|
|
| Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash (1340189) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 16 19:10:40 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:44:19 2015. Here the issue though is economics. You still have the generation capacity cranking, you have infrastructure in place, operating that isn't being used. Utility power can't be flipped on and off like a switch, it takes hours to come up to load, hours to shut back down in the face of no demand. Sure you can do that with the substations themselves, and you can modify the capacity with time.But my point is that all that infrastructure for such a light demand in general very likely isn't worth the costs to do that to begin with as opposed to just running diesels until the Mid-Hudson Valley and Upper Hudson Valley is as populous as Westchester. That ain't happening. |
|
|
|