|
|
| Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why (578004) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Feb 28 16:48:01 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 28 13:27:40 2008. The New Haven line has needed catenary/third rail powered vehicles for almost a century. The wire is already there.No, the wire is not naturally occuring, it was not already there. They had to make a conscious decision to install a system which was very specifically incompatible with the system being installed in GCT at that same time. The New Haven could have gone with NY Central style third rail right off the bat and avoided any compatibility problems. That they didn't is a tribute to their faith in the technology of the era and its ability to overcome the power supply differences. It also points to the fact that there is no major problem in mixing third rail and overhead power supplies. What you advocate is the MTA spending millions to add another propulsion source, then spend billions on cars which can use it Where? Where have I said "buy new cars for the LIRR"? All I can conclude at this point is that you're illiterate because the ONE overriding principle I have built this entire argument on is that no cars would be replaced in the conversion from DC/Diesel dual modes to AC/DC dual system locomotives. It is the third rail extension which becomes very expensive in terms of rolling stock since you have to replace the C3s before they have served out their useful lifespan with brand new EMUs and thus eat a lot of the cost which was to be amortized over 30 to 40 years. One need not look further than the C1s which still languish after years on the market for an example of just the sort of resale price the C3s will garner. Thus a direct replacement of just the DE/DM30ACs and a move away from the DM concept, which is on its 5th generation of failure, to a solution which still provides a source of motive power capable of moving those C3 cars is the overriding concern of mine. That catenary is significantly cheaper than third rail is a nice bonus. How can you justify spending $1 on wire east of Riverhead? Or East of Speonk? For 3-5 trains a day!!?? If you extend the third rail to those points then you're going to have an ever-increasing cost for diesel operations as your territory becomes smaller and smaller. At a certain point the LIRR is going to reach a point where they'll either have to electrify or just abandon the operation. Under the third rail solution with its very high cost per track mile it'd never make sense to electrify out there, they'd be abandoned and 50 years from now we'll go through the 'Wading River branch regret' stage again. However, with catenary, which is far cheaper on a per-track mile basis once the substations are in place you can install the wire on an economical basis. Once installed you're going to have lower operational costs EVERY YEAR for those 3-5 trains, and likely it won't stay at that number for very long at the rate LI is going. Thus the one-time expense of installing wire today would be compared to the compounded difference in cost of maintaining diesel operations on an ever shrinking territory on the East End relative to a fully electrified system combined with the rising capital costs of piecemeal electrification installations on individual lines over say the next 40 years. Under this analysis, for which I am sorely lacking figures other than approximate costs of the various electrification installations, it is extremely likely that the catenary installation will be by far the cheapest operation should the LIRR choose to take the long view of their problems for a change. |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|