by wrivlin
The only way you will get shorter waiting times is for WMATA to dump the 7k cars in 8 car only consist policy.To be honest, I'd be fine with 4-car consists during off-peak if it meant more frequent service.
Railroad Forums
Moderators: mtuandrew, therock, Robert Paniagua
The only way you will get shorter waiting times is for WMATA to dump the 7k cars in 8 car only consist policy.To be honest, I'd be fine with 4-car consists during off-peak if it meant more frequent service.
wrivlin wrote:Agreed, but only if they started stopping trains in the middle of the platforms, but that won't happen until they turn ATO back on.The only way you will get shorter waiting times is for WMATA to dump the 7k cars in 8 car only consist policy.To be honest, I'd be fine with 4-car consists during off-peak if it meant more frequent service.
Sand Box John wrote:"daybeers"Having ridden Yellow line at 6 minute interval and then 8, with zero 8-car trains and then 8-car trains, I'd keep our current interval with 8-car trains. (I'd also take 4 minute intervals with 6-car trains, but that is not happening). Those extra 2 cars make big difference, IMO, compared to the lost 2 minutes.
That's awesome! Hope it stays that way.
Which do you prefer, higher percentage of 8 car trains or shorter waiting times between trains. Under WMATA's present operating schema you can only have the one, not both.
This week we began our efforts to run more, and whenever possible all, eight-car trains on the Yellow and Green Line. That’s obviously a reflection of the increased usage there and to accommodate our customers,” General Manager Paul Wiedefeld said Thursday.
Chris Brown wrote:Running longer trains less frequently is actually a pretty smart move.OK, are you comparing two four car trains vs one eight car train? Or two six car trains vs one eight car train? Without increasing capacity (requiring more cars to deliver service) comparing two four car trains to one eight car train seems to be the right comparison.
Chris Brown wrote:Less train operators to pay.The additional operators I will agree with. Doubling the number of trains by splitting them from eight to four cars would require more operators. But how does splitting the train change mileage or wear and tear? The cars would travel the same distance when in an 8 car train as they would in a 4 car train. And the track would have the same number of axles running over it.
Less mileage on rail cars.
Less wear and tear on the tracks.
justalurker66 wrote: The additional operators I will agree with. Doubling the number of trains by splitting them from eight to four cars would require more operators. But how does splitting the train change mileage or wear and tear? The cars would travel the same distance when in an 8 car train as they would in a 4 car train. And the track would have the same number of axles running over it.Who said anything about doubling or using 4-car trains?
justalurker66 wrote:So what is the math? Are you building four six car trains instead of three eight car trains? Or are you changing the capacity of the line by running four six car trains instead of two eight car trains?Why do you need exact math?
Chris Brown wrote:If you run trains twice as long half as frequently, you still use the same number of trainsets and each trainset has the same average distance travelled, and thet racks have the same number of wheels roll over them.justalurker66 wrote:So what is the math? Are you building four six car trains instead of three eight car trains? Or are you changing the capacity of the line by running four six car trains instead of two eight car trains?Why do you need exact math?
There are less trains. That means less everything else (operators to pay, wear on tracks, rail car use, etc.)
Why the need for such extreme mathematical precision? For what purpose?
YOLO wrote:Looks like the 6Ks got moved to OR/SV. I guess they resolved the vibration issue on GR and the 5Ks are mostly gone?Been seeing 6ks pretty regularly at Van Dorn Yard and on the BL generally. Don’t know about YL.