|
|
| LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld (497694) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 6 |
|
|
| (497694) | |
LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Oct 2 17:32:40 2007 Link here |
|
|
| (497705) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 17:58:51 2007, in response to LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Oct 2 17:32:40 2007. LOL, read this!!Those problems include an outmoded and unreliable fleet of diesel trains.... ....Diesel engines, although there are just 45 of them, representing a small fraction of the LIRR's fleet of more than 1,000 mostly electric trains, break down far more frequently than any other cars and need to be replaced. "It is obvious that the entire diesel fleet is in serious trouble," Nelson wrote. LOL!!!!!!!! What a friggen waste of money those things were!! We still had the GP38's, MP15's, and F Units around this time just a decade ago... I CAN'T believe it, the friggen piece of garbage DM/DE30's are less than 10 years old....Thank GOD and good riddence to those piles of ultimate shit..... |
|
|
| (497716) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 18:33:25 2007, in response to LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Oct 2 17:32:40 2007. Time to fully electrify LI rather than pour more money down the dual mode money hole. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (497724) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Oct 2 19:08:08 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 18:33:25 2007. It sounds like a good idea in theory, but is it possible to electrify...say...Lower Montauk with so many grade crossings? And worth it for lightly used lines like east of Ronkonkoma? Plus, the C-3's are nowhere near ready for retirement. If they did electrify the entire LIRR, could those be salvaged, sent elsewhere, or what? |
|
|
| (497727) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 19:18:46 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Oct 2 19:08:08 2007. Sure, just string high voltage AC wire. That way you can order multisystem AC/DC cat and third rail locomotives which replace the DM30ACs and are capable of hauling the C3s throughout their useful lifespan. The AC cat would run about 75% the cost of completing the LIRR's electrification with third rail. It'd also reduce rolling stock costs to the bare minimum since the LIRR would only have to order 20-30 five to six million dollar electric motors rather than another 120 to 150 two million dollar DC EMUs. |
|
|
| (497729) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 19:25:24 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 17:58:51 2007. Does ANY other railroad use them? |
|
|
| (497731) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 19:26:52 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 18:33:25 2007. Not fully. Electrify to Patchouge on the south shore, Riverhead on the mainline, and both Oyster Bay and Port Jefferson entirely. Limit diesels to Montauk and Greenport shuttles. |
|
|
| (497735) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 19:40:19 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Oct 2 19:08:08 2007. Lower Montauk with so many grade crossings?Huh???? There are no more grade crossings on the Lower Montauk than there are on the Hempstead, Ronkonkoma, Mainline, Huntington, Far Rockaway, West Hempstead, Far Rockaway, or even Port Washington lines! What do the few grade crossings on the Lower Montauk have to do with anything? And why would the lower montauk have to be electrified at all? it's mostly for freight, which doesn't need electrification. Plus, the C-3's are nowhere near ready for retirement. They could be put to use with new electric locomotives (especially if catenary was to be used), or even sold to another company if they wanted to. |
|
|
| (497737) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 19:42:04 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 19:18:46 2007. And the C3's could be put to use with catenary locomotives. And the beauty of it is they could order engines that would be compatable with them, and they could even use continue to use the piece of crap DM30 rolling disasters while the whole project is going on. |
|
|
| (497738) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 19:43:09 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 19:25:24 2007. The DM/DE30's? No, only the MTA decided to order special order, made from scratch engines instead of ordering off the shelf units. Why, I have NO idea. |
|
|
| (497741) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 19:44:55 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 19:25:24 2007. In theory I believe they're mechanically related to the F59PH and F59PHIs in use on other commuter railroads like Metrolink, GO, and Trinity Rail Express. Both use EMD 12-710G3B powerplants (least the F59PHI does), and I believe the primary difference between the the LIRR units and all is that the "DE/DM30AC" uses Siemens AC inverters and motors, just like all of EMD's AC units, while the F59s use EMD DC traction motors. I think I once saw something from EMD's website which listed the DE30AC and DM30AC as having a designation like F59PHACM and F59PHACM-DM or something, but I don't know if that's official. |
|
|
| (497742) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 19:47:08 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Oct 2 19:08:08 2007. The LIRR is loaded with grade crossings. Only the Babylon branch lacks them entirely. |
|
|
| (497744) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 19:50:34 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 19:43:09 2007. NJT and Metro North seem to do fine purchasing established machines, EMU's, engines and coaches. The problem with buying custom stuff is that you have to deal with all the teething problems yourself. |
|
|
| (497745) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Oct 2 19:53:55 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 19:40:19 2007. Huh???? There are no more grade crossings on the Lower Montauk than there are on the Hempstead, Ronkonkoma, Mainline, Huntington, Far Rockaway, West Hempstead, Far Rockaway, or even Port Washington lines! What do the few grade crossings on the Lower Montauk have to do with anything?Okay, okay, just asking. Geez. And why would the lower montauk have to be electrified at all? it's mostly for freight, which doesn't need electrification. True, but I believe it has to have one or two revenue trains per day or something I remember from another thread about it. If they did end all passenger service from the line (the one train in each direction), then I guess that would solve the problem. |
|
|
| (497747) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 19:56:45 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Oct 2 19:53:55 2007. One Oyster Bay train in each direction during rush hours. That's it. |
|
|
| (497748) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Tue Oct 2 19:56:55 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 19:50:34 2007. I'd like to see AAR or somebody get together on a national standard for CATENARY and ban third rail totally and diesels except for low density freight lines and preservation. |
|
|
| (497753) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:06:05 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by BIE on Tue Oct 2 19:56:55 2007. Well, I wouldn't go that far at least for diesels (they sure have their use), but I do agree about the inefficient third rail elctrification the NY area uses on Metro North and LIRR. Totally obsolete, and needs to be upgraded to catenary like every other electrified commuter railroad. |
|
|
| (497754) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:06:22 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by BIE on Tue Oct 2 19:56:55 2007. Electricity is good, be if from overhead or on the ground. |
|
|
| (497755) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:07:02 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 19:50:34 2007. ANd Metro North IS an MTA railroad, it's the MTA that does the oredering. Why they ordered off the shelf for Metro North, but decided to design their own engine for the LIRR is beyond me. |
|
|
| (497757) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:08:08 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:06:22 2007. Third rail is great for the subway or short distances, but for commuter railroads electrifying out distances, it sucks the big one, as you need so many more substations, which you don't need with catenary. Third rail is outdated, and only good for stort distance. |
|
|
| (497759) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:09:08 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 19:44:55 2007. F59PHACM-DMChrist, try and remember something like that..... |
|
|
| (497760) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:10:24 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:08:08 2007. Third rail does not have to use DC, which is what necessitates all those substations. |
|
|
| (497761) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Tue Oct 2 20:12:28 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:06:22 2007. You can use the whole smorgasbord of energy alternatives from solar to coal to nuclear and everything in between. |
|
|
| (497762) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:12:45 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:07:02 2007. The LIRR is run by morons? How long did the LIRR remain with those old diesel coaches? Metro North/Conrail began using Comets in the 1970's. The LIRR is a joke. Their diesels suck. Their bi-levels suck. Even their portion of Penn Station sucks compared to NJT. |
|
|
| (497763) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:13:04 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 19:56:45 2007. Technically he is right, the original LIRR charter states that that line must ALWAYS have passenger service run on it, otherwise the land reverts back to the adjoining property owners. THAT is why the line had that bizarre local passenger service on it for so long. But in 1998, the lawyers were somehow able to take the local service off through loophole I guess, so they could probably get away with the round trip diesel opassenger run they do on it if they somehow change the wording or something. The only reason that line DOES get that one round trip is because of that stipulation in the line's covenants.But that being said, diesel isn't leaving the LIRR any time soon. It would be assinie to electrify east of RIverhead or Patchogue/Speonk on the Montauk Branch. |
|
|
| (497764) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Tue Oct 2 20:13:46 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:10:24 2007. Neither does catenary. |
|
|
| (497765) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:14:41 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 19:47:08 2007. Yup, only the mainline east of Jamaica, and the Babylon line lacks them.....the rest of the LIRR is LOADED with grade crossings on every line. The Western Montauk branch probably has the least out of any of the other lines.... |
|
|
| (497766) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:17:53 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by BIE on Tue Oct 2 20:13:46 2007. I was remarking on what was brought up as the main problem with third rail. It's not the mode, it's the current. Catenary uses AC because the entire concept for it was developed by George Westinghouse, an AC enthusiast. 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. |
|
|
| (497767) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Oct 2 20:18:34 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 19:40:19 2007. They could be put to use with new electric locomotives (especially if catenary was to be used), or even sold to another company if they wanted to.If you're really bored, the NY&A could buy electric units in a joint purchase with the LIRR and provide for electric freight. No more noisy ass diesels. :) |
|
|
| (497768) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:18:56 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:12:45 2007. But the MTA does the ordering. They ALWAYS treated the LIRR differently than Metro North. Even in the old diesel days, Metro North had beautiful shiney paint on it's engines, an attractive paint scheme, and just a better look. The LIRR had FLAT drab paint thrown on it's GP38's, MP15s, etc, and it didn't even have a real paint scheme, especially in the later years. They didn't even get glossy paint!!!And while I LOVED the old diesel coaches, at the railfanning is where they end. They WERE rolling disasters to the commuters, and it was a sin that they ran them as long as they did, while Metro North had really nice diesel coaches (the same ones thet have now). The LIRR's looked like something out of a museum, and they were completely falling apart. WHile I don't agree about the bi-levels sucking, I have to agree, the MTA runs the LIRR like shit, compared to Metro North. |
|
|
| (497769) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:21:31 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:18:56 2007. Be thankful the proposed merging of both systems into one unified operation was KO'ed. |
|
|
| (497770) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:25:39 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Oct 2 20:18:34 2007. Why? The rest of the country uses diesel for it's frieght. Every siding would need to be elctrified. That's the reason the New Haven's forward thinking catenary frieght system eventually died. Remember, the Bay Ridge Line was completely electrified with catenary when the New Haven Railroad used the Bay Ridge line for freight. What a shame the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went with third rail instead of catenary when they did their electrification projects. Remember, it's the Pennsylvania RR that brought third rail to the Long Island Railroad, as they Pennsylvania RR owned the LIRR from 1900 or so to 1966 or so..... And of course, the MTA inherited the great New Haven catenary electrification from the New Haven in it's part of Metro North, and of course the third rail from the New York Central from the other two Metro North lines. Metro North took over in 1983, and believe it or not, was in worse shape than anyone can imagine today. Conrail had operated that commuter service (under grudge) until 1983 when Conrail was finally able to "dump it" on the MYA. |
|
|
| (497771) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Tue Oct 2 20:25:56 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. Many DC catenary systems were built as long as 100 years ago. The Syracuse Lake Shore and Northern RR ROW was very near the house I grew up in. Many's the time I wish that I could have ridden those beautiful Kuhlmans under that 1,200 VDC catenary (originally 650 VDC.) |
|
|
| (497774) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Oct 2 20:28:05 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. But in 1998, the lawyers were somehow able to take the local service off through loophole I guess, so they could probably get away with the round trip diesel opassenger run they do on it if they somehow change the wording or something. The only reason that line DOES get that one round trip is because of that stipulation in the line's covenants.I don't see why they can't explain that it is still a vital freight line and even if passenger service ended, the line would still be used. I'm not sure of the exact legality of the situation, but maybe it could become something like the Bay Ridge Branch which is freight only NY&A. It really is semi-ridiculous to continue this lone train per day, especially if the LIRR goes completely electric. |
|
|
| (497776) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Oct 2 20:28:06 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:10:24 2007. Yes it does. The high voltage AC cannot be used in third rail as it is too close to the ground. |
|
|
| (497779) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:32:29 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:14:41 2007. On the western Montauk, only 3 grade crossings are used significantly. The biggest one is at 80th St (I hear the horns from trains going thru there all the way in Woodhaven), the one near the old Glendale station and the one on Maspeth Ave. There are a few minor ones in LIC, including one pedestrian-only gate. |
|
|
| (497780) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:33:03 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Oct 2 20:28:05 2007. Well, first thing, the LIRR is not going completely electric. That's railfan fantasy.Next, it's not really ridiculous for the LIRR to run some through passenger trains on the line, as the mainline is pretty cogessted rush hours, so it's nice to have another way to go for some scheduled trains. As for the line's covenants, requiring passenger service, I am sure if they really had to, they would be able to rewrite the wording....but of course, legally, that may destroy the LIRR's original charter on the line. |
|
|
| (497782) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:35:09 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:32:29 2007. Correct, and the one at the old Glendale station is basically a non issue, that's just a part time crossing, and only when the Lutheran Cemetery is open....which closes at dusk.There is one at 80th St (which is the biggest), and then at the old Haberman and Penny Bridge stations, and maybe one other one somewhere along the line, and of course the ones in LIC. |
|
|
| (497785) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Oct 2 20:38:23 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. Catenary uses AC because the entire concept for it was developed by George Westinghouse, an AC enthusiast.Dude, you do realize that there are plenty of DC catenary systems in use around the world. Metra and the South Shore in Chicago use 1500V DC cat, while plenty of new built light rail systems use 750 V DC and older systems like SEPTA and MBTA use 600 V DC cat. New Jersey Transit's earliest capital projects was the conversion of the Morris and Essex Lines from 3000 V DC to 25kV AC. On a global perspective, overhead 1500 V DC is commonly used in Australia, Japan (even in the Tokyo Metro), South Korea, France, Netherlands, and Spain, while 3000 V DC is used in Italy, Belgium, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Russia, and Hungary. |
|
|
| (497788) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:44:44 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Oct 2 20:38:23 2007. Yes, but it's the AC kind which most on here are advocating. Besides, with AC traction gaining popularity, DC power systems will soon be obsolete. That was the one big flaw with AC power, the need to convert it to DC to power the motors on the trains. |
|
|
| (497789) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Oct 2 20:45:39 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.The French actually converted their third rail commuter network around Paris to 25kV catenary during the 1960s and 1970s when the RER network was developed. It can be done, and the given the LIRR and MNRR's need to replace and upgrade substations for the introduction of each generation of MUs since the introduction of the M-1s in 1967, 25kV is starting to look more and more appealing. The easiest way is introduce new third rail + 25kV locomotives for the Eastern LI extensions, and upon the retirement of the current generation of equipment, the catenary infrastructure would be installed, and the last third rail based equipment would be replaced with catenary based equipment. |
|
|
| (497790) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:49:58 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Oct 2 20:45:39 2007. The LIRR should have begun when they electrified to Huntington. And definitely by the time they went to ROnkonkoma. They bought new M3 cars in that time, which perhaps could have been cars like MN uses on the New Haven, which can run on both. So then you would have the Mainline electrified to Hicksville....and to Huntington, and then later to Ronkonkoma. Eventually, it could be slowly expanded to the other electric lines as they were redoing tracks, third rail, etc anyway all through the 70's, 80's, and 90's...instead of redoing what they had, they could have kept stinging the wires until it's all done..... They wouldn't be done yet even today....but instead of the M7's they had to order anyway, they by this point could have been straight catenary engines and coaches instead.....by this time. After all, they should have begun this in the 70'sm or early 80's when Huntington was being electrified from Hicksville. |
|
|
| (497791) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:50:37 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:25:39 2007. Metro North took over in 1983, and believe it or not, was in worse shape than anyone can imagine today. Ahhh, the "keep it running" days. There's a picture of the Poughkeepsie station on nycsubway.org from 1979. It was a disaster. Most of the concrete platforms were patched with asphault. |
|
|
| (497794) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Tue Oct 2 20:51:33 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:44:44 2007. High power silicon rectifiers are easily installed on DC equipment to allow operation under AC wire. |
|
|
| (497796) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:53:25 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Buffer on Tue Oct 2 20:28:05 2007. The LIRR is the oldest railroad in the U.S. still operating under it's original charter. It's not a stretch to see a mandate from 120-140 years ago still being in effect. |
|
|
| (497798) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:54:24 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by R30A on Tue Oct 2 20:28:06 2007. Who said anything about high voltage? |
|
|
| (497800) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Oct 2 20:58:15 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:54:24 2007. High voltage is where the savings is. |
|
|
| (497801) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 20:58:42 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 20:25:39 2007. Why? The rest of the country uses diesel for it's frieght.They also use diesel for their passenger service too, so either way LI is abnormal. If the Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel ever gets built it will most likely use electric traction, so then LI's third rail connection to the outside world world will require electric locos and the other two will be wired. Every siding would need to be elctrified. Not neccesarily. The New York Central had trimode switchers which were capable of operating on third rail, battery, or diesel power, it wouldn't be overly difficult to make a similar unit today. Give it a pantograph and transformer, third rail shoes, and a 1500hp 8cylinder engine, and size it such that it'd be capable of maybe 3000 to 4000hp on the wire, 2500-3000hp on third rail, and 1500hp in diesel. Thus you'd have a unit capable of pulling a long freight through the tunnel from NJ or across the Hell Gate from the Bronx, breaking it up at a yard in Brooklyn, hauling the pieces on third rail to their destinations on LI, and finally switching them to those places on diesel power. Or you could just have diesel switchers MU'd with the AC/DC locos doing the heavy lifting; the switcher would couple out of the motive power lashup to switch industries along the route. |
|
|
| (497802) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 21:01:47 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Oct 2 20:45:39 2007. It's hard politically to fight for funding that electrifies already electrified lines. The LIRR made it's decision to go with 3rd rail, and it really can't afford to change now. Maybe catenary could be brought to the Hudson line, in a joint effort with Amtrak to electrify the whole thing. Think about it, Acela....to Buffalo! |
|
|
| (497803) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Oct 2 21:02:30 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 21:01:47 2007. It's hard politically to fight for funding that electrifies already electrified lines.You can when it is cheaper to do! |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 6 |
|
