|
|
| Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash (1340851) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 WillD on Sat Feb 21 16:25:00 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:34:39 2015. The costs would be astronomical... for what?But it's only a cost if you have to spend it. You don't really have to reelectrify the existing 3rd rail sections, just place catenary wire over the existing diesel segments and run multisystem EMUs. So then the comparison is between electrifying the diesel segments with high voltage AC catenary or lower voltage DC third rail. Maybe, if they wanted to put up with two different fleets for a while, They're already maintaining two different fleets. A fleet of multivoltage EMUs could share many more components and so on with the large DC EMU fleet than the current diesel fleet does. but even that seems like an unnecessarily expensive way of doing things. Again, it's only a cost if you'd otherwise not have to pay it. The C3s and DE/DM30ACs aren't that far from replacement. Swapping them out for multisystem EMUs through attrition really is a no-cost solution, outside of the premium paid for the EMUs. But then dual mode diesels and their special bilevels aren't going to be cheap to build either. IMHO the most pertinent factor is that third rail costs somewhere between half again and twice the money of high voltage AC catenary. For the money to install 3rd rail over half the existing diesel network, you can electrify the entire LIRR diesel system with catenary. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|