|
|
| Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld (497694) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 6 |
||
|
| (497954) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:08:14 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 22:32:41 2007. We're talking third rail, not wire. It's pointless to electrify the Montauk and Greenport lines, for the sake of a handful of trains a day (and that's a generous assessment for the service to Greenport). Diesels will have to remain, if only to provide emergency service in bad weather that usually KO's the MU's (like a dusting of snow). Providing them with regular work will keep them in operable condition. |
|
|
| (497956) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:09:44 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. Are they THAT bad? I don't like the C3's, but how do they perform mechanically? I know their automated announcements rarely work properly. |
|
|
| (497957) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:10:49 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Oct 3 00:12:27 2007. Kawasaki normally doesn't produce junk. I'll bet C3 issues are maintenance related. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (497958) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:12:01 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. The passangers who "love" these things have never ridden one of the new NJT bilevels. |
|
|
| (497963) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:18:59 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:10:49 2007. Are the C3's having problems. The example he gave above with the train being late sounds like an engine problem, not coach problem. And the door thing is all speculation. |
|
|
| (497965) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:19:45 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:09:44 2007. I know their automated announcements rarely work properlyWhere do you get that information from? - the few times you have ridden them? |
|
|
| (497970) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:23:14 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 10:08:09 2007. Well the converted GP38's pulled the original double decker on the Port Jeff line perfectly for many years..... Until the LIRR decided to finally begin their other disaster, the converted LIRR FL9's, which were also a disaster in operation. (Amazing, as Metro North didn't have the same problems with their rebuilt FL9's....)Here's a photo I took of the GP38's pulling the original double decker which tested on the Port Jefferson line for many years in the early 90's: 
|
|
|
| (497971) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:24:13 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. Yes, a couple inches of snow.....another problem with that stupid third rail. |
|
|
| (497972) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:24:14 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. No, the LIRR should have purchased Genesis engines while it had the chance. Whatever "issues" the LIRR had with them could have been addressed long ago. At the very least, the LIRR should have committed to replacing it's ridiculously antiquated diesel fleet years ago, where better, established engines would have still been in production like the F59PHI. |
|
|
| (497973) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:25:08 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:24:14 2007. Yes!! That is definitely true!! |
|
|
| (497975) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:27:49 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. I'm not a bi-level fan, and now that I have another type to compare them to (NJT's version), I can say quite honestly that the C3's suck. I know that'll put me at odds with many on here, but I've been in this position before (I like the R44's). |
|
|
| (497976) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:30:21 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. I'm always forgetting that I have to step into a trench when getting out of my seat. I've nearly gone, to parrot a phrase my grandmother used "ass over tea kettle" about half a dozen times before grabbing a seat handle. NJT's bi-level cars have level floors. Really. Level. What a concept. |
|
|
| (497977) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:31:40 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 MTA decides who staffs the organization that runs them. They also control the money. If the LIRR phucks up, the MTA is to blame. |
|
|
| (497979) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:34:33 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Fytton on Wed Oct 3 08:02:39 2007. DMU's would be the perfect answer for the LIRR, it's not a long haul railroad. In yet another boneheaded move, they never purchased any of the RDC's from Budd when both the NY Central and the New Haven did in large numbers. All 3 operated as commuter railroads, so why did the LIRR think it was "special"? Thankfully, they never invested in the SPV's. |
|
|
| (497981) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:38:09 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:34:33 2007. While they would work on the Greenport line, they would never be adequate for east of Speonk service on the Montauk Branch (which runs the longest diesel trains on the LIRR!!)The LIRR did not order them because they only had the Ronkonkoma, Oyster Bay, Port Jeff, and Montauk branches that would be able to use them, and most of those lines needed full length trains. The only place they used them was on the daytime Patchogue-Babylon scoot (which would never work today), and on the Greenport line. The other LIRR low use lines were electrified, such as West Hempstead. The LIRR didn't think it was "special", they didn't have all these little lightly used diesel only lines like the New York Central and even more so, the New Haven RR had. |
|
|
| (497982) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:38:22 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:23:14 2007. Original double deckers? I was aware they had electric DD's (MP70), but diesels? |
|
|
| (497984) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:40:18 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:38:09 2007. Fair enough. But I still wonder how the LIRR got away with using general purpose engines pulling mostly de-motered MU's originally purchased in the 1950's all the way to 1998 ... |
|
|
| (497985) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:44:16 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:40:18 2007. Hahaha, that one I can't answer, lol. And as I mentioned, they were a BLAST to railfan, but they were rolling disasters (at least cosmetically) for the commuters. I don't think they were all that unreliable though, the old trains were more reliable than the new ones!! They just looked like rolling falling apart museum pieces.And while it made for one of the most interesting commuter operations in the country....who;s idea was it to purchase brand new switcher and frieght engines (the GP38's and MP15's) to pull passenger trains!! It sure was a unique operation for the railfan community..... |
|
|
| (497986) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 3 10:47:46 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by WillD on Tue Oct 2 22:42:56 2007. Most RR ROWs are 100 feet wide. (See this month's issue of MR.)ROAR |
|
|
| (497988) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 3 10:49:09 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 09:35:47 2007. LION says catenary wires are UGLY.Now are you the one who wants to disagree with a LION *before* breakfast.? ROAR |
|
|
| (497989) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:49:15 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 3 10:47:46 2007. So? That's still much closer to neighboring property than catenary lines would be..... |
|
|
| (497990) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:49:32 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:31:40 2007. Exactly. |
|
|
| (497992) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 10:49:56 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 09:45:59 2007. There's a difference between a busload of people and a TRAINload of peopleDepends on the length of the train. If you got the whole railroad electrified, length of train doesn't matter since it'd fill up en route. Who wouldn't want to see M7s in Greenport, after all? 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 There's more choices than that. They could have put in mini-highs, keeping the platforms low; or they could have had what they have in Hoboken, namely those wheelchair lifts (that's how Hoboken is taking care of the ADA thingy without converting platforms from low to high). |
|
|
| (497993) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:51:00 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:27:49 2007. Personally, I like single level coaches better than bi levels, however, I don't find the C3's all that bad..... But I do have to say, I hate sitting downstairs....way too low (but that would be for any bi-level). |
|
|
| (497994) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 10:51:10 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:23:14 2007. I remember seeing those double-deckers on the main line in the 90s. Always mad that I never got to ride in them. |
|
|
| (497995) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Qveensboro_Plaza on Wed Oct 3 10:51:59 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:19:45 2007. <Where do you get that information from? - the few times you have ridden them?>> I have been riding the Montauk line weekly for 20 years, from the East End to NYC, so I can tell you this is absolutely true. The C3's have a many operational problems. Yes, the automated announcements are often out of service. And conductors do not always walk through the bi-level cars to announce the next stop, so if you are miss the PA announcement at the previous station, you are out of luck. I have seen people who were reading or dozing miss their stations because no one came through to call the stop. The toilets are in terrible shape. I spoke to a conductor about it a few years back, and he said the LIRR planners insisted on an automated flush system that frequently shuts down, causing backed up toilets. Maintenance empties the septic tanks only every few days, which can lead to some pretty disgusting conditions. I believe the new M7s have similar problems, since I often find out-of-service locked bathrooms on board. And the C3's air conditioning has always been a joke. I have learned to carry a sweat shirt all year round just to wear on board, even if it is 95 degrees outside, because the thermostats have never worked properly and it is usually freezing inside the cars. Not that I am complaining - the old diesel coaches were so broken down in their last years that many of them had no working a/c. I am not saying any of is Kawasaki's fault - they built what the LIRR hired them to build. But as a regular LIRR rider, it amazes me that this railroad screws up again and again, wasting millions of dollars and no one seems to be held accountable. Other railroads seem to have far fewer problems acquiring new equipment and making capital improvements. Where to begin? There was the long-delayed and way over-budget Hillside facility; the concrete ties for the Main line that were supposed to last decades without replacement, but the concrete specs were wrong and will they all have to be replaced; the DE/DM fiasco; the M7s; the on-time performance that is a joke. MNRR and NJT, in comparison, are models of good commuter railroads. Replacing the LIRR's president does nothing to change the bureaucracy and culture of incompetence that characterizes the LIRR and victimizes its patrons on a daily basis. But it is a political football, and Albany has thus far chosen to ignore the underlying problems. |
|
|
| (497996) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:54:19 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:38:22 2007. The train in the photo (and excuse the quality, as it's one of the only ones I ever took) was the C1, the double decker test train that ran from around 1991 (don't quote exact year), to when the C3's began to arrive. It ran on the then "premier" LIRR line which was the Port Jeff line until it began to be canibalized in status to Ronkonkoma. Anyway, it began by running with converted GP38-2's that you see in the photo. It then ran with Chicago Metro E8's (??) for many years. Then it ran for a few years with converted and rebuilt (disaster) former Metro North FL9's)..... The GP38's and the Metra engines handled them best. |
|
|
| (497997) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:55:35 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 10:51:10 2007. Personally, I think they were better layed out than the C3's....I like them better. But then again, I have a thing for those sort of test trains, I think the R110B's were better than the R143's too.... |
|
|
| (498001) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 11:01:10 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:54:19 2007. Here's a photo of the Chicago E8 pulling the original LIRR test train double decker in 1991. I think the Metra engines may have pulled the double decker before the converted GP38's, but I am a bit foggy on that. This is not my photo. It's taken in Port Jefferson in 1991.
|
|
|
| (498002) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 3 11:04:21 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. Let us be fair with the LIRR.They did not know that these locomotives would be a bust. This is the first time that they had ever specified a locomotive that did not come off the shelf. You must also consider that there *was* MTA politics involved here: the State Powers That Be wanted work for Supersteal in New York State, and really did not give a damn if the locomotives worked or not. When they did not work, they made a giant step sideways and bought Genesis locomotives for MNRR, while blaming the LIRR for the DM30s. Unfortunately, they did not even *ask* the LION for his opinion on the subject. ROAR |
|
|
| (498003) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Wed Oct 3 11:04:37 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 10:08:09 2007. What did commuter railroads use before HEP? Steam heat in the winter and swelter in the summer? |
|
|
| (498004) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 11:06:22 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 11:01:10 2007. Here's a photo of the LIRR FL9's pulling the Port Jefferson test double decker. This also taken at Port Jefferson in the mid-90's.
|
|
|
| (498005) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 11:07:21 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by JohnL on Wed Oct 3 11:04:37 2007. Yes....steam heat, and open windows.... |
|
|
| (498006) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 11:09:01 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:44:16 2007. Unique, but really, really bad. One has to wonder what someone from another part of the country thought seeing a GP40 and another HEP engine pulling those old cars as it crawled into a station. |
|
|
| (498007) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 3 11:10:23 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Oct 2 23:53:41 2007. New York Central System ran a decent railroad there.ROAR |
|
|
| (498008) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 11:10:47 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 3 11:04:21 2007. They did not know that these locomotives would be a bust.Yes, of course. You must also consider that there *was* MTA politics involved here Oh so you admit the MTA holds the cards..... really did not give a damn if the locomotives worked or not. Well I wouldn't go that far. Obviously they didn't set out to buy lemons. When they did not work, they made a giant step sideways and bought Genesis locomotives for MNRR, while blaming the LIRR for the DM30s. Yes, that is true. We all give credit to Metro North to having the better engines, but the only reason the LIRR got stuck with them, and Mtero North lucked out with off the shelf engines is because the LIRR came first, and they weren't about to make the same mistake with Metro North when their turn came.... |
|
|
| (498010) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 11:14:21 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Qveensboro_Plaza on Wed Oct 3 10:51:59 2007. Okay, I missed that. I have ridden them countless times, and 90% of the time they were fine, so I didn't realize there was a problem with that too. Reef the whole lot!! |
|
|
| (498012) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 11:16:05 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 3 11:10:23 2007. Fine, but that was eons ago. I am not blaming New York Central. But in their final years they were deteriorating already, and Penn Central was a basket case, and Conrail an even worse basket case, so YES, pre-1983 (I am not talking pre 1953 here...) the lines that would become Metro North were complete basket cases....way worse than the LIRR ever got. |
|
|
| (498014) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 11:22:23 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Oct 3 10:49:09 2007. That's true. Imagine how catenary would clutter up this beautiful shot:  Of course, this is hardly a legitimate argument against catenary ... |
|
|
| (498015) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 11:24:07 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 11:09:01 2007. They were only "really really bad" in their final years in the 90's. They weren't all that bad when they were in the 80's, or 70's, etc. But they should have been replaced 10 years earlier. The weren't that bad originally, and the engines originally looked great!! And they were GP38's, not GP40's by the way....Here they are in the 70's, and they were sharp! 
|
|
|
| (498016) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 11:25:01 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:54:19 2007. So it was the prototype for the later C3's, like the R110's? |
|
|
| (498017) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 11:27:03 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Oct 3 10:49:56 2007. Who wouldn't want to see M7s in Greenport, after all?A total waste of infastructre, power, etc to bring electrification to Greenport. There's more choices than that. Sure there are, but I told you the reason the LIRR did it the way they did. You mentioned something about it not being a "rural" line if they added high platforms....but I was saying it still is, the LIRR just chose to put the platforms there for the reason I mentioned, not because they were necessary because it was so 'suburban". |
|
|
| (498018) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 11:29:33 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. 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. |
|
|
| (498019) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 11:30:14 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:51:00 2007. Only folks with foot fetishes love the lower level of these cars. And ladies who use lines serviced by the bi-levels should ALWAYS remember to wear panties ... |
|
|
| (498020) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 11:32:02 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:25:08 2007. The F59PHI's are very popular on the west coast (and bear a striking resemblence to the DE/DM's, at least cosmetically). |
|
|
| (498021) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 11:32:14 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 11:25:01 2007. Yes, they only ran one train of them, and only on the Port Jefferson line (although did run a few specials on the Montauk Branch ever so rarely, but they were MTA business trips or something). The trains you see were sort of like the R110's for the subway. They ran all through the 90's, one train, and only on the Port Jeff line. I think they had enough for one trainlength, and with two extras, but I don't know how many coaches they had exactly. 10 maybe? I also don't know what happened to them, but I don't think they sort of wound up like the R110's once the C3's arrived. |
|
|
| (498022) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Wed Oct 3 11:33:17 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 10:30:21 2007. You would have had a hard time on fishbowls in a suburban configuration then. |
|
|
| (498023) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 11:36:25 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 10:19:45 2007. More like every time, and it's enough (more than 20 times) to be enough to judge them fairly. Only one time did the automated announcements work properly, and that was coming back from Greenport last July. Half the time, they're not even turned on, the conductor makes old fashioned PA announcements. |
|
|
| (498024) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 11:40:16 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 11:14:21 2007. I've had issues with bad C3 bathrooms, but other times they've been fine. Nothing can be worse than a bathroom on a New Haven train, especially if it's an older M2. Yesterday I held it in until I got to Grand Central and then walked over to a Hudson line local on another track to use an M7 bathroom. |
|
|
| (498026) | |
Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 3 11:41:04 2007, in response to Re: LIRR needs to improve ROW maintenance; new dieseld, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Oct 3 11:32:02 2007. Absolutely. But they are WAY more attractive than the DE30's...Here's a photo I took of an Amtrak train in Solana Beach California (near San Diego), taken around 2003 or so.... They are not ugly ducklings like the DE's....  And another I took in Orange near Anahem:  And then, why couldn't the MTA order beauties like these San Diego Coasters (from the web, I couldn't find any of my scanned ones in a hurry) 
|
|
|
|
Page 3 of 6 |
||
