|
|
| Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash (1338083) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 10 of 14 |
||
|
| (1339619) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by trAIn duDe on Fri Feb 13 00:47:27 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 13 00:41:52 2015. So I guess that your so called "sources" at the MTA are not such good sources after all. Maybe they drank too much? Maybe they lasted almost as long on the job as you did? So I guess you don't know what I'm actually doing now in my "retirement", do you? But you keep commenting on how miserable I am, because you have your "unnamed sources". Really, flintstone, it's you who should seek help, though. By your mid sixties, you'd think that you wouldn't need to live in a fantasy land. I know, once again, it's not your fault. |
|
|
| (1339625) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Feb 13 01:10:57 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by trAIn duDe on Fri Feb 13 00:47:27 2015. 
|
|
|
| (1339835) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Sat Feb 14 15:50:30 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Thu Feb 12 19:34:25 2015. If the control was that badly designed, car ABS wouldn't work, it would just lock up and be pointless. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1339836) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Sat Feb 14 15:52:24 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by merrick1 on Thu Feb 12 19:50:57 2015. They're a nightmare in exactly the way that I posted in the post you were replying to. They're bad diesels (slow, not enough HP, tons of extra crap onboard) and horrible electrics (they really aren't even electrics, they're crippled in electric mode, gap out, etc). They are the sort-of jack-of-all-trades that aren't actually good at doing ANYTHING. M-8's are great electrics, P40's are debatably good diesels (although slow loaders). P32's are good at nothing.Heck, if one-seat rides from diesel territory are really that important (I don't think they are), they would probably be better off just putting a few venting hoods on diesel tracks so that they could idle in GCT and the heck with the DM thing. |
|
|
| (1339837) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Sat Feb 14 15:57:45 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Thu Feb 12 18:28:15 2015. Looping back around to the Valhalla accident, I talked to a friend today who used to live in that area and drove over that crossing daily. His thought was that the crossings are dangerous, but the at-grade crossings with the Taconic are even worse. He said they have frequent accidents, and should be grade-separated.Based on his experience, I would say that the project to grade-separate should do both the Harlem and the Taconic to grade separate roads from rails from people for the length of both the Taconic and the Harlem. |
|
|
| (1339838) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Feb 14 15:58:39 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Sat Feb 14 15:52:24 2015. and you have not operated or worked on any of them , its like asking a bakker or what kind of meat to buy. |
|
|
| (1339850) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 14 17:02:17 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Sat Feb 14 15:50:30 2015. The problem is NOT with the Railroad.The problem is 90% the Driver and 10% DOT. Leave the railroad out of it, they have to change NOTHING! |
|
|
| (1339853) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Feb 14 17:30:00 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 14 17:02:17 2015. IAWTP! No matter what you do,theres always a percentage of folks that believe that nothing bad will happen to them, the other guy is always gonna get it. You can remove all the grade crossings on the planet & someone will figure out a new way to be killed by train.Theres always be the knucklehead that will jump onto a trackbed to retrieve a dropped cellfone & get squished between the train & platform on the way back up (horrible way to go) or the party animal after consuming a gallon of beer & decides to relieve himself between cars of a moving train, slips & falls & has his head fall between the crossties & bounce off your hood as you wait for a green light on Roosevelt Ave. Point being, you can't always protect people from themselves, no matter what you do. The train never comes after you. |
|
|
| (1339856) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sat Feb 14 17:34:36 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Sat Feb 14 15:52:24 2015. But from a passenger's viewpoint they work just fine. |
|
|
| (1339872) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Feb 14 19:26:58 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Feb 14 17:30:00 2015. False! :)
|
|
|
| (1339875) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Feb 14 19:40:11 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Sat Feb 14 15:52:24 2015. "They're a nightmare in exactly the way that I posted..."Really?? In reality, Those Genesis engines are responsible for maintaining at least a 95% on time performance on the upper Hudson Line. Over the years, ridership on the Hudson Line has more than quadrupled . Why is that?? Because of the relibility of those "nightmare" GE engines & the comfortable Shoreliner coaches. Toss in for good measure, installing high level platforms & additional parking. Customer satisfaction ratings are also at high levels never seen before.Nobody clamoring for electric trains.Give them something good & they will come...an they did. As a matter of fact, I used to work around MTA procurement folks & the success of the GE engines & Shoreliner coaches on the Hudson Line, demonstrated by their on time performance & reliability made many of them admitting (quietly)that extending the 3d rail beyond NWP was a mistake. In 1984 dollars, it cost the MTA (taxpayers)at least 1 MIL $$ per mile, per track, to install the 3d rail over there, then. You could only guess how much it would cost to install more 3d rail anywhere nowadays. And thats just for the installation. Now you have to buy railcars to utilize the juice. Each MU car is considered an electric locomotive in the eyes of the FRA. That means higher maintenance, more inspections & the cost of labor that goes along with it. Shoreliner (Bomb) coaches are, simplistically put, not much more than climate controlled 85ft boxcars with airbags,seats & lights.Thus subject to much less rigorous inspections which translates into lest cost of labor involved & less time in the shop. Bottom line 3d rail extentions are very expensive. You'll see no more extentions on Metro North & maybe in the future, some of it ripped up. Maybe thats why over on the LIRR, 3d rail never reached Pt Jefferson. I'll stick my neck out here & say it'll never reach Yaphank or Patchougue. |
|
|
| (1339878) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 14 20:07:21 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Feb 14 19:40:11 2015. Stick your neck out all you like.1) The Super Steels suck 2) The C-3's have failed to attract ridership, and failed to arrest items 3 thru 5 below. 3) Ridership has shifted EN MASSE from the Port Jeff Milk trains to the Ronkonkoma 4) Ridership has shifted EN MASSE from the South Shore to the Ronkonkoma 5) The token dual mode thru trains shifted ridership intra-branch, but failed to bring anyone back from the Ronkonkoma. 6) Locomotive means single point of failure. People want a fast, reliable electric railroad. As far as "Each MU car is considered an electric locomotive in the eyes of the FRA. That means higher maintenance, more inspections & the cost of labor that goes along with it."... Only NJT gives a rat's ass about that. And NJT cancels trains daily at the drop of a hat. |
|
|
| (1339886) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Feb 14 20:41:06 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Feb 14 15:58:39 2015. Yes, but asking the crews who work them is like asking the farm workers what cut of meat is the best... |
|
|
| (1339887) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Feb 14 20:51:20 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 14 20:07:21 2015. "People want a fast, reliable electric railroad. "WRONG. People want fast reliable TRANSPORTATION. They could give a rats ass if its electric, diesel or mule train. The point of my post was that you get more bang for your buck with reliable diesel equiptment that has been proven out on MN's Hudson Line over several years. Granted, the'll be some elitist snobs that think they shit ice cream & insist that the dirty stinky diesel is a relic of the past & electric is the way to go (Harlem Line included), they don't have their facts straight. The overall emissions of a modern diesel locomotive is much cleaner than the old FL-9s that ran there years ago & the cost of fuels that run electric plants to power the third rail overall is much higher now v/s then. Its just a bottom line thing. |
|
|
| (1339888) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Feb 14 20:57:58 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Feb 14 20:51:20 2015. There is no such thing as a fast reliable dual mode. The eventual goal should be an overhead catenary system, Keep the third rail where necessary (Park Ave tunnels, Atlantic ave tunnels, ESA tunnels) |
|
|
| (1339889) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Feb 14 20:57:58 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Feb 14 20:51:20 2015. There is no such thing as a fast reliable dual mode. The eventual goal should be an overhead catenary system, Keep the third rail where necessary (Park Ave tunnels, Atlantic ave tunnels, ESA tunnels) |
|
|
| (1339890) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Feb 14 20:58:24 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by R30A on Sat Feb 14 20:41:06 2015. you don't have to ask me or any crew, the records speak for themself. if it were not for Genesis our diesel maintenance would cost twice as much, our labor force would be twice as big as one genesis replaced two FL-9's and if their so unreliable as the poster claimed how come we run so many diesel trains at higher reliability then EMU?? |
|
|
| (1339891) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Feb 14 20:59:17 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by R30A on Sat Feb 14 20:57:58 2015. the commuters could not afford the cost of re-electrification and all dual power fleet. |
|
|
| (1339892) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 14 20:59:29 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Feb 14 20:51:20 2015. People want fast reliable TRANSPORTATION.But even if a diesel is as reliable as an electric, it still accelerates more slowly. I think they managed to cut quite a few minutes off the schedule to the former Brewster North by electrifying, because there are so many stops. It's less of a problem between Croton and Poughkeepsie because the stops are spaced much farther apart. |
|
|
| (1339893) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by j trainloco on Sat Feb 14 21:00:39 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Feb 14 20:51:20 2015. The overall emissions of a modern diesel locomotive is much cleaner than the old FL-9s that ran there years ago & the cost of fuels that run electric plants to power the third rail overall is much higher now v/s then.Its just a bottom line thing. Electricity more expensive than diesel? I don't know the numbers here, but every comparison I've seen between electric vehicles and fossil fuel powered ones is slanted heavily in favor of electrics. Electrics also have the advantage of being able to make use of sustainable fuel sources. There's also the issue of performance: multiple units perform better when stops are spaced closer together. I'm sure that there's a reason Caltrain is planning to electrify. |
|
|
| (1339897) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Feb 14 21:11:58 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Feb 14 20:58:24 2015. The answer is that you don't run diesel trains with higher reliability than EMUs!MDBF P32s 24K M3As 211K M7As 421K M8s 226K Furthermore, Dual mode engines are a single point of failure. A dead M7 can still be moved by the other cars in its train, although a failure is relatively unlikely, as it breaks down less than 1/10th as often! |
|
|
| (1339898) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Feb 14 21:13:14 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Feb 14 20:59:17 2015. Costs are near zero if scheduled properly. |
|
|
| (1339900) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Feb 14 21:24:21 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by j trainloco on Sat Feb 14 21:00:39 2015. plain cost of energy vs energy yes, but add in the maintenance of catenary or third rail and sub stations you might be surprized how much those electric choo choo's cost. |
|
|
| (1339901) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Feb 14 21:26:18 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by R30A on Sat Feb 14 21:11:58 2015. cause their new lets see those numbers when the M-7 and M-8 are 20 years old now a 8 car train is 8 times failure rate cause its not just about power but all circuits needed for that train to move safely. |
|
|
| (1339902) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Feb 14 21:27:46 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by R30A on Sat Feb 14 21:13:14 2015. zero $$ for re-electrification and purchase of 450 dual power EMU's at over 3 million per car ??? let me know who gave your economics class |
|
|
| (1339903) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Feb 14 21:28:33 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Feb 14 21:26:18 2015. Well, looking at a 30 year old M3, It appears they hold up relatively well. Furthermore, I see no reason not to assume that the locomotives would not fail at similar rates. |
|
|
| (1339904) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Feb 14 21:30:56 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Feb 14 21:27:46 2015. You somehow don't seem to realize that the existing systems all have to be replaced over cycles anyway. My supposition is that the relative increase in cost for a dual power EMU over third rail only EMU is at least partially if not totally made up for by the greatly decreased number of substations which need replacement. |
|
|
| (1339907) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Feb 14 22:12:44 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Sat Feb 7 21:07:00 2015. When the lights flash, they don't indicate which track the train is approaching on, though. |
|
|
| (1339908) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Feb 14 22:19:52 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 7 15:10:32 2015. Have you ever taken a physics class? If you did, you'd know that both of those terms are equivalent. Meters per second means meters divided by seconds. Meters per second per second means meters divided by seconds, divided by seconds, which is equal to meter/(seconds*seconds), which is meters per second squared. |
|
|
| (1339918) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 15 01:18:25 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Feb 14 21:24:21 2015. There ya go! Yep. And on lesser-used lines compared to subway frequency, you still have to crank them watts even if nothing is there to eat them. |
|
|
| (1339919) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 15 01:20:46 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Feb 14 20:51:20 2015. They have a viable argument for electric through densely populated areas. There's enough users and equipment on the move to justify it. When you get out into flyover country where the only passengers are bears and rabbits, electrification is insane. I can see both points though. |
|
|
| (1339939) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sun Feb 15 07:17:17 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Sat Feb 7 21:07:00 2015. Even people who ride the trains may not pay attention to which track they run on.Somehow this topic came up at my sister's house at Thanksgiving one year. She lives in Norwood Mass. I said that on my occasional trips into Boston with her I noticed that inbound trains on the Franklin line usually run on the left-hand track on the 3 track line from Readville to Back Bay. My sister said "I take that train every day. I never noticed that" |
|
|
| (1339944) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 15 07:53:58 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Feb 14 20:51:20 2015. Further disadvantages of Dual-modes:1) None are available. Super Steel is dead. Genesis are no longer produced, whereas 3rd rail MU's are easily available 2) Small order would make them very expensive 3) 3rd rail gapping issues. Maybe not a big deal in GCT, but would be on the LIRR. 4) Train performance declines with train length, which is a rather rinky-dinky 7 cars on MN 5) The MDBF of the P32 is not disasterous, but not wonderful either, and far worse than the 30 year old M3's. M7's are 300,000 miles. Your Poughkeepsie trains are limited to 7 cars. Top and tail to lengthen is expensive. So they resort to adding frequencies and adding MU's out of Harmon to take up electric zone stops where needed. That all adds to operating costs. Unlike all other diesel lines on MN and LIRR, Poughkeepsie ridership quadrupled because it started form virtually NOTHING - 2 car RDC's shuttles every 2 hours that could barely make the trip. The Danbury line gets the same 3 thru trains it had 40 years ago. People also drive to the Upper Harlem Line to catch the MU's. |
|
|
| (1339947) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sun Feb 15 08:02:38 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by R30A on Sat Feb 14 20:57:58 2015. The P32s are reliable and they can run faster than they normally do.I was on a P32 hauled train that made Croton-Harmon to Poughkeepsie in well under the advertised time. The engineer stole a few extra horsepower by cutting out the HEP while accelerating from the station stops. Amtrak's P32's do over 100 mph in places. Amtrak is doing track and signal work between Albany and Poughkeepsie to allow more fast running. |
|
|
| (1339949) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Feb 15 08:40:05 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 15 07:53:58 2015. I dunno if I would say it isn't disastrous. People still harp on how awful the LIRR Diesel performance is. Over the past year, LIRR Diesels performance is almost identical to the P32s. |
|
|
| (1339951) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 15 09:35:58 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by R30A on Sun Feb 15 08:40:05 2015. For some reason, there is the perception that the GE's are better than the DE/DM. |
|
|
| (1339963) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by j trainloco on Sun Feb 15 10:03:27 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 15 07:53:58 2015. Further disadvantages of Dual-modes:1) None are available. Super Steel is dead. Genesis are no longer produced, whereas 3rd rail MU's are easily available Well, that's not completely true. After all, the ALP-45DP wasn't being produced by anyone either, until someone requested that it be made. I'm sure someone will bid on an RFP to replace the current DMs when the time comes. That said, it will likely cost a lot more on a per unit basis to develop a new dual mode than it will to purchase new EMUs. It will be interesting to see what the future of dual modes will be, especially considering new developments like this. We might see diesel locomotives that make their 'last mile' on battery power, eliminating the gapping issue that requires LIRR to put dual mode locomotives on both ends of their trains to Penn. Or, we might see EMUs that extend into diesel territory with battery power. It's an exciting development. Unlike all other diesel lines on MN and LIRR, Poughkeepsie ridership quadrupled because it started form virtually NOTHING - 2 car RDC's shuttles every 2 hours that could barely make the trip. The Danbury line gets the same 3 thru trains it had 40 years ago. People also drive to the Upper Harlem Line to catch the MU's. I think this is a case of ridership following the service. Ridership would obviously climb on some of these diesel lines if there were more service. |
|
|
| (1339967) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 15 10:11:27 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by j trainloco on Sun Feb 15 10:03:27 2015. ALP45DP is another species entirely and cost $10 million each.NJT needs 5 out of 35 on any given day for their intended purpose. Quite a scandal. Upper Harlem got a pretty dense service prior to 1984 with FL-9's and Penn Central junk coaches. It was nothing as bad a Poughkeepsie's. That is why Brewster line's ridership did not quadruple. Amtrak MN, and LIRR all need to collaborate on a common loco. But LIRR is hell bent on junking the M-3's and keeping the Super Steel junk. M-3's work fine if they are maintained. LIRR proves it everyday because they do not. MN proves it everyday because they do. |
|
|
| (1339975) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Feb 15 10:28:07 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 15 09:35:58 2015. well try to put 7 cars with a single DE/DM and see if you can run track speed ;-) |
|
|
| (1339978) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Feb 15 10:50:36 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 15 10:11:27 2015. Actually, while roughly half as reliable as Metro North's M3As, LIRR's M3s aren't performing that badly. Somehow they manage to be more reliable than the C3s, while they certainly have much more which can fail. |
|
|
| (1339980) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 15 11:00:47 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Feb 15 10:28:07 2015. What type of coaches ? 7 lighter Comet cars or 7 68-ton bi-levsls ? |
|
|
| (1339981) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 15 11:01:31 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by R30A on Sun Feb 15 10:50:36 2015. The door motors I think are what are getting to the C-3's. |
|
|
| (1339992) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 15 11:34:31 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 15 01:20:46 2015. Tell to the Russians that.ROAR |
|
|
| (1340010) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Feb 15 12:51:37 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 15 11:00:47 2015. does not matter a DE/DM can only supply 6 cars max in HEP and then gets so anemic you may as well tow tupperware boxes. |
|
|
| (1340014) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 15 13:12:08 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Feb 15 12:51:37 2015. On NJT, we were told the EMD's can HEP 10 Comet cars but only 5 MLV cars. You will never see any remaining GP40/F40's with MLV cars, solo. So the type of car must determine your HEP requirement. |
|
|
| (1340020) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Sun Feb 15 14:19:06 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 15 11:34:31 2015. I thought Russian electrification was mostly due to cold weather, same as the MILW? |
|
|
| (1340021) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sun Feb 15 14:47:44 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 15 07:53:58 2015. The M3s on Metro North seems to be limited to rush hours only, seems like you'd be lucky to see even one set running in service off peak and weekends, not surprised they have a good MDBF considering there light schedule. |
|
|
| (1340022) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Feb 15 14:49:02 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 15 01:20:46 2015. Actually, not true. Some 20+ years ago (before UP swallowed SP/DRGW) a guy did computer modeling showing that UP could power ALL of its freight from wind slong the Wyoming ROW. The major impediment to mainline electrification today is the totally free flowing motive power pool. It is SO much cheaper/easier to run through the diesels w/the unit trains. Even so, w/ a combination of wind, hydro, solar, and regen braking (think of the amount of wasted energy dumped through the dynamic brakes) vwe could save megatons of CO2. |
|
|
| (1340026) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Feb 15 14:58:17 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sun Feb 15 14:47:44 2015. not surprised they have a good MDBF considering there light scheduleIsn't it harder to have a good MDBF if it takes you more time to travel 100,000 miles? More freeze thaw cycles, more heavy rain, etc. |
|
|
| (1340040) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 15 16:26:01 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sun Feb 15 14:47:44 2015. It's maintennance.LIRR's M-3's are also hard to find outside of rush hours, and their MDBF is half of Metro North's. |
|
|
|
Page 10 of 14 |
||
