|
|
| Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash (1340371) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 17:57:19 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 16 19:56:11 2015. You're talking about ESA? M-8's are too tall? Man those tunnels must be tight, as GCT is already a foot shorter than the lowest standard North American clearance. If LIRR is even tighter height wise, then any pantograph pickup is doomed from the get-go and third rail it would be (which makes more sense for LIRR anyway).I thought the M-7As shared the same carbody as the M-7s? Although the Hudson could be converted to overhead, LIRR as well as freight on LI will just have to deal with the third rail forever. If they wanted to bring a stack train that had been fillet'ed onto LI, would it physically clear the third rail with the third rail de-energized? |
|
|
|