|
|
| Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash (1340428) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 j trainloco on Tue Feb 17 21:38:13 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Tue Feb 17 20:51:58 2015. You're analogy makes no sense. The original concept that motivated the inception of the interstate highway system was for national defense & paid for by Uncle Sam. The choice of electrifying railroads was based on basic bottom line economics for the railroads involved. Big difference.I think the point is that the interstate system was a massive public works project, and any FUTURE electrification projects would likewise need to be the same. In adition, years ago,There was wire going to Danbury & even third rail on the Yonkers Division of the old NYCRR Put div. It was ripped up/torn down. Ask your self why. Expense maybe? In many cases, the removal of electrification seems to be due to a reduction in traffic that meant there was no longer enough traffic density to justify the cost of maintaining the system. In the case of the Putnam division? Ya know... Total line abandonment maybe? Everybody is happy with what they got. The luxury of an electric train going beyond where it goes now in this country is not much more than a pipe dream. Wake up...the dream is over. Well, at the least: 1. Caltrain is going to make the move to electric. 2. Caltrain is not the only commuter rail system considering electrification 3. Then there's these guys. Electrification has several advantages currently, and of course, several disadvantages. At some point, we will run out of diesel fuel (unless, you want to consider fuel we might be able to renew through sources like algae), but even before that point, there's still reason to consider electrification in some cases. Dismissing it as a pipe dream is taking a narrow view of the issue. |
|
|
|