|
|
Post by johanragle on Dec 22, 2017 7:48:54 GMT -8
Didn't see a thread for this so I just figured I'd make one.
Anyway, this morning I paced a kinkisharyo 2-car set of 1084 and 1088 hauling a$$ at 65 MPH from about Lakewood to Long Beach. Not sure how many other KS consists are running on the green line right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Dec 29, 2017 23:18:30 GMT -8
I've kept pace with one as well while driving that stretch. If I remember, it was going about 65 mph. I thought they were restricted to 55 mph. though?
Anyway, in a future that includes an in-fill station at Garfield Av. to accommodate Green Line and WSAB transfers, will a speed of 65 mph still be attainable between Garfield Av. and Long Beach Bl.?
|
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 30, 2017 17:22:51 GMT -8
Didn't see a thread for this so I just figured I'd make one. Anyway, this morning I paced a kinkisharyo 2-car set of 1084 and 1088 hauling a$$ at 65 MPH from about Lakewood to Long Beach. Not sure how many other KS consists are running on the green line right now. Quite a few. Maybe 20-25% now. |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on Dec 30, 2017 17:24:50 GMT -8
I've kept pace with one as well while driving that stretch. If I remember, it was going about 65 mph. I thought they were restricted to 55 mph. though? Anyway, in a future that includes an in-fill station at Garfield Av. to accommodate Green Line and WSAB transfers, will a speed of 65 mph still be attainable between Garfield Av. and Long Beach Bl.? The point of his post was to point out that P3010’s now run on the green line, not the speed. FTR the max speed has always been 65. |
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Dec 30, 2017 20:34:28 GMT -8
I work next to the Green line yard and it is seemingly only Kinkys now. They do the burn-in mileage and acceptance testing on newly delivered units on the Green line at night (prior to shipping them to their respective home yards), so thats probably why. It appears any Siemens still on the Green line are getting run out of the Blue line yard, like the old days of the Expo line.
|
|
|
|
Post by gatewaygent on Dec 31, 2017 23:02:22 GMT -8
Thx, not a fan of the new cars, so I don't care...move it along.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 7, 2018 13:38:57 GMT -8
The four west side stub stops of the green line are getting a 70 day full closure as they work on the tie in to the Crenshaw tracks.
During the stop down, metros state of Good repair program will be working extensively on all the sections and stops that aren’t running, trying to get as much maintenance in as possible in those 70’days
|
|
|
|
Post by joemagruder on Jan 8, 2018 9:52:25 GMT -8
70 days? In the old days track crews would cut new frogs in between streetcar runs.
|
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Jan 8, 2018 12:01:26 GMT -8
If the shut down for the cut in is truly 70 days. How will the cars get from Hawthorne to service the rest of the line.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jan 8, 2018 12:34:45 GMT -8
Shuttle buses
|
|
|
|
Post by cygnip2p on Jan 8, 2018 18:53:44 GMT -8
If the shut down for the cut in is truly 70 days. How will the cars get from Hawthorne to service the rest of the line. Guessing they will run out of the Blue Line yard. |
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jan 11, 2018 14:08:22 GMT -8
71 days, actually.
|
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Jan 28, 2018 12:06:38 GMT -8
Drove by the Green line yard in Hawthorne CA today. Yard looked to be about one third full. So some of the cars must come in to this yard at night for work during the closure.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Mar 28, 2018 22:54:43 GMT -8
The closure is ending one week early, so regular service resumes in Sunday.
|
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 18, 2018 11:43:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Jun 18, 2018 19:14:39 GMT -8
I can't believe Metro is favoring the first option.
Operationally, it makes the most sense to keep Crenshaw a north-south line, and Green an east-west line.
Running trains from Expo to Norwalk and leaving the South Bay with a dinky stub line is a slap in the face to anyone living in the area.
|
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Jun 19, 2018 8:43:21 GMT -8
I can't believe Metro is favoring the first option. Operationally, it makes the most sense to keep Crenshaw a north-south line, and Green an east-west line. Running trains from Expo to Norwalk and leaving the South Bay with a dinky stub line is a slap in the face to anyone living in the area. Do we know Metro is favoring Option #1 or is the thought that they are favoring that because it is Option #1 instead of #2. Yeah, the stub line just seems wrong, although Option #1 may result in higher ridership since the South Bay stations don't seem to generate much ridership. |
|
|
|
Post by numble on Jun 19, 2018 10:08:23 GMT -8
I can't believe Metro is favoring the first option. Operationally, it makes the most sense to keep Crenshaw a north-south line, and Green an east-west line. Running trains from Expo to Norwalk and leaving the South Bay with a dinky stub line is a slap in the face to anyone living in the area. Do we know Metro is favoring Option #1 or is the thought that they are favoring that because it is Option #1 instead of #2. Yeah, the stub line just seems wrong, although Option #1 may result in higher ridership since the South Bay stations don't seem to generate much ridership. They are favoring Option 1: metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3532691&GUID=7E9D9A2B-1C07-414C-B5E8-ECBF712E9A35&Options=ID%7CText%7C&Search=Crenshaw&FullText=1 |
|
|
|
Post by culvercitylocke on Jun 19, 2018 10:55:29 GMT -8
But this also does not preclude a service change when the southbay extension opens or when Crenshaw phase two opens.
|
|
|
|
Post by bzcat on Jun 21, 2018 17:53:13 GMT -8
Metro is favoring option 1 because it has more balanced ridership projection. They can run the same frequency and 2-car trains (or 3-cars in the future if ridership grows) from Expo line to Norwalk.
The South Bay spur has low ridership now, and will continue to have low ridership for a long time until South Bay cities get real about land use policy that favor development and more housing. The Aviation station to Redondo Station spur is over-served right now because it is linked to the Norwalk to Aviation station section of the Green line. De-coupling the high ridership and low ridership parts of the line is the right decision.
When you have low ridership spurs like the vestigial Green line to El Segundo and Redondo, it is best to run a shuttle to the main line. With the new service pattern as proposed in Option 1, Metro has the option to run 1-car trains on the South Bay spur to better match ridership. Or they can reduce frequency.
In the far away future, when the Green line is extended to the West side (via Lincoln probably) and Crenshaw is extended to Hollywood (via Fairfax or San Vicente), it will make sense to restructure the service to simple E-W and N-S pattern.
|
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Jun 25, 2018 14:09:25 GMT -8
While I feel bad for El Segundo patrons, this change probably does make the most sense. The Green Line is already well established, and even now, most westbound riders get off by Aviation Blvd.
The proposed line will serve a huge swath South LA (and IMO, will significantly redefine the perceived geography of it). Specifically, LA will now have a line which links many historically African-American areas together - including Willowbrook, Athens, Morningside Park, Inglewood, Hyde Park, Leimert Park and West Adams.
(At the same time, it will also connect many rival gang neighborhoods for the first time. Hopefully we won't see new security issues arise.)
I could imagine Metro could get away with a 3-1 ratio of trains on the shared section, thus giving the bulk of the capacity to riders on the big branches. (Any less service to Redondo would really render that stub line essentially useless.)
Note: Metro will need to rename the Green Line's "Crenshaw" station, for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by erict on Jun 27, 2018 6:01:19 GMT -8
I used to work in that area and took the Green line to El Segundo. It is not a busy section of the Green line. A transfer will suck, but if they can time it right it will be no big deal. If the line is extended, I still feel that a timed transfer is not the end of the world. In the super future, if the green line continues towards San Pedro, then it my be time to re-think things. Maybe we'll be hovering in the air by then, who knows. While I feel bad for El Segundo patrons, this change probably does make the most sense. The Green Line is already well established, and even now, most westbound riders get off by Aviation Blvd. The proposed line will serve a huge swath South LA (and IMO, will significantly redefine the perceived geography of it). Specifically, LA will now have a line which links many historically African-American areas together - including Willowbrook, Athens, Morningside Park, Inglewood, Hyde Park, Leimert Park and West Adams. (At the same time, it will also connect many rival gang neighborhoods for the first time. Hopefully we won't see new security issues arise.) I could imagine Metro could get away with a 3-1 ratio of trains on the shared section, thus giving the bulk of the capacity to riders on the big branches. (Any less service to Redondo would really render that stub line essentially useless.) Note: Metro will need to rename the Green Line's "Crenshaw" station, for obvious reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Aug 24, 2018 15:46:49 GMT -8
The Green line was closed today due to tanker truck collision and fire. This accident was located on the 105 freeway between Crenshaw BL and Praire BL in the westbound lanes. Some of the overhead wire system was damaged by the heat. Have not heard when line will reopen. Bus bridge in place for passengers.
|
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Aug 26, 2018 12:30:16 GMT -8
The Green line reopened a little less than 24 hours later.
|
|
|
|
Post by usmc1401 on Oct 10, 2020 9:23:54 GMT -8
Bus bridge today on west end of line. Per today's Daily Breeze 10/10/2020. For signal work. Most likely Crenshaw line work.
|
|
