.
>
>
>Hans-Joachim
Valentin Brückel
> On 1/6/2010 10:04 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>> Note that in almost all of the incidents you cite, it was _humans_ that
>> caused the problems--and your solution is to add _more_ humans to the
>> situation, making things worse?
>
> Our whole leftist system of government is based on that premise.
Actually, that's usually the right-wing approach. Usually, rightist
governments "fight bureaucracy" and the result is a bigger government than
before. Vice versa for left-wing governments.
Val
Larry Sheldon
If we had a rightest government that might be of value.
But we don't and have not had one for a very long time.
For a very long time more money and more government people is always the
offered solution, no matter how often and how completely it fails.
Wrong and stupid is wrond and stupid. End of story.
Bolwerk
Heh.
In all fairness, though, governments of all stripes tend to add overhead
because it gives elected officials and party leaders jobs to hand out to
cronies. That's hardly a function of ideology. I'm sure Reagan would
have happily eliminated a few federal departments if he could have, but
he couldn't, so he settled for making sure his cronies got a cut whilst
the Democrats who then ruled were able to guarantee the same. That
happens in politics in general, but escalates when ideologues take over.
The kind of "small government" favored by right-wing groups usually
exists to efficiently protect their interests, which is why Randroids
favor the police and highway subsidies but don't favor welfare and
public transportation. For religious fundamentalists and busy bodies
(religious fundamentalist lite), it conveniently also makes it easy to
regulate sexual activity, especially that of women, and drug use. For
nationalists and fascists, race starts coming in the picture.
A large, unwieldy, and even rather stupid government is potentially
advantageous for the general public* because it acts as a counterweight
to the Rick Bermans, David Horowitzes, Pat Robertsons, and Larries of
the world. Such regimes are certainly not favorable to mass-scale
capitalism, and can also IMHO unreasonably harm perfectly benign small
businesses.
* At least that's the case if the large, unwieldy, stupid regulatory
regime doesn't start sticking its nose in the bedroom or into what
people do with their own bodies; that gives you boondoggles like the War
on Drugs and poorly thought out programs to curb premarital sex that in
turn promote unwanted pregnancies.
zzyzxroad
> On 1/6/2010 1:20 PM, Valentin Br ckel wrote:
>
> > Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
> >> On 1/6/2010 10:04 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> >>> Note that in almost all of the incidents you cite, it was _humans_ that
> >>> caused the problems--and your solution is to add _more_ humans to the
> >>> situation, making things worse?
>
> >> Our whole leftist system of government is based on that premise.
>
> > Actually, that's usually the right-wing approach. Usually, rightist
> > governments "fight bureaucracy" and the result is a bigger government than
> > before. Vice versa for left-wing governments.
>
> If we had a rightest government that might be of value.
>
> But we don't and have not had one for a very long time.
>
> For a very long time more money and more government people is always the
> offered solution, no matter how often and how completely it fails.
>
> Wrong and stupid is wrond and stupid. End of story.
>
> --
> "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to
> take everything you have."
>
the wrong and stupid is you, you are nothing but a lying hypocritical
x-tian
how about half a trillion buckeroooskies for a criminal, corrupt,
useless military that could not win a picnic baseball game
and we keep rewarding the "brass" that keeps these losers, losing
zero out the corrupt, criminal, useless military, then come talk to me
about smaller govt.
in the meantime you lying, hypoctical x-tian, bag and tag yourself
with a nice big plastic bag tied very tightly around your pencil thin
neck.
and don't forget to breathe very, very deeply, no one will miss you.
You are indeed a lying, hypocritical x-tian.
Stephen Sprunk
Politics in the US uses different terminology than the rest of the
world. Here, our "left" is in favor of big government that "fights
greed" by replacing private business with socialist programs, funded by
increased taxes, whereas the "right" is in favor of big government which
"fights bureaucracy" by giving massive handouts to private business,
funded by deficit spending.
Notice that, despite what both parties claim, _neither_ of our two major
parties is interested in smaller government or lowering taxes. After
all, that would reduce their power over their subjects' lives and limit
their ability to line their own pockets with bribes^Wcampaign
contributions...
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > # October 15, 2003 at about 15:30 the ferry boat Andrew J. Barberi
> > slammed into a maintenance pier at the Staten Island Maintenance
> > Facility on Staten Island.
> How does adding more crew prevent such an incident? Sounds like a need
> for better navigational equipment.
Not mentioned in the above that the accident resulted from the ship's
captain fainting. The rules long required a second person in the
pilot house for that very reason but the second person wasn't there.
I belive the SI Ferry carries 3,000 psgrs on a 25 minute voyage.
Given that passenger load it does seem reasonable to have a few humans
around. The SI ferry carries less people per crewman than an
equivalent NJT train. The newer boats have more automation and do use
less people.
Actually, the SI Ferry isn't relevant to the discussion. The issue is
the cross-river ferries, which have a much shorter trip (5 minutes)
and use much smaller boats. They may only be one person now (not
sure).
There are also airline ferryboats from LaGuardia to 34th St East River.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> What is the provision for the captain blacking out or having a heart
> attack? A rail vehicle will just stop. On a bus if everyone is lucky
> a passenger will grab the steering wheel and somehow figure out how to
> brake the bus.
The SI ferry rules long required a second person in the pilot house.
On a bus I think there is a deadman pedal. It can't steer the bus, of
course, but at least it will stop it.
zzyzxroad
here is the way it works on a bus
the deadman is the drivers seat
if no one is in the seat, the bus can not be started
someone has to be in the seat for it to be started.
If the driver leaves the seat, it is an automatic kill switch
but should something happen to the driver while the drivers seat is
occupied, the only way the bus can be stopped is the emergency brake.
zzyzxroad
crapola, Stephen, absolute crapola
primarily repubs want "smaller govt" but they are lying hypocrites
just like idiot x-tian Larry Sheldon
if you are really serious about smaller govt
half a trillion buckerooooskis for the military just for fy 2010
please tell me what good those multi billion dollar subs and multi
billion dollar weapons systems did on 9-11
please tell me
because I have a certain amount of respect for you, I will leave my
usual invective out
then when you are done zeroing out the military, we can start on ag
subsidies that are really corporate welfare
now I am sure the idiot repubs in say TX will back those to seriously
reduce "big govt"
gl4...@yahoo.com
<2c130979-41d2-4530...@34g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
"rsh...@gmail.com" <rsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> here are some of the incidents on the SI Ferry over the last 30 years
>
> and you are suggesting one man operation
*I* am not suggesting that an operation that size would want to go with
one man crew.
However, several thousand panic people in a confined space isn't going to
be something easily handled unless there is a huge crew. Washington State
Ferries handles its larger Puget Sound ferries with mostly recorded
messages over the loudspeaker, because even their multiple person crews
are not going to be able to easily handle the crowds.
I won't go so far as to call them the "best example in North America", but
King County Water Taxi and a few other operations with connections to the
Washington State Ferries operate smaller boats that might be able to do
what they do with a smaller crew. As best as I can tell, the Water Taxi
gets by with a crew of 3 (couldn't see the bridge very well). One of
those, which assists in boarding and taking fares, also serves the
refreshment stand.
I've not been on the Bremerton - Annapolis ferry, so I don't know what
they do. It's a pretty small boat, and from what I saw from over the side
of the Bremerton - Seattle ferry it looks like they may be operating with
one person crews.
Vashion Island - Seattle appeared to be operating with a two person crew,
but I rode that during the last weeks of operation by Washington State
Ferries. It is now operated by King County Water Taxi using different
equipment. I got the impression that Washington State Ferries was
operating it on a minimalist approach during those weeks.
On the other hand, I'm not sure you would want something the size of a
Jumbo Mark II to operate with a crew of only one.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/your_wsf/our_fleet/index.cfm?vessel_id=37
Those things easily need several people just to keep the auto traffic
under control when they unload.
Smaller connecting services, such as the passenger only ferries, might be
able to get away with one person crews though.
Token rail.americas content: WashDOT ferries main terminal in Seattle has
terrible transit connections to the rest of the region. The free
waterfront bus that is supposed to replace the Waterfront Trolley has its
nearest stop two blocks north, runs at infrequent times that don't
correspond with ferry arrival and departures, and doesn't really serve the
areas most of the ferry commuters are trying to get to. Major light rail,
commuter rail, and Amtrak service isn't that easy to get to from the ferry
terminal either.
James Robinson
>
> I've not been on the Bremerton - Annapolis ferry, so I don't know what
> they do. It's a pretty small boat, and from what I saw from over the
> side of the Bremerton - Seattle ferry it looks like they may be
> operating with one person crews.
Coast Guard rules require a certain number of crew, depending on a number
of parameters, such as vessel automation, vessel speed, and the number of
automobiles and passengers a ferry can handle. The smallest Washington
ferries have a crew of two. Here is a list of some ferries now in operation
in various parts of the US, and their crew sizes:
Psgr Crew
97 2
149 3
250 5
350 5
400 5
Clark F Morris
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>> much snipped >
>The Hamburg ferries don't care about a little bit of foul weather,
>http://www.elbdampfer-hamburg.de/index.php?option=com_joomgallery&func=watermark&id=1797&catid=72&orig=1&no_html=1&Itemid=100106
>
>they happily operate with a crew of one,
>http://www.reflektion.info/3002_180707_1_hadag_elbm_1000.jpg
>
>they don't need any deckhand or crew on land,
>http://www.elbdampfer-hamburg.de/index.php?option=com_joomgallery&func=watermark&id=1453&catid=72&orig=1&no_html=1&Itemid=100106
How are they at docking in rough weather? Can the ramp shown handle
wheelchair passengers? The latter could be a show stopper in both the
US and Canada. As I recall the similar sized Halifax ferries have a
wider ramp without as much hump so they are accessible.
>
>are happy with a little ponton,
>http://www.elbdampfer-hamburg.de/index.php?option=com_joomgallery&func=watermark&id=5706&catid=122&orig=1&no_html=1&Itemid=100106
>
>are built for $ 3 million each,
>http://www.elbdampfer-hamburg.de/index.php?option=com_joomgallery&func=watermark&id=3017&catid=161&orig=1&no_html=1&Itemid=100106
>
>and operate 5000 hours / year.
>http://www.elbdampfer-hamburg.de/index.php?option=com_joomgallery&func=watermark&id=3607&catid=124&orig=1&no_html=1&Itemid=100106
>
>Nothing expensive about it, unless Capitol Hill /makes/ it expensive.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Actually, the SI Ferry isn't relevant to the discussion.
>
>Ooops - agreement!
>
>> The issue is
>> the cross-river ferries, which have a much shorter trip (5 minutes)
>> and use much smaller boats. They may only be one person now (not
>> sure).
>
>Then there is not much reason, why they should be more expensive for the
>passenger mile than a bus.
>
>
>Hans-Joachim
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> But we didn't start with the SI ferry, which exists and isn't a railroad
> problem. We started with your argument, that running more ferries into
> Manhattan would bring relief to railroad stations, but would be
> expensive.
>
> And that's not true.
Which part --that it would bring relief, or that it would be
expensive.
> Any time, New York could integrate a 15-minutely ferry service from
> Hoboken Station into the subway/bus fare, and run those boats to various
> locations at the Manhattan coast. Or 10-minutely, if there are enough
> passengers. Or 5-minutely, if ...
Sort of the way it is now. Numerous boats go to various locations.
While the fare isn't integrated, there are free crosstown shuttle
buses operated by the ferry for the passengers.
I don't know the details of the technical cross-river ferryboat
operation. It appears to be one man, but may be two. the boats are
small and don't carry many people.
Today's cross river ferries require a subsidy and a high fare. I
wonder if carrying more people would yield greater economies of
scale. One challenge is that the ferryboats often require a long walk
or transfer to a bus on crowded streets. I don't know if the
extension of the 7 train will be near a ferry landing.
Numerous ferry routes have been tried but didn't generate ridership
and were discontinued. A Yonkers ferry is now up for abandonment.
I wonder how many crewmen the Shelter Island ferryboats carry.
I also wonder what the per passenger operating cost of the SI Ferry
is. I don't believe it carries automobiles anymore, although it used
to.
>
> Boats like Hamburg's "Ferry 2000" would be ideally suited to the task.
> Then there is not much reason, why they should be more expensive for the
> passenger mile than a bus.
But apparently they are. Don't know if it's too low revenue or too
high costs.
Wolf Behrenhoff
> How are they at docking in rough weather?
They have a bowthruster in addition to their pod drives at the stern.
> Can the ramp shown handle
> wheelchair passengers? The latter could be a show stopper in both the
> US and Canada. As I recall the similar sized Halifax ferries have a
> wider ramp without as much hump so they are accessible.
Yes, it is wide enough for wheelchairs.
However, the hump on the ramp is not a problem. Instead, the biggest
problem is that at low tide (+ wind from eastern directions) the bridge
from/to the ponton can be very steep, so steep that it might be
dangerous with a wheelchair! Difference between low tide and high tide
is nearly four meters here, taking influence of wind not into account.
- Wolf
Clark F Morris
<Usenet...@Zierke.com> wrote:
>
>Clark F Morris schrieb:
>
>
>>>they don't need any deckhand or crew on land,
>>>http://www.elbdampfer-hamburg.de/index.php?option=com_joomgallery&func=watermark&id=1453&catid=72&orig=1&no_html=1&Itemid=100106
>>
>> How are they at docking in rough weather?
>
>Exactly as in not-so-rough weather. Here seen with one of the special
>ferryboats for low bridges.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnQ54z-Ifhk
I don't think that I would want want to board or disembark under those
conditions and I'm not in a wheelchair.
>
>No ropes involved. The sides are protected against a little smashing,
>here seen while cornering tightly without passengers.
>http://www.elbdampfer-hamburg.de/index.php?option=com_joomgallery&func=watermark&id=1603&catid=67&orig=1&no_html=1&Itemid=100106
>
>
>
>> Can the ramp shown handle
>> wheelchair passengers?
>
>Yes. The "F�hre 2000" was developed as an accessible ship. There are two
>accessible restrooms and one small restroom. The only precaution
>required for wheelchair users is "enter straight, not at an angle".
>But I think there are still one or two landings, which are not
>accessible - reached by stairs only.
>
>
>> The latter could be a show stopper in both the
>> US and Canada.
>
>Would be a show stopper here as well, for new developments. Rules over
>here are less impractical, though. For example, the height precision
>required for railcar boarding gives a bigger tolerance than the sink
>margin of mechanical suspensions.
>
>
>> As I recall the similar sized Halifax ferries have a
>> wider ramp without as much hump so they are accessible.
>
>The ramp is 1.8m wide, 5.9 feet.
>http://lh5.ggpht.com/_j-Uhv3BbStI/ScYWpa1luaI/AAAAAAAAEqw/mN74vSAJ1ko/k-Hmb.Hafen,Autofreier+Sonntag+20.04.08+010.JPG
>How big are US wheelchairs? :-)
It didn't look that wide in the earlier pictures that I saw. This
most recent set gave a better idea of the width. US wheelchairs can
be 2.5 feet or .762m by 4 feet or 1.22m (and advocacy groups are
trying get even those dimensions increased).
>
>The hump is necessary for the rollers under the ramp, which you might
>spot here:
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_hh/225484570/sizes/o/
>They are necessary for safety, when boarding in rough weather. Without
>the rollers and the additional articulation of the ramp, the ramp might
>give enough room for your feet below (if the ship rocks on the waves),
>then smash them.
>
>
>
>Hans-Joachim
gl4...@yahoo.com
<was...@212.com> wrote:
> Coast Guard rules require a certain number of crew, depending on a number
> of parameters, such as vessel automation, vessel speed, and the number of
> automobiles and passengers a ferry can handle. The smallest Washington
> ferries have a crew of two.
Smallest Washington ferries or smallest Washington State ferries?
Bremerton - Annapolis is funded by Kitsap County, not Washington State
Ferries, and I think the operator is actually a private tour company
operating under contract (as is the actual operator of the King County
Water Taxi on the other side of the Sound).
Some of the private tour companies in the Seattle area do operate some of
their smaller boats with only one crew, as I have ridden on such a boat.
If they are using the same equipment for operating the passenger-only
ferry contracts, it stands to reason they could operate those ferries with
a one person crew.
tobias b koehler
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com schrieb:
>> Yes, ferries are expensive,
> Thanks to the Jones Act, which has practically eliminated
> US shipbuilding competence, yes.
The Jones Act basically means that inland operations between United
States ports can only be performed by ships built in the USA, owned and
operated by citizens of the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_Marine_Act_of_1920
How does that affect shipbuilding competence? It eliminates
international competition on the (limited) market of inland shipping (in
fact many ship owners will add some international destination to their
routes as a workaround, for example, go Alaska - Vancouver -
California), but does it mean that any and all US shipbuilding has been
reduced to the protected domestic market?