|
|
| Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station (1140436) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 15:16:25 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 18 14:49:04 2012. Different scenarioSimilar scenario. There are still revenue trains running through there; only difference is that they do not have low-platform capability, so they close the low-platform (or if you like, no-platform) stations, as well as the sole high platform beyond LIC (Richmond Hill) due to the other stations being shuttered. commercial power is already available along the line up to Croton to power the substations for third rail. It's not like electrifying from scratch Electrifying from scratch doesn't necessarily entail building your own power plants anymore. It's still as expensive as building a new railroad sans electrification though, since the transformers are specific to what voltage you're using, even if not the frequency. Since DC power also requires rectifiers and more substations, it'd not make sense to keep it as a duplicate electrification system. Besides, we won't see speed faster than 80 mph in MNR domain anyway I think you're getting Metro-North and LIRR mixed up. Electrification of the Hudson line is a by-product. The main cause is Amtrak's service to Albany You've removed the justification for electrification again. And again, the state is looking at 110-mph service, which is the top end of the P32AC-DMs. Whether MNR will get on with the program is up to them No, everything's up to whomever owns the infrastructure in question as to whether the "program" in question gets implemented. And MTA's bean counters and politicians will certainly not allow anything to be built on Metro-North property that benefits Amtrak alone, as CSX would staunchly resist the same on its own property. |
|
|
|