|
|
| Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why (576872) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (578383) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Feb 29 11:58:18 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by trainsarefun on Thu Feb 28 20:26:47 2008. Will is right about the overall superiority of catenary over third rail. If the entire LIRR was diesel and you were trying to decide which mode was best for the entire system, then wire would be the way to go. We know that's not the case here. The LIRR is heavily invested in third rail and doesn't have the funding to replace it. Some parts of the system don't need electrification at all. The best logical solution is to extend the third rail into areas where demand justifies it and retain diesel service where it doesn't. |
|
|
| (578387) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 12:16:55 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Feb 29 11:58:18 2008. The best logical solution is....See, I think this is where my disagreement lies with those who have settled one way or the other. I don't think it's a logical question because we can't really know yet what the premises are. I think the question is, therefore, an empirical one. The LIRR is heavily invested in third rail and doesn't have the funding to replace it. Nor should they. I think the proposal you're arguing against is for an AC/DC effort as analogously MNR New Haven Line trains make it into GCT using. Some parts of the system don't need electrification at all. Here, I don't know that you're correct. The further that electrification is extended, the more sense it makes to finish off the job. The question is pretty much begged, e.g., electrify to Patchogue, and one asks why not Speonk? Electrify to Speonk, and why not Montauk? Etc. Now, if you are a devotee of the third rail, I don't think that you have to deny this, as you seem to be doing; maybe the better response is, we'll do it incrementally. |
|
|
| (578401) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Feb 29 12:52:04 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 12:16:55 2008. I think the logic is easy to see. Do you spend millions electrifying the line to Greenport for the 3 trains a day which use it? Do you spend millions on expensive dual mode cars? If not, do you abandon all direct service from Penn Station to the current unelectrified parts of the system? Electrification makes no sense when train usage drops below a certain point. Note that NJT doesn't have electrification on many parts of the system that DO justify it, like the Main/Bergen lines. Diesel engines are the most cost-effective means of providing service to the areas I noted in previous posts that would not get any third rail. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (578432) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 29 14:53:45 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 11:14:37 2008. It's an analogy, but it's a bit strained, since LIRR's power demands for EMUs will be quite great in comparison, I think. Actually, LIRR may be able to make money by giving LIPA access to string up its own power lines too across LIRR ROW, since here where people aren't outnumbered by cows, people seem to mind power line easements. :)☺ It is an analogy, but think about the substations for a minute. First generating plants were built by the railroads in days when commercial powerplants were more scarce, and it made financial sense to self-generate and build their own infrastructures. They sort of keep that mentality, and railfans never forget: the railroad owned that sub station, so they have to own all substations. Not so any more. All railroads now by watts from the utility. Many still use their own existing transmission infrastructure. This is fine if the railroad already owns some sort of transmissions systems. But now look at places where the railroad wants to energize a different line... Well they have no power plant, distribution lines, or sub-stations. Now they are free to contract with the utility to provide watts. They are only buying the watts. The utility will build the infrastructure to bring those watts to them. Now suppose I am building say an ethanol plant. I need power. I contract with the utility. Well, the fact is maybe they will give me a better price if I buy power at 12,500 volts and buy my own transformers. Maybe it is the same for the railroad, maybe it is not. Maybe buying 750v DC at price x is better than buying 12,500 v AC at price y and a substation for z dollars. But the railroad doesn't have to buy transmission lines. If the place is well populated enough to need an electric train, the power is already in the neighborhood. In any event, you need to select what sort of electricity you want for the train, and build your cats or rails. Then you come to the utility, and tell them what you need: x kw of power. You look at the options, where you need substations. Maybe you install the subs, maybe the utility does. Depends upon what you wish to agree to. As far as BNSF, all they are using power for is their signals, but they do not allow utility poles on their property. Probably some issue about liability. They *do* lease ROW access to providers such as Sprint for optic fiber services, but that is buried and presents little liability. And the lease specifies that so much fiber capacity is dedicated to the railroad for their use. Signals, communications and etc. ROAR |
|
|
| (578435) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 29 15:01:37 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 12:16:55 2008. LION says Electrify to Patchogue. Then you can decide if it needs to go to Speonk. You have to go to Patchogue before you can go to Speonk anyway. Still LION thinks Speonk is reasonable.ROAR |
|
|
| (578440) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Feb 29 15:28:15 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 29 15:01:37 2008. I concur with the Lion. Third rail to Patchouge. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
