|
|
| Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? (748471) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (748731) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Feb 25 12:50:55 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:46:33 2009. Lol at the Oyster Bay and Montauk west of Patchogue only getting a few trains a day. |
|
|
| (748735) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:53:55 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Feb 25 12:50:55 2009. I advocate electrification of the Montauk west of Babylon (to Sayville or Patchouge). The Oyster Bay line simply doesn't have the ridership to justify billions to electrify. And don't suggest that electrification would create it, just look at how little the electrified West Hempstead branch is used. |
|
|
| (748736) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 25 12:54:29 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Feb 25 12:50:55 2009. If there were more trains then there will be more passengers to ride on them.Some will discover the convenience, others will see the service and move out there, and developers will develop more housing. ROAR |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (748737) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 12:54:40 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:40:42 2009. The level of reliability of even the best dual mode (which almost certainly is the P32ACDM) is one that is beneath acceptable standards.(LIRR refused to order P32ACDMs due to their unreliable nature)When such a situation occurs, I would tend to think that remaking the same type of machine(FL9, FL9AC, P32ACDM, DM30AC) is a poor choice without going back to the drawing board and rethinking the decision to get such a unit in the first place. |
|
|
| (748739) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:59:08 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 12:54:40 2009. I still don't know why a third rail dual mode cannot be made to a reasonably reliable standard. It's not exactly a complicated device. Millions of electronic devices are built which are technically the same (getting power either from an A/C outlet or a D/C battery). |
|
|
| (748740) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 12:59:41 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 12:43:39 2009. 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.Try again Ron, those are subway systems. Despite its outward appearance the LIRR is not a subway, but in fact a commuter railroad. The only advantage of third rail is its ability to function in areas with reduced clearances, such as subways. Clearances are definitely not a deciding factor in the selection of power sources on the eastern end of Long Island. And if you're going to offer up non sequitors why not at least provide truly modern non sequitors? The Athens Metro Line 3, opened in 2003 uses a combination of 750vdc and 25kv power supplies. A much more relavent comparison would be Hamburg's S-bahn, where the 1200vdc third rail network is being used to support a dual voltage system to extend the S3 to Stadte. The network is discussing the extension of 15kv operation beyond the existing terminus in Stadte. |
|
|
| (748741) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Feb 25 13:01:45 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:53:55 2009. Sayville, wtf? The West Hempstead branch is the way it is because of how pathetic service on the branch is. Nobody's going to ride a branch that mostly only goes to Valley Stream every two hours when there's a line that runs every 30 minutes to Penn Station a couple of miles down. |
|
|
| (748742) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 13:01:52 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 25 12:54:29 2009. That's how railroads were built 100 years ago (service creating demand). But today, demand justifies the service. The LIRR is subsidized, it costs the taxpayer a specific amount to carry each passanger, so any service expansions will COST money, not make it. |
|
|
| (748743) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 13:05:29 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 12:41:13 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. So you're saying that the LIRR has available yards beyond Riverhead and Patchogue to turn and store electric trains in? I just want to be clear we're all aware of just how unfamiliar you are with the area. 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. Unsupported assertion. Do you have ridership figures for the entire Montauk line? Do you know the cost of both third rail and catenary installations? |
|
|
| (748744) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 13:05:59 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Feb 25 13:01:45 2009. Sayville has space to build a new terminal station, and ridership drops considerably east of it. It's also the last station before the line merges into a single track. That's why I suggest electrification end there. West Hempstead service sucks because there's no demand, not because the bad service limits demand. Even hourly service to Penn Station would not bring the ridership seen on other branches, like Long Beach or Hempstead. None of the stations have any real parking capacity. |
|
|
| (748745) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 13:07:21 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 13:01:52 2009. any service expansions will COST money, not make it.But it will save money relative to accomodating commuters by other modes like buses or cars. |
|
|
| (748746) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 13:10:16 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 13:07:21 2009. In some cases, that may be true (especially in NJ, where so many use buses to get to NYC). That's why feasibility studies are always conducted when a service expansion is proposed. The LIRR will not spend billions to introduce new or increased services if there's no pre-existing demand. That's for sure. |
|
|
| (748748) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Feb 25 13:11:44 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 13:05:59 2009. Sayville has space to build a new terminal station, and ridership drops considerably east of it. It's also the last station before the line merges into a single track. That's why I suggest electrification end there.Everything you described is exactly like Patchogue (which I think is the more ideal location for electrification to end) except for the double track part. It's not big deal if there's only one track between Sayville and Patchogue, the Long Beach only has one track over Reynold's Channel and does fine. West Hempstead service sucks because there's no demand, not because the bad service limits demand. Even hourly service to Penn Station would not bring the ridership seen on other branches, like Long Beach or Hempstead. None of the stations have any real parking capacity. There's no demand for a shittle to Valley Stream, add parking capacity to those stations and run hourly service to at least Jamaica and you'll see more people coming in. |
|
|
| (748749) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 13:15:11 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 13:05:59 2009. Sayville has space to build a new terminal station, and ridership drops considerably east of it. It's also the last station before the line merges into a single track. That's why I suggest electrification end there.So then how many hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent building the terminal and yard on that available space? How many miles of wire could be strung over the areas that "don't justify it" for the cost of that one terminal? Ditto for the terminal on the Greenport branch. By the time you've built these terminals, then extended it when development catches up with the electrification again you'll end up spending more than the cost of simply electrifying with high voltage AC catenary. |
|
|
| (748750) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 13:15:36 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 13:05:29 2009. I know that the cheapest solution for the Montauk and Greenport branches is to remain with the current diesel service. Neither are really commuter in nature. Your arguments for catenary are persuasive, if the LIRR didn't already have such a tremendous investment in third rail. Since they do, any catenary proposal would almost certainly mean spending billions on electrifying already electrified segments of the system. That's not a smart way to spend precious little capital spending $$$. |
|
|
| (748751) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 13:18:04 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 13:15:36 2009. Since they do, any catenary proposal would almost certainly mean spending billions on electrifying already electrified segments of the system.What makes you say that? There is absolutely no reason to reelectrify the LIRR's existing electric network for the foreseeable future. |
|
|
| (748752) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 13:18:33 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Feb 25 13:11:44 2009. I've been in the Patchouge area, I don't see the space for a proper terminal, a la Ronkonkoma. Sayville has a large, open MOW area just west of the existing station that would fit an island platform and a new station building. Perhaps GP38 could chime in on this, since that's his turf. |
|
|
| (748753) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 13:22:11 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 13:18:04 2009. Having two incompatible power sources creates flexibility problems and would cost millions in new rolling stock. Third rail extensions can use any of the existing stock on the roster right now. |
|
|
| (748764) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 13:38:57 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 13:22:11 2009. Having two incompatible power sources creates flexibility problems and would cost millions in new rolling stock.They have the same number of incompatible power systems today. Over time as the pure DC EMUs are retired in due time and replaced by multivoltage AC/DC EMUs the system would become completely flexible. The initial rolling stock costs could be far less than that required for a third rail extension by buying AC/DC locomotives to haul the C3s. Third rail extensions can use any of the existing stock on the roster right now. But they will need to buy new cars to allow for the additional trains and passengers the extension will bring. Those new cars will displace perfectly usable C3s well before the end of their useful lifetimes. |
|
|
| (748772) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Feb 25 13:46:18 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 12:47:49 2009. It would need like 3 engines. |
|
|
| (748773) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 13:46:27 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 13:38:57 2009. "Over time as the pure DC EMUs are retired in due time and replaced by multivoltage AC/DC EMUs the system would become completely flexible."Just because one aspect of the system becomes flexible does not make the entire system flexible. "But they will need to buy new cars to allow for the additional trains and passengers the extension will bring. Those new cars will displace perfectly usable C3s well before the end of their useful lifetimes." The extent of any additions of third rail territory in the foreseeable future would not require buying so many new cars that any C-3s will be junked. |
|
|
| (748774) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Feb 25 13:48:22 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 11:01:42 2009. I would say maybe double track up to Smithtown, but electrify all the way to Port Jefferson. |
|
|
| (748777) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 13:52:32 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Feb 25 13:48:22 2009. I'm not against it, as long as you can find the money... |
|
|
| (748779) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 13:56:01 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 13:46:27 2009. Just because one aspect of the system becomes flexible does not make the entire system flexible.What aspect of the system? If we order multisystem locomotives and M8-like EMUs to equip the diesel segments electrified tomorrow then the system is exactly as flexible as it is today. In 10 years if the M3s are replaced with another AC/DC EMU model, and in 30 years the M7s are replaced by yet another model of the AC/DC EMUs, then the system has become completely flexible. Just about the only inflexibility that may remain would be the C3s, which would still be precluded from ESA and perhaps FBA, but that has nothing to do with power. The extent of any additions of third rail territory in the foreseeable future would not require buying so many new cars that any C-3s will be junked. The C3s may not be scrapped, but but they certainly would be underutilized as the additional EMUs displace them from runs. The LIRR could incur a major cost storing the C3s as they are replaced in some runs. |
|
|
| (748781) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 14:04:03 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 13:56:01 2009. "The C3s may not be scrapped, but but they certainly would be underutilized as the additional EMUs displace them from runs"Not even close. Have you looked at the LIRR map lately? Adding some miles here and there to third-raiol territory would have a positive impact on specific segments of LIRR ridership, but would have almost no effect at all on C-3 utilization. The existing electric runs would be extended, but the same number of C-3s would still be used to maintain the existing schedule. |
|
|
| (748782) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Feb 25 14:04:45 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 13:18:33 2009. Patchogue is just like Huntington without that huge parking building. |
|
|
| (748785) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Feb 25 14:10:52 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Feb 25 13:48:22 2009. No way, double track all the way to Port Jefferson, then electrify to Port Jefferson. |
|
|
| (748786) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Feb 25 14:12:52 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Feb 25 10:36:10 2009. No way, if the Montauk is 114 miles long then how does the LIRR expect the locomotives to always make the run? |
|
|
| (748789) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 14:17:33 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:26:17 2009. you know of any engine, that did not have growing pains ????? |
|
|
| (748790) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 14:19:16 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:27:32 2009. not much less, a DE/DM is 3000 HP but with parasitic HEP its down to about 2450 HpA BL20 is 2250 but with seperate HEP. |
|
|
| (748794) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 14:32:53 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 12:54:40 2009. LIRR did not refure P32acdm because of reliability, it refused it because it was not built in New York, and LIRR believed they would not load fast enough. |
|
|
| (748795) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 14:33:08 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 12:54:40 2009. LIRR did not refuse P32acdm because of reliability, it refused it because it was not built in New York, and LIRR believed they would not load fast enough. |
|
|
| (748796) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 14:34:11 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 12:59:08 2009. Reliability of P32acdm is very good, ever notice how many Dual mode trains operate in a 24 hour period ??? |
|
|
| (748798) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 14:40:56 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 14:32:53 2009. Load fast enough? Explain? |
|
|
| (748803) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 14:50:12 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 14:40:56 2009. as in exelerate, The LIRR prematurely condemned the Genesis before first Dual modes hit the road. |
|
|
| (748805) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 25 14:54:19 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 13:15:11 2009. No wire could be strung at all. Nobody is going to hang any wire, and nobody but you is going to suggest it.Third rail is even easier to put in. And don't yap to me about substations. Those are the problem of the power authority. LIRR just tells them "Deliver us 750v DC here, here, here, and here." Guess what, the power company will bend over backwards, kiss whatever it is they find back there and say "Yes Sir! coming right up." They will sell you whatever kind of power you need, wherever you want it. ROAR |
|
|
| (748806) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 15:02:21 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 25 13:18:33 2009. Sayville is a silly place to end electrification because of Fire Island services to Patchogue. |
|
|
| (748810) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 15:06:58 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 14:50:12 2009. Thank you. |
|
|
| (748811) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 25 15:07:05 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 15:02:21 2009. Everybody I knew took the fairy at Sayville.*I* have never been to Fire Island. Jones Beach was just as good and a whole lot closer. ROAR |
|
|
| (748814) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 25 15:11:20 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 25 15:07:05 2009. A clear majority of Fire Islanders use Bay Shore. While Sayville certainly has higher Fire Island usage than Patchogue, BOTH get lots of use from FI, and Patchogue on its own is probably a bigger source of ridership than Sayville. |
|
|
| (748815) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 15:12:48 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 25 14:04:03 2009. Not even close. Have you looked at the LIRR map lately? Adding some miles here and there to third-raiol territory would have a positive impact on specific segments of LIRR ridership, but would have almost no effect at all on C-3 utilization. The existing electric runs would be extended, but the same number of C-3s would still be used to maintain the existing schedule.First of all how can looking at the current LIRR map somehow convey ridership trends? Secondly that utilization assumes that the number of trains will increase with electrification. That is not neccesarily a given and is dependent upon the LIRR completing many other projects. It is more likely that we'll see the electric trains replace the Dual Mode train from the electric terminal into the city, otherwise there is no point to extending the third rail because you're operating the exact same service. Thus the utilization of C3s will must decrease after the electrification is extended even if ridership grows. |
|
|
| (748818) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 25 15:18:52 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 25 15:07:05 2009. they took a fairy , Ohh My...Maybe you ment they took the ferry ? |
|
|
| (748819) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 15:21:12 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 25 14:54:19 2009. No wire could be strung at all. Nobody is going to hang any wire, and nobody but you is going to suggest it.Wire will be strung even if you extend the electrification with third rail. There needs to be a high voltage AC feeder for the DC substation to work from, and those wires will be far more visually intrusive than any high voltage catenary. Third rail is even easier to put in. And don't yap to me about substations. Those are the problem of the power authority. LIRR just tells them "Deliver us 750v DC here, here, here, and here." Guess what, the power company will bend over backwards, kiss whatever it is they find back there and say "Yes Sir! coming right up." They will sell you whatever kind of power you need, wherever you want it. Wow, and some of the people here say I might not be fully in touch with reality. You're completely out in left field if you think LIPA is about to give you power at the pickup shoe or go so far as to constuct the electrification for the LIRR. Not only is that a terrible solution which increases operating costs in the long run because you'll end up paying LIPA for the installation forever, but more importantly it removes the critical feature of the operation from the LIRR's oversight. How can the LIRR ensure reliable operation when they do not have control over their power supply? |
|
|
| (748822) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Newkirk Images on Wed Feb 25 15:41:42 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 12:27:27 2009. 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.Okay, understood. But NIMBY's way out east aren't going to like catenary towers of any kind spoiling their view. bill "Newkirk" |
|
|
| (748823) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 15:46:49 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Newkirk Images on Wed Feb 25 15:41:42 2009. But NIMBY's way out east aren't going to like catenary towers of any kind spoiling their view.They're not going to like electrification of any kind. A third rail electrification will require even taller wires supported by more visually obtrusive towers. |
|
|
| (748830) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 25 16:02:45 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 15:21:12 2009. Do they have control over the power supply now?No they do not. They buy their power from LIPA. Any self respecting power COMPANY will provide whatever power you want, wherever you need it, and whenever you need it. THAT IS WHAT COMPANIES DO! Yes the power company takes a profit on their work and investment. That is fair. Yes it is a built into the cost of the electricity, but you must believe me that power infrastructure is NOT a one-time expense in any event. If LIRR owned the sub stations they would have to maintain them which means hiring more electricians. They would have to replace them every x number of years. The cost is a push. Here, BNSF buys its power from the power company. They removed all of their telegraph poles, and so now there is no track side voltage to power their signal system. By every signal, by every bungalow, by every defect detector, by every crossing gate, there is a power drop from the local power company, and there is an electric meter there too. AND the power lines come in overland, and do not follow the railway ROW. The railroad (go figure) does not permit that. So the line has to come in over some farmer's field, and the power company has to make their own arrangements for it to do so. All of that is added to the cost of the electricity. But BNSF is a private company, not a state owned entity. Maybe they know something that you do not. Like it is most cost effective for them to do it this way. Don't ask *me* why they found this to be so, they did not tell me, but it is surely the fact, they *had* their own power distribution and they got rid of it. BTW: Signal circuits are buried optic fiber which does follow the ROW but is not maintained by the Railroad. It is owned and maintained by Sprint as part of their national communications network. They provide service to the Railroad under contract which BTW includes their use of the ROWs for their service network. So Notwithstanding that both MTA and LIPA are government entities, the fact remains that companies who are responsible to their stockholders found that this is the better way to go. ROAR |
|
|
| (748833) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 25 16:08:26 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 15:46:49 2009. Why? That is not a given.ROAR |
|
|
| (748869) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 18:32:05 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 25 16:08:26 2009. So you propose to duplicate the 13.2kVAC feeder station switch gear at every single DC substation along the route? That'd greatly increase the size, complexity, and cost of each substation to the point where you'd likely spend four times as much on each one. Not only that but in the event of a major power problem on LIPA's end you'd have a really hard time getting such a decentralized system reset.All that needless complexity, just to avoid a few wires. |
|
|
| (748870) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 25 18:37:08 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 18:32:05 2009. LION does not know what you said, only that you said it.ROAR |
|
|
| (748875) | |
Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 25 18:50:01 2009, in response to Re: BL-20G's For The LIRR ?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 25 16:02:45 2009. Wow, the bullshit is so thick here I think I need waders. First of all it is more than a little amusing that you parrot the traditional "outsource it" line which has served our business community so well for the past 10 years. That is the 10 years prior to last year, when everything went to hell because they were all outsourcing their functions to third party contractors.Secondly your example could not be any more of a non sequitor if you tried. Just because they both involve railroads does not mean they have a damn thing to do with each other. Supplying 110vac at a few amps for a few crossing gates, hotboxes, and signals is just slightly different from supplying 750vdc at a few thousand amps for electric train operations. No power utility in their right mind is going to volunteer their scarce resources to get linemen railroad certified to maintain a few hundred tiny little 10 megawatt substations. They may do it if the LIRR pays them enough, but this exercise is about saving the LIRR money, not giving them another way to be fleeced. In any event because the LIRR's linemen are already railroad certified, and the LIRR would be stuck maintaining their existing substations the only possible outcome of your ludicrous plan would be the wholesale duplication of positions, which would only result in more costs for the LIRR. but you must believe me that power infrastructure is NOT a one-time expense in any event. If LIRR owned the sub stations they would have to maintain them which means hiring more electricians. They would have to replace them every x number of years. The cost is a push. You came so close. Power infrastructure is not a push. There is less power infrastructure with a high voltage AC installation, and it is concentrated at selected locations for easier maitenance. There'd be fewer than 15 AC substations, as compared to more than 100 with a third rail installation. Parts would of course break and need to be swapped out from time to time. It is a lot easier to diagnose a problem when you're not driving miles up and down a railroad trying to find out why the SCADA system is giving flukey readings. But you do at least come close to making the point that one way or another the LIRR pays for the infrastructure. The big difference is that if they do it in-house they can simply expand their existing ranks of linemen, who can also work with signal and switch power, to maintain the equipment. With LIPA as the third party contractor supplying DC power the manpower redundancy would be a huge drain on the LIRR's operational budget. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
