|
|
| Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash (1338083) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 11 of 14 |
||
|
| (1340051) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 15 18:31:37 2015, in response to 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. Canyons are great for channeling wind for that purpose, not so much out where it's flatter. Upstate New York did a large number of wind turbines since GE is here along the hilltops and it didn't work out so well. Out there, I can definitely see it though. |
|
|
| (1340052) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 15 18:32:28 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. Now there's an economic system that can justify that. :) |
|
|
| (1340057) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Feb 15 19:10:52 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 15 18:31:37 2015. wind energy works great in Northern Germany and Netherlands, you can't go flatter than that. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1340058) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 15 19:17:01 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Feb 15 19:10:52 2015. It IS a bit "brisk" there. About 20 years ago, they were gung ho on wind power up here, and GE Turbines is in Schenectady and so quite a few went up around here. They never really paid for themselves here since wind isn't all that constant or strong around the hills here normally. We were kinda rooting for it to work though since we used to have a lot of hydro around here that all got dismantled. |
|
|
| (1340082) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Sun Feb 15 22:58:10 2015, in response to 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. Good wind density and solar irradiance maps are available on the nrel website for anyone who wants to do basic modeling. Of course plenty of areas are off limits for many different reasons (like the Adirondack Park Preserve)regardless of wind or sun availability. As grid scale storage technology improves (ie vanadium-redox batteries)in economic viability, alternative energy sources become much more practical. |
|
|
| (1340102) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Mon Feb 16 08:47:42 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 15 18:31:37 2015. I was on I-90 in Minnesota last month. There were miles of wind turbines and the land was as flat as could be. There didn't seem to be much wind but the turbines were all spinning. How fast do they need to spin to make elec tricity?, |
|
|
| (1340104) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 09:10:56 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by R2ChinaTown on Mon Feb 16 08:47:42 2015. not fast they generate AC at whatever speed (frequency) it gets rectified to DC then inverters make 60 Hz AC to feed grid.the wind speed only affect how much power is produced. |
|
|
| (1340105) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Mon Feb 16 09:23:40 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 09:10:56 2015. Thank you. That makes sense |
|
|
| (1340112) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Feb 16 10:03:21 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 09:10:56 2015. Many large (utility scale) wind turbines use transmissions to maintain constant rpm at the generator to eliminate the need for a rectifier/inverter set. As to speed, they are generally set to shut down @ 55mph, but there are some you tube videos of brake failures that are pretty cool. Always grabs the students attention when we show them. |
|
|
| (1340134) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 16 14:49:30 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by R2ChinaTown on Mon Feb 16 08:47:42 2015. They need to turn a bit. The wind issue up here is that there's usually some wind in the morning and late afternoon, but often winds are calm and insufficient to get them moving at all. What GE discovered was yes, they turned most of the time, but never really produced enough power to cover the expense. Things I'm sure are quite different elsewhere. |
|
|
| (1340157) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:02:48 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by merrick1 on Sun Feb 15 07:17:17 2015. Although I don't think that was a factor at play here, people do know if they ride the trains, as MN usually runs right-hand like cars. |
|
|
| (1340165) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:28:17 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. They keep their schedules, because their schedules are already bloated to account for the fact that a 3200HP train with 7 coaches can't get out of it's own way.3rd rail wouldn't make sense for POK, as doing 25kV/60 wire NYP-ALB would allow Amtrak to share. Extending 3rd rail to Southeast was absolutely the right decision. And given that the LIRR is an exclusively 3rd rail system, extending it to Port Jeff, Yaphank, Speonk and Oyster Bay would absolutely be the right thing to do, unless the LIRR wants to get into doing overhead wire and having M-8 like cars and a less flexible fleet. Although maybe it would be possible to retrofit M-7's with pantographs and use beefed up 770DC trolley wire to feed power instead of third rail? |
|
|
| (1340166) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:31:06 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. Electricity costs more, sure, but diesel fuel isn't 99 cents a gallon anymore either. Diesel is still far more expensive than electric, fuel for fuel. When you factor in the cost of the electric plant, they may end up being the same, but still, that's not the point.People may not care how their train is powered, however, they do care about how fast it goes, and electrics just go faster (acceleration and overall schedule, not top speed necessarily) than diesels do. Many of the diesel commuter trains just can't get out of their way, while an M-8 set or an ALP/ML set is like a rocket getting out of a station. The right solution for the Hudson is 25kV/60 overhead wire. |
|
|
| (1340167) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:34:39 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. I don't think it makes sense to convert LIRR to overhead wire. The costs would be astronomical... for what? Maybe, if they wanted to put up with two different fleets for a while, they could use 25kV/60 in new electrification and convert the first part of the Port Jeff line, and purchase all new cars as M-8's, but even that seems like an unnecessarily expensive way of doing things.The Hudson, OTOH, makes 100% sense to convert to 25kV/60 from NYP to ALB. Oh, and Amtrak's NEC from NYP to WAS should be converted from 11kV/25 to 12.5kV/60, but that's another story for another day. |
|
|
| (1340168) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:36:28 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. So what you're saying is that the FL-9 kind-of sort-of dual-mode when they felt like being dual-mode locomotives were so crappy that the P32's are half as crappy? Half as crappy is not a good measure of being good. |
|
|
| (1340170) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:41:00 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. Electricity is about 1/2 the price of gas/diesel in CT and NY. Nationwide, it's about 1/3.Caltrain can't get out of it's own way. I was out there a couple of years ago, and man, a 3000 or 3600HP loco accelerating 7 or 8 giant bilevel cars barely feels like acceleration, and there's severe loading lag. I was used to 8,000HP M-8 sets or 6800HP 8-car Amtrak trains taking off instantaneously like a rocket ship. Watching a Caltrain get moving involves lot of noise from the loco, but the train is barely rolling by the time the other end passes you. With Amtrak (or MN), the rear of that train is flying if you are standing where the AEM-7 is stopped for a station stop. The Sprinters must be even better. |
|
|
| (1340171) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Feb 16 18:42:32 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:31:06 2015. agree on the Hudson Line. It is unfortunate that the Park Ave tunnel is too tight for catenary because then much could be simplified. |
|
|
| (1340172) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:43:00 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. I've been on several M-2/4/6 trains that have serious electrical issues on one or more cars. Not sure if they had traction power or not. The only time is pissed me off was when they made us move out of the front two cars that had ice cold AC into cars that barely had any AC. I wish they would have let us stay, there was barely anyone on them, and we were headed to NHV, so it didn't matter that they weren't platforming almost anywhere else. |
|
|
| (1340173) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:44:19 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 15 01:18:25 2015. The substations shouldn't use much when they are not loaded. The voltage is still on the rails, but there isn't any amperage, hence no wattage. I'm sure there's some standby use for transformers/rectifiers/etc, but it shouldn't be much. |
|
|
| (1340174) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:45:56 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. Also, the money would be much better spent beefing up and extending the third rail infrastructure to handle 14-car M-7 sets to all the outer edges of the LIRR west of Speonk/Yaphank, as well as 14-car M-7 sets up to Southeast. |
|
|
| (1340176) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:48:03 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. Yeah, the Danbury and POK runs would greatly benefit from electrification. Danbury is especially pathetic. According to a friend who commuted from New Fairfield to NYC for a while for school, everyone up there going to the city just drives to Southeast. The Danbury line is like a joke to them. |
|
|
| (1340177) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:48:30 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by merrick1 on Sun Feb 15 08:02:38 2015. Just because they can eventually get to 100mph doesn't mean that they can get out of their own way on commuter runs. |
|
|
| (1340178) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:49:32 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. Battery would be really, really hard in the US with our overweight heavy rail trains. I do see it being possible for light rail, however, especially when combined with either diesel engines for hybrid operation when outside of tunnels, or catenary over part of the run for recharging while operating. |
|
|
| (1340179) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:50:36 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. The ALP45DP's were made for the tunnel, which governor Fatso cancelled. No tunnel, no need for them. Also, they should have just electrified outwards in the first place, not bought those awesome, but nonetheless absurdly expensive and complicated contraptions. At least they are true dual modes, unlike the P32's. |
|
|
| (1340181) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:52:13 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. And LIRR is the only railroad in the US that doesn't use standard 480V HEP. They just have to be weird! |
|
|
| (1340183) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 19:04:35 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:36:28 2015. neither is opinion from someone who only operated model trains. |
|
|
| (1340184) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 19:05:45 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:43:00 2015. so just because you rode a train now your expert , well let me tell ya.. |
|
|
| (1340185) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 19:06:59 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:48:03 2015. not because of what operates trains but because Danbury is 20 miles linger and single track, EMU's won't change that.. |
|
|
| (1340186) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 19:07:10 2015, in response to 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. Not only would electrification allow a lot of wind power to be transmitted, but a national electrified rail superhighway system would be fantastic for our country. I think we should build a rail superhighway that is 2-4 tracks, has 25kV/60 overhead wires, is good for 90mph operation, is fully grade separated, has full CTC/PTC, and has domestic stack clearances. The government should partner with the railroads to make it a reality, and run from Albany and Harrisburg to Chicago, the Northern and Southern BNSF transcons, as well as the UP main connecting to points west, and a couple of lines across the south as well. Then, lines that aren't full superhighways either because of clearances or grade crossings or speed would feed traffic onto those lines. This would include Albany to the Bronx, Harrisburg to North Jersey and into Brooklyn and Queens via the cross-harbor tunnel, and Boston, Davisville, and Cedar Hill all via 25kV/60 wire in the Northeast.By electrifying 10% of the US rail system, we could move more than 50% of the mile-tons of freight over to electric. I imagine a future where 15+ passenger cars, a handful of autoracks for people's autos, and then 30-50+ flatcars for trucks and RVs would create an open intermodal system that would span most of the US, and run from point to point at 90mph, with 48 hour runs coast to coast. The system would use mostly dual-mode electrics, along with some straight electrics, and would host high-volume mixed 60mph heavy freight, 90mph fast freight like Z trains, 90mph mid-distance passenger, and 90mph commuter rail operations. We should then build a separate 225mph high-speed passenger system to serve major cities. Then, the final step would be to compete with container ships, and build a triple-track, stack-cleared, electrified railway from Beijing to Seattle via the Bering Strait, which would transload to Russian broad-gauge railroads via a large container and bulk handling facility, connect to the Alaska RR's diesel operations at Fairbanks, and then connect to CN, CP, BNSF, and UP in BC and the PNW. |
|
|
| (1340187) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 19:08:35 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:52:13 2015. again your wrong, the LIRR uses standard 3 phase 480 at 60 hz, its the traction and communications that are different from all other US railroads. |
|
|
| (1340188) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 19:08:37 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Feb 16 18:42:32 2015. True that, although double electrification or conversion of the entire Harlem aren't great solutions either. The M-8 style EMUs are a compromise dating back from the New Haven days, but they do work pretty darn well. |
|
|
| (1340189) | |
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. |
|
|
| (1340190) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 19:11:02 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 19:04:35 2015. My operating experience doesn't make the P32's any less sucky. |
|
|
| (1340191) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 19:11:08 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 19:05:45 2015. I saw them running with bad electric systems with my own eyes, so it's possible at least for some faults to continue running or dragging them along. |
|
|
| (1340192) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 19:12:21 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 19:06:59 2015. With electrics and improved tracks, and more trains, more people would use it. Of course it's longer, but the drive is much shorter for people in that area, so the two are very close total trip time wise. More trains and slightly faster trains would tip the scales in favor of the Danbury for some. |
|
|
| (1340193) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 19:14:40 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 19:08:35 2015. i.e. not the standard 480V system that every other railroad in the US uses. A different, incompatible system that happens to use the same voltage. |
|
|
| (1340195) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 19:16:31 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 16 19:10:40 2015. Trains alone aren't going to change the load profile of the whole grid, and there are trains running somewhere almost all the time, with slowly increasing and decreasing load profiles.When you combine Amtrak operations to ALB and MN to POK, it makes total sense to put up 25kV/60 from NYP to ALB. |
|
|
| (1340197) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Mon Feb 16 19:25:09 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 19:11:08 2015. How often?? |
|
|
| (1340198) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 16 19:29:01 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 19:16:31 2015. POK makes sense, but just barely. Further north, not really enough traffic to justify the cost which would be pretty substantial. |
|
|
| (1340201) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Mon Feb 16 19:31:06 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:28:17 2015. Every rail/transportation system in the country from airlines to ferrys has padded scheduels |
|
|
| (1340202) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Feb 16 19:31:41 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 19:08:37 2015. Any "dual" system equipment is hauling excess dead weight whichever segment it is on. |
|
|
| (1340207) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 19:54:40 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 19:11:02 2015. but it does make your knowledge less believable, your legend in your own mind !! |
|
|
| (1340208) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 19:55:58 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 19:14:40 2015. no it is not, you never worked on any of this stuff yet you think you got it all figured out. |
|
|
| (1340209) | |
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, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:28:17 2015. Neither the M-8, nor the M-7A for that matter, would fit thru 63rd Street, and probably not to Brooklyn either. |
|
|
| (1340210) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 16 19:57:35 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 19:08:37 2015. The M-8's MDBF is not that impressive, about the same as the 30 year old M-3. |
|
|
| (1340212) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 16 19:58:56 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 18:45:56 2015. That's a lot of yards you would have to rebuild.The Hicksville station is to be CUT 2 car lengths. |
|
|
| (1340213) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Mon Feb 16 20:00:18 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 16 19:29:01 2015. "POK makes sense.."Our grandkids may see it...or maybe not, if advances in diesel engine reliability,economics & performance keep up the pace with mechanical evolution that keeps it a less expensive option. The average commuter could care less if they don't expierience the extra G force when leaving the station that accompianies electric trains. Just get me back & forth to work & don't saddle me with bond issues to pay for something that we can live without, as in unnecessary electrification. Just ask the upper Hudson Line (95% on time) clintele of MN If they are satisfied with their service. Customer satisfaction ratings are at an all time high. |
|
|
| (1340214) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Mon Feb 16 20:01:12 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 16 19:29:01 2015. "POK makes sense.."Our grandkids may see it...or maybe not, if advances in diesel engine reliability,economics & performance keep up the pace with mechanical evolution that keeps it a less expensive option. The average commuter could care less if they don't expierience the extra G force when leaving the station that accompianies electric trains. Just get me back & forth to work & don't saddle me with bond issues to pay for something that we can live without, as in unnecessary electrification. Just ask the upper Hudson Line (95% on time) clintele of MN If they are satisfied with their service. Customer satisfaction ratings are at an all time high. |
|
|
| (1340216) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 16 20:04:23 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Mon Feb 16 19:14:40 2015. What is different about LIRR's 480v system ? # of pins ? cycles ?VIA Rail's is different too, but can be made compatible with some cross cabling. |
|
|
| (1340225) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Feb 16 20:22:19 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. IAWTP. And so do engineers of a certain Japanese car builder. |
|
|
|
Page 11 of 14 |
||
