|
|
| Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why (578337) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 29 10:44:50 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by trainsarefun on Thu Feb 28 20:26:47 2008. Many questions, but the LION will not *give* you the fact of wire being cheaper than rail. Building all of those (unsightly) towers is not cheap. Dropping down some insulated seats and setting a third rail on it has to be cheaper than stringing a wire. It is certainly easier in 1:87 scale, and so I presume the same would be true of 1:1 scale.The substations are a non-issue issue. They are not all that expensive. And they *could* be supplied by the power company. If LIRR tells LILCO (or its successor or whatever it is you guys use out there now) that they want 750 volts DC delivered in these places, they will, like good business men, sell them the power that they want to buy the way they want to buy it. Obviously at a slightly higher $/KWH, since they are also in the business of making money. BNSF does it this way. Long gone are the "telegraph" poles and the DC transmission service that maintained the signal batteries. They buy voltage from the power company on the locations where they want it, AND will not even allow the utility to run its wires along the RR ROW. The lines must come in across country, and the utility will have to gain easements across private properties to get it to them. In places where *that* is too costly, BNSF simply sets up solar grids to maintain the signal batteries. ERGO, says LION: Methinks the Third Rail is easier, cheaper, cleaner, and just as good at LIRR speeds as overhead wire. PROFF Otherwise or be EATEN! ROAR |
|
|
|