|
|
| Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? (1374850) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1375455) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Nov 27 23:57:14 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Nov 27 23:07:57 2015. 22K miles 12 month MDBF as of last report to the MTA board I read. DM30s were 20K. |
|
|
| (1375458) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Nov 28 07:23:09 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by WillD on Fri Nov 27 21:00:48 2015. The Greenport Scoot is a 2 car train with a bus load of passengers. There is no comparison between that and all the other diesel services.There are no plans to electrify to Yaphank, Riverhead, Port Jeff nor Speonk. Montauk Branch ridership is up 40% in the last 5 years. I don't know where you are coming up with this "whittling away" or "chances are". The fleet was reduced commensurate with bi-level cars replacing single level P72's, including 44 seat Parlor cars. |
|
|
| (1375459) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Nov 28 07:26:45 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Nov 27 23:07:10 2015. Amtrak has nothing to do with it. LIRR owns the slots. The MTA Board will decide to reallocate them. Amtrak has no problem taking in some cash for trackage rights fees on an under-used Hell Gate Line. The only disagreement are track assignments in Penn Station. LIRR considers them to be de facto Amtrak trains and wants them in th middle of the station. Amtrak will consider them to be de facto LIRR trains and want them on the high-numbers tracks. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1375470) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Sat Nov 28 09:10:28 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Joe V on Sat Nov 28 07:26:45 2015. Amtrak runs plenty of trains on MN controlled track, so there is always room for negotiation at a high level regardless of what current terms are. What would Amtrak trade for another train to Boston? Nrver say "never" in this game. |
|
|
| (1375471) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Nov 28 09:22:31 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by pragmatist on Sat Nov 28 09:10:28 2015. Amtrak is deeded those rights under original Amtrak act.and there is no limit, NY state does not even charge them. not for New Haven or Hudson line, cause it is deeded right. MTA has nothing to say over it. |
|
|
| (1375472) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Sat Nov 28 09:35:59 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Nov 28 09:22:31 2015. I was under the impression that they slot limited for dispatch towards Boston, fi that is not the case, I'd be fine with that. |
|
|
| (1375474) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Nov 28 10:40:31 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Joe V on Sat Nov 28 07:26:45 2015. If Metro-North can't get to NYP, then the slots may as well not be "reallocated" to begin with. As broke as the MTA is, there won't be any bothering with trying to qualify crews into NYP.And of course, no ACS-64s will be bringing Shoreliners over the Hell Gate line. One may as well wish for rebuilt Acela power cars with third rail shoes to bring Boston trains back into GCT for the first time in about 4½ decades. |
|
|
| (1375475) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Nov 28 10:45:53 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Nov 28 10:40:31 2015. MN already has crews qualified to NYP. I believe the intention is to use M8s on the Penn-NH runs, and extend the third rail a bit further towards the Hell Gate bridge. |
|
|
| (1375477) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Nov 28 11:34:34 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Dj Hammers on Fri Nov 27 16:17:48 2015. Yes, but that's not illegal. |
|
|
| (1375480) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Sat Nov 28 13:12:54 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by pragmatist on Sat Nov 28 09:35:59 2015. IINM there's a restriction on the movable bridges in eastern CT; I think there's a limit of 39 crossings per day to allow time to open the bridges. |
|
|
| (1375488) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Nov 28 14:31:43 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Nov 28 10:40:31 2015. Your 2nd paragraph is far more a fantasy than MN going over the Hell Gate. |
|
|
| (1375489) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Nov 28 14:33:58 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by R30A on Sat Nov 28 10:45:53 2015. Prendergsat fired Helena from the LIRR since she was aligning with LI politicians in opposing giving any slots to MN. You know what MTA wants, Amtrak is broker than MTA, and will want more track access fees. So it will happen. |
|
|
| (1375511) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat Nov 28 17:58:07 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Nov 27 16:10:04 2015. Owned. |
|
|
| (1375554) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Nov 28 23:45:53 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by Joe V on Sat Nov 28 07:23:09 2015. The Greenport Scoot is a 2 car train with a bus load of passengers. There is no comparison between that and all the other diesel services.And same will be said of the Montauk branch most of the year when electrification is extended beyond Babylon. There are no plans to electrify to Yaphank, Riverhead, Port Jeff nor Speonk. ...yet. We'll see how that changes once ESA opens and the EMUs are the only way to reach the new terminal. Port Jeff, Brookhaven, Islip, Riverhead, and Patchogue have all already stated they want to see their respective lines electrified to or past their towns. That demand is only going to increase as diesel passengers are forced to change to access Grand Central despite the promises made at the outset of the dual mode debacle. Montauk Branch ridership is up 40% in the last 5 years. Do you have a source for your assertion, because all I can find is a statement that ridership was up 2.8% on an annual basis. But assuming that is true, most of that ridership is west of Speonk. East of there the numbers aren't much better than the Ronkonkoma line from the end of electrification to Greenport. Even with a 40% increase the Hamptons aren't going to be challenging the ridership west of there. I don't know where you are coming up with this "whittling away" Two relatively minor and affordable electrifications, to Port Jeff and to Speonk, could remove likely move more than three quarters the diesel ridership to EMUs. At that point the LIRR will be left with two scoots and the Oyster Bay Branch. The Oyster Bay branch is the lowest performing of the LIRR lines at this point. They'd be insane to continue shelling out for diesel services which at that point would be lucky to carry more than 3000 riders a day. All it'd take is one tough budget battle where their bluff is called for us to completely lose service to Oyster Bay, Greenport, and Montauk. Or we could electrify with a cheaper system, do the entire diesel network at once for the cost of those two extensions, and ensure it's much more difficult to abandon those routes. |
|
|
| (1375590) | |
Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Nov 29 11:43:36 2015, in response to Re: Should the MTA get the ACS-64?, posted by WillD on Sat Nov 28 23:45:53 2015. No that is not true of the Montauk trains. Maybe you ought to take a trip to LIRR and see for yourself, and it is not all west of Speonk. If you think the Hamptons and Montauk off-season are just as bad as the Greenport Scoot, you are hopelessly ignorant.Starting foamer rumors and speculation will not increase the likelihood of electrification of getting extended beyond Babylon or anywhere else. NIMBY opposition to any intermediate yard between Huntington and Port Jeff far exceeds any desire to electrify, and nobody can justify sending all those Huntington train to Port Jeff. Ridership at Speonk is nil, and there is no place between Babylon and Mastic to build an EMU lay-up. Start looking at Patrick's (LIRR42's) LIRR Today blog and you might learn something. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
