|
|
| 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 1 of 2 |
|
|
|
| (1515799) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jun 15 08:00:23 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. MNRR uses third rail from N White Plains to Southeast, where there are grade crossings. And LIRR still has grade crossings with third rail.Other than the Valhalla accident, I'm not aware of third rail making grade crossings more dangerous than they already are anyway. And presumably the end pieces of third rail at grade crossings have been redesigned to prevent another Valhalla accident. So I think LIRR wouldn't want to introduce a new system, but would stick with third rail. |
|
|
| (1515801) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sat Jun 15 08:26:39 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 15 08:00:23 2019. IS a D.C. Catenary less costly to install and could Pantograph/third rail D.C. cars be cheaper to use? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1515804) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by sloth on Sat Jun 15 08:42:44 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. The big problem with Patchogue is you have nowhere to easily turn an MU consist. It's like Huntington only worse, as the layup tracks east of the station hold 6 units with no room for expansion. If you're going to Patchogue you might as well go all the way to Speonk.At least in Port Jefferson, if the cost can be stomached, you have full size platforms and a 9 track yard. |
|
|
| (1515814) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Alan Follett on Sat Jun 15 10:06:12 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 15 08:00:23 2019. Chicago has a number of third-rail grade crossings on the Brown, Purple, and Pink Lines. I don't think there have been any accidental electrocutions, unless you count the drunk who zapped himself peeing on the third rail many years ago.Alan Follett South San Francisco, CA |
|
|
| (1515818) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jun 15 10:41:05 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. Those Japanese cars look fine.Wouldn't mind seeing an LIRR type M8. Definitely wouldn't have a problem getting across the Hudson for thru running to see football games or whatever. |
|
|
| (1515819) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Sat Jun 15 10:53:04 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by AlM on Sat Jun 15 08:00:23 2019. I can think of two, and I don't follow such things with any precision.1. Bicyclist crossing via the roadway at a grade crossing. But he was brushed by a passing car, which knocked him into the 3rd rail. He lived, somehow, but the contact caused horrible burns and long term injuries, won't be surprised if he's lost an arm by now. 2. Teenager who was not familiar with ground level 3rd rail crossing the LIRR tracks way out in the sticks, where you can see down the tracks for a mile. She didn't understand the combo of a foot-catching tripping hazard, 750V and a convenient metal ground next to the rails. One wrong step, and you cook. That was it, probably a painful way to die. To a non-rail nerd, it does look perfectly reasonable to cut across the tracks on level ground way out where you can see that far. It may be well over a mile to the next stop, that's a 2 mile walk. To a teenager it looks like "Just don't step on those 3rd rails, that's all ya gotta do". Power lines are placed up out of reach, even the 240v stuff, and anything more is placed even higher. The ground is no place to put anything over 24v methinks. |
|
|
| (1515828) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Jun 15 12:14:20 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Alan Follett on Sat Jun 15 10:06:12 2019. Although it was only one, don't forget the one time grade Xing on the 14 St Line at E105 St. |
|
|
| (1515830) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchogue? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 15 12:44:29 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. Talk of wires on the Island is DOA. The only way that would make sense is to get rid of all the third rail and replace them with wires, which the NIMBYs would be against sight-wise.Wires were tried once on Long Island, back in 1908. One can have pipe dreams of what could have been, but that's about it. |
|
|
| (1515832) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Jun 15 12:48:10 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Steamdriven on Sat Jun 15 10:53:04 2019. I can't think of many stretches of the LIRR "way out in the sticks" that have third rail and are unfenced. |
|
|
| (1515833) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Sat Jun 15 12:55:43 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. Why would the LIRR want to open up entire new maintenance categories to build and maintain overhead and dual car equipment for the sake of electrifying snippets of the system?Don't they have enough on their plates simply dealing with the dual mode locomotives? |
|
|
| (1515836) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 15 13:26:35 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by SLRT on Sat Jun 15 12:55:43 2019. Why would the LIRR want to open up entire new maintenance categories to build and maintain overheadDC substations and their ancillary equipment are a drain on the capital and operational budget with their requirement for placement every mile. Completing electrification of the east end of the island with 3rd rail is too costly to contemplate, but leaving the low-use lines unelectrified leaves them at risk of abandonment at the next budget crunch. The lower marginal cost to install high voltage AC overhead means that electrification of the entire network can be economically justified. dual car equipment for the sake of electrifying snippets of the system? 126 out of 319 route miles are currently electrified. That's about 40% of the system. Admittedly in terms of track miles there's more of the network that's electrified, but the issue with DC electrification is the large amount of fixed hardware required to support the operation. AC electrification costs between two thirds and half what DC electrification costs, simply because you can do with four to six substations of $5-10 million what you'd need hundreds of DC substations at $1 million a pop. The island would end up electrified roughly 50/50 AC and DC. Don't they have enough on their plates simply dealing with the dual mode locomotives? I would think the scenario Mr. Reader is contemplating is one in which the LIRR chooses to retire the dual modes and replace them with multivoltage EMUs while completing the east end electrification. ConnDOT and MNRR have proven just how extremely reliable multivoltage EMUs can be. They have done so in stark contrast to failure of the LIRR's dual modes to bring "electric-like" operation to the east end of the island. The cost effective means by which to bring that convenience to the east end of the island is to electrify with AC OHLE and use the existing 3rd rail west of there. |
|
|
| (1515839) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 15 13:32:23 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Avid Reader on Sat Jun 15 08:26:39 2019. IS a D.C. Catenary less costly to installNot really. The catenary conductors have to be sized larger to handle the increased current draw at the lower voltage. Insulators are comparatively cheap, so it's better to go higher voltage than higher current. More critically DC operation at 600-750vdc requires a million dollar substation roughly every mile. Bumping the voltage up to 1500vdc gets you 3-4 mile spacing, but that's still going to be a killer when doing the nearly 200 route miles left to electrify on the LIRR. Maybe at 3000 volts DC you might begin to become competitive with AC substation placement, but then you're dealing with niche products built for the few countries which have stuck with their old electrification systems. If we're going new-build and don't want to be stuck building a substation every mile or two then high voltage AC is the only way to go. |
|
|
| (1515844) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 15 14:01:51 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Alan Follett on Sat Jun 15 10:06:12 2019. Myth. He was electrocuted by stepping on the third rail. |
|
|
| (1515856) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Jun 15 17:02:08 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. The M8 can't fit in the 63rd Street Tunnel, and since the dual modes can't either, the LIRR might as well go with the cheaper option and order new dual modes instead (and a sufficient amount this time, not just 23). Why spend all of that money on building catenary just so more trains can go to LIC or Penn Station like they would be able to now if the LIRR had enough locomotives? How would the LIRR store trains in Patchogue anyways? |
|
|
| (1515857) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by lirr42 on Sat Jun 15 17:03:23 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. This will never happen... Yes, if you are reading from your transportation best practices textbook, then we should string overhead wire from Manhattan to Montauk for the sake of regional consistency and interoperability.But with the current state of affairs, it makes no sense at all to go a completely different route than what's already established on large parts of the network... They would need to buy all new equipment and it wouldn't be interoperable with the existing fleet. They would need to maintain two distinct systems and related infrastructure. |
|
|
| (1515858) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by lirr42 on Sat Jun 15 17:04:20 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Avid Reader on Sat Jun 15 08:26:39 2019. Not really...nobody installs DC third rail this day, so there's no real comparison points. |
|
|
| (1515862) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat Jun 15 18:53:57 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sat Jun 15 17:02:08 2019. The M8 can't fit in the 63rd Street Tunnel,If the British can successfully build and operate 3rd rail + 25kv EMUs with their lilliputian loading gauge then we have absolutely no excuse when it comes to running the same into ESA. I would assume any LIRR multisystem EMU would be based on the M9 carbody, with propulsion equipment roughly similar to that found on the M8. It would then be capable of running into Grand Central Terminal without issue. the LIRR might as well go with the cheaper option and order new dual modes instead (and a sufficient amount this time, not just 23). Another round of dual modes just increases the likelihood of the LIRR abandoning their most marginal services the next time they experience a budget crunch. How would the LIRR store trains in Patchogue anyways? Precisely. Piecemeal electrification extensions and another dual mode order just creates logistical problems at the newly created terminals. Better to electrify everything today with the most cost effective manner than to drag it out and risk lines being closed as diesel operation becomes more and more marginal. |
|
|
| (1515866) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sat Jun 15 19:54:05 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 15 18:53:57 2019. yes |
|
|
| (1515873) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 02:50:52 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Edwards! on Sat Jun 15 10:41:05 2019. ESA and Brooklyn cannot accomodate anything taller than an M7. So Rethink is actually balkanizing LIRR operations with separate MU fleets with some that have pantographs.Rethink also wants Sunnyside yard moved to the Bronx. The volume of trains they would call for to pass through Harold is just ridiculous. |
|
|
| (1515874) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 02:57:41 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 15 18:53:57 2019. 12'8" clearance is all that 63rd street has. Air ducts on the M7A wont even make it. There is no way anything with a locked down pantograph could make it that low.Port Jeff electrification would be cheap. Unlike Ronkonkona, no siding, CTC, nor station work is required. Ronkonkoma was done inhouse, on time, and on budget. |
|
|
| (1515875) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 03:01:16 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by lirr42 on Sat Jun 15 17:03:23 2019. True. LIRR is not going AC even if they could overcome their mental opposition to electrification. They also seem more enthused about doing so to the short Central Branch. Catenary would be useleas. |
|
|
| (1515876) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 03:17:29 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 15 18:53:57 2019. They will never electrify to Greenport, Montauk, and Oyster Bay. They may do Port Jeff, but would have to be forced to kicking and screaming.They are also perfectly capable of shutting down electric branches too. It is not their savior. West Hempstead branch lost weekend service in 2010 for a few years. 6 car and 3 person train operation minimums are bigger threats to service than lack of 3rd rail or catenary. They didnt get high level plaforms until 1973. Everyone else got them, including East Williston, in 1968. Abandonment was definitely on their agenda. |
|
|
| (1515878) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 04:19:03 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by sloth on Sat Jun 15 08:42:44 2019. They could probably shorehorn in a small yard just west of Sayville.Beyond Patchogue is just Bellport Mastic, and Speonk. Only Mastic has decent ridership. Electrifying beyond Patchogue to Speonk is too many miles for too few people. It will never happen. Forget about Montauk. Trains can be jammed packed or mostly empty. Ridership is very volatile by day of week and time of year. Port Jeff is the only one that makes sense, but there are NIMBY issues, like Kings Park, and LIRR are chicken shots when it comes to NIMBY's. Look at the design flaws they are going to build at Mineola. They would not declare eminent domain on an outhouse that's 100 years old. |
|
|
| (1515880) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 04:30:35 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Steamdriven on Sat Jun 15 10:53:04 2019. 2. The only way to prevent this is to convert all LIRR and MNRR operations to catenary or else fence it all in. If this were to become an objective, I think fencing it all in would be a fraction of the cost. Not to mention the tunnel clearance issues. |
|
|
| (1515882) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 04:39:25 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 04:19:03 2019. Why doesn't Oyster Bay possibly make sense? A moderate number of people live along that route, and ridership would be expected to increase if people could get a single seat ride to Penn and GCT, |
|
|
| (1515883) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Sun Jun 16 04:46:23 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. My view is that diesel works just fine. Sure, transfers at Huntington/Babylon/Jamaica usually are required, but they're about the easiest transfers imaginable, usually right across the platform. |
|
|
| (1515885) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Jun 16 05:33:54 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 04:39:25 2019. The oysters will complain.ROAR |
|
|
| (1515886) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 05:34:41 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 04:39:25 2019. The Oyster Bay branch and probably the Hempstead branch too are likely toast once the 3rd track is complete. |
|
|
| (1515887) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 05:45:57 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Peter Rosa on Sun Jun 16 04:46:23 2019. In functioning as an important transfer point on one of the busiest commuter rail lines in the country, Huntington is nowhere near adequate. Hicksville would be a much better place to terminate all of those Port Jefferson shuttles considering its track layout, the available connection to Ronkonkoma Branch trains, and the amount of available space store trains in "Divide" Yard, but the LIRR has largely abandoned it in favor of Huntington for whatever reason. |
|
|
| (1515893) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 06:54:39 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 15 18:53:57 2019. If the British can successfully build and operate 3rd rail + 25kv EMUs with their lilliputian loading gauge then we have absolutely no excuse when it comes to running the same into ESA. I would assume any LIRR multisystem EMU would be based on the M9 carbody, with propulsion equipment roughly similar to that found on the M8. It would then be capable of running into Grand Central Terminal without issue.It's probably going to be a while before the technology develops to enhance regenerative braking so as to improve undercarriage space by removing, relocating, and/or shrinking the radiators, and it's also going to be a while before they find a way to relocate at least some of the resistors on the roof so as to shrink the car's height from up there. Considering how all of that AC and DC equipment will forever take up space underneath the car body as well, I just can't see such a shortened version of the M8 being developed anytime soon. A ton of electrical equipment would still probably have to be crammed within the cars roof for it to fit, and even then you would still probably have to increase the height of the tunnel in its center by a few inches. Another round of dual modes just increases the likelihood of the LIRR abandoning their most marginal services the next time they experience a budget crunch. I can see the Oyster Bay branch being cannibalized, but the Port Jefferson, Greenport, and Montauk services? No way, those lines see decent ridership, provide service and relieve traffic for some of the wealthiest and most politically affluent communities in America, and would seriously put a strain on local roads, and the Huntington and Ronkonkoma services if discontinued. Communities along the Greenport line got their mere 2 weekend trains a day discontinued by the LIRR some years back, and were a thorn on the LIRR's side for many years until the LIRR eventually relented by restoring and doubling weekend service to Greenport. LIRR service within diesel territory is poor simply because they didn't order enough equipment. There are very few spare DM30ACs lying around on a typical weekday, and when you factor in the longer DE30AC consists that need to be double-ended, you get a situation like the LIRR is in right now, where you're overworking your already poorly designed diesel fleet on a consistent basis and "Robbing Peter to Pay Paul" by cancelling Oyster Bay and Port Jefferson trains to appease the severely still underserved swarm of passengers going towards Montauk. The LIRR wants to join in on a super order of Dual Mode Siemens Chargers with Amtrak and Metro-North that would be about 90 locomotives for all 3 railroads, but it would be cheaper and more practical for the LIRR to instead look at the proven ALP45DP, eliminating the need to double end all Penn Station-bound trains, unless Siemens were somehow able to keep their Dual Mode Charger at the existing model's 12' 6" height thus allowing it to go to Grand Central, which doesn't seem likely. Precisely. Piecemeal electrification extensions and another dual mode order just creates logistical problems at the newly created terminals. Better to electrify everything today with the most cost effective manner than to drag it out and risk lines being closed as diesel operation becomes more and more marginal. There wouldn't be and aren't any logistical problems with dual modes along the Montauk branch concerning space for storing trains since a perfectly capable terminal and yard already exist at Speonk. Speonk is somewhat of a ghost town, but there is most certainly demand for increased service to Mastic-Shirley and Bellport. |
|
|
| (1515894) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 07:08:44 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by AlM on Sun Jun 16 04:39:25 2019. Ridership is too light. Even if it increases 50%, still too light. Ridership beyond Glen Cove is really light.Oyster Bay Branch has a frequency problem and a speed problem. Those are bigger inhibitors to ridership than changing at Jamaica. Hempstead, Far Rock usually have to change too and West Hempstead often gets a double transfer Run it as a shuttle form Mineola every hour, with 2 train sets, and ridership would grow. |
|
|
| (1515895) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 07:10:14 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 05:34:41 2019. I don't think toast, but it won't help. They'll get half hourly service to Ronkonkoma, which won't impact Oyster Bay and Hempstead. |
|
|
| (1515896) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 07:13:58 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Peter Rosa on Sun Jun 16 04:46:23 2019. At Huntington, you stand and wait 5 minutes without shelter. Not good. Transfer time is 10 minutes. Ridiculous.There's no island platform. It was to be "temporary" in 1970, then go to Northport where an MU yard was to be placed southeast of the station at a landfill. NIMBY's heard of the noisy Motor Alternators on the M-1's at Babylon yard and killed that.LIRR wants to be the NY & Ronkonkoma RR Company, nothing more. |
|
|
| (1515897) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 07:14:27 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 04:19:03 2019. They could probably shorehorn in a small yard just west of Sayville.Beyond Patchogue is just Bellport Mastic, and Speonk. Only Mastic has decent ridership. Electrifying beyond Patchogue to Speonk is too many miles for too few people. It will never happen. It would probably be cheaper and more beneficial to spend that money by building a 2nd Platform at Bellport and renovating the Bellport siding instead. Bellport is a working class community that utilizes its buses very well, but is shunned by the LIRR for whatever reason. Port Jeff is the only one that makes sense, but there are NIMBY issues, like Kings Park, and LIRR are chicken shots when it comes to NIMBY's. Look at the design flaws they are going to build at Mineola. They would not declare eminent domain on an outhouse that's 100 years old. Huntington's yard space is too sparse, while Port Jefferson's is too much, when you combine that with the increased ridership that East Side Access and the Third Track are going to bring, electrification is inevitable. I have no doubt in my mind that we will see electrification to Port Jefferson one day. |
|
|
| (1515898) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 07:15:09 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. Saves them diesel fleet car miles on a fleet with shitty MDBF, both the engines and the cars. |
|
|
| (1515900) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 07:19:54 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 07:14:27 2019. How long are the new yard tracks at Port Jeff ?From Google maps, eyeballing it, does not look like 12 cars or even 10. Of course there are the 2 abandoned sidings along side the station that go on both sides of Route 12 crossing. They used to split the 15 - 17 car Hunterspoint trains at the crossing. |
|
|
| (1515901) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 07:20:07 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 07:14:27 2019. How long are the new yard tracks at Port Jeff ?From Google maps, eyeballing it, does not look like 12 cars or even 10. Of course there are the 2 abandoned sidings along side the station that go on both sides of Route 12 crossing. They used to split the 15 - 17 car Hunterspoint trains at the crossing. |
|
|
| (1515902) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Sun Jun 16 07:22:47 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by WillD on Sat Jun 15 13:26:35 2019. By the way, is there any good reason why EMUs can't have, say, a quarter mile (gap crossing) or 15 mile (territory extension) self-powered capacity?Thomas Edison had a freakin' full line LIRR train run on the battery technology of 1910. A far smaller off-line capability than that would give trains more flexibility, and allow 3rd rail to be cut back a hundred yards away from grade crossings. |
|
|
| (1515903) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Steamdriven on Sun Jun 16 07:26:58 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 02:57:41 2019. So ESA is obsolete already. Abandon it, send the bill to Long Island and the Cuomos. |
|
|
| (1515904) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Jun 16 07:37:29 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. Westbound, few passengers are going to transfer at Hicksville to head back east to Ronkonkoma branch stations. Heaving home from the City or Brooklyn, what's to stop anyone from getting off at Hicksville and changing trains? |
|
|
| (1515905) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Jun 16 07:39:42 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 07:13:58 2019. At Huntington, isn't the continuing train usually waiting ahead of the inbound train so the passengers just need to walk up the platform? I can recall a couple of times when it wasn't but most of the time it was. |
|
|
| (1515910) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 08:42:12 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. Well, we can't do that now. The mistake was made 40 -50 years ago. |
|
|
| (1515911) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 08:46:37 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 06:54:39 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.They are also high maintenance engines that cost $11 million each, with twin prime movers, thirsty for fuel, and now requiring an expensive, time-consuming valve job to stay EPA compliant. |
|
|
| (1515912) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 08:48:48 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Dave on Sun Jun 16 07:37:29 2019. His point was Hicksville be the transfer point for some Port Jeff Scoots, which is now the case on weekdays with 90 minute intervals, and their incompatibility with Huntington 60 minute intervals. |
|
|
| (1515913) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 08:50:47 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. No, they stopped that 20 years ago. The MU dumps everyone off, heads east to a siding, then the Scoot slithers in from the small yard west of the station. |
|
|
| (1515924) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 10:33:37 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Jun 16 06:54:39 2019. It's probably going to be a while before the technology developsIt exists today. The British operate a number of AC/DC EMUs in a loading gauge far more restrictive than that faced by the LIRR through ESA. I don't see rooftop brake resistors on their equipment, and most of their cars are less than 68 feet long. This appeal to exceptionalism has no basis in reality. but the Port Jefferson, Greenport, and Montauk services? No way, Except that the LIRR threatened to close the Greenport branch multiple times in the last decade during budget crises. Even if it was a bluff, one of these times someone may call them on it and we'll lose a valuable transportation link. That becomes especially true as 3rd rail electrification extends to Port Jefferson, Speonk, and Glen Cove and the economies of scale for diesel operation disappear. Someone could well come along promising to keep LIRR fares down by cutting increasingly expensive diesel services. but it would be cheaper and more practical for the LIRR to instead look at the proven ALP45DP, What JoeV said. Cheaper and proven are not words that should be bandied about in any context when it comes to the NJT's dual mode boondoggles. Whole trains of EMUs can be purchased for the cost of just one or two of those rolling disasters. Siemens were somehow able to keep their Dual Mode Charger at the existing model's 12' 6" height thus allowing it to go to Grand Central, which doesn't seem likely. The C3s' roofs are 14 feet ATOR, so it doesn't matter what the locomotives' height is. Their first trip into GCT is going to be a short and painful one. We can replace the C3s, but that's a needless expense changing out the one part of the DM program that worked when we're gaining none of the benefits of full electrification while paying most of the cost. There wouldn't be and aren't any logistical problems with dual modes along the Montauk branch concerning space for storing trains since a perfectly capable terminal and yard already exist at Speonk. Dual modes do not bring any operational benefits to the system in terms of travel time reductions or lower cost of operation. Only electrification can do that. |
|
|
| (1515925) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 10:41:57 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Steamdriven on Sun Jun 16 07:22:47 2019. By the way, is there any good reason why EMUs can't have, say, a quarter mile (gap crossing) or 15 mile (territory extension) self-powered capacity?Mostly weight. Batteries are heavy. But the LIRR is going to order old school overweight pigs, so the additional weight may not really matter. The nice thing about BEMUs is that they can charge on the fly, allowing the battery to be fully topped up when it reaches the end of the electrified territory. Short sections of electrification, say a couple miles on either side of a station, can greatly reduce the traction load on that battery by allowing the train to use commercial power to get up to speed. Of course 3rd rail is already hard pressed to supply the traction needs of an accelerating train, and again it'd probably be better to go with something that reduces transmitted current. |
|
|
| (1515927) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 10:59:40 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by Joe V on Sun Jun 16 02:57:41 2019. There is no way anything with a locked down pantograph could make it that low.Again the British point the way. The pantograph can be recessed into the top of the carbody to enable it to clear points of reduced vertical clearance. The Class 377 EMUs feature the recess for a pantograph despite being delivered for 3rd rail operation. Port Jeff electrification would be cheap. It's still going to be about twice as expensive as catenary. 20 some-odd substations at $1-2 million a pop, as opposed to two substations at $5-10 million, plus the more expensive 3rd rail placement. This is an inescapable fact which will haunt all efforts to extend 3rd rail. |
|
|
| (1515928) | |
Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 16 11:12:50 2019, in response to Re: A new topic for discussion, electrification to Port Jeff and Patchague, posted by lirr42 on Sat Jun 15 17:03:23 2019. then we should string overhead wire from Manhattan to Montauk for the sake of regional consistency and interoperability.Why would we want to do that? Plenty of systems around the world feature legacy DC systems for significant portions of the line while high voltage AC is used for all extensions. The LIRR just happens to have its legacy DC system on the ground, but that makes no real difference. There does not need to be any change to the existing LIRR 3rd rail to electrify the diesel branches in a cost effective manner. They would need to buy all new equipment Why would we want to do that? How would the operation of multisystem EMUs on the existing diesel branches result in any changes for the existing DC fleet and how they're utilized on the portions of the system currently equipped with 3rd rail? The dual modes are to be replaced anyway and the C3s may have to go with them, but there would not be a wholesale changeover in EMU fleets. it wouldn't be interoperable with the existing fleet. Why would we want to do that? Why couldn't the specification be written such that "Full interoperation with existing M7 and M9 fleet" was built into any multisystem EMU? Admittedly, the MTA does not hold the operation of dissimilar vehicles in particularly high regard, but it's hardly something which would automatically be ruled out by electrifying the east end of the island in a cost effective manner. They would need to maintain two distinct systems and related infrastructure. I'd argue their current maintenance of two distinct types of rolling stock when they could be maintaining a nearly 100% EMU fleet which can be specified to be similar to the EMUs they currently possess is a bigger disadvantage. The diesel push pull fleet shares nothing in common with the M7s, while at least the principles of electric operation are similar with regards to maintaining catenary and 3rd rail. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
