|
|
| Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague (1515795) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1515929) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 11:14:41 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 10:59:40 2019. It's still going to be about twice as expensive as catenary.But the rail cars become much more expensive if they need to be able to handle both catenary and third rail. See MNRR. Also, LI is more subject to hurricane force winds than the NE Corridor. That could increase the cost of catenary relative to what it costs in MNRR territory. |
|
|
| (1515930) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 16 11:25:47 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 11:14:41 2019. They don’t need more EMUs, they can go loco and coaches. |
|
|
| (1515931) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by https://salaamallah.com/ on Sun Jun 16 11:26:07 2019, in response to A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Avid Reader on Sat Jun 15 07:24:15 2019. good photographyjust do it |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1515932) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Jun 16 11:28:39 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 11:14:41 2019. Also, LI is more subject to hurricane force winds than the NE Corridor.FWIW, Japan is subject to typhoons, and they've built their entire urban and rural railway around catenary. The same weather concern and use of catenary is also true for Hong Kong and Mainland China. The Germans are looking to dual voltage systems with catenary for their third rail S-Bahns in Hamburg and Berlin, the French ripped up their third rail, and the English aren't even bothering. Third rail has been relegated to urban systems in West, and increasingly even catenary is seen as a viable option for more and more metro systems. For example, the newest systems in Latin America in Panama and Santo Domingo use 1500 vdc catenary, and the latter is subject the hurricane risk. |
|
|
| (1515933) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 11:33:56 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 10:59:40 2019. The British MU's are 12'4" high.Say it is 20 DC substations at $1.5 million each ($30 million) verses 2 at $7.5 million each ($15 million) a savings of $15 million is insignificant. Add to that the higher purchasing and maintenance costs, plus shop upgrades of dual voltage MU's, and catenary and poles would cost more than a 3rd rail, there is no advantage, more likely disadvantage. Port Jeff electrification is the best case scenario for any productive electrification. Central Branch as an in-fill electrification that would still have to be 3rd rail if they want flexibility with the Babylon line. So what you will have is a specialty, small fleet of dual voltage MU's purchases for only one branch, that wil only run fora portion of one branch, and 1,000 rather new M-7's and M'9's that would be around another 20 - 40 years. |
|
|
| (1515934) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 11:34:13 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 16 11:25:47 2019. But then you have the same gapping problem that the dual mode diesel/3rd rail locomotives have in Penn. |
|
|
| (1515936) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 11:40:34 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jun 16 11:25:47 2019. Only NJT is dumb enough to do that. |
|
|
| (1515939) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 12:16:10 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 11:14:41 2019. But the rail cars become much more expensive if they need to be able to handle both catenary and third rail. See MNRR.Are they? The current orders placed by ConnDOT and MNRR are deceptive because they're exceedingly small and thus place all the costs of acquisition on a few vehicles. More instructive are the 380 M8 cars in the initial base and option orders were purchased in 2006 for $760 million. That works out to $1.8 million per car, or $2.35 million in 2019 dollars. The LIRR's order for 676 M9s was a $1.8 billion order, which works out to $2.66 million per car. That's decidedly less than being twice as expensive. |
|
|
| (1515941) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 12:25:26 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 12:16:10 2019. Maybe a decade ago MNRR bought cars for both Hudson/Harlem and New Haven. That would be an apples to apples comparison. I never suggested they were twice as expensive.If you double the cost of the cars but halve the cost of the power, it's not clear whether that's a win or a lose. Depends on relative sizes of expenditures. There's also the extra maintenance cost of having a new type of car to maintain. |
|
|
| (1515942) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 12:28:43 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 12:25:26 2019. MTA bought 836 M-7 and 336 M-7A. Each breed has customizations. |
|
|
| (1515943) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 12:33:21 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 11:33:56 2019. Why would you contemplate electrifying the Port Jefferson branch in isolation? That's the sort of short sighted thinking which leads the LIRR toward another dual mode-scale failure. This must be considered in the context of what electrifications would be undertaken in the next century or more, and we have to contemplate the cost for electrifications to Speonk and Yaphank or Riverhead to get a real understanding of the savings created by choosing a cost effective means of electrifying the remainder of the LIRR network. Electrifying the Oyster Bay and Port Jefferson lines, as well as the Montauk to Speonk, and the Main Line to Riverhead would result in a program which is more expensive than just electrifying the entire diesel network with high voltage AC. |
|
|
| (1515944) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 12:36:53 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 11:34:13 2019. Not really as they'd be able to use the overhead wires in NYP to avoid gapping. The only real problem would be interlockings and grade crossings along the route, but so long as the trains largely ran express on the 3rd rail portion of that route it'd probably be doable. |
|
|
| (1515945) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 12:38:49 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 11:40:34 2019. Electric locomotives pushing or pulling the C3s would be a distinct improvement over diesels currently assigned to the service. Multisystem EMUs can then be gradually introduced to improve service and offer more destinations to east end customers. |
|
|
| (1515946) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 12:45:04 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 12:38:49 2019. Electric locomotives pushing or pulling the C3s would be a distinct improvement over diesels currently assigned to the service.Why? If it's just because the current diesels are unreliable, then buy a more reliable diesel. We're not talking about lines with such density of stations that the acceleration is critical. |
|
|
| (1515948) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 12:48:36 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 12:25:26 2019. Maybe a decade ago MNRR bought cars for both Hudson/Harlem and New Haven. That would be an apples to apples comparison.They did. The M7s were $2.5 billion for 1172 railcars. That works out to $2.13 million per car in 2005 dollars. I never suggested they were twice as expensive. My mistake, I misread. But still, it cannot be said multivoltage EMUs are in any way more expensive than DC EMUs as the M8s were cheaper than the M7s at the time the orders were placed. If you double the cost of the cars but halve the cost of the power, it's not clear whether that's a win or a lose. Depends on relative sizes of expenditures. That might be a valid point to ponder if we were contemplating doubling the cost of the rolling stock. But we're not. There is no clear example of a multisystem EMU costing more than a DC EMU when comparably sized orders are placed. There's also the extra maintenance cost of having a new type of car to maintain. Without a doubt. But balanced against that is the ability to eliminate the maintenance of passenger diesels and potentially the C3 cars. The new multisystem EMUs would be likely to have many more components shared with the existing DC fleet than the diesel push pulls ever could. |
|
|
| (1515949) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 12:54:50 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 12:45:04 2019. If it's just because the current diesels are unreliable, then buy a more reliable dieselPower and performance. The DM30ACs are putting just 2800hp onto the rail. It may be less as that seems very low for HEP load to me. Either way even the pairs used on trains into NYP would be put to shame by modern electric locomotives. We're not talking about lines with such density of stations that the acceleration is critical. That may be true on the east end of the island, but the trains do venture into the more congested areas at the west end. The ability to clear a given stretch of track for the next train is something that allows more trains to operate on a line without requiring expensive construction. |
|
|
| (1515950) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 12:59:37 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 12:48:36 2019. To eliminate diesels you have to electrify Montauk too. And you still need diesels for power emergencies. |
|
|
| (1515951) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 13:12:12 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 12:33:21 2019. It is not me doing the contemplation. The reality is the LIRR that generally opposes electrification, and the Central Branch and Port Jeff are all they will consider for the next 10 years. And even there you will deal with NIMBY issues in King Park and Smithtown.They are content to be the NY & Ronkonkoma RR Company, will simply build parking decks to handle refugees from the other branches. They are too cheap to even rent MARC coaches over the summer anymore. They do not care how much they abuse passengers on the other branches. We can dream on about electrifying the system, but it will not happen. |
|
|
| (1515953) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 13:22:18 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 13:12:12 2019. NYS is putting a lot of money into reducing its fossil fuel dependence over the next 30 years. I suspect extending electrification to Riverhead and Speonk and building yards and parking lots farther out will become part of that too.Ditto electrification and 10 car trains to Poughkeepsie. |
|
|
| (1515956) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Sun Jun 16 13:40:15 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 12:36:53 2019. It's 2019, there isn't something that can provide 30 seconds of 1/4 throttle electric power for a commuter train? That's a ballpark amount of, eh, 1/100th of a MWH = 10KWH. That's nothing for a vehicle weighing several hundred tons. |
|
|
| (1515957) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 13:43:47 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Steamdriven on Sun Jun 16 13:40:15 2019. What if you get a penalty stop from ASC or ASCES over a 15 MPH gap ? |
|
|
| (1515970) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Jun 16 14:34:20 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 08:50:47 2019. Ok, thanks. Shows how long it's been since I rode the PJ line to Huntington! |
|
|
| (1515973) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Sun Jun 16 14:53:32 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 13:43:47 2019. That's beyond my pay grade ;-)The RR will have to adjust speeds through such gaps, what causes penalties etc. If they place the MM in no-win situations they'll tie up their RR. From posts here, it seems NYCT has 2 or 3 spots where the speed limit is below what's needed for a short train to reliably coast through a gap AND NYCT makes no allowances for such situations. That's a management problem, if the train gaps out it ain't the MM's fault. Let the management team show up and push. By hand. |
|
|
| (1515984) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 15:42:45 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Dave on Sun Jun 16 14:34:20 2019. They may have been afraid of rear enders or else they did not want to ask people to walk. Also causes load imbalanbce issues in train consists.At Ronkonkoma, one train pulls in behind the other since east and west bound Ronkonkoma MU's arrive and depart around the same time. There really is no room for the Greenport Scoot. Stupid engineering. |
|
|
| (1515995) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sun Jun 16 17:12:40 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Dave on Sun Jun 16 07:39:42 2019. They also used to do that at Trenton when an NJT NEC train terminates on the same track as an Septa train to Philly, just had to walk up to transfer. Always thought that was an cool operation. I don't think they do that anymore since Morrisville Yard opened though. In recent times NJT NEC trains terminate on the track S/B Amtrak trains use. |
|
|
| (1516001) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by sloth on Sun Jun 16 18:39:56 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 05:45:57 2019. Divide doesn't have anything like a yard. It has a track that can fit two MU consists that's closer to the Wantagh Parkway than Hicksville. Good for AM Westbury put-ins, which is what it's already used for. You could make an argument for turning the diesels on the middle track in Hicksville on weekends. I'd like that too, what with Dunkin right downstairs. There are already a few weekday off peak trips that spin in Hicksville. |
|
|
| (1516002) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by sloth on Sun Jun 16 18:42:46 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 08:50:47 2019. End to end connections are done at the discretion of the operator in Divide. "You're taking it in the rear tonight", they'll tell you over the radio. Usually if the eastbound MU is late. |
|
|
| (1516003) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by sloth on Sun Jun 16 18:52:09 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 07:19:54 2019. The former main tracks to Wading River hold 10 units. You might be able to get 12 between Columbia Street and the wall. The other yard tracks aren't big enough but there is also the west yard. There's more than enough space to reconfigure the existing trackage into something useful, which you can't say about pretty much any other proposed eastern MU terminal. |
|
|
| (1516004) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 19:36:04 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Steamdriven on Sun Jun 16 07:26:58 2019. Not a path the LIRR wants to go down, the tunnel is perfectly fine and able to serve the majority of the LIRR's passengers as built, and if you take away ESA, you're taking away the New Haven Line to Penn Station with it, which is a fight that the LIRR would want no part of. |
|
|
| (1516005) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 19:36:59 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 12:59:37 2019. The Lower Montauk between Jamaica and LIC or the Montauk branch to Montauk? I'll admit I neglected the Lower Montauk, but a few miles of catenary which could likely be tied in to Amtrak's supplies isn't all that significant.The Montauk branch to the east end of the island is absolutely something I would envision the full electrification of if we are going a more cost effective route. It's the classic case of not justifying the greater expense of 3rd rail, but being well within the point where electrification with catenary makes economic sense. I have been operating under the assumption that if we went with AC electrification every passenger operation on the island would be electrified. And you still need diesels for power emergencies. Sure, some work diesels. Maybe NY&A diesels as well. If it really bothers you that much then order the multisystem EMUs with 480 volt plugs to accept HEP from properly equipped work diesels and standard MU plugs if you must do push-pull with them. If a power outage is widespread enough that a load restriction will not get trains through the impacted area then chances are there is no signal power. The LIRR has the means to operate through dark signals, but it's going to be cumbersome. A few HEP equipped work diesels with EMU coaches would likely be almost all the system could handle at that point to run a skeleton service. |
|
|
| (1516007) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 20:19:24 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 08:46:37 2019. Neither NJT nor AMT/EXO allow the ALP45DP to change modes on the fly. It takes about 90 seconds - 2 minutes, but they are simply not going to stop and do that around Harold.The FL-9 was able to do just that half a century ago, no reason why any new units wouldn't be able to do the same. They are also high maintenance engines that cost $11 million each A pricey, yet reasonable price point considering how pretty much any standard Tier 4-compliant diesel locomotive will run you around $8 Million a unit. NJ Transit loves them and is going to use them to unfortunately put the remaining EMD units they have into retirement starting later this year, I've never heard of NJ Transit having any major maintenance issues with them unlike the PL42AC which was banned from the Newark Division for quite some time upon entering service. The ALP45DP is NJ Transit's dream locomotive and they are very satisfied with it, unfortunately it was delivered too soon though since Penn Station is so space constrained at the moment. Plus, since they have two engines, if one fails you can simply use the other to drag the locomotive out to the nearest maintenance facility rather than having the locomotive sit and wait for another locomotive to rescue it. , with twin prime movers, thirsty for fuel, and now requiring an expensive, time-consuming valve job to stay EPA compliant. All issues that can be resolved by simply redesigning the locomotives to operate at lower speeds for the LIRR, no need for the engines to carry the additional weight and fuel consumption that comes with carrying a 125 MPH top speed on a line like the Montauk Branch where you're going around 50 MPH most of the way. The engines aren't as fuel thirsty as you think either, when idling, one engine shuts down while the other keeps things warm and running and provides HEP. |
|
|
| (1516008) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 20:25:09 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 11:14:41 2019. But the rail cars become much more expensive if they need to be able to handle both catenary and third rail. See MNRR.And heavier too, they're extending 3rd Rail up the Hell Gate line because putting a 25Hz Transformer on the M8 would make them heavy beyond the point of practicality. |
|
|
| (1516009) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 20:41:33 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 11:33:56 2019. The LIRR utilizes a complex grid of DC Transmission Lines spanning pretty much the entire island west of Ronkonkoma to power their third rail, making AC Catenary installation anywhere west of that point a non-starter economically. The power infrastructure exists to extend electrification to Oyster Bay, Patchogue and Port Jefferson, it's just a matter building the substations, third rail, and in the case of Patchogue storage space to capitalize on it.Add to that the higher purchasing and maintenance costs, plus shop upgrades of dual voltage MU's, and catenary and poles would cost more than a 3rd rail, there is no advantage, more likely disadvantage. So what you will have is a specialty, small fleet of dual voltage MU's purchases for only one branch, that wil only run fora portion of one branch, and 1,000 rather new M-7's and M'9's that would be around another 20 - 40 years. Exactly, why would the LIRR shoot themselves in the foot again by disregarding the existing infrastructure on the Port Jefferson Branch and continuing to restrict the Huntington M7 and M9 trains to the sparse yard space available in Huntington when electrification would be the perfect opportunity to rectify that unnecessary operational constraint? |
|
|
| (1516010) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 20:54:02 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 13:22:18 2019. AC Electrification to Albany is unfortunately the only thing I can see coming to fruition out of that, and that's only because New York State and the Feds are interested. |
|
|
| (1516011) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 21:01:23 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by sloth on Sun Jun 16 18:39:56 2019. Alright, "Yard" is an overstatement, but all you need for the Port Jefferson Scoot is space to store 3 trains max if that which can already be done at Hicksville during the off-peak. |
|
|
| (1516017) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Mon Jun 17 01:29:29 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sun Jun 16 17:12:40 2019. Yeah, I remember that from years ago when rather than pay $$$ for Amtrak WAS-NYP I used commuter rail instead. Took much longer but as a railfan, was more interesting. |
|
|
| (1516019) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Jun 17 03:17:31 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 19:36:04 2019. Helena Williams got fired over that one. |
|
|
| (1516023) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Jun 17 03:26:36 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Steamdriven on Sun Jun 16 14:53:32 2019. We have LIRR Atlantic Terminal with just 5 MPH. |
|
|
| (1516024) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Jun 17 03:31:20 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 20:41:33 2019. They could extend 3rd rail from East Williston to Albertson without even building a substation. But, since 1972, they only get 1 MU train per day. |
|
|
| (1516026) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Jun 17 04:18:53 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 20:41:33 2019. They would still need a yard part way to Port Jeff. There is no need to run all those rush hour Huntington electrics to Port Jeff. Kings Park Hospital site would be a good place. The Huntington East siding simply becomes the double-track to Greenlawn, whose passing siding and its station platform are now abandoned. They could also stash a train or two for layup on the old Northport Branch.While they are at it, eliminate the Larkfield Road grade-crossing in East Northport. That was a big issue in the 1960's, but they would have had to condemn 10 stores and they shot it down. The road gridlocks everything around it whenever a train passes. For once, tell all the NIMBY's to go fuck themselves. |
|
|
| (1516031) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Jun 17 05:28:04 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 20:19:24 2019. Tear-4???EMUs can do that no problem. Electric Traction is better than diesel locomotives. It is third rail, get over it, they wii\ll not change. You can install 10 sup stations for the price of one locomotive. Electrify as much as possible and then you will need fewer diesels. Let Diesel trains run express to Jamaica where peeps can transfer to an EMU (Train or Bird) for the rest of the way into the city. ROAR |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
