|
|
| Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld (497694) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 6 |
||
|
| (497806) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 21:13:22 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by BIE on Tue Oct 2 20:51:33 2007. There would need to be a transformer in there or those silicon rectifiers would likely end up on fire. These days it's much easier to modify AC equipment to run on DC stuff because they're already equipped with the transformer and they're already working with DC. An electric loco or EMU takes in fixed frequency AC from the catenary, steps it down to a working voltage, converts it to DC, then changes the DC back into three phase variable frequency AC power for the traction motors. To make a dual-voltage AC/DC unit all you do is input the DC from the shoes or pantograph at a point beyond the AC to DC rectifier. |
|
|
| (497808) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 21:17:56 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by R30A on Tue Oct 2 21:02:30 2007. Doing nothing is the cheapest of all. The concept of spending NOW to save later is really alien to government run operations. |
|
|
| (497809) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Oct 2 21:26:57 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 21:17:56 2007. except doing nothing is undoable.Whenever they get new electric equipment, they are so much less efficient then what they replaced so they have to replace/rebuild the substations anyway... |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (497810) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 21:29:48 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by R30A on Tue Oct 2 21:26:57 2007. And that means construction contracts and jobs. |
|
|
| (497811) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 21:29:51 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. If you're going to go with AC then you have to use a fairly high voltage. The highest voltage currently used on a third rail is the 1200vdc used on the Hamburg S-bahn, although there was a French installation which was 1500vdc. I believe in both cases this is or was done with a side-contact third rail insulated from the ground by a cover extending over and under the rail. The highest overrunning third rail is the 1000vdc used by BART in California, and even then they had a bitch of a time keeping it isolated from the ground.AC has a sinusoidal waveform, as opposed to the constant waveform of DC. In order to deliver the same amount of power (assuming no induction or capacitance losses) then the average AC voltage must be equal to the DC voltage. The peak AC voltage is in turn equal to average AC voltage multiplied by the square root of two. Thus for an AC powered third rail with an average voltage of 750 volts AC the peak voltage would be 1060 volts, a fair amount above the maximum set by BART. Maybe the LIRR could incorporate what the Hamburg S-bahn has done to use 1200vdc, but why bother when wire is cheaper and more effective? |
|
|
| (497812) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 21:32:04 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. So don't. Go with multisystem equipment capable of operating both on the old DC third rail and the newer AC catenary.And you wouldn't want to run an Acela to Buffalo, a whole bunch of those stops upstate would have to get high plats. |
|
|
| (497824) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Tue Oct 2 22:13:59 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 21:13:22 2007. Typically you'll have a DC chopper to regulate the DC link voltage, though. This assumes your link is at DC voltage or close enough. Given how cheap common MV drives are these days, a 3KV DC link isn't unreasonable at all (Heck, they're pushing 6kv in some industrial apps, now, I think). |
|
|
| (497826) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Oct 2 22:17:59 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 21:29:51 2007. Wire is UGLY.It is a blot on the ROW. It is like running a train inside of a cage. LIONs against wires! Third Rails forever! ROAR |
|
|
| (497828) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Oct 2 22:19:59 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. MTA does NOT run the LIRR.MTA does NOT run the MNCR. LIRR runs the LIRR MNCR runs the MNCR MTA *owns* the LIRR and the MNCR, but it does not *run* them. ROAR |
|
|
| (497832) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 22:32:41 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 19:26:52 2007. I'd argue that is should just be electrified fully now. You're only talking an additional 80 miles of wire which could be built for around 110 million dollars. That'd completely eliminate the need to order and maintain a special fleet to operate that remaining minority of track. |
|
|
| (497835) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 22:42:56 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Oct 2 22:17:59 2007. Except that to place third rail you need transmission wires from the AC substation to the DC substation. I would imagine that in more than a few places there wouldn't be enough room to place the transmission lines with the same setback from the ROW which the LIRR did in the 1920s. Thus you'd probably have the transmission lines placed over one or both of the tracks with a structure similar to a taller catenary support tower. |
|
|
| (497836) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Neil Feldman on Tue Oct 2 22:44:10 2007, in response to LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Oct 2 17:32:40 2007. Problem is that if you replace the engines, you need to replace the cars because the cars or only compatible with 36 point jumpers to which the DE/DM's provide where as other railroads have the traditional 27 point jumpers. If you replace the locomotives lets say the GE's P42ACDM GEVO, then cars such as the NJT's Comet 6's would be the perfect replacement for them. Even the coaches the LIRR has are also a nightmare. |
|
|
| (497846) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 23:15:44 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Neil Feldman on Tue Oct 2 22:44:10 2007. I would hope that any locomotives, be they diesel or electric, the LIRR gets would have both the 36 point jumpers and the standard 27 pin jumper if possible. That way the units can be used with the adaquate C3s and whatever replaces them, regardless of the MU cable sockets used. |
|
|
| (497853) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 23:45:51 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Neil Feldman on Tue Oct 2 22:44:10 2007. Even the coaches the LIRR has are also a nightmare.....If it wasn't so serious, I could have almost bust a gut on that comment. |
|
|
| (497854) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 23:47:56 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 21:29:48 2007. Right, the same construction jobs and contracts that could go to re-electrifying. |
|
|
| (497855) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 23:49:50 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Oct 2 22:19:59 2007. The contracts come through the MTA Captial Plan. The LIRR doesn't order new trains, the MTA does. The MTA also provides the funding to maintain the fleet. |
|
|
| (497856) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Tue Oct 2 23:51:39 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Oct 2 22:17:59 2007. I thought performance was more important than aesthetics in this case. |
|
|
| (497857) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 23:53:41 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Oct 2 20:50:37 2007. Pre-1983, the lines that are now Metro North were a basket case. Metro North is in better shape probably because they had to almost start from scratch, so the infastructure has been rebuilt. The LIRR, while also through it's days of suffering, never was nearly as bad as the pre-1983 MN lines were.... Can you just imagine a company like COnrail, which took over all the bankrupt freight railroads, being forced to run a run down commuter operation? Penn Central was a basket case when it was turned over the Conrail.....and the lines were a basket case when the MTA took over to form Metro North. it's come a long way.... |
|
|
| (497858) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 23:56:42 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 22:32:41 2007. That'd completely eliminate the need to order and maintain a special fleet to operate that remaining minority of track.Yes, a diesel fleet which I am sure was supposed to last longer than 8 or 9 years. I can't believe we are at this point with being ready to scrap 8 year old engines..... Well I can believe it, they were rolling disasters from the beginning. One of the biggest boondoggles in passenger RR history I am sure.... |
|
|
| (497860) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 23:58:58 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by The Port of Authority on Tue Oct 2 23:51:39 2007. It's just as ugly to have very tall poles along the RR to support the wires necessary for the third rail operation also, in fact, I think they are even more of an eyesore than catenary wires. Just look at those HUGE poles along the Babylon Branch. |
|
|
| (497861) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Tue Oct 2 23:59:51 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 20:58:42 2007. Nice scenario. And if the local numbnuts don't suceed in blocking it, we'll have the Pilgrim Intermodal Yard as an extremely logical end node for direct freight trains from the Heartland onto the heart of Long Island. The concept is so sensible I'm really worried about it actually coming into existence. Seriously. You basically have to know some stuff about how all our goods get to where we are to really understand why that rail yard is such a good idea.I attended the recent public hearing at the S.C.C.C. hall in Brentwood about this. I was the only person for it. I was literally booed off the podium by the hordes of Commackers and Dix Hillers who, one by one, stood at the mike and expressed their sorrow and anger at the notion of a freight yard near them. I tried to point out that something that could eventually remove thousands of long distance tractor trailers from all the Long Island arterials and this would be beneficial to the hundreds of thousands of people living near those roads. But those guys kept yelling out stuff, laughing and murmuring. They just didn't want to think about the larger view. It was all "our community" and "the environment". Yeah. I'm sure many of the men in that auditorium were guys who took their sons into the very woods they were supposedly so concerned about to ride ATVs, screw the damages that causes. None of `em seemed to understand that one train with, say 40 cars and one locomotive is amazingly more efficient than forty cabs pulling forty seperate trailers. It never crossed their minds. And there were, of course, threats to 'SUE THEM IF THIS THING PROCEEDS!!!". Amazing. They'd be suing the state, hence themselves but nobody mentioned that. The whole experience was nauseating. Finally, no kidding, two school security guards "walked" me" out the door, though they were smiling. A guy who owns a trucking company told me outside that he was definitely in favor of the yard. But he changed his mind about speaking after he caught the gist of the crowds' mood. |
|
|
| (497865) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Oct 3 00:12:27 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 23:45:51 2007. Well a month ago while at Mastic-Shirley my train was 15-20 minutes late. When the train finally came, the passengers could only board from the rear coach. The train might have had door problems.Despite that, the C3s are certainly more reliable than the DE/DM locos. |
|
|
| (497867) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Wed Oct 3 00:22:28 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. The Bi-levels are the only good things on the LIRR. Those cars just need a better engine to pull/push them. |
|
|
| (497868) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Wed Oct 3 00:23:24 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. I'm so glad I don't need to rely on those anymore. When did the decline start? I don't remember it being that bad back in 05. |
|
|
| (497869) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 00:26:07 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Grand concourse on Wed Oct 3 00:23:24 2007. The DM/DE30's were already pieces of trash when they first began to arrive in 1997...... |
|
|
| (497870) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 00:28:22 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Grand concourse on Wed Oct 3 00:22:28 2007. Yeah I agree. The feedback from most of the commuters that use them has been very positve. They are liked, and I don't believe they were plagued with as many problems as their locomotives did. The DM30's were problems from the first year. They had cracked frames, broke down constantly, and some of them even spontaniously broke into fire. What a disaster. |
|
|
| (497871) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Wed Oct 3 00:38:08 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 00:28:22 2007. Damn, I'm glad I it was, since I no longer needed to go to Port Jeff anymore. Looks like they broke down at a good time for me. lol |
|
|
| (497873) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Oct 3 02:50:56 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 23:58:58 2007. I actually don't think those are ugly. They're interesting from an "industrial" standpoint.But overhead wires aren't that bad either, in my opinion. |
|
|
| (497874) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Oct 3 02:53:52 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Oct 3 00:12:27 2007. Despite that, the C3s are certainly more reliable than the DE/DM locos.That's not a fair comparison. You can't really compare trailer cars with locomotives in reliability standards. It's like saying that the Amfleets are more reliable than the AEM7s, or vice versa. It doesn't make much sense. |
|
|
| (497875) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Oct 3 02:54:40 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Grand concourse on Wed Oct 3 00:22:28 2007. Just get rid of the luggage racks (or find a way to place them higher -- I'm always bumping my head on them) and they're perfect. |
|
|
| (497904) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 07:44:43 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by BIE on Tue Oct 2 19:56:55 2007. IAWTP. |
|
|
| (497905) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance, close platform gaps? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 07:46:34 2007, in response to LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Oct 2 17:32:40 2007. Dear me . . . gap accidents on the rise? Alas for those high platforms, the non-panacea. |
|
|
| (497908) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Oct 3 08:02:39 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. 'Electricity is good, be if from overhead or on the ground'Yes but no but... Electrification requires a large capital investment in infrastructure. Clearly needed for busy lines, but hard to justify rationally for (say) Greenport or Montauk. So what do you do - close those lines down completely? Dare i suggest - very quietly - DMUs? |
|
|
| (497910) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 08:11:02 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Fytton on Wed Oct 3 08:02:39 2007. Electrification requires a large capital investment in infrastructure. Clearly needed for busy lines, but hard to justify rationally for (say) Greenport or MontaukWhy would that be? Costs of maintaining two separate fleets would be higher than costs of electrification. If bus companies can run out of the Hamptons and out of the north fork frequently, then so can frequent rail service. Dare i suggest - very quietly - DMUs? Bin dere, dun dat. (Below at Greenport.)  |
|
|
| (497913) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Wed Oct 3 08:21:03 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 08:11:02 2007. 'Costs of maintaining two separate fleets would be higher than costs of electrification.'Really? If everything except the very infrequent services was electrified, you'd only need a small number of diesel trains. Admittedly you'd need maintenance plant, and people, capable of servicing them. But the capital cost of elctrifying quite long stretches of rural railway is pretty considerable. |
|
|
| (497916) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by BIE on Wed Oct 3 08:28:20 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 21:32:04 2007. Zerocuse is ready. |
|
|
| (497920) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Wed Oct 3 08:39:56 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Fytton on Wed Oct 3 08:02:39 2007. Electrification requires a large capital investment in infrastructure. Clearly needed for busy lines, but hard to justify rationally for (say) Greenport or Montauk. So what do you do - close those lines down completely?Dare i suggest - very quietly - DMUs? It's a pity a couple of links aren't there:
Then it would be a simple matter of:
|
|
|
| (497928) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 08:51:14 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Fytton on Wed Oct 3 08:21:03 2007. If everything except the very infrequent services was electrifiedDon't let it remain infrequent service. Hampton Jitney, the bus competition, is hardly infrequent. the capital cost of elctrifying quite long stretches of rural railway is pretty considerable It's not rural railway. If it were, then they wouldn't even have erected high platforms. |
|
|
| (497929) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 08:52:01 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Rail Blue on Wed Oct 3 08:39:56 2007. DMU is a been-there-done-that situation. |
|
|
| (497930) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 08:53:17 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 23:56:42 2007. I can't believe we are at this point with being ready to scrap 8 year old enginesHmm. There were some SDP40Fs that lasted longer. Think the GP38-2s woulda kept soldiering on if they were rebuilt and converted to HEP? |
|
|
| (497937) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 09:27:06 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 08:53:17 2007. Hahaha, actually, all the GP38-2's are still running....off Long Island.... They were sold, rebuilt, and are all over the country in service on freight railroads.... The LIRR could have saved a lot of money if they had kept them running a few more years, gained some sense now, and only now began ordering new engines. The old F Units, MP15's, and GP38's could have gone on a few more years, although perhaps the coauches would have fallen into pieces by now.... |
|
|
| (497939) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 09:35:47 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Oct 3 02:50:56 2007. I agree to an extent, but I always thought that catenary wires weren't an eyesore either. Personally, I think they sort of look "modern" in a wierd sort of way. |
|
|
| (497940) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 09:38:12 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Fytton on Wed Oct 3 08:02:39 2007. Clearly needed for busy lines, but hard to justify rationally for (say) Greenport or Montauk.From Riverhead to Greenport, it would be sort of insane, however, the Montauk Branch does carry a lot of passengers. It's the only line where before the double deckers came, they ran 14+ cars on many trains, and even today on certain Montauk trains are still the longest diesel trains the LIRR runs. But then again....I don't believe electrifying east of Patchogue, or maybe east of Speonk to be necessary. |
|
|
| (497942) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 09:45:59 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 08:51:14 2007. Don't let it remain infrequent service. Hampton Jitney, the bus competition, is hardly infrequent.There's a difference between a busload of people and a TRAINload of people. Not to mention, that the buses serve in a different way, they can go a lot of places for pick up that the trains can't. Trains are banished only to their ROW. It's not rural railway. If it were, then they wouldn't even have erected high platforms. The ONLY erected high platforms because they MTA didn't want to buy new trains that they would have to built steps/ADA stuff into. The problem is the western end of the LIRR has high level platforms. Having ADA cars with ground level access is fine, if ALL your platforms are low level (like many other operations). On the LIRR, you have a mix of high and low level platforms....and it was either install lifts in all the new trains (which have to be maintained, operated, and slows things down), or make all the platforms high. You can't have some passenger entering in Amagansett in a wheelchair, and then being on the wrong level when they arrive at Jamaica. So no, they didn't raise the platforms because it's "so busy" and they are necessary on all the diesel lines, they were raised for that reason....the western end of the LIRR was all high platforms. A station like Mattituck or Bellport hardly "needed" a high level platform for any other reason that for continuity. |
|
|
| (497943) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 09:48:37 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. The RDC's ran on the Greenport ROnkonkoma line (long before Ronkonkoma was electrified, Ronkonkoma was a terminal sort of like Patchogue).And they also ran on the "Babylon-Patchogue Scoot" for many, many years. |
|
|
| (497945) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 09:50:26 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Oct 3 02:54:40 2007. The bi-levels have been a success, at least aesthetically with the passengers and commuters. People love them. I don't know if they could have done the luggage rack any differently, as they had space constraints in the East River tunnels, the ceilings could only be so high.... |
|
|
| (497946) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 09:51:58 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Oct 3 02:53:52 2007. He's only saying that the C3's have not been a disaster like the engines. It's not comparing them to each other, just saying that the entire diesel fleets aren't disasters, just the engines. Passengers love the C3's, and they don't much care about the engines, but of course just care that they are reliable to get them from point A to poinr B (which they aren't often times). |
|
|
| (497947) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Oct 3 09:55:46 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by The Port of Authority on Wed Oct 3 02:53:52 2007. IAWTP! |
|
|
| (497952) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 10:05:22 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 09:51:58 2007. It did sound like a comparison. |
|
|
| (497953) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 10:08:09 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 09:27:06 2007. I actually chat online with someone who runs old LIRR GP38-2s. Claims that they're some of the best switch engines he's run in years. Something tells me that if LIRR had converted them to HEP during the 80s (about the same time that most of the commuter railroads in the northeast finally converted to HEP), they'd be the main power on the C3s even today. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 6 |
||
