|
|
| Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question (1156612) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 14 15:04:58 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 14 13:15:57 2012. Dutchrailnut is correct, there is no clearance in the tunnels/GCTIf that's really true, it's not like that can't be corrected. FWICS, there would only be two to three feet of such correction necessary to put AC wires in. doing catenary on MN and ultimately the electric parts of LIRR would encourage more and better through routing of trains Through routing wasn't desirable in the past and it won't be now. The PRR could have instituted LIRR commuter through-routing between Trenton/South Amboy and points on Long Island, but did not (the only through-running was on parlor cars appended to long-distance trains); and the through-running on the New Haven was all long-distance. (The PRR even tested overhead wires on LIRR.) BTW, in a pipe-dream phoam competition, I think I'd outdo you, because I'd like to not only see the LIRR have wires instead of third rail too, but also a tunnel from Greenport and Orient Point to Connecticut, probably New London so that the LIRR could run to Boston in earnest  and oh yeah, have an alternate route for freight trains and all.In the case of the Water Level Route faster trains to Albany because in my utopian vision wires would be strung clear to Albany C'mon, that's not very ambitious. Why not all the way to Chicago? I know that Amtrak goes to Union Station instead of LaSalle Street nowadays, but why end at Albany, especially when the "high-speed corridor" proposed by NY State does reach Buffalo . . . ? |
|
|
|