|
|
| Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station (1138132) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
|
| (1140277) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 17 21:23:37 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by merrick1 on Fri Feb 17 19:58:03 2012. Apples and oranges. This is mechanical technology, not digital. If it was going to work, it would have worked back then.Besides, Metro-North is never going to NYP, so the point is moot. And it's a waste anyhow; far better to use Shoreliners with electric motors. |
|
|
| (1140292) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Feb 17 22:20:09 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 17 21:08:07 2012. A quick glance at the amtrak schedule disagrees with you.13 trains on your average weekday to Albany 14 trains on your average weekday to Harrisburg. On weekends, the Empire corridor becomes the more frequent service. |
|
|
| (1140300) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Feb 17 22:34:21 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 11 16:44:22 2012. You *do* know the exact same Amtrak schedule shares two tracks with the full gamut of North-of-Croton service, right? You could divert *all* of the Poughkeepsie trains to Penn and throughput would not be an issue.Where to put them at the Penn end, yes I can see a problem there. Kick NJT out, make them use Hoboken and take over 1-4 :). And in another thread you say there aren't enough Amtrak trains on the hudson line to justify electrification... in your mind there is enough for a dedicated 2 track ROW for which commuter trains should not interfere, yet this is not enough for electrification?!?! |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1140342) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 07:36:21 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by R30A on Fri Feb 17 22:20:09 2012. But if we were talking about electrifying from Malvern, PA to Harrisburg today, it would not be done. |
|
|
| (1140374) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Feb 18 11:59:32 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Feb 17 22:34:21 2012. Post win |
|
|
| (1140380) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 18 12:48:41 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 17 15:27:00 2012. Don't tell me that you haven't seen the posts, including photos by Dutch, here and on RRnet. If you don't believe them. That's not my problem.I don't believe a single one; it's not going to happen. Well, Do you want it to happen or not? |
|
|
| (1140381) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 18 12:51:27 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 17 21:23:37 2012. This is mechanical technology, not digital. If it was going to work, it would have worked back then.If you think mechanical technology doesn't advance, you have the same mind as the people who ran the US automobile industry in the eighties. Why do you think the US have to rely on Germany and Japan for many mechanical parts these days? |
|
|
| (1140383) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 18 12:54:03 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 17 15:25:51 2012. A downtown junction station would have been nice. I agree. Although the tunnel specs and the different electrification would have required specific car equipment. |
|
|
| (1140384) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 18 12:56:42 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 17 15:24:15 2012. New York - Albany is one of the few routes where demand have a big chance to grow. If only the Turbos didn't fail, we might be seriously talking about electrification by now. |
|
|
| (1140388) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 18 13:09:51 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Feb 17 21:08:07 2012. you've got the low platforms at Manitou and Poughkeepsie (the latter not in revenue service but could be used as a reserve)Platforms can be raised or future stock can come with low platform capability. you're implying that you'll still have duplicate third-rail infrastructure up to Croton-Harmon for the M3As and M7As, which is absurd and a real waste of dough. The duplicate sections can use the same power source for AC and DC distribution. The infrastructure for third rail is already there. Adding AC catenary won't be that costly. Besides, running on diesel power where there is third rail is already a waste of dough, especially if Empire service becomes more frequent. total changeover by Metro-North from third rail to overhead. As long as they use Grand Central, that's not going to happen and not necessary. |
|
|
| (1140389) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 13:32:54 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 13:09:51 2012. Platforms can be raised or future stock can come with low platform capabilitySure; that's why Penny Bridge, Haberman, Fresh Pond and Glendale stations are still open on the LIRR. (Right?) There will be no "future stock with low-platform capability", especially when it comes to EMUs. The duplicate sections can use the same power source for AC and DC distribution. The infrastructure for third rail is already there. Adding AC catenary won't be that costly False. You're going to have to add the additional equipment to step down to a specific AC voltage and frequency at certain substations; you can't use them as-is. It costs as much to electrify a railroad as build it, so how can you say "it won't be that costly"?? Besides, running on diesel power where there is third rail is already a waste of dough, especially if Empire service becomes more frequent You can't run at 90 mph with a DC third-rail dual-mode loco in electric mode. Anything else requires engine changes, which is something that both Amtrak and Metro-North eschewed for the Hudson Line (and the latter for the Harlem Line, for that matter). There are no specific plans to increase the frequency of the Empire Service; if there were, it'd be in progress already, and with the dual-modes (yes, no electrification) since they're already capable of 110 miles per hour. As long as they use Grand Central, that's not going to happen and not necessary That makes no sense whatsoever in light of the call for conversion (and/or duplication) of electrification of the Hudson Line. No sense whatsoever. It's already not as cost-effective as you would want it to be to have EMUs that change from DC third rail to AC overhead. |
|
|
| (1140390) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 13:34:24 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 12:56:42 2012. If only the Turbos didn't failGas-turbine trains are not viable, so it's not a case of them "failing". And if they succeeded, you can bet that electrification would not even be considered (as, funny enough, is the status quo today). |
|
|
| (1140391) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 13:36:02 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 12:48:41 2012. Don't tell me that you haven't seen the postsPosts on a website such as this are meaningless to me. I've seen too much rumormongering to take stuff as gospel, even from people who work on the railroad. Sorry. Well, Do you want it to happen or not? Don't change the subject to argumentum ad hominem. |
|
|
| (1140393) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 13:41:14 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 12:51:27 2012. If you think mechanical technology doesn't advanceFailed mechanical technology doesn't advance, and repeating this failure will merely cost more money especially in maintaining such specialized parts; if it were to work, it'd work right the first time. The Einstein-attributed maxim still applies . . . and the more cost-effective and easily-implemented alternative isn't even being explored, even though it's been in operation on Amtrak and the predecessor roads for over a century and even used for the football special trains. Why do you think the US have to rely on Germany and Japan for many mechanical parts these days? Outsourcing. Different matter altogether. |
|
|
| (1140396) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 18 14:03:35 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 07:36:21 2012. It would still make more sense than electrifying to Montauk, like some here advocate for. You need at least ten trains per direction per day to justify it. |
|
|
| (1140399) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Feb 18 14:04:52 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 13:32:54 2012. There are no specific plans to increase the frequency of the Empire ServiceThey've already started increasing the length of trains to/from the capital region; demand has most definitely increased for the Empire Corridor. There are quite a few trains that you can count on to sell out on any given weekend, where five years ago you could make a walk up purchase for any train any time (except Thanksgiving). Tech companies and colleges are building huge campuses up here in Albany. Cuomo is throwing $1 billion at Buffalo. GE is giving their Schenectady location some expansion. Upstate NY is growing (finally), electrification will be quite useful in the coming years and it will be best to have it when we need then then need it and not have it. There will be no "future stock with low-platform capability", especially when it comes to EMUs. Manitou and Breakneck ridge can have their platforms raised with something like a Mini-High, or the two weekend trains that serve them can simply use Shoreliners (the newest batch should be good for another 25 years). Finally, for cost effectiveness you are working under the assumption of current diesel prices. In 10 years time do you think we still will be able to afford to blow hundreds of gallons a trip for 14 trains a day? Regular gasoline is expected to jump 60 cents by summer! Electrical power has a much more stable price, since you can use a variety of reliable fuel sources for it (NG, coal, nuke, hydro, geothermal). |
|
|
| (1140403) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 14:14:18 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Feb 18 14:04:52 2012. < They've already started increasing the length of trains to/from the capital region >Do you mean to say that Amtrak can actually count past 5 now ? |
|
|
| (1140408) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 14:27:32 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Feb 18 14:04:52 2012. They've already started increasing the length of trains to/from the capital regionFrom what to what? And I'd advise you to watch out for that being a ploy not to increase service. If they start double-heading P32AC-DMs on twelve-car trains, even worse still. Remember, this is all up to the state, not to the service operators. There are quite a few trains that you can count on to sell out on any given weekend, where five years ago you could make a walk up purchase for any train any time (except Thanksgiving). Tech companies and colleges are building huge campuses up here in Albany. Cuomo is throwing $1 billion at Buffalo. GE is giving their Schenectady location some expansion. Upstate NY is growing (finally), electrification will be quite useful in the coming years and it will be best to have it when we need then then need it and not have it Speculation. Manitou and Breakneck ridge can have their platforms raised with something like a Mini-High Still in pipe-dream-land, eh? The MTA really blew a lot of capital dough on raising platforms from low to high. That cost apparently still has not been paid off yet. They don't have unlimited funds, certainly not to replace Shoreliners and M7s with fictitious M8s, and absolutely not to build wires from NYP to ALB or beyond. I still insist that if you're going to do the overhead wire thing to Albany, then all of Metro-North all the way back to GCT needs to get that treatment. The M3s and M7s get pantographs, all third-rail anything goes bye-bye, and P32AC-DMs get replaced with electric motors on the Shoreliners (NJT still has ALP-44s that are less than twenty years old sitting perfectly idle in Kearny)—that's the only way that the notion can be cost-effective. Finally, for cost effectiveness you are working under the assumption of current diesel prices. In 10 years time do you think we still will be able to afford to blow hundreds of gallons a trip for 14 trains a day? Still cheaper than electrifying, and way, way cheaper than re-electrifying—for fourteen trains per day. Right now, the price of gasoline is a close match to what it was in 1980 when adjusted for inflation, interestingly enough. And what we can afford is highly dependent on world stability—which the USA let run away due to switching to being dovish. And I forgot to mention that with the Keystone service, the electric overhead infrastructure to Harrisburg was already there. Restoration is not the same as new-build. |
|
|
| (1140413) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 14:32:38 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 14:27:32 2012. There isn't a chance in hell you can put catenary in the Park Avenue tunnels. The locos and the NH MU's make it in some places with less than a foot to spare with pans down, and there is no longer any opportunity to increase clearances. It has been done twice already. |
|
|
| (1140421) | |
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, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 13:32:54 2012. that's why Penny Bridge, Haberman, Fresh Pond and Glendale stations are still open on the LIRR. (Right?)Different scenario. Even the high platform Richmond Hill was closed on that line. And not every train needs to be an EMU. They can think of ordering a modern version of the EP-5 when it's time to replace the Genesis and use the available coach stock. You're going to have to add the additional equipment to step down to a specific AC voltage and frequency at certain substations; you can't use them as-is. Of course, but 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. You'd probably only need one or two substations for the twenty some miles where there's also third rail and I doubt they would use any frequency but the commercial 60Hz. You can't run at 90 mph with a DC third-rail dual-mode loco in electric mode. Why would Empire service trains use third rail anywhere once the line is AC overhead electrified? Besides, we won't see speed faster than 80 mph in MNR domain anyway. That makes no sense whatsoever in light of the call for conversion (and/or duplication) of electrification of the Hudson Line. No sense whatsoever. It's already not as cost-effective as you would want it to be to have EMUs that change from DC third rail to AC overhead. Electrification of the Hudson line is a by-product. The main cause is Amtrak's service to Albany. Whether MNR will get on with the program is up to them. They can keep running things the way it is now, if that's what they want to do until it's time to get new equipment. SLE doesn't run electrics yet either. And where did I say they have to be EMUs? |
|
|
| (1140426) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 18 14:57:52 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 13:34:24 2012. Gas-turbine trains are not viableThey still were back then. But they were a temporary measure anyway. And if they succeeded, you can bet that electrification would not even be considered Bet all you want. I won't. If they succeeded, they would have needed more equipment anyway. At that point, it would be a bit silly not to even consider. |
|
|
| (1140429) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 15:02:35 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 14:32:38 2012. There isn't a chance in hell you can put catenary in the Park Avenue tunnelsStop being so disagreeable. The locos and the NH MUs make it in some places with less than a foot to spare with pans down I've never seen any photos of that. Nor videos, and there are lots of Youtube videos around. And if there were no dual-voltage equipment, you'd have lower rooflines anyhow. Not to mention your 14' 6"-tall P32AC-DMs and 14' 1119⁄100"-tall FL9s (and you're not going to make me believe that any MU that ever traveled through those tunnels was that close to 15 feet tall). there is no longer any opportunity to increase clearances By a foot or two? Come on. This is the tunnels we're talking about, not the cut/cover segments. There's only that much difference in clearance between those tunnels and the North River Tunnels. |
|
|
| (1140431) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 15:04:37 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 14:57:52 2012. But they were a temporary measure anywayWhy would they blow so much dough on a "temporary measure"? If they succeeded, they would have needed more equipment anyway. At that point, it would be a bit silly not to even consider You're really counting on that fictitious scenario, aren't you? There wouldn't have been "more equipment", only replacement equipment, and it would have been more gas turbines. |
|
|
| (1140434) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 18 15:11:32 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 14:27:32 2012. I still insist that if you're going to do the overhead wire thing to Albany, then all of Metro-North all the way back to GCT needs to get that treatment.I absolutely see no reason for that. MBTA isn't even considering getting electric equipment. Like I said, This is an Amtrak project. MNR can decide on their own. The M3s and M7s get pantographs Good luck feeding high voltage AC on DC only equipment. Still cheaper than electrifying, and way, way cheaper than re-electrifying—for fourteen trains per day. There are quite a few HSR lines that were newly built and started off with that level of frequency. By that logic, the US will never have HSR. And how re-electrifying is more costly than electrifying from scratch? Part of the infrastructure is already there and we're only talking twenty-some miles. |
|
|
| (1140435) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 18 15:12:21 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 14:03:35 2012. We have more than that out here, but nobody is talking about electrification out here!ROAR |
|
|
| (1140436) | |
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. |
|
|
| (1140437) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 15:17:19 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by R30A on Fri Feb 17 22:20:09 2012. You looked at it too quickly. |
|
|
| (1140444) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 15:31:14 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 15:11:32 2012. I absolutely see no reason for thatThere's a reason. It's utterly inefficient to have duplicate electrification; it's just not done. You've got the cost of three railroads overlaid onto one. MBTA isn't even considering getting electric equipment . . . and MBTA has what to do with this? Like I said, This is an Amtrak project AIUT, it's a NYS project. Amtrak has nothing to do with it at all other than being the operator. Good luck feeding high voltage AC on DC only equipment It's not as expensive to put rectifiers on M7s as keeping multi-voltage equipment such as the M2/4/6/8, never mind having several transformers and rectifiers at ten times the number of substations as you'd have with AC overhead. And besides, since when are M7s "DC-only"? They do have AC traction motors, albeit with the IGBT inverters. There are quite a few HSR lines that were newly built and started off with that level of frequency Apples/oranges comparison. Block length, remember? Average speed is doubled there versus what's intended for NYP-ALB, a regional-type operation. |
|
|
| (1140445) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 18 15:33:06 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 15:04:37 2012. Why would they blow so much dough on a "temporary measure"?I don't think they had other equipment at the time. The Genesis DMs being ordered but not delivered yet. And it gave a certain politician some extra cash in his pocket. There wouldn't have been "more equipment", only replacement equipment Anti-rail, you've become. :( |
|
|
| (1140448) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Feb 18 15:43:22 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 14:03:35 2012. But the marginal cost of that electrification is reduced because it enables significant savings in terms of maintaining a shrinking diesel fleet. The alternative is essentially to simply abandon the east end of the LIRR. |
|
|
| (1140453) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 15:58:09 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 15:33:06 2012. I don't think they had other equipment at the time. The Genesis DMs being ordered but not delivered yet. And it gave a certain politician some extra cash in his pocketThe last sentence looks realistic to me. The P32AC-DMs were very much in service at the time when the big NYS hoopla over "125-mph RTL-III" rebuilt Turboliners was being thrown into the media. (What, nobody remembers that? They even painted the Turboliners the same colors as the Acela Express, showing them off in such far-flung locations as Chicago Union Station—of course, now that there's going to be 110-mph Chicago-Detroit trains between Porter IN and Kalamazoo MI, there's still no talk of putting Turboliners back on that route.) I won't even get into the propaganda over the BBD "Jet-Train" Acela power-car lookalike . . . 'There wouldn't have been "more equipment", only replacement equipment' Anti-rail, you've become Since when is stating what politicians would do being "anti-rail"? Silly, you've become. If the RTLs worked out, you would have seen more of them. |
|
|
| (1140455) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 16:09:31 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 15:58:09 2012. If the RTLs worked out, you would have seen more of them* . . . as replacements for the older ones. |
|
|
| (1140466) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 17:03:55 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 15:02:35 2012. MN Loco engineers on this board have said as much about clearances.A flat top MU is 12'10". That means you have at best 2 more feet for pantographs and catenary, plus some more space needed above that. The catenary cannot touch the ceiling. Forget it. The side tunnels have shorter clearances than the middle ones, and they vary throughout their length, being built at different times. |
|
|
| (1140467) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 17:09:19 2012, in response to 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. One eastbound in AM, Zero in the PM, which could conceivably stop at Richmond Hill. Loadings at that station when it was last open in 1998 was 1 per day, which is the way it had been since the 1960's. A PM LIC - Oyster Bay train got sent via Hunterpoint in 2010 when a Port Jeff job got cut. |
|
|
| (1140472) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 17:14:03 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 17:03:55 2012. A flat top MU is 12'10". That means you have at best 2 more feet for pantographs and catenaryNo FL9 or P32AC-DM would clear a 14' 10" tunnel. |
|
|
| (1140479) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Feb 18 17:24:53 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 17:14:03 2012. A Fl-9 is 14 feet 7 3/4 inch high and use to hit ceilings on outer tracks (4 and 3) the Genesis is lower than a FL-9 and comes in at 14 feet 6 inches. your correct as tunnel has to allow for bouncing of equipment. |
|
|
| (1140484) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 17:30:25 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Feb 18 17:24:53 2012. Unless we ban locos altogether with AC electrification into GCT, which is not reality, there is now way you can clear catenary over 14'6" equipment in those tunnels. Overhead 3rd rail it is not. |
|
|
| (1140501) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 18 18:22:41 2012, in response to 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. Similar 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.Different scenario. The two stops on the Hudson line have a purpose and it's not like MNR wants to close them. LIRR wanted to close the stations on the Lower Montauk at the first excuse they could find. And you don't have to use plural. There is only one inbound revenue train remaining just so they can say it still has service. Electrifying from scratch doesn't necessarily entail building your own power plants anymore. Where did I even hinted that? The main reason for using 60HZ is so they can use commercial power source. But you still have to bring it in, if it's a new electrification. Since DC power also requires rectifiers and more substations, it'd not make sense to keep it as a duplicate electrification system. The DC substations are already there and we are talking about one or two AC substations. It is necessary to keep third rail as long as Croton has a maintenance facility and you could still run the current DC equipment which won't retire anytime soon for Croton service. It's worth keeping both type of electrification there. I think you're getting Metro-North and LIRR mixed up. OK, 90. 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. Great. Nothing gets done. It's not that they gain anything by resisting either. |
|
|
| (1140502) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 18 18:32:50 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by WillD on Sat Feb 18 15:43:22 2012. You can't eliminate the diesel fleet as long as Greenport service exists. With the number of trains Montauk sees, it would be costlier to maintain electrification than to run diesels. |
|
|
| (1140503) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 18 18:37:26 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 15:58:09 2012. The P32AC-DMs were very much in service at the time when the big NYS hoopla over "125-mph RTL-III" rebuilt Turboliners was being thrown into the media.I was thinking when the Empire connection opened. Since when is stating what politicians would do being "anti-rail"? You don't believe in increase of demand, therefore service. Even politicians would ask for service increase if there were more demand. |
|
|
| (1140518) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 18 19:11:59 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 15:31:14 2012. It's utterly inefficient to have duplicate electrification; it's just not done.It's done where it gives operational flexibility. The Euston-Watford DC line is kept DC even though the paralleling tracks are AC powered so tube trains can run on it. North London line used to have duplicate electrification before they got dual-capable Class 313. Although in the States, I can only think of PATH in the old days and the NYP area. and MBTA has what to do with this? An example of diesel operation under catenary. AIUT, it's a NYS project. AIUT? I don't know that one. It's not as expensive to put rectifiers on M7s as keeping multi-voltage equipment such as the M2/4/6/8 You'd need transformers too. Not just rectifiers. The cost of maintaining AC only equipment is not that different from AC/DC dual capable ones when compared to DC only equipment. since when are M7s "DC-only"? They do have AC traction motors, albeit with the IGBT inverters. Do I even have to comment on that? You know exactly what I meant. They will only take DC power. Block length, remember? Average speed is doubled there versus what's intended for NYP-ALB, a regional-type operation. Huh? What that has to do with frequency of service? Obviously, I wasn't talking about operational speed. |
|
|
| (1140532) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Feb 18 19:40:37 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 14:14:18 2012. Yes... to six! The first few times I saw it I thought they were just deadheading an extra car... but I think the sets they run to Rutland and Niagara Falls now regularly see 6 cars. The Adirondack and Maple Leaf have had 6 cars for a while. |
|
|
| (1140533) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Feb 18 19:45:20 2012, in response to 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. as CSX would staunchly resist the same on its own propertyGuess you didn't get the memo that CSX is now leasing POU-SDY to Amtrak... I do believe Amtrak can now do whatever they want with the line, within reason. Care to try again? |
|
|
| (1140535) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Feb 18 20:04:50 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Feb 18 19:45:20 2012. Never argue with the omnipotent one ... he's a wizard. :)CSX didn't want to spend a penny and when the line got washed out by the hurricanes, CSX figured why not stick the taxpayer with the repair bills. Also takes them off the hook for the liability of rebuilding the line to high speed since they use the west side of the Hudson for traffic anyway and the occasional boxcar run down to meatball land ain't worth the expense of maintaining that track. CSX made out like a bandit, deal made by their former CEO Treasury Secretary John Snow during the previous administration. |
|
|
| (1140536) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sat Feb 18 20:06:06 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 15:31:14 2012. There is duplicate electrification throughout the Penn Station complex including the East River and North River tunnels. |
|
|
| (1140538) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 18 20:35:21 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Feb 18 13:41:14 2012. Outsourcing.Try again. It's because the US don't or in some cases can't make them. |
|
|
| (1140541) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Feb 18 20:54:22 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 20:35:21 2012. And it's the longstanding stupid American mindset that if you do things with your hands, you're beneath society. TRY and find enough machinists when every kid *must* become an MBA. :( |
|
|
| (1140545) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Feb 18 21:12:28 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 18:32:50 2012. So electrify the Greenport service as well. They're already planning on purchasing DMUs to provide a higher frequency East End shuttle. Rather than shelling out 4-6 million bucks a pop for ten DMUs (or upwards of $10 million if TriMet's nightmare is to be a guide), the MTA could take advantage of the economies of scale to spend on the order of 2-3 million dollars a unit for an AC/DC variant of the M9 and use the savings to complete the electrification to points which would not otherwise justify the electrification. The possibility exists that there would be between 10 million and 50 million dollars savings in the rolling stock purchase with which to electrify the operation. That way even if the electrification comes out to have a slightly higher capital cost, its lifetime cost would ultimately be lower by virtue of its lower operating costs. |
|
|
| (1140546) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Feb 18 21:16:59 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 18 17:30:25 2012. I wonder if an overhead conductor rail as used in Europe and the Far East could fit. They take much less room than conventional catenary.This pic is from Berlin so it's powered by 15kV 16 2/3Hz AC. 
|
|
|
| (1140550) | |
Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Feb 18 21:33:19 2012, in response to Re: NY Senate Urges MTA To Reject Proposal To cut LIRR service into Penn Station, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Feb 18 20:54:22 2012. TRY and find enough machinists when every kid *must* become an MBAWell, to be honest, a sizable number of parents want their kids to become members of the elite, or at minimum, that quaint upper middle class with high wages and a "proper" white collar job instead of working as a dirty labourer with poor manners. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
