|
|
| Should the MTA get the ACS-64? (1374850) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (1374850) | |
Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Hamilton Express on Mon Nov 23 20:13:48 2015 Damn, I haven't posted in a long time here...I was wondering this idea now that SEPTA is getting these guys. Will the MTA get the Siemens ACS-64? Discuss |
|
|
| (1374857) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Nov 23 20:33:32 2015, in response to Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Hamilton Express on Mon Nov 23 20:13:48 2015. No.No current lines could run with them. Only one potential (and admittedly very likely) future line could run with them, but that line is almost certain to use a yard which ACS-64s couldn't reach. |
|
|
| (1374860) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Nov 23 21:01:41 2015, in response to Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Hamilton Express on Mon Nov 23 20:13:48 2015. for what ?? it has no third rail capability |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1374864) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Mon Nov 23 21:31:16 2015, in response to Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Hamilton Express on Mon Nov 23 20:13:48 2015. Nah, now that new Siemens Diesel locomotive that Amtrak is getting....Especially if they can squeeze Dual mode technology into them.... |
|
|
| (1374894) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Nov 24 02:32:45 2015, in response to Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Hamilton Express on Mon Nov 23 20:13:48 2015. Yes, absolutely. But not necessarily the ACS64. If there's one thing Siemens is good at, it's designing locomotives for multiple power systems. Building a locomotive which can draw power from the 3rd rail at 750vdc or catenary at somewhere between 11 and 25kv and 25 to 60hz should not present a problem. Ditto Bombardier, so invite BBD in to design a multisystem Traxx locomotive which suits the LIRR or MNRR's needs as well. Then complete the electrification of the LIRR's diesel lines with high voltage OHLE and have these ACS64U4, or P160MS2e as the case may be, locomotives haul the C3 coaches once the wire's hot and the troublesome DE/DM30ACs have been retired. Then you just have to cancel the M9s, and put out an RFI for an AC/DC EMU which will fit within the ESA tubes. Over time the LIRR can be reelectrified to high voltage AC power. |
|
|
| (1374896) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Nov 24 02:39:02 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by R30A on Mon Nov 23 20:33:32 2015. IMHO that'd be the easiest application for an AC locomotive in the service of an MTA commuter railroad. An electric locomotive operating from the New Haven Line into NYP and terminating at West Side Yard could be equipped with a comparatively low powered 3rd rail pickup system to move a train at no more than 20 to 30mph. I'll readily admit my concept of an electric locomotive drawing enough current to maintain schedules on the LIRR is a bit far fetched as the arcing could be pretty spectacular when conditions are less than ideal. But to just limp a train from the LIRR platforms to WSY is a lot more doable and a lot lower current.Or if that won't work, Bombardier offers the P160AC3LM, with a small "last mile" diesel generator that could be used to get the train from the platform to its track in WSY. Certainly Amtrak can't complain when they ran diesel locomotives in the 'A' interlocking area for years. |
|
|
| (1374897) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Nov 24 02:45:37 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Mon Nov 23 21:31:16 2015. Because we haven't pissed enough good money away on the dual mode failure, lets try it again with another manufacturer. This time it'll be totally different, we promise! Please make the check out to "CASH". It's an acronym for umm, something. |
|
|
| (1374916) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Tue Nov 24 07:35:49 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by WillD on Tue Nov 24 02:32:45 2015. Points for technical merit will not overcome financial reality. |
|
|
| (1374922) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Nov 24 08:32:44 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by WillD on Tue Nov 24 02:32:45 2015. Wow. You sure do those pipe dreams with gusto. |
|
|
| (1374923) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Nov 24 08:34:30 2015, in response to Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Hamilton Express on Mon Nov 23 20:13:48 2015. Just what lines can use the ACS-64? Are there wires going all the way into GCT on Metro-North? |
|
|
| (1375003) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Nov 24 17:39:26 2015, in response to Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Hamilton Express on Mon Nov 23 20:13:48 2015. What in the world for ? The New Haven Line is all EMU. I am sure they have looked at the pokey outfit NJT, seen what loco-hauled trains have done to running times to Dover and Trenton, and said "don't let that happen to us". |
|
|
| (1375044) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Nov 24 21:32:55 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by WillD on Tue Nov 24 02:45:37 2015. While I agree that Dual Mode isn't quite what it's cracked up to be, I don't think the Hudson Line is going to be wired up any time this century... and the '32s are showing their age... |
|
|
| (1375068) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Nov 24 22:37:47 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Joe V on Tue Nov 24 17:39:26 2015. The NH line is pokey enough. But NJT's infamous Shirley Time (whoops, fake resume) and that 10-mph average speed hit makes 4-4-0s laugh, or would if they were still around. |
|
|
| (1375130) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Nov 25 10:26:59 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by WillD on Tue Nov 24 02:45:37 2015. failure ?? P32acdm's are doing fine, still going strong after 20 years, while FL-9's faked dual mode status for over 35 years. |
|
|
| (1375131) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Nov 25 10:28:48 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Nov 24 21:32:55 2015. all are just finished overhaul and good for another 15 years. |
|
|
| (1375176) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Nov 25 15:57:07 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Nov 25 10:26:59 2015. Amtrak's FL9s seemed to work most of the time in Penn. |
|
|
| (1375195) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Wed Nov 25 16:58:12 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by WillD on Tue Nov 24 02:32:45 2015. I like your line of thinking.Now about this money issue.... |
|
|
| (1375197) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Wed Nov 25 17:02:06 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Joe V on Tue Nov 24 17:39:26 2015. Would a power car at each end like the LIRR Dualy's perk it up any? |
|
|
| (1375199) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Nov 25 17:05:18 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Avid Reader on Wed Nov 25 17:02:06 2015. shure but it would also double price of motive power, to close to 12 million per train. |
|
|
| (1375213) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Nov 25 17:50:10 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Nov 24 22:37:47 2015. Besides Shirley time, there is no way a clunky MLV milk train Trenton - NYP can make it in 80 minutes, allowing for the 3 relatively new stations. The Arrows used to do it in 70 minutes. |
|
|
| (1375214) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Wed Nov 25 17:51:07 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Nov 25 15:57:07 2015. But they had to be hauled out by a Motor to and from SSY. |
|
|
| (1375235) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Nov 25 19:23:45 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Nov 25 10:28:48 2015. Ah, so Metro North's are good, glad to hear!The Amtrak ones look like they've gone through a war zone or three... |
|
|
| (1375242) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Nov 25 22:44:25 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Nov 25 19:23:45 2015. Depends on your definition of good.Ranging from Marginally more reliable than the LIRR DM30AC to roughly equal is not a ringing endorsement in my mind. |
|
|
| (1375252) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Hamilton Express on Thu Nov 26 08:40:04 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Nov 24 08:34:30 2015. Looks like it would be more suitable for the New Haven line. |
|
|
| (1375287) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Thu Nov 26 12:46:53 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Avid Reader on Wed Nov 25 17:02:06 2015. Doesn't a single P32DM handle the now-11 car Lake Shore Ltd ?(The Boston section has been a shuttle for 6 months, and will be through January). |
|
|
| (1375295) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 26 13:25:36 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Joe V on Wed Nov 25 17:51:07 2015. I heard that was the case with respect to the Turboliners, which could not handle the East River Tunnel grades in electric mode. |
|
|
| (1375296) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 26 13:26:54 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Hamilton Express on Thu Nov 26 08:40:04 2015. Only for going in and out of NYP. And Metro-North is not going in there despite politicians rhetoric to the contrary, and is averse to not using their MUs when in all-electric territory. |
|
|
| (1375299) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 26 13:28:17 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Joe V on Wed Nov 25 17:50:10 2015. Indeed so. |
|
|
| (1375304) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Thu Nov 26 16:03:48 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Joe V on Thu Nov 26 12:46:53 2015. I doubt a single DM pull an entire LSL consist though the Empire connector W/B... IIRC the P32's are "weaker" in E mode and its on a hill.. Diesel mode I'm sure they can handle it... |
|
|
| (1375305) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Thu Nov 26 16:08:17 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by WillD on Tue Nov 24 02:45:37 2015. The Amtrak/Metro North ones seem to be doing pretty good.. even the LIRR ones seem to be doing pretty good. Out of all the dual mode engines these three railroads had batting 3 for 4 seems to be pretty successful to me. |
|
|
| (1375311) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Nov 26 16:44:47 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 26 13:26:54 2015. Don’t bet on M/N not going int NYP. If politicians want it they will use more then just rhetoric. They will LEAN on M/N and the rest of the MTA to do it. |
|
|
| (1375312) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Thu Nov 26 16:55:11 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Thu Nov 26 16:03:48 2015. Almost every day a single P32 pulls the LSL to Albany, the E-mode is only in play until they get into the air. It's diesel all the way up the West Side and on to Albany. |
|
|
| (1375317) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Thu Nov 26 17:12:03 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by pragmatist on Thu Nov 26 16:55:11 2015. The Full LSL consist or the split up one like they usually do? |
|
|
| (1375326) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 26 19:05:29 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by randyo on Thu Nov 26 16:44:47 2015. They can't do that, because NYP is not the MTA's station. Aside from there being no room, if they try to "lean on" Amtrak, they won't go anywhere. |
|
|
| (1375327) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Thu Nov 26 19:28:21 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Thu Nov 26 17:12:03 2015. Both, actually. Most of my LSL trips I watch the P32 come off and the train get reassembled with the Boston section and the P42s, but my last trip, because of the construction, the extra cars originated in NY, and the Boston passengers come across the platform. Did the engine change, but no join. |
|
|
| (1375341) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Thu Nov 26 21:36:03 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Thu Nov 26 16:03:48 2015. P32acdm is same HP in Diesel or electric,only max speed in electric is limited to 60 mph |
|
|
| (1375369) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Nov 27 09:34:12 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by pragmatist on Tue Nov 24 07:35:49 2015. It'd be cheaper than running 3rd rail to the end of the island, and it'd be much more convenient for the passengers than having service to Montauk, Greenport, or Oyster Bay terminated because the LIRR decided it was too expensive to maintain a shrinking diesel fleet. |
|
|
| (1375384) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Nov 27 13:48:21 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by WillD on Fri Nov 27 09:34:12 2015. There is no chance LIRR would terminate such service just because they do decide they don't want a diesel fleet. The diesel fleet is not shrinking - it has simply been exactly the same for 16 years, and no one with influence has challenged them to do anything about it. |
|
|
| (1375388) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Nov 27 14:00:08 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Nov 26 19:05:29 2015. They can certainly compel the LIRR to release some spots to M/N especially after the ESA is opened. |
|
|
| (1375396) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Fri Nov 27 16:01:36 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by randyo on Fri Nov 27 14:00:08 2015. it is not up to LIRR to deed those spots to MN, the station and its time slots are Amtrak and only Amtrak can assign them to others, just like it is illegal to sub-let on a apartment rental. |
|
|
| (1375397) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Nov 27 16:10:04 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Dutchrailnut on Fri Nov 27 16:01:36 2015. It is not illegal to sublet on an apartment rental. |
|
|
| (1375398) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Dj Hammers on Fri Nov 27 16:17:48 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Nov 27 16:10:04 2015. Depends on the terms of the lease. |
|
|
| (1375410) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Nov 27 17:18:54 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Dutchrailnut on Fri Nov 27 16:01:36 2015. The slots are owned by LIRR, and have been since Pennsy days. LIRR has a joint operating agreement with AMtrak, not a trackage rights agreement. The de facto LIRR Board is the MTA Board, and they can shift them to MN. Refusing to do so is why Helena got fired. |
|
|
| (1375411) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Fri Nov 27 17:29:12 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Dj Hammers on Fri Nov 27 16:17:48 2015. Correct. And in the case of certain types of housing subsidies, the terms of the subsidy agreement. |
|
|
| (1375425) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Nov 27 19:03:42 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Thu Nov 26 16:08:17 2015. if we were batting 3 for 4, you might have a point.We aren't. We're arguably at 0 for 5. |
|
|
| (1375440) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Nov 27 21:00:48 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Joe V on Fri Nov 27 13:48:21 2015. There is no chance LIRR would terminate such serviceThey tried to terminate the Greenport service no more than 3 or 4 years ago during a budget crunch. just because they do decide they don't want a diesel fleet. They're not going to decide that they don't want a diesel fleet, but they're going to decide they don't want to pay the costs of the diesel fleet amortized over a shrinking number of passengers, hours, and miles as they whittle away at it with 3rd rail extensions. At a certain point they'll find themselves in another budget crunch, they'll have electrified to Riverhead, Port Jefferson, and perhaps Speonk or Patchogue, and the remaining diesel operations will sit high on the list of potential abandonments. it has simply been exactly the same for 16 years, and no one with influence has challenged them to do anything about it. And before 16 years ago? You lamented the reduction in diesel rolling stock which occurred when the current fleet was introduced. What will happen with the next fleet? Chances are the LIRR will finally complete an electrification extension and reduce the diesel mileage. So we'll see an even smaller diesel fleet with the next order. But there will likely be little in the way of savings as diesel operations decline because much of their cost is wrapped up in fixed expenditures maintaining the Richmond Hill shops. So the LIRR is going to be faced with a diesel fleet which, if they manage to extend their 3rd rail electrification, will become more and more expensive in terms of unlinked passenger trips, revenue miles, and revenue hours. At a certain point the beancounters won't sit still and continue to allow the operation to hemorrhage money. Or they can invest capital now with an electrification approach that allows them to electrify the entire network without a ridiculous cost and would safeguard the entire network. |
|
|
| (1375441) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri Nov 27 21:00:49 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Joe V on Fri Nov 27 13:48:21 2015. There is no chance LIRR would terminate such serviceThey tried to terminate the Greenport service no more than 3 or 4 years ago during a budget crunch. just because they do decide they don't want a diesel fleet. They're not going to decide that they don't want a diesel fleet, but they're going to decide they don't want to pay the costs of the diesel fleet amortized over a shrinking number of passengers, hours, and miles as they whittle away at it with 3rd rail extensions. At a certain point they'll find themselves in another budget crunch, they'll have electrified to Riverhead, Port Jefferson, and perhaps Speonk or Patchogue, and the remaining diesel operations will sit high on the list of potential abandonments. it has simply been exactly the same for 16 years, and no one with influence has challenged them to do anything about it. And before 16 years ago? You lamented the reduction in diesel rolling stock which occurred when the current fleet was introduced. What will happen with the next fleet? Chances are the LIRR will finally complete an electrification extension and reduce the diesel mileage. So we'll see an even smaller diesel fleet with the next order. But there will likely be little in the way of savings as diesel operations decline because much of their cost is wrapped up in fixed expenditures maintaining the Richmond Hill shops. So the LIRR is going to be faced with a diesel fleet which, if they manage to extend their 3rd rail electrification, will become more and more expensive in terms of unlinked passenger trips, revenue miles, and revenue hours. At a certain point the beancounters won't sit still and continue to allow the operation to hemorrhage money. Or they can invest capital now with an electrification approach that allows them to electrify the entire network without a ridiculous cost and would safeguard the entire network. |
|
|
| (1375452) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Nov 27 23:07:10 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Joe V on Fri Nov 27 17:18:54 2015. Can't see how, since Metro-North trains are not covered under the agreement especially with respect to dispatching. And they can't twist Amtrak's arm to let Metro-North trains on the Hell Gate line either, which is all Amtrak. |
|
|
| (1375453) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Nov 27 23:07:57 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by R30A on Wed Nov 25 22:44:25 2015. MDBF numbers? |
|
|
| (1375454) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Nov 27 23:08:37 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by R30A on Fri Nov 27 19:03:42 2015. So you're saying all of the DMs are not in service? |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
