|
|
| Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question (1156654) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 20:09:56 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Fisk ave Jim on Mon May 14 20:05:15 2012. I disagree. Once you factor the maintenance of the rail, cables,substations, track dept expenses (broken brackets, etc) & oh yes, the cost of fossil fuels that run the substations, maintenance of transmission lines, it starts to add upThe heavier dual-mode locomotives drive up the costs of the rail more than the MUs would; and to get the length of train with push-pulls that matches MUs, you're going to need two of those dual-modes. Metro-North hasn't embraced their plan to bring back all-electric locos just yet, too. You've also got the costs of transporting diesel fuel to the locomotive fueling pads; once you go all-electric, those are gone. Then theres the weather. 3d rail powered trains are the first to take the hit in bad weather I don't know if that's universal. PATCO kept running during a blizzard recently. An lastly, the cost of litigation incurred for the occasional drunk fisherman that fries himself & his catch on a late Sunday afternoon while making his last trip, over 700 volts & appx 7000 amps Sounds more like a call to switch to overhead electrification. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|