Railroad Forums 

Discussion of the past and present operations of the Long Island Rail Road.

Moderator: Liquidcamphor

 #1505053  by Absolute-Limited Advance-Approach
 
EuroStar wrote:
CTG wrote: The evidence of a pad is when you compare the times in the opposite direction. As you note, times from Secaucus to NYP are consistently 13 to 15 minutes. Yet times from NYP to Secaucus are either 9 or 10 minutes. The same thing happens at the other end of the line. Schedule time from Hamilton to Trenton is anywhere from 9 to 13 minutes. From Trenton to Hamilton, however, is nearly always 6 minutes. This type of time/distance warp happens across nearly every NJT schedule.
Thank you! That is exactly what I had in mind.
You have to consider the Eastbound trains are being slowed in a 90-60-45-30-15 and then crawling to the assigned track, especially the stub tracks, it's just like going over a highway. The one I have in mind is the Clearview Expressway in NYC going Northbound you have a few miles of relatively tame highway but going south the Highway terminates at Hillside Avenue and forces a left or right turn timeshared with one of the Busiest streets in Queens. Cars are more prone to stop heading south than they are heading north so the southbound journey is on average slower.

Penn Station acts as the same sort of impediment, meanwhile westbound trains have to follow a train with a 90 second headstart. While you're heading west the train ahead is accelerating to 60 while your train is doing 15, then when you clear to 60 the train ahead is doing 90, so you should never catch him. Then once you pass Portal some trains are going down the Kearny connection instead of the Corridor so traffic is *decreasing* allowing more speed.

That isn't a fraudulent schedule, it's a practical limation based on traffic conditions that are not equal in both directions.

As to your Plandome-Port Washington pad, again a track in one direction is not the same as the other direction and in this case BOTH times are wrong. Its closer to 6.5 minutes west and 6-7.5 minutes east, I can say that as I've been running that section personally for a bit

I'll lay out the math. Port Washington and Plandome are 1.6 miles apart, Port Washington is a yard governed to Restricted Speed 10mph, and you have to travel 1900ft before you can accelerate, at that point the speed restriction will be 40 mph until the curve just east of Plandome where the MAS is 50 although you may not have time to accelerate to that speed as Plandome is close behind.

On a good day in an M7, all motors running, no third rail lag, no time penalties for the running brake tests and prompt permission out of the yard you could cover the distance in about 5 minutes.

You may think that proves the running time is padded, but it does not, schedules in the timetable are *Leaving* times, sou you will arrive to Plandome at departure time. This means you start you run with a 1 minute disadvantage, the same situation repeats at Manhasset and Dominoes down the line until Woodside where there is extra running time to make up for the impossible east end schedule and to assure you make your slot through Harold.

A similar circumstance occurs in the oppisite direction but I will spare you the details, but the point is you cant just look at a map one way and assume the track will be good for the same speed the other way. In fact between Plandome and Port Washington Westbound you can do 40, Eastbound you'll be restricted to 30 MPH, in fact you may even be limited to 15. So it is a fallacious to compare opposing times and draw conclusions from that.
 #1505069  by CTG
 
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I was saying that scheduled running times on the LIRR do not appear to be padded. However on NJT, they most certainly are. The examples I gave of Secaucus-NYP and Hamilton-Trenton are repeated on every NJT branch. On NJT, it is so bad that trains from Little Silver to Long Branch are scheduled for 12-15 minutes if Long Branch is the last stop on the train, but only 7 minutes if the train is continuing to Bay Head. From Long Branch to Little Silver, the running time is 6 minutes.


While it is the case today that LIRR schedules are not padded (or at least, not heavily padded), I would expect that to change quickly if the 2 minute rule is implemented.
 #1505073  by Jo24Sam
 
Want a good laugh - look at a New Haven Line Weekend schedule for Metro North. Look at the last few Stamford locals at the end of the day. From Old Greenwich (second to last stop on the local) to Stamford (which is not the 'end of the line') is 2 miles. Weekdays an eastbound is given 8 minutes to travel that distance when trains terminate at Stamford. For through trains that go east of Stamford, 5 minutes is given to travel those two miles.

Now look at Stamford Locals Train #6300 - 20 minutes is given between those last 2 stops, train 6302 - 15 minutes is given, then train 6304 - 20 minutes is given.
 #1505075  by DutchRailnut
 
any final terminal gets extra time , based on getting into last station at restricted speed plus associated down grades .
this is because a train getting at final destination will not always get favorable signals due to conflicting moves , like connection or opposing train getting out of the yard.
 #1505084  by Publius Plunkett
 
Dutch, I don't know how they time trains on MNCR but there is some credence to the State asking for a smaller window of time, to consider a train late. In some locations, trains are timed when they reach a particular signal and then the train has to wait until it enters the station. Think about it. A train reaches a signal and its 3 minutes late and then sits waiting for track space. The train is "on time" but doesn't enter the station until 5 minutes later. To the commuter, its 8 minutes late. To the LIRR it's on time. Is the State and riding public really wrong with this?
 #1505119  by Erie-Lackawanna
 
You can mandate any standard you want, but actual performance isn’t going to change. There will always be events that delay trains, whether under the railroad’s control, or not. By mandating an impossible standard, you’re inviting the railroad to lengthen schedules so that they make the impossible target, which means that 90% of the time passengers will sit waiting for time en route, ensuring that the worst case becomes the normal case every day. Is that really better?

Jim
 #1505144  by Kelly&Kelly
 
As with most things political, the tightening of on-time-reporting brings a short term solution to a rising voice of discontent. The public sees an illusion of something being done. The can has been kicked down the road, the administration has bought time and the lynch mob has gone home. Smoke and mirrors won the day.

Obviously performance problems haven't changed, but the reporting of them has. As those reports surface, and the statistics decline, demands from the public will reignite, invigorated. We'll be told that "congestion pricing" has arrived just in the nick of time to save the system. Thank goodness for our hard working, socially astute "green" legislators, for better times ahead are now guaranteed.

But better times never come. As the cries of anguish regroup and escalate, the desperate demands will ultimately drive a campaign for more funding, higher prices, more taxes and more patronage. This fuels the political machine and assures increased budgets.

Unfortunately, little of this has anything to do with improving performance or safety and flies in the face of actual efficiency. But isn't this how government operates?
 #1505197  by Head-end View
 
Yes K & K, that is how government operates. They create the appearance of addressing problems while not really addressing them. And so it goes. Thanks for another candid post. :wink:
 #1505202  by daybeers
 
Erie-Lackawanna wrote:The primary rationale for the specific examples you note is not schedule pad (although that’s a significant, but likely not a major part of it), but to reflect the operating realities of approaching a terminal complex in cab signal/ATC territory. When approaching Penn, cab signals and speed control gradually bring you down to restricted speed far in advance of where you might otherwise brake without speed control. This adds significantly to running time. Departing Penn, you don’t have an equivalent gradual acceleration; once you get a train length west of A’s interlocking, you wind it out and off you go.

The gradual deceleration creates congestion at Penn (and other major terminals), which slows the approach even more. For departing trains, the train ahead will clear quickly and you’ll get less restrictive signals much more quickly.
Why is this, for "safety"? Speed control should only kick in once the engineer fails to meet a speed limit after a certain amount of time, correct?

The whole thing with this two minutes is absoutely ridiculous. It will trash the LIRR's OTP, or they will change the schedules so each run is 4-5 minutes longer.
 #1505209  by Absolute-Limited Advance-Approach
 
daybeers wrote: Why is this, for "safety"? Speed control should only kick in once the engineer fails to meet a speed limit after a certain amount of time, correct?
No, that's completely wrong as far as the LIRR and in my observation any Commuter Speed control package in the US, the Cab Signal will change at an impedance bond or other voltage change. This new code is the speed governing effective immediately, the brakes will apply if you are in an overspeed condition you will receive an immediate---and very abrupt---brake application. While this is happening you must apply the brakes sufficiently in the 'service area' to reach brake assurance rate then you can acknowledge the code change and obtain control of the brakes.

The spacing of signals is predicated on the train being at a certain speed (about 30-40 mph) on approach to a red signal so that is why the speed control goes into effect immediately. This sort of method of design began after an accident in Chicago



daybeers wrote:The whole thing with this two minutes is absoutely ridiculous. It will trash the LIRR's OTP, or they will change the schedules so each run is 4-5 minutes longer.
To be honest the railroad has shortened the schedules from a historical perspective. http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/M1/196 ... lligan.jpg

In 1966
73 minutes BTA-NYK (Skipping Amityville, Massapequa, Seaford, Lynbrook, and a 3 minute stop in Jamaica)

2012 and today's current schedule budget 73 minutes to make all stations and a 2 minute stop in Jamaica, today's trains also have a few spots where they can't run at full speed because of ASC restrictions.


There are a number of places where the schedule has a time deficit from the actual running time due to added restrictions (or optimistic scheduling), so adding 4-5 minutes has been overdue for sometime.
 #1505216  by BuddR32
 
Absolute-Limited Advance-Approach wrote:
daybeers wrote:The whole thing with this two minutes is absoutely ridiculous. It will trash the LIRR's OTP, or they will change the schedules so each run is 4-5 minutes longer.
To be honest the railroad has shortened the schedules from a historical perspective. http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/M1/196 ... lligan.jpg

In 1966
73 minutes BTA-NYK (Skipping Amityville, Massapequa, Seaford, Lynbrook, and a 3 minute stop in Jamaica)

2012 and today's current schedule budget 73 minutes to make all stations and a 2 minute stop in Jamaica, today's trains also have a few spots where they can't run at full speed because of ASC restrictions.


There are a number of places where the schedule has a time deficit from the actual running time due to added restrictions (or optimistic scheduling), so adding 4-5 minutes has been overdue for sometime.

I think the decrease in time has a lot to do with the new MU fleet, & the elimination of all the grade crossings.