|
|
| Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld (497694) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 6 |
||
|
| (498111) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Oct 3 16:24:38 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 11:53:32 2007. Nah-- They were used on the port jeff because that was where they could platform.LIRR wasnt fully high platform til about 1998 |
|
|
| (498112) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance, close platform gaps? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Oct 3 16:27:39 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance, close platform gaps?, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Oct 3 13:09:46 2007. Depends on where. Keeping traps would have been very nice for lines like Greenport and Montauk. |
|
|
| (498122) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 16:44:24 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by R30A on Wed Oct 3 16:24:38 2007. I think they high platformed Port Jefferson branch in anticipation of the test double decker which came around 1990. Also, at that time, they thought electrifying Port Jeff would be in reach. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (498123) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 16:46:11 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Oct 3 15:21:01 2007. Nope, not on the south side of the trains which mostly were the sides that saw the sun..... You could only see out the emergency windows, which were in the center of the car, which must have been a different type of glass. the north side of the trains were not as bad. |
|
|
| (498131) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Oct 3 17:16:43 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:08:14 2007. We are? At this point there are probably more posts in this thread which deal with the electrification of the LIRR with high voltage AC wire than with third rail. Full reelectrification of the LIRR's existing third rail is not required because as the New Haven line graphically illustrates AC/DC sources are not a problem. It doesn't matter what service operates east of Ronk and Babylon now, clearly there is a demand for more service west of there as witnessed by the crowding at Ronkonkoma. You'd end up blowing more money buying and maintaining the whole two dozen DMUs to operate the far east end services than electrifying and operating shuttles with AC/DC EMUs.How is it that NJT and SEPTA never have these problems with their fleets during snow? Hell, SEPTA has no passenger diesels and manages to do a better job operating during snow storms. |
|
|
| (498133) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 17:19:22 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 16:46:11 2007. By the way, I meant "nope" not in response to your post....but really meant, "Nope, you couldn't see out"..... I re read it, and ZI can see how it would come out differently than I meant it, haha. |
|
|
| (498134) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 17:20:40 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by WillD on Wed Oct 3 17:16:43 2007. Exactly!!!! The friggen third rail on the LIRR grinds the railroad to a halt when it snows..... |
|
|
| (498143) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Oct 3 17:57:09 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 17:19:22 2007. No worries. I knew what you meant. |
|
|
| (498309) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Wed Oct 3 21:08:05 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 11:29:33 2007. Dude, the "Babylon-esque huge power lines"...I never notice them. The Sunrise Highway and the elevated railroad form an outstanding corridor. And there are quiet residential blocks along the whole thing, "protected" by the retail along Sunrise. It's like what all suburbs wish they were...and those power lines really blend into the scenery. |
|
|
| (498333) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 3 22:14:24 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by WillD on Wed Oct 3 17:16:43 2007. The problem on LIRR (M1s) was that the motor blowers would suck snow into the traction motors. Motors do not *like* getting wet like that.Later MUs used a different sort of blower to cool its motors. ROAR |
|
|
| (498350) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Oct 3 23:02:52 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 3 22:14:24 2007. M1's did not have motor blowers only the m3's do. |
|
|
| (498359) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Oct 3 23:36:31 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 3 22:14:24 2007. Wouldn't it stand to reason that the Silverliners and Arrows would use the same sort of traction motors as the M1s and M3s? The GG1s had a similar problem during one snowstorm in the 1950s, but after a fix by the PRR never encountered the same problem again.The bigger problem is one of third rail icing and snow covering the third rail. If the snow reaches the 15 to 20 feet height of the catenary then you have far bigger problems than trying to operate trains. |
|
|
| (498361) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 23:49:14 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by ntrainride on Wed Oct 3 21:08:05 2007. What is wrong with you? Why is it that you have such a persecution complex that every time someone brings up something that may be "anti-certain areas", or "blight" on a suburb, or something to that effect, that you go off the deep end?I never said there was anything wrong with ANY of the towns along the Babylon branch, in fact it's quite the opposite, it's some of the best suburbs of Long Island..... All I was saying is that catenary wires would be no worse than the large power poles that are necessary for the substations of third rail. Jesus, I never saw such persecution complex on someone.... |
|
|
| (498382) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 4 01:46:41 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 11:22:23 2007. Wassaic[spelling?]? |
|
|
| (498394) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Oct 4 04:26:40 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by mambomta on Wed Oct 3 11:48:44 2007. this is true |
|
|
| (498413) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance, close platform gaps? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Oct 4 05:50:49 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance, close platform gaps?, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Oct 3 13:09:46 2007. Even SEPTA installed high platforms at higher-traffic stations closer into the city centerNorth Broad still has low platforms. SEPTA saves the high platforms for new-builds like Temple U. Funny enough, SEPTA aren't consistent; Eastwick on the Airport Line has low platforms. |
|
|
| (498477) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Oct 4 09:28:28 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 4 01:46:41 2007. Yes....and spelled correctly... |
|
|
| (498498) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Thu Oct 4 10:20:15 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 23:49:14 2007. WTF???...What is your problem?? You deduce a persecution complex from the following dialogue? you said: "Yes, but there's mo third rail there either....thus no high line wires either..... Picture Babylon-esque huge power lines for the sub stations running through there....it's one or the other....it's not "status quo" as it looks there if electrification comes." i said: "Dude, the "Babylon-esque huge power lines"...I never notice them. The Sunrise Highway and the elevated railroad form an outstanding corridor. And there are quiet residential blocks along the whole thing, "protected" by the retail along Sunrise. It's like what all suburbs wish they were...and those power lines really blend into the scenery." When you mentioned the "huge power lines" I just added my take on the power lines and their effect. After all, why would you say "Picture Babylon-esque huge power lines for the sub stations running through there..." if you weren't inferring that such things, in some way might have some aspect to them that might be considered, in a sense, undesirable. I don't feel that my response was in any way some type of dramatic reply. I was simply adding to the subject in hand. Actually read what I typed; it's merely adding "auxillary data" to your initial statements. Where did I say that you were putting down the lineside villages? I mentioned them only to illustrate my point that those power lines weren't that noticable along the corridor. Plus, I really like the settlement pattern along the Babylon Branch and will use every opportunity to praise the schema. What, only you are allowed to pontificate upon various subject matter? I got your number bro. It really upsets you when someone posts comments that seemingly contradict what you post. You get all strident...and shrill, actually. I don't know why. Not a durn thing wrong with give and take, point and counterpoint, etc. But there it is. Since you felt free to psychoanalyze me I should return the favor. But that's all right. I forgive you. |
|
|
| (498510) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Oct 4 11:03:34 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Oct 3 23:02:52 2007. LION thunked that the motor blowers were integral to the motors, which is why they sucked in the snow ☺. Building separate blowers on the M3 protected them from such misouries.ROAR |
|
|
| (498531) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Oct 4 11:49:54 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by ntrainride on Thu Oct 4 10:20:15 2007. It's not just from this post, it's anytime I mention, "Oh the Ronkonkoma Branch isn't as sceneic as whatever line", right away you go on defensive.But anyway, all I was saying is that catenary wires would be no uglier than the large high wire poles there now.... They would still be "quiet residential blocks along the whole thing, "protected" by the retail along Sunrise" |
|
|
| (498562) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 4 14:17:01 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 08:52:01 2007. Your point being? That's like saying railroads were already used once as the "fastest way of getting around" so now it's time to find a new form of transportation for high speed travel |
|
|
| (498563) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 4 14:18:34 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 3 11:41:36 2007. Screw that! SAVE THE NORTH FORK! You can make a freakin city out of everything else on the island, but once you hit Riverhead, it better be flatter than Meg Ryan |
|
|
| (498565) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 4 14:23:32 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 11:30:14 2007. I'm guessing this is said from experience? |
|
|
| (498568) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 4 14:30:31 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:13:04 2007. I still think it's rediculous that Fresh Pond isn't served anymore |
|
|
| (498576) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Oct 4 14:52:56 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 3 11:41:36 2007. From Riverhead to Greenport may not have much traffic now, but I remember pictures of the building of the subways through farm fields and nowhere-land, and guess what. They built it and they came.Long Island can only expand so far, it is an island, after all, but it sure can fill up some of those empty lands out there. Put in a better train service, and the developers will be sure to build houses there. If they think that the Poconos are withing commuting distance to New York City, then Greenport should surely be so too. It's not mainstream commuting distance with current technology. In a laissez-faire world, western Nassau will be full of condos before the North Fork becomes properly urbanized. |
|
|
| (498577) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Oct 4 14:54:35 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 4 14:30:31 2007. Yes, that is the only one that could really be viable. The others didn't matter, but Fresh Pond could use normal service. |
|
|
| (498584) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Thu Oct 4 16:18:42 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Oct 4 14:52:56 2007. Given that the Town of Hempstead sent out a mailing saying "we fought against overcrowding", the chance of condos in Nassau County (or Eastern Queens for that matter) is low, |
|
|
| (498585) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Oct 4 16:20:25 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Oct 4 14:52:56 2007. Nassau might be full of *rental* units, since they will not come under the STOOPIT city rent control s#!+.Look in Tokyo, its units are all rentals. ROAR |
|
|
| (498672) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Thu Oct 4 21:34:55 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 4 14:18:34 2007. Rite on brah. Good to have some country roads to wander down, close by. Listening to the birds, smelling the dirt and the near by waters, looking across the fields and farms as you amble on down the lane. Better still when you can take a local train to get to them. Yep, draw da line at Riverhead. |
|
|
| (498710) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Oct 4 23:34:28 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Oct 4 14:52:56 2007. western Nassau will be full of condos before the North Fork becomes properly urbanized.Properly urbanized? The north fork doesn't need to be urbanized at all!!! |
|
|
| (498734) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Oct 4 23:52:14 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Oct 4 23:34:28 2007. Besides, what is "properly" urbanized? |
|
|
| (498754) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Oct 5 00:12:57 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Oct 4 23:52:14 2007. I don't know, but it's certainly sounds more built up that it is now. |
|
|
| (498807) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by DA74 on Fri Oct 5 05:34:59 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 11:45:09 2007. They still do it even with the PA system is on.Seems on subway it is not the case. |
|
|
| (498852) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri Oct 5 09:40:26 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Oct 4 23:34:28 2007. "western Nassau will be full of condos before the North Fork becomes properly urbanized."Properly urbanized? The north fork doesn't need to be urbanized at all!!! Exactly. It's just way too far. Even with the LIRR map trying to shrink Suffolk County. ;-) |
|
|
| (498865) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Oct 5 10:07:41 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Oct 4 16:20:25 2007. Look in Tokyo, its units are all rentals.Certainly not. |
|
|
| (499404) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 6 05:59:49 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Oct 5 10:07:41 2007.  |
|
|
| (499405) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance, close platform gaps? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 6 06:01:37 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance, close platform gaps?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 12:57:35 2007. Full-length? |
|
|
| (499406) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 6 06:04:56 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 4 14:17:01 2007. Your point being? That's like saying railroads were already used once as the "fastest way of getting around" so now it's time to find a new form of transportation for high speed travelMy point being that if LIRR abandoned it, they won't re-embrace it. Your analogy is false, BTW. Kinda like the very thing a NIMBY would think of. |
|
|
| (499407) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 6 06:07:38 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 11:27:03 2007. A total waste of infastructre, power, etc to bring electrification to Greenportyu0=t3h NIMBY Was it a waste to bring the LIE to Riverhead? I think so. Keeping electric LIRR out of Greenport so they can't compete with road? You mentioned something about it not being a "rural" line if they added high platforms Correct. Installing the high platforms means that the LIRR recognizes the line as other than rural. |
|
|
| (499408) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 6 06:10:33 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by WillD on Wed Oct 3 23:36:31 2007. If the snow reaches the 15 to 20 feet height of the catenary then you have far bigger problems than trying to operate trainsWhat kind of snowstorms are you predicting for Winter 07/08? Worst I've seen is three feet deep; catenary trains keep operating, but third-rail trains are t3h d34d. |
|
|
| (499417) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Oct 6 08:36:06 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 6 06:10:33 2007. The amount of snow has nothing to do with train failure, on both catenary or third rail.Its the kind of snow that makes trains fail, namely the very fine dry powdersnow, as it will ise up once compressed and the pwder gets into the components, 90% the LIRR has wet coarse snow due to it being near the relativly warm water of ocean and sound. MNCR gets the very dry powdery snow in the regions north of Croton and Hawthorn. Catenary can have its match to in ice or sleet, that pantographs can not always remove without damaging wires. |
|
|
| (499501) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 6 16:44:55 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Oct 6 08:36:06 2007. The amount of snow has nothing to do with train failure, on both catenary or third railI didn't say "train failure". Nice attempt at equivocation. Facts are that third-rail-powered railroads shut down when the snow is heavy while the catenary-powered ones can still run. It's happened too many times to be mere coincidence. |
|
|
| (499502) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 6 16:48:10 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 11:53:32 2007. Ah, the Cannonball. Still remains successful in spite of the fact that it does not run into Manhattan but instead starts at Hunterspoint Avenue, which is further away from the waterfront than Hoboken Terminal is.Anyone know what happened to this obs car?  |
|
|
| (499509) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Oct 6 17:30:42 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 6 16:44:55 2007. Last 2 times we had 3 feet of snow I worked every day and trains did keep running on both Harlem and Hudson line despite the high equipment failure rate, your interpretation of shut down does not correlate to the amount shown in my checks for those days.So maybe instead of media analyzing you should come out and play during those days and get the real story. |
|
|
| (499519) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 6 18:29:14 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 6 16:48:10 2007. I'm surprised that with the newer dual mode locomotives, the Cannonball DOESN'T begin at Penn Station. Perhaps they're scared that the DM30AC's will crap out in an East River tunnel and FUBAR the entire system. |
|
|
| (499521) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 6 18:31:47 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 6 16:44:55 2007. If you keep the trains running, the tracks remain clear and you can keep going through an average snowstorm. This is easier on subway lines where many more trains move across a particular track than a commuter line. Snow HAS created issues on the New Haven line, so it's not that simple. |
|
|
| (499522) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sat Oct 6 18:31:57 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 6 16:48:10 2007. Anyone know what happened to this obs car?No, but I'd *love* to ride that!!! |
|
|
| (499525) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 6 18:35:50 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sat Oct 6 18:31:57 2007. It almost makes the LIRR look like....a real railroad. |
|
|
| (499551) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Oct 6 20:19:11 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:17:53 2007. "If you were going to begin an electrification project from scratch, catenary would probably be the preferable mode. But both MNCR and the LIRR have large, well established third rail systems and thousands of cars designed to use such. Any new electrification on these 2 systems MUST be third rail based."Well, first off, this is my inaugural post, so a warm hello to the online community here.... That said, I think that the quoted claim is not correct, for a variety of reasons that mostly have to do with experience so far. Initially, let's look at the dual-mode experiment, which has largely failed. Only a few LIRR trains each day make the promised one-seat ride from non-electrified territory into NYP. That has to do, so far as I can tell, with the 'reinvent the wheel' approach that LIRR brought to shopping for a dual-mode locomotive, but even if that wasn't the problem, going into NYP, with its catenary lines, probably it would have been a far, far better idea to simply run catenary from the already existing lines further out. Especially given the LIRR's bad experience with third-rail based dual-mode locomotives, running catenary seems like the historically justified thing to do. Secondly, the prospect of catenary-pulling locomotives pulling/pushing bi-level coaches seems like a good way to reduce overcrowding in the long term. We know for a fact that running more trains is difficult for a variety of reasons, so one thing we can all agree on is to try and get more passengers on each train. With increasing interest in new real estate developments in so-called railroad villages, we will need to have each train carry a heavier load. Thirdly, in the long term, it is sensible, to the extent feasible - more on this, below - to have MNCR and LIRR and NJT be able to use the same rolling stock. The biggest obstacle to catenary is not fiscal; it's physical. Some questions: How to be able to run catenary in the Park Avenue Tunnel? Is it similarly a problem in the Atlantic Avenue Tunnel? And in the lower level of the 63rd Street Tunnel? This engineering challenge is the most formidable obstacle to a potentially very good improvement in the regional rail network. |
|
|
| (499553) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Oct 6 20:32:08 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Oct 6 18:31:47 2007. Snow HAS created issues on the New Haven lineUnique situation there. Especially related to rolling stock. (Even if it wasn't, consider how many times you've heard of New Haven Line trains being diverted into NYP.) |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 6 |
||
