|
|
| BL-20G's For The LIRR ? (748471) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (748471) | |
BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Tue Feb 24 20:29:34 2009 My LIRR engineer friend tells me of talk around the LIRR about replacement of MP-15 work diesels and that their replacements are the BL-20G's and that they are part of the same order for SIR and MNRR (BL-20GH).Is this true or is the LIRR getting something different ? Bill "Newkirk" |
|
|
| (748475) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by 156n3rd on Tue Feb 24 20:52:57 2009, in response to BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Newkirk Images on Tue Feb 24 20:29:34 2009. I wouldn't know one of locos from another. They have never been my visual focus. And fater seeing the beastly NorfolkSouthern monsters every day I think many of these locos are ugly. That includes the model you just mentioned. I looked it up and saw the ugly thing for what it is. I know it is an industrail design and those diesels need to be comparted properly. But one can't deny the squarish blah of those engines. Livery differences are all they have going for them. Once again I apologize for sharing this as I am a subway man and have been for 55 years. Even though I was a trackman for 3 years on ConRail, I still dislike (not hate) modern diesel locomotives used in the U.S.. Elsewhere on the planet they seem to have wilder designs. Aaaaagggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! |
|
|
| (748544) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Neil Feldman on Tue Feb 24 23:19:58 2009, in response to BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Newkirk Images on Tue Feb 24 20:29:34 2009. A few fellow friends who are LIRR employees told me it will be BL20GH's to compliment the DE/DM's in case of HEP/ASC failures, etc. This all would give extra flexibility in having work/passenger engines. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (748563) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Wed Feb 25 00:16:42 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Neil Feldman on Tue Feb 24 23:19:58 2009. I think the BL20GHs should displace all of the DE/DM30s LIRR currently has. They've been nothing but a disaster for the LIRR since they got them. Either keep the MP15s for work service or get about 70 BL20GHs to displace all of the current locomotive fleet. I'm sure that NY and A would receive more MP15s from LIRR for service.Something has to be done with LIRR. Those engines they have now are just complete garbage. |
|
|
| (748566) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Feb 25 00:28:32 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Neil Feldman on Tue Feb 24 23:19:58 2009. I heard the same thing through the grapevine. It would make sense given the joint procurement initiatives. |
|
|
| (748577) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Wed Feb 25 01:16:53 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Wed Feb 25 00:16:42 2009. I agree with Bee Flex. The BL20GHs should replace the DE/DM30s |
|
|
| (748578) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 01:19:32 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by R 36 ML 9542 on Wed Feb 25 01:16:53 2009. Replace terrible locomotives with terrible underpowered locomotives?What is the point? Perhaps we should look for better locomotives? (It isnt like anything the MTA has which runs on diesel could be classified as anything but "Terrible" reliability-wise) |
|
|
| (748579) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 01:21:31 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Wed Feb 25 00:16:42 2009. Or you could actually improve convenience for the customers and fully electrify the network with 25kv already. The M8s will work, and AC/DC locomotives are not groundbreaking. The LIRR could finish their electrification and take a quantum leap ahead rather than giving up and resorting to the same crap that didn't work in the 1980s. |
|
|
| (748600) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Wed Feb 25 05:38:51 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Wed Feb 25 00:16:42 2009. Either keep the MP15s for work service or get about 70 BL20GHs to displace all of the current locomotive fleet.The MP-15s have just about had It. Sure they look nice in their recent repaint, but some engines I was told have been blowing out oil (not a good sign). The LIRR has a decades old tradition of running their equipment into the ground and I'm not talking about derailment. The MP-15's have been around since 1977 and not given kid gloves treatment. I wondering what will happen to the MP-15's, will they sold or scrapped ? Bill "Newkirk" |
|
|
| (748601) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Wed Feb 25 05:42:41 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Neil Feldman on Tue Feb 24 23:19:58 2009. A few fellow friends who are LIRR employees told me it will be BL20GH's to compliment the DE/DM's in case of HEP/ASC failures,I see your point about ordering the BL-20GH's with head end power. Wonder what paint scheme they'll have. SIR ordered their diesels with the same MNRR paint scheme with just different names and numbers applied to save money. Bill "Newkirk" |
|
|
| (748603) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Wed Feb 25 05:50:49 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 01:21:31 2009. Or you could actually improve convenience for the customers and fully electrify the network with 25kv already.Re-electrify the entire LIRR with overhead catenary ? Not gonna happen, not enough stimulus money to take on a gargantuan task. And what happens to 783 M-7's ? Re-electrification would take decades to complete. We're lucky if ESA gets completed. And BTW, although a rarity, pantographs have been known to bring down catenary wire in extreme temperatures. And that screws of the line worse than ice and snow on the third rails. Bill "Newkirk" |
|
|
| (748642) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 08:19:46 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 01:19:32 2009. at 2250 Hp the BL20gh is not underpowerd, the HEP is only rated for 4 cars however. |
|
|
| (748643) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 08:20:59 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Newkirk Images on Wed Feb 25 05:38:51 2009. Scrapped more than likely the Main engine can not be made EPA compliant |
|
|
| (748645) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 08:23:09 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Newkirk Images on Wed Feb 25 05:42:41 2009. They were not ordered that way, they were painted that way by mistake and even labeled Metro North at first.To expedite the units they were left in MNCR color but with the Metro North lettering replaced by Staten Island Railway. |
|
|
| (748648) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 08:30:03 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 08:23:09 2009. here is proof of wrong livery on Locomotive 776. |
|
|
| (748651) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Wed Feb 25 08:39:16 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 08:30:03 2009. OOOPS !Bill "Newkirk" |
|
|
| (748652) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Wed Feb 25 08:41:09 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 08:20:59 2009. Scrapped more than likely the Main engine can not be made EPA compliantWere the MP-15's leased like the GP-38's ? Bill "Newkirk" |
|
|
| (748654) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 08:43:39 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Newkirk Images on Wed Feb 25 08:41:09 2009. Don't think so, they were owned by MTA or LIRR |
|
|
| (748659) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Wed Feb 25 09:26:36 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Newkirk Images on Wed Feb 25 08:41:09 2009. The GP-38's were leased? I thought they were bought outright? |
|
|
| (748666) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Feb 25 10:00:21 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Newkirk Images on Wed Feb 25 05:50:49 2009. Re-electrify the entire LIRR with overhead catenary ? Not gonna happen, not enough stimulus money to take on a gargantuan task. And what happens to 783 M-7's ? Re-electrification would take decades to complete. We're lucky if ESA gets completed.Even extending third rail electrification to the remainder of the system would take an eternity. My LIRR/NYCT blog |
|
|
| (748669) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Feb 25 10:11:40 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Wed Feb 25 00:16:42 2009. I've only had a DM30AC break down on me once, are there any statistics online on the locomotive that prove what you're talking about? |
|
|
| (748673) | |
LION: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 25 10:19:57 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Wed Feb 25 00:16:42 2009. LION SAYS:Replace the DM30s and DE30s with STEAM ENGINES. You can run the JACKSHAFTS in the tunnel and then let the steamers take over at Harold. THAT system ALWAYS worked. (Or at least existed before the bitches were born and so we have no complaints about them.) ROAR |
|
|
| (748681) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 10:34:31 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Newkirk Images on Wed Feb 25 05:50:49 2009. I don't think he said re-electrify. Just electrify the diesel parts, and get M8s and ALP46s(Probably for all of metro north too)M7s would then be used for the current electric lines, while the new M8s and current Diesel units (with new electric engines) would run on the currently diesel, by then electrified outer lines. (IE Montauk, Greenport, Port Jefferson, Oyster Bay, North Hudson, North Harlem, Danbury, and Waterbury lines) If such an idea were to be determined feasable,I would certainly think that the M7s are new enough to justify constructing the early idea of M8s- A central Cat based car which would power the other 2 cars of the pair. |
|
|
| (748682) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Feb 25 10:36:10 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Feb 25 10:11:40 2009. LIRR reported MDBFs for the first half of 2007 as follows for the following in the 2007 Assessment available online.LIRR DE30AC = 18k miles LIRR DM30AC = 12.5k miles MNCR P32DMAC = 35k miles LIRR M7 = 289k miles |
|
|
| (748683) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 10:37:36 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Feb 25 10:11:40 2009. Statistics abound that the DM30ACs are terrible.The problem is... Every Dual mode engine has that same issue. They just aren't reliable as a whole. (To be fair, I should say all the EXISTING ones in the NYC area, which is the only North American city to use Dual modes.) |
|
|
| (748684) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 10:38:53 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Feb 25 10:00:21 2009. True, but additional electrification segments are possible. There are places today on LIRR where even adding just four miles of third rail would be helpful. The effect would be even larger than that when you consider East Side Access (the benefit would be more than the sum of the parts). |
|
|
| (748686) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Feb 25 10:41:22 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Newkirk Images on Wed Feb 25 08:41:09 2009. LIRR owned the MPs and GPs. The MPs were purchased in between March & April 1977, total of 23 units in the order. The GPs were built between 01/1976 and 02/1976, first order #'s 250-271 in 1976, second order on 03/1977, #'s 272-277. Also of note, the LIRR also purchased and owned the small fleet of SW1001s, #'s 100-107, in 1977. Of note too, SW1001's 101, 102, 104 and 105 are the ONLY SW1001s that can MU with electrics for the protect duties. |
|
|
| (748687) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 10:41:44 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 10:37:36 2009. That's true. What seems to be the aspect of the locomotive which is most problematic? Not everything about the DM30 is unreliable; the majority of the breakdowns probably stem from just a couple of components or places where two components have to work together and do not. |
|
|
| (748688) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Feb 25 10:44:37 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 10:41:44 2009. "the majority of the breakdowns probably stem from just a couple of components or places where two components have to work together and do not"....all built in Taiwan, China or Korea!! lol :-D |
|
|
| (748690) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Feb 25 10:48:55 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 10:34:31 2009. Among the feasibility problems is that M8s are too tall to travel to either ESA or FBA.If such an idea were to be determined feasable,I would certainly think that the M7s are new enough to justify constructing the early idea of M8s- A central Cat based car which would power the other 2 cars of the pair. Also, I don't think that transmitting power like that would be allowed in most forms. The central car would have to be powerful enough to propel the unpowered cars (in catenary territory). |
|
|
| (748692) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 10:50:26 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 10:38:53 2009. There are places today on LIRR where even adding just four miles of third rail would be helpful. The effect would be even larger than that when you consider East Side Access (the benefit would be more than the sum of the parts).Where are you considering such? Babylon-Bayshore is the only place I see that as being particularly useful, to the extent that such would make sense even without any additional electrification. |
|
|
| (748693) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 10:51:27 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Feb 25 10:48:55 2009. If they are in married pairs it is certainly possible to transmit power from one car to another. Such is done in non-permanant situations with Slugs on the railroads. |
|
|
| (748695) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 11:01:42 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 10:50:26 2009. Babylon-Bayshore is an excellent choice. Also double-tracking that line (it isn't double-tracked if I recall correctly) (which adds third-rail capacity in and of itself).Double-tracking to Ronkonkoma and extending third rail to the next couple of stations would help as well. Reduces the crowding at Ronkonkoma. Adding third rail to the Huntington line would help as well. Now, I said three or four miles, but on that branch the number might be different. I think you can get value out of extending the double track and electrifying, but it doesn't necessarily have to be all the way to Port Jefferson. |
|
|
| (748696) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Feb 25 11:06:16 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 10:51:27 2009. Oh so as to not confuse the issue, I don't mean that it's a physical issue; rather it's a regulatory matter such that the authorities wouldn't like transmitting that kind of energy across passenger-occupied cars. |
|
|
| (748713) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 12:20:39 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Feb 25 11:06:16 2009. Huh? Every married pair NJT, SEPTA, or Metro North operate passes traction power from one passenger occupied car to another. Hell, the M4s and M6s operate exactly as Lincoln specifies, with one car pulling down power and running it through a transformer, then passing it on to the other two cars. Certainly it isn't a matter of a car being grandfathered, because the M8s and Silverliner V married pairs will do the same thing without incurring the wrath of the FRA. |
|
|
| (748714) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:26:17 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Bee Flexible #823 on Wed Feb 25 00:16:42 2009. You really expect a single BL-20 to push/pull a consist of 5 or even 4 bilevels? BL-20's have also had growing pains up north as well. |
|
|
| (748715) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 12:27:27 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Newkirk Images on Wed Feb 25 05:50:49 2009. Come on. Seriously? Didn't I say "M8s" and "AC/DC locomotives"? What would be the point of ordering dual voltage equipment if I were proposing the LIRR reelectrify their system?We need sigs on this board. Mine can say If the above post relates to the extension of electrification on Long Island I am strictly discussing the use of catenary to electrify the diesel segments and use dual voltage equipment on the third rail. Note, this does not involve the reelectrification of the third rail sections.Because every time it comes up the SAME goddamn question gets raised and answered. -WillD If the above post relates to the extension of electrification on Long Island I am strictly discussing the use of catenary to electrify the diesel segments and use dual voltage equipment on the third rail. Note, this does not involve the reelectrification of the third rail sections. |
|
|
| (748716) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:27:32 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 08:19:46 2009. That's still considerably less HP than the DE/DM. It's good for 3 car shuttles, max. |
|
|
| (748717) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:29:46 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Feb 25 10:00:21 2009. But it should be done in certain areas. Huntington to Port Jefferson, Babylon to Patchouge or Sayville, Ronkonkoma to Yaphank. The rest of the system can remain diesel only. |
|
|
| (748718) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 12:30:02 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Feb 25 10:00:21 2009. Even extending third rail electrification to the remainder of the system would take an eternity.And that's the problem with third rail extensions. The LIRR will incur a far greater cost in substations and terminal yards with incremental expansions of the third rail system than they would with a one time electrification using high voltage AC catenary. -WillD If the above post relates to the extension of electrification on Long Island I am strictly discussing the use of catenary to electrify the diesel segments and use dual voltage equipment on the third rail. Note, this does not involve the reelectrification of the third rail sections. |
|
|
| (748719) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:34:21 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 10:34:31 2009. That's a riduculously complicated and expensive proposal. I know AC catenary is superior to DC third rail, and if we were debating over which power source to use if none of the system was electrified, catenary is the way to go. But the LIRR has hundreds of miles of third rail powered track and almost 1,000 third rail powered MU's, none older than 25, most younger than 10. The most sensible mode for expanded electrification is a compatible DC third rail, even if it costs more to install. |
|
|
| (748720) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 12:35:08 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:29:46 2009. But then you're leaving less than 100 route miles of diesel operations. Economies of scale enjoyed at the moment with the diesel fleet will disappear with so small an operation. As a result the fixed costs will become the vast majority of the expenditure on the fleet and those short diesel shuttles will become an ideal target for budget cutbacks. If the full system is not electrified at once the LIRR will end up with another three Wading River Branches where poor service, NIMBYs and budgetary pressure will add up to kill service to Montauk, Greenport, and Oyster Bay. |
|
|
| (748722) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:40:42 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 10:37:36 2009. As compared to what? The P32DM's Metro North/Amtrak uses? No dual mode engine will ever be as reliable as a straight diesel. There's just a lot more to go wrong on one. This is why I'm no fan of NJT's desire to invest so heavily in even less proven dual mode engines. |
|
|
| (748723) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 12:41:13 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 12:30:02 2009. "The LIRR will incur a far greater cost in substations and terminal yards with incremental expansions of the third rail system than they would with a one time electrification using high voltage AC catenary. "Unsupported assertion. Incremental additions of third rail service are the most cost-effective way to enhance service matched with demand. There is no need to electrify the entire system. |
|
|
| (748724) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 12:43:39 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:34:21 2009. "I know AC catenary is superior to DC third rail"No, you don't. ACCatenary has its advantages, but if it were superior in all settings to DC third rail, then the newest systems (Washington Metrorail, Miami Metrorail, MARTA) would all have been built with AC catenary. They were not. |
|
|
| (748725) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:46:33 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 12:35:08 2009. It's silly to invest billions to electrify portions of the railroad that get only a few trains per day. The LIRR still needs diesels for work and emergency purposes, there's no way you could eliminate them entirely. |
|
|
| (748727) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 12:47:02 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:34:21 2009. That's a riduculously complicated and expensive proposal.How is it complicated? An M8 is no more complicated than a Silverliner V. Multivoltage operation is no longer an impediment to through operation. Its even simpler when you can have a transformer car as Lincoln describes, provided that car is powered in both AC and DC power sources. An modern AC Locomotive or EMU is already a multivoltage rail vehicle, it just doesn't pick up DC power from outside, it rectifies it within the vehicle. A multivoltage EMU, such as the M8, just adds pickup gear for external DC sources. An AC EMU costs about the same as a DC EMU, but the DC EMU is going to require the railroad to purchase hundreds of new substations at somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million dollars a pop. But the LIRR has hundreds of miles of third rail powered track and almost 1,000 third rail powered MU's, none older than 25, most younger than 10 And all of those EMUs are occupied by operation within the existing electrified network, which wouldn't change. There would be no need to replace any current EMUs prematurely. The most sensible mode for expanded electrification is a compatible DC third rail, even if it costs more to install. It won't just cost more to install, it will cost more to equip and operate. Third rail extensions will require the perfectly adaquate C3 fleet to be prematurely retired and new EMUs to be procured in their place, a very hefty expense. Then there will be the high operational costs that come as a result of having a decentralized power distribution system which requires maintenance forces to travel extensively in diagnosing problems. Finally electricity isn't free, and the LIRR could get a lot more of it to the train by using catenary, thereby reducing their LIPA bills. |
|
|
| (748728) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 12:47:49 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 08:19:46 2009. You're certanly not going to run the Cannonball Express with that engine. :0) |
|
|
| (748729) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 25 12:48:35 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 12:35:08 2009. Service should be restored to Wading River.ROAR |
|
|
| (748730) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:49:37 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 12:43:39 2009. Third rail is good for short haul, rapid transit systems. Over long distances, high voltage AC catenary is superior. Less infrastructure needed. And it's safer, the electrical source is not reachable by human beings unless the wire falls to the ground. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
