A Historical Hudson Line Question (1156467) | |
Home > SubChat |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 1 of 2 |
(1156468) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun May 13 20:29:07 2012, in response to A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sun May 13 20:16:32 2012. they use to attach a locomotive to old MU's for short haul to Peekskill. locomotive ran around at peekskill and towed the MU's back to harmon where they went solo. |
|
(1156469) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sun May 13 20:31:00 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun May 13 20:29:07 2012. lotta work for a couple of stops.... |
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It
|
(1156470) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun May 13 20:32:12 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sun May 13 20:31:00 2012. not at the time, less connections, no HEP or steam and only done in summertime.these days with all FRA regs it would be nightmare. |
|
(1156475) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Scrabbleship on Sun May 13 21:20:02 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun May 13 20:32:12 2012. Proof that having an FRA does more harm than good. Rail was better without an FRA. |
|
(1156477) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by randyo on Sun May 13 21:22:54 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Scrabbleship on Sun May 13 21:20:02 2012. AFAIK, prior to the FRA, the railroad division of the ICC served the same function. |
|
(1156480) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Scrabbleship on Sun May 13 21:26:19 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by randyo on Sun May 13 21:22:54 2012. But they weren't as restrictive and anal as the FRA. |
|
(1156481) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Fisk ave Jim on Sun May 13 21:29:41 2012, in response to A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sun May 13 20:16:32 2012. At one time, there was a plan to extend 3d rail to Peekskill. Story goes that Dutchess county bitched big time, saying that their taxpayer contributions into the newly (then) formed MTA warrented extention all the way to Poughkeepsie.Why should we contribute to a service improvement that will not benifit our residents was the outcry. Court fight, public hearings, a lawyers dream etc. till fimally the MTA said that the end of 3d rail will stay at Croton North and "shelved" the extension plan for some future date. Ill stick my neck out here & say that 3d rail will NEVER reach Poughkeepsie |
|
(1156482) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun May 13 21:34:51 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Scrabbleship on Sun May 13 21:26:19 2012. yes and the number of workers hurt per ton miles operated much higher one suspects. Undoubtedly there are dumb rules--I can think of same in the National Electrical Code which annoy me. But, the general goal is reducing hazard/saving lives. |
|
(1156483) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun May 13 21:38:41 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun May 13 21:34:51 2012. And the most important thing that I learned about NEC and other regulations while I was with the NYPSC as an engineer is that those rules are written by attorneys who really don't want to talk to engineers first. Some of them are incredibly stupid. And wasteful. |
|
(1156489) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Dave on Sun May 13 22:22:12 2012, in response to A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sun May 13 20:16:32 2012. Terminals for commuter trains were at Glenwood, Croton-on-Hudson,Peekskill, and Poughkeepsie. |
|
(1156496) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun May 13 23:48:51 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Fisk ave Jim on Sun May 13 21:29:41 2012. say that 3d rail will NEVER reach PoughkeepsieOf course. In the 21st Century, we have constant tension catenary. :-) |
|
(1156498) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 14 00:38:17 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun May 13 21:38:41 2012. no, its an unholy cabal of building inspectors, insurance folk, major developers, etc. I had an interesting argument with a Carolina state insurance wig. He alleged a particular interpretation of tyhe code. I challenged him citing a UL listed product which explicitly did not meet his interpretation. Next hegot a revision rewriting the section to back his vision and then replied "see it is as I said" Never responded re the existing product which was then discontinued. Long and short of it many of the code writers are knowledgable but as with most else it is mediocre sausage. |
|
(1156499) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 14 00:42:49 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun May 13 23:48:51 2012. well, converting the ex NYC/NH to overhead would be a huge task, but once done a great step forward. |
|
(1156501) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 14 01:01:43 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 14 00:38:17 2012. Well ... like I said, it's the agency attorneys who ultimately write the detailed specifications, and engineers be damned. :)Here's an amusing example of the stupid that I fought unsuccessfully at the NYPSC ... in an electrical installation, you have hot, neutral and GROUND. Specification of ground is to clamp to a 10 foot (I argued 20 given soil conditions in many spots) stake driven into the ground and attached to the entry cold water service pipe. All well and good for nearly a hundred years. But wait ... what's this? Municipalities installing PLASTIC water service meters. Oh-kay ... so NOW, with plastic meter in between the street and the cold water piping inside the residence, with the breaker box grounded to the cold water pipe inside the residence, what now happens to that "ground?" Lawyer eyes glaze over. I argue that you've now lifted the house from ground (since the exterior stake is usually connected by a short runner to the OUTSIDE water service pipe that's now on the OTHER side of that plastic meter and now Biff and Bunny Homeowner have NO ground at all and have to believe in neutral being such. Not happening! My stake in this had to do with cable television which is also required to be grounded and bonded for electrical safety that is connected to the SAME ground as the electrical cabinet ... nothing! Needless to say, it took an awful lot of house fires and lightning strikes before anyone there would listen to me. And my wigs and other engineers. Nope ... the lawyers and the politicos were master electricians ... my ass. :( |
|
(1156502) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 14 01:06:33 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 14 01:01:43 2012. Oh yeah ... forgot the punchline ...After all those mysterious fires (especially with Verizon FiOS installs years later) the PSC amended the rule to "recommend" that an 18 gauge stranded wire run around the plastic meters with a pair of clamps. NOW they have a FUSE to blow. :) |
|
(1156503) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 14 01:32:17 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 14 01:06:33 2012. Funny you mention that mess. The NEC long ago required two grounding paths, an 8'rod + the cold water pipe if continuously metallicx and buried for at least 10' laterally, or a second 8' rod at least 6 away from the first one. Also the cold water clamp point must be within 5' of the entry to the building. Third issue. At the hot water heater, a bond min #8 linking the hot, cold, and gas piping. So first redundancy of connection into the dirt, second crosslinking of metallic piping, third cold water pipe clamp very close to where the water service comes in. I will tell you I violated the latter on the third floor of an SF building a decade and change ago. I was installing a light on the third (top) floor. In this building light fixtures are nechanically suspended from the no longer (we hope) active gas lighting. So, since in the flat roof "attic" accessible from the closet there was modern copper water piping, I metered that it was grounded and planted a clamp fishing a #10 over to the light. Clear violation of the letter--there was no ROW to the basement where a "legit" ground would be available. It metered true, I used it.Not much rail content here, but this was right adjacent to the F Market Muni line. |
|
(1156506) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 14 01:46:46 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 14 01:32:17 2012. Ah yes! Let's add stray voltage. And trolley poles (back on topic!) to the mix. Now we have electrolysis turning various metals into diodes in the path. Huzzah! :)A couple of years after I gave up on the idiots I had to serve in Gubbamint (Paturkey, D'Amato) and decided to start a software company where I actually had RESULTS at the end of the day instead of smelling like sausage, I was down in White Plains visiting in-laws during a lightning storm down there. We were well lubricated when the storm hit the neighborhood. Living upstate, close by lightning sounds JUST like a gun shot. Heard same, went "whew! That was close." About 30 seconds later, smelled *SMOKE* ... *SAW* smoke coming up from the basement. Oh shit! :( Called the fire department and got everybody out. No flames. Whew! FD arrived, heavy smoke in the basement. No flames. Turns out that lightning hit the weatherhead. Power was out of course, cabinet was OK. Turns out that the water meter ate it along with what looked like some melted TV antenna twinlead that was wrapped around the water meter. I went APESHIT and bitched out the cable company to the PSC over it. They still didn't amend the rules until a year or three later when all over downstate, Verizon was hooking up FiOS ... a *LOT* of buildings burned when FiOS went in and PSC finally fined them over it. They chose the GAS meter to wrap their wire around, not even BOTHERING to ground their boxes. Yep ... ordinary 28 gauge twisted pair D station wire to the freaking PLASTIC GAS meter. That's what burned down all those houses. :( |
|
(1156507) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 14 02:09:11 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 14 01:46:46 2012. amazing. 'course what I see around here is cable TV drop cable tied around the periscope--WTF??? Lightning out here is rare and weak--something I miss from back there as an aesthetic experience. The absolutely best was a storm coming off the Lake while I was in the domecar of the Capitol Ltd as we were on our way from To;ledo East. By the time we got to Cleveland it was spectacular and the rain was pouring. Such a gas in the dome with the water pounding the glass right over my head. |
|
(1156508) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 14 02:30:45 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 14 00:42:49 2012. All the way into GCT? |
|
(1156509) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 14 02:40:07 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 14 02:09:11 2012. Heh. Yeah, New York doesn't allow stupid ... except amongst their lawgivers and the agencies they love. ;)I always wondered about that since strangely, I can't recall EVER seeing lightning strikes over fresh water. Salty of course is a given. I imagine you were watching it actually hitting land? |
|
(1156512) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon May 14 04:58:32 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Scrabbleship on Sun May 13 21:26:19 2012. Actually the old ICC rules almost mimick current FRA rules other than updates.I guess we should not update and let safety of passengers and railroaders stay at a 1930's level ?? |
|
(1156513) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Ian Lennon on Mon May 14 05:02:49 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 14 00:42:49 2012. Does Grand Central have the clearence to allow this? I know that a overhead third rail existed at one time, but are clearences similar? |
|
(1156514) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon May 14 05:15:22 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Ian Lennon on Mon May 14 05:02:49 2012. no there is no room for catenary in park avenue tunnels or GCT.the space above train is different at all locations, the overhead third rail only existed at certain crossovers and only required minimal clearance. |
|
(1156515) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Ian Lennon on Mon May 14 05:24:05 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon May 14 05:15:22 2012. Tnakns, makes sense. |
|
(1156516) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Scrabbleship on Mon May 14 06:02:14 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon May 14 04:58:32 2012. Were they any less safe than today? |
|
(1156532) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 14 08:00:04 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Scrabbleship on Mon May 14 06:02:14 2012. Have you ever tried to use a poling pocket? |
|
(1156568) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Mon May 14 12:05:12 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun May 13 20:29:07 2012. Ahhhhhh, so that explains why some M-1As before retirement and even M-3As (the latter having a few with operational destination signs over the front cab windshield), had "PEEKSKILL" as a destination choice (now this gives me something to look for to photographically document!!) |
|
(1156575) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 12:49:40 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Scrabbleship on Sun May 13 21:26:19 2012. Maybe not on operations, but they were incredibly oppressive. Ran most railroads out of business. |
|
(1156576) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 14 12:54:29 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 14 02:40:07 2012. can't remember. the tracks are not directly by the lake except in downtown Cleveland. |
|
(1156582) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 14 13:15:57 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 14 02:30:45 2012. So, first, Dutchrailnut is correct, there is no clearance in the tunnels/GCT. North of the portal, relatively clear. In an ideal and affluent world doing catenary on MN and ultimately the electric parts of LIRR would encourage more and better through routing of trains. In the case of the Water Level Route faster trains to Albany because in my utopian vision wires would be strung clear to Albany. A real safety benefit for track maintenance crews of not having third rail to walk around is non trivial. |
|
(1156584) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 13:22:11 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Fisk ave Jim on Sun May 13 21:29:41 2012. The thing that will kill 3rd rail to Poughkeepsie will be oposition to any storage facility in the area. I honestly think that it makes no sense to extend it just to Peekskill, if you're going to invest billions, go all in and eliminate the need to use any dual modes on the Hudson line. But that's a lot of third rail through a lot of nothing between each station. |
|
(1156585) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 13:22:24 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Fisk ave Jim on Sun May 13 21:29:41 2012. The thing that will kill 3rd rail to PEEKSKILL will be oposition to any storage facility in the area. I honestly think that it makes no sense to extend it just to Peekskill, if you're going to invest billions, go all in and eliminate the need to use any dual modes on the Hudson line. But that's a lot of third rail through a lot of nothing between each station. |
|
(1156588) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 14 13:39:14 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 13:22:11 2012. The thing that will kill 3rd rail to Poughkeepsie will be opposition to any storage facility in the areaHow do they currently solve the storage problem with the dual mode push-pull trains? That last low platform at Poughkeepsie will have to be raised to high, too, i.e. if it's still low and they want to use it with their high-platform-only MUs. But that's a lot of third rail through a lot of nothing between each station That's the way they did it originally, yes? Back when the third rail first was put in, there was quite a bit of "nothing" between the stations up to Harmon. The third rail's been in operation for over a century now. |
|
(1156596) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Mon May 14 13:56:37 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 13:22:11 2012. They could always deadhead the MUs from CH yard to POU when there needed up there.This situation kinda reminds of Huntington on the LIRR, the yard there is just a regular track with trains stacked behind each other lol. I haven't ridden a train North of POU in well over 10 years but if there's space they also could do that for storage. Should be little to no opposition. |
|
(1156597) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Mon May 14 14:03:33 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Fisk ave Jim on Sun May 13 21:29:41 2012. It would be nice to ride a M3 up to POH looking out the RFW someday.Very scenic line up there and the Amtraks whizzing by in the Opposite direction is the icing on the cake! However, isn't the MAS 90 MPH some part between CH and POU? Are M3/7s allowed to travel that fast? |
|
(1156603) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon May 14 14:38:09 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 14 01:01:43 2012. Verizon FiOS, it is to laugh. Live in Baltimore City, no FiOS. Comcast only as the first cable company got a "only one" contract and every company got that "only one" contract. My street is half city and half county and Verizon wired the county part and terminated it 4 feet from the city line. We dumped Verizon for phone service as Comcast gives us phone service (including long distance) for 12.50 a month, Verizon charged $40.00 a month, no long distance. |
|
(1156606) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Mon May 14 14:40:26 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon May 14 08:00:04 2012. Heck, poling pockets went bye-bye years ago. Find me a class 1 railroad that has any cars with poling pockets. |
|
(1156607) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 14:43:57 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 14 13:39:14 2012. The stations between Harmon and NYC are closer together and population density is higher. |
|
(1156608) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 14:48:38 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Mon May 14 13:56:37 2012. I actually meant a yard in Peekskill, not Poughkeepsie. There's some storage just north of Poughkeepsie, but I would not call it a "yard". If you want to extend electric service to Peekskill, a yard is necessary. The situation in Huntington is not one you want to see duplicated. |
|
(1156609) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 14 14:49:24 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 14:43:57 2012. . . . nowadays. Back when the third rail was first put in a century ago, was the population significantly higher from Harmon southward? |
|
(1156610) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon May 14 14:50:58 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 13:22:24 2012. The only rational reason for extending to Poughkeepsie would be to also eventually extend to Wassaic and ultimately end diesel operations and save money on that.I know about Danbury and Waterbury, but that's CTDOT's problem. |
|
(1156611) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 14 14:55:56 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon May 14 14:50:58 2012. LOL! |
|
(1156612) | |
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 . . . ? |
|
(1156620) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon May 14 16:27:19 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 14 15:04:58 2012. I'm fine w/ stringing wire coast to coast. Albany is a baby step. The next generation E 44s should do regen back to the wires and there should be wind and solar farms trackside in many places. The wasted electricity in today's diesels going downgrade would lift megatons upgrade. Even if some of the electricity were carbon generated, it is easier to police a large generating station than each GE/EMD smog box. |
|
(1156629) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Mon May 14 16:57:54 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon May 14 01:06:33 2012. To your knowledge, were any builders or contractors installing such jumpers around the meters before the code got around to mentioning it? It would seem like an intelligent thing to do. |
|
(1156633) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 14 17:18:13 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Scrabbleship on Sun May 13 21:20:02 2012. You turning American again? Haven't seen you praising Transport Canada and their regulations yet . . . |
|
(1156639) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Fisk ave Jim on Mon May 14 18:09:08 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon May 14 13:22:24 2012. I'd even stick my neck out further & say that in our lifetime, we might even see 3d rail ripped up north of Yankee Stadium on the Hudson & north of Woodlawn over on the Harlem.With the success of the push-pull operations on the Hudson, Shoreliner coaches with the GE locomotives have quadrupled ridership while maintaining a 95+% on time performance level. This knocks dowm the FRA mandate for the need of more rigerous inspections of the M series cars a/c each car is considered an electric locomotive whereas Bomb cars are obviously not, resulting in more freed up equiptment. The MTA suits privetly admmit it was a mistake to run 3d rail to Southeast, after seeing that what was happening over on the Husdon was so successful. Also as an historical aside, the MTA wanted to rip up entirely tk 1 on the hudson from CP12 to OW after reverse & cab signalling was installed. When NYS DOT heard about this, they screamed not so fast so the track is still there, but the 3d rail north of Greystone(on tk 1) is gone. |
|
(1156646) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon May 14 18:49:46 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Fisk ave Jim on Mon May 14 18:09:08 2012. I'd even stick my neck out further & say that in our lifetime, we might even see 3rd rail ripped up north of Yankee Stadium on the Hudson & north of Woodlawn over on the HarlemI wouldn't. Not after Metro-North spent all that money to build more third rail north of White Plains and all, and in spite of what you claim to hear from MTA bureaucrats. The electrics' operating costs are still way lower than the dual-mode trains (as their average speeds are still way higher), and the cost of diesel fuel still remains high—a major factor that'll have them holding on to the electrics. That spirit of McGinnis ain't coming back. |
|
(1156648) | |
Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question |
|
Posted by merrick1 on Mon May 14 18:52:49 2012, in response to Re: A Historical Hudson Line Question, posted by Fisk ave Jim on Mon May 14 18:09:08 2012. I don't think the push-pull sets have good-enough acceleration for local service. Isn't that why the last two trains from GCT which make all stops have a change of train at Croton-Harmon? |
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 1 of 2 |