|
|
| 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 12 of 14 |
||
|
| (1340226) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Feb 16 20:25:06 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. I think that the NYP-ALB is one line where HSR is warranted and build it and they will come might work. |
|
|
| (1340229) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 20:30:12 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Feb 16 20:25:06 2015. The signal system up to Pok was just rebuild and in last few years speeds have dropped due to signal system, when PTC is cut in the overall speed will even drop more, High speed you say ?? yup in your dreams... |
|
|
| (1340235) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 16 20:44:13 2015, in response to 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. Agreed. But at least the population and ridership there has gotten to the point where the economics would at least work out. I remember when Poughkeepsie trains were far apart on the schedule. Sure, you could get to Croton North and WALK. :)What makes me giggle is from there north. 14 round trips a day for all Amtrak north of there isn't exactly a busy railroad. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1340236) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 16 20:49:27 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Feb 16 20:25:06 2015. I'd agree there as well since that would really be the only justification for Catenary. But like Dutch said, the MTA MBA's have already been hard at work behind their desks, pounding their puds and screwing it all up. |
|
|
| (1340238) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Feb 16 20:54:16 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 16 20:44:13 2015. And a bunch of them go past Albany and would still require engine change. The runs where they leave the DM on now would require a change if NYP - ALB was under the wire. |
|
|
| (1340239) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 16 21:04:54 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by pragmatist on Mon Feb 16 20:54:16 2015. Don't recall the numbers lately, but not all that many of them go past Rensselaer. That's the end of the line for most of them as it is. That's also the reason for the engine change a there's just no point in any electric-capable units going west of here while they are needed for south of here because they're short on spares. |
|
|
| (1340242) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Feb 16 21:31:33 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 16 21:04:54 2015. 2 Empire service trains, plus Ethan Allen, Adirondack, Maple Leaf, and Lake Shore. But the Boston section of LSL is diesel hauled anyway. I always come up from Penn hauled by a DM, I honestly don't recall if they use Albany power when they join us, and send the P42s back to Boston, or if they become our power to Chicago. Next trip I guess I have to get off my butt and watch. They used to do a change on the Empire trains going West but not recently. I don't know what they do on EA and ADK (probably change) |
|
|
| (1340243) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Feb 16 21:31:33 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Feb 16 21:04:54 2015. 2 Empire service trains, plus Ethan Allen, Adirondack, Maple Leaf, and Lake Shore. But the Boston section of LSL is diesel hauled anyway. I always come up from Penn hauled by a DM, I honestly don't recall if they use Albany power when they join us, and send the P42s back to Boston, or if they become our power to Chicago. Next trip I guess I have to get off my butt and watch. They used to do a change on the Empire trains going West but not recently. I don't know what they do on EA and ADK (probably change) |
|
|
| (1340244) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Feb 16 21:39:37 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by pragmatist on Mon Feb 16 21:31:33 2015. Lake Shore uses the power from BostonAdirondack and Maple leaf almost always change. Ethan Allen and the Niagara trains sometimes change, but usually don't in my experience. |
|
|
| (1340245) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Feb 16 21:55:55 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by R30A on Mon Feb 16 21:39:37 2015. Thank you for clarifying . I've never taken the EA so I had no idea. Lately I haven't had a change going to/from Syracuse, but I remember it in the past. I have to admit I either slept through or didn't go out because it was too cold to know the Leaf. Would engineer qual be different at all P32 to P42? Leaf changes to a VIA crew going into Canada. |
|
|
| (1340276) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 17 07:31:38 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by R30A on Mon Feb 16 21:39:37 2015. VIA crews at Niagara Falls are not officially qualified with the P32DM, but have on rare occasion gotten them. |
|
|
| (1340281) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Tue Feb 17 07:44:33 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 17 07:31:38 2015. Thanks, never been on it past Buf/Depew. Haven't experienced the changing of the guard (or the sodas) |
|
|
| (1340364) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 17:41:53 2015, in response to 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. Back when they ran M-2/4/6's on the weekends, most trains I took had something borked on at least one set of cars. It seems like they went to the absolute minimum maintenance required when the M-8's started coming in. |
|
|
| (1340365) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 17:42:19 2015, in response to 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. Wow, you completely ignored my point. I was not talking about padding, I'm talking about bloat in the schedule before the padding. Electrics would cut minutes off of the schedule compared to diesels that can't get out of their own way. Of course even the electric lines need improvements to shave minutes off of the schedules as well. |
|
|
| (1340366) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 17:42:43 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 19:54:40 2015. Huh? The P32's still suck. |
|
|
| (1340367) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 17:43:04 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 19:55:58 2015. So an LIRR coach will plug into a MN or Amtrak loco and work? Didn't think so. |
|
|
| (1340368) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 17 17:53:31 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 17:42:19 2015. An MU could handle the hilly portions on the Port Jeff east of Huntington better than the diesel jobs can. Probably cut track maintenance costs as well, especially on all the curves, without the 286,000lb loco(s). |
|
|
| (1340369) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 17 17:55:05 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 17:43:04 2015. The HEP may work. Nothing else will though. |
|
|
| (1340371) | |
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? |
|
|
| (1340374) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 17:59:50 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 19:58:56 2015. I'm not saying it would be a regular thing, or that the yards should be rebuilt. Trains could be cut in half/doubled between 6/8 and 12/14 cars, plus not all trains need to necessarily be stored at the ends of the lines. It would just give a lot more operating flexibility to not have power limits from underpowered substations. |
|
|
| (1340375) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 17 18:01:27 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 17:57:19 2015. The 63rd Street tunnel was built for a 12'10" tall M-1. An 13' 6" MP72 would not have made it.So no roof humps, no pantographs, no nothing, and that also means no vent shutes on the M-7A either. |
|
|
| (1340378) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 18:03:11 2015, in response to 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. Diesel just can't be as good as electric. Electric locomotives perform better. Sure, diesels have gotten better, and in terms of tractive effort, there is no difference. But in terms of acceleration and speed, diesels aren't nearly as good. And then there's CO2 emissions and fuel cost. Sure, there's biodiesel, but that's not as good as electrical operation.Imagine if the country had that kind of attitude in the 1950's. We'd have no interstate system today. Unfortunately, our pols are too stupid to see the future potential for rail, and refuse to put anything significant into rail outside of a couple of small projects in the NYC metro area, which are baby steps in the right direction but still far too little. People don't really care if their train runs on diesel or electric. But they darn well do care how fast it gets them places, which electrics do far better than diesels. |
|
|
| (1340381) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 18:05:39 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Feb 16 20:25:06 2015. You can't do true HSR there because of the alignment. Most of it is either built up around or there's the river and wetlands around it that prevent alignment changes, but running an Acela type of trains up there with quick acceleration and braking would produce a similar result to what Amtrak did on the Shore Line of cutting time off of the schedule, even without true HSR. And there are probably some sections, especially north of POK that they could get going well over 100. Given Albany and NYC, they would get some good ridership out of a service like that. |
|
|
| (1340390) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 18:20:07 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by pragmatist on Mon Feb 16 20:54:16 2015. 1. Amtrak is likely to get Sprinter-based DMs anyway, and not use the 3rd rail kludges. That would allow them to run them through New Haven, Harrisburg, Washington, and north out of NYP, and give them a true DM fleet that provides a fully functional locomotive in both E and D modes, much like the ALP45DP. They would just work that much better with overhead wire to Albany.2. They already do engine changes at New Haven, Harrisburg, and Washington, as well as Albany, and at one point in Philly when they were short on electrics. It's a known quantity, and their long distance trains running southern routes out of NYP really fly on the corridor with electrics. 3. I'm imagining this as a step towards a national electrified rail superhighway, which would involve, among other lines, the NYC Water Level Route from ALB to CHI and the Pensey Main from HAR to CHI, with the sections to NYC acting as feeders, and both routes being fully re-quad-tracked NYC (area)-CHI. Also, electrifying Albany to Worcester for freight, and Worcester to Boston for commuter rail would make sense, which would allow the LSL to get from BOS to CHI under the wire. That would still, however, leave lines to the north requiring DMs or engine changes. |
|
|
| (1340391) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 18:22:21 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 17 17:53:31 2015. And it would make operations a heck of a lot easier than their current transfer system. |
|
|
| (1340392) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 18:22:31 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 17 18:01:27 2015. Whoa! That's tight! So that kills any idea of M-8-like trains on the LIRR. So third rail is their answer for the additional areas that need electrification. |
|
|
| (1340396) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Feb 17 18:38:57 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 16 20:30:12 2015. Opportunity missed. As usual. :( |
|
|
| (1340400) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Feb 17 18:51:45 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 17:43:04 2015. yes they will you just won't be able to operate push/pull |
|
|
| (1340401) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Feb 17 18:54:51 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 18:03:11 2015. there are no electric locomotives , look up what locomotion means.they are electric motors as power comes from outside source. |
|
|
| (1340402) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Feb 17 18:57:04 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Feb 17 18:38:57 2015. no longer faster blocks would have cut capacity and slowed down local service |
|
|
| (1340403) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 17 18:58:27 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Feb 17 18:51:45 2015. And there's conductor signals, door interlocks, etc. etc. that probably won't work, then there's the incompatible MU connectors. |
|
|
| (1340404) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 17 19:01:31 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 18:20:07 2015. I haven't heard a word that Amtrak has any interest at all in any sort of dual mode (catenary) loco. They'll do the engine change at DC, and have the SPringfield shuttles. The ALP45ADP simply do not go fast enough - Amtrak has them speed-restricted. |
|
|
| (1340405) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 17 19:05:35 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 18:22:31 2015. Yes it does.M-8's also do not have transformers than can handle 25 cycle catenary. It would have put them over 80 tons. So the pans would have to be down when on the NEC anywhere south of "Gate" (on the Hell Gate Line) and into Penn. |
|
|
| (1340406) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Feb 17 19:07:17 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 17 18:58:27 2015. correct like I stated before , control and communication between cars and engine won't work but HEP will work fine. |
|
|
| (1340407) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Feb 17 19:09:04 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 17 19:05:35 2015. either way once toe third rail gear senses power the pans automaticly go down, it is impossible to feed both into train. |
|
|
| (1340408) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 17 19:18:38 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Feb 17 19:09:04 2015. That's a good safety feature. |
|
|
| (1340409) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Feb 17 19:22:58 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 18:22:31 2015. You could still run them to NYP. |
|
|
| (1340412) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Feb 17 19:33:42 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Joe V on Tue Feb 17 19:01:31 2015. What's the restriction? |
|
|
| (1340416) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Feb 17 20:17:57 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Feb 17 19:22:58 2015. not until missing third rail and sub station are build between Gate and Harold. there is about 1.4 miles of third rail missing on both tracks, the overhead in same place has 25 hz power the M-8's can't handle. |
|
|
| (1340423) | |
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, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 18:03:11 2015. "Imagine if the country had that kind of attitude in the 1950's. We'd have no interstate system today."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. Back then when the railroads could afford to do that on their own, the railroads ruled the roost (no interstates & minimal air travel). In the depths of the depression, the PRR had enough $$$ to string up wire over hundreds of miles of their system & still pay a stock dividend. 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? So, bottom line here,welcome to 2015, who's going to pay for all this electrification you propose?? The passenger railroads nowadays are on the dole of the taxpayer. Electric trains are faster, smoother & nicer,no argument there, but far too expensive in todays economy. Diesel trains work. Not to beat the fallen horse, but just spend some time on the upper Hudson Line of MNR. 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. |
|
|
| (1340425) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Tue Feb 17 21:01:29 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by ElectricTraction on Tue Feb 17 18:05:39 2015. Since there is no nonstop (other than a few puddle jumpers commuter plane service to Albany from either JFK or LGA would better rail service capture a higher percentage of the market or enable enough business travel to pay for a higher speed/higher class service? Right now you are really talking about displacing car traffic, a tough economic challenge. 2/4/6 service NYP-ALB-SYR-BUF might be successful, but are the potential loads high enough to justify the investment. Of course, the WAS-NYP-BOS percentages of the market are excellent, but the number of trips is also much higher. I as are most of the folks on this site are very pro rail, but I still see an uphill battle. |
|
|
| (1340427) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Feb 17 21:13:38 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. I think he is the realistic one here. Electrification is obviously the future. While it may not expand everywhere, it is sure to expand beyond today's limits, especially as oil prices rise. |
|
|
| (1340428) | |
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. |
|
|
| (1340439) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Feb 18 01:09:07 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by R30A on Tue Feb 17 21:13:38 2015. May well be indeed. However, right now in our nation's history, nobody is willing to pay for it. It's gonna take a major crisis to get over that hump. |
|
|
| (1340457) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Wed Feb 18 07:47:28 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by steamdriven on Thu Feb 5 10:10:58 2015. "You can't prevent all accidents, especially when the general public with no real qualifications is allowed to operate motor vehicles."so, so true. the inherent motion dynamics of hundreds of millions of basically uncontrolled (xy plane) ballistic objects is...frightening to consider. the "voluntary cooperation" aspect of it in particular. |
|
|
| (1340466) | |
Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Wed Feb 18 09:56:07 2015, in response to Re: How Railroad Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 8 12:22:27 2015. that was a very heinlein-ianpost. |
|
|
| (1340529) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Feb 18 17:11:13 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Feb 17 18:54:51 2015. Your compatriots think otherwise.Elektrische locomotief |
|
|
| (1340530) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Feb 18 17:19:22 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Feb 17 20:17:57 2015. I thought we were talking about "M-8-like trains on the LIRR".(with either dual or over running shoes) |
|
|
| (1340546) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 18 18:22:33 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Feb 18 17:11:13 2015. just because someone made it into a wiki does not mean its correct. |
|
|
| (1340548) | |
Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Feb 18 18:29:52 2015, in response to Re: How 3rd Rail Running Commuter Rail Could Have Avoided / Ameliorated Fiery Crash, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Feb 17 19:33:42 2015. 100MPH |
|
|
|
Page 12 of 14 |
||
