The East Side Access Project Discussion (ESA)

Head-end-view, look at the *position* of the lit lamp in the top signal head - it's definitely a color issue with the camera, but that is a yellow over green. The red lamp on a tri-light signal is in the bottom position on the head.

Look at the one after- the second one outside, That's a Medium Clear with the red lit in the bottom position of the top head.

Dave, thanks very much for pointing that out. You are correct and I should have noted that myself. That yellow sure does look deceptively red though. LOL That also explains why the switch immediately after that signal is aligned straight instead of diverging.

Red is normally on the bottom on virtually all railroad signals I've ever seen, except on LIRR's new Reduced Aspect Signals in Nassau and Suffolk Counties where red is on top. Surprise, surprise! LOL

Two things I've wondered about on these New Age signals:

1. On the Reduced Aspect Signals, what was wrong with the signals already in use on Metro-North -- flashing green and red-over-red? Seems to me they already had an in-house solution without reinventing the wheel -- let alone displaying two lights with one immediately above another.

2. Was putting the red on top on home signals something designed by the signal manufacturer, or did someone at LIRR or MTA decide to move it, and for what reason? There's a reason why red has traditionally been on the bottom on other railroads.

1. I agree that Metro-North's RAS's are a better design, though I dislike such small signals for main-line railroad lines to begin with. SEPTA in the Philadelphia area uses full-size signals with similar aspects to M-N.

I was told LIRR couldn't use M-N's signals because their operations are more complex than Metro-North's so they needed more different aspects to be displayed by the RAS's. And yes, it is a poor practice not to have a separation of one or two dark lamps between two lighted ones. Can't imagine who thought LIRR's configuration was a good idea. And I'm told the crews hate them.

2. I don't know who decided to put the red on top. I'll take a wild guess it was done almost as an admission that such small signals are hard to see when approaching from a distance. So maybe they put the red on top for better visibility of a signal showing stop. Figuring a single red light on the bottom of a low, small signal head might be hard to see at greater distances?

These signals absolutely suck! Many engineers despise these things.

I have zero expertise here, but I do have a question - does the design increase the odds of accidents? And where does PTC fit into this?

photobug56 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 06, 2022 11:52 pm I have zero expertise here, but I do have a question - does the design increase the odds of accidents? And where does PTC fit into this?

PTC fits into the electrics or electronics that operate these wayside signals, rather than into signal themselves. So, bad signal design does not increase the odds of accidents. Even if the engineer misinterprets the signal, PTC is still able to safely stop the train.

That's good.

This signal design probably does not increase the possibility of accidents. Wayside signals today are a redundant feature. They confirm what's already shown on the cab-signal indicator on the engineer's console. Actually the cab signal shows a more specific indication of exactly how fast the engineer can proceed and is continuously displayed. The engineer is observing that before he gets to the wayside signal.

As always, if I'm not completely accurate on those details, anyone in the know please correct me.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/a ... n/3620731/

News 4 New York was granted an exclusive look inside the East Side Access project terminal that will allow LIRR riders to have shorter commutes.

Sitting hundreds of feet below Grand Central, the East Side Access terminal -- which could be known known as Grand Central Madison if MTA approves the name -- aims to bring 60 percent more traffic into Manhattan from Long Island at peak times, with the added bonus of cutting down on congestion at Penn Station at rush hour. It is slated to open sometime in late 2022.

"The physical structure is mostly done," MTA Chairman Janno Lieber told News 4, adding that the end is in sight.

News 4 clearly drank the kool aid! Any of you ever hear of "Grand Central Madison"? Makes no sense since this serves people to the east, west, north and south, with direct exiting - hopefully, to Park Ave. and Madison Ave. Though based on their report, it only exits to Madison Ave at 47th Street and to the GCT Food Court (aka the GCT Homeless Residence). Oh, I missed 347 Madison Ave.

For years we've been told it would save us 40 minutes a day in our commute - now it's 30. And that, of course, is only for people taking electric trains directly from their home station to GCT. Whether there will be any time savings, or what they would be, for people who have to transfer - and in particular that includes diesel country riders, what time savings their might be, if any, is a closely guarded MTA secret.

Unlike CrossRail, we won't have platform edge protection with doors. It can't be because these brand new platforms are not strong enough to bear the weight. So why don't we have this huge safety upgrade?

I find it pitiful that unlike Transport For London's CrossRail project, we get little viable information. With CrossRail, we get videos of each station being finished, full details of evacuation tests, a good look at numerous test trains (right now one train every 5 minutes each way, constant updates on where they are in the very extensive testing. We get video of a column being polished.

If and when it does open, are there any plans in place for keeping out the homeless? Will there be police patrols including late at night?

Just wondering...

I agree on the plan.

What is the draft timetable?
Which new trains will be added to Penn, if relocated to GCT? Same for the third line, all talk of counter-peak, express etc but no detail at all. Hourly diesel services?

How can actual New Yorkers (city) people benefit from the GCT link (without paying much more)? How about the eternal Atlantic 'conversion' - will that be a 7-8 min headway service? $2.75? Passed over to MTA Subway?

All about the grandiose spaces and the civils - like Moynihan - and sweet FA about the utility.

And how will diesel country riders connect to and from gct? Will it save them time?

cle wrote: ↑Mon Apr 11, 2022 4:49 pm How about the eternal Atlantic 'conversion' - will that be a 7-8 min headway service? $2.75?

Might as well keep it full "national network" railroad and charge "CityTicket" rates. Once you withdraw from FRA
it's hard to go back.

It is my understanding that LIRR is now planning how passengers on a given non-ESA train inbound will be able to transfer to a GCT bound train, and vice versa. It's my impression that they have not settled on any particular 'rules' on how this will work, but I think that they understand that they have to be transparent and open on how they plan this out. I don't know if they will do any sort of public outreach, though certainly hope they do. I also think that they have gotten the message that diesel country passengers can't be ignored.

On a semi related note, I heard a suggestion that instead of modifying some M7's or M9's to add batteries (outside the Oyster Bay line), that they add a gas turbine motor for use outside electric territory, that the tech has come a very long way since, say, the Rohr Turboliners. I don't know if it's doable, let alone practical, but it is certainly interesting. I like the concept for the obvious reasons.