|
|
| Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why (576872) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
|
| (577247) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Feb 26 23:10:00 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Train Dude on Tue Feb 26 17:11:27 2008. Your ad hominum attack aside it's a valid question. The numbers do not bear out the supposed superiority of the dual mode of choice amongst the railfans here. Why would the MTA want to replace the DE/DM30ACs with units that are unlikely to offer any improvement in reliability? Even SEPTA manages a fleet MDBF close to double the 'good' dual mode, and that's with the Silverliner II/III pulling the numbers down. I believe NJT's electric locos are up in the 50k range, but can find no confirmation of that on the internet. Why buy more deck chairs for the Titanic when the concept as a whole is clearly flawwed? |
|
|
| (577255) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Feb 26 23:22:54 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by WillD on Tue Feb 26 23:10:00 2008. Why buy more deck chairs for the Titanic when the concept as a whole is clearly flawwed?I don't know that you've made out THAT case. True, EMUs in our area have MDBF that's an order of magnitude better than the LIRR and MNR dual mode locomotives, but that's not to say, of necessity, that ANY dual mode locomotive would have similar reliability issues. There's one other railroad in our area - Amtrak - that I haven't seen any numbers from, which runs the P32DMs. But as for a conceptual demonstration that the dual mode concept in the abstract as a diesel/third rail vehicle is doomed, I haven't seen that case made yet; all that I've seen is that MNR and LIRR haven't successfully instantiated the concept. Just because two cooks bake a crappy Black Forest Cake doesn't mean that no cook could possibly do much better. Not that you CAN't make out your case about the flawed concept - maybe you can - but you haven't yet done THAT. it's going to require a much stronger showing, which is also made difficult by the fact of how many railroads in the US run these kind of locomotives, right? |
|
|
| (577256) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Feb 26 23:27:26 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by WillD on Tue Feb 26 23:10:00 2008. "Why buy more deck chairs for the Titanic when the concept as a whole is clearly flawwed?"True, if the concept were flawed. Unfortunately, I believe that your basic premise is flawed. I believe that the dual mode concept is clearly workable and that the DMs could be brought to a level of performance that is comparable to other locos. As I said before, I'd welcome the challenge. BTW: That was not an attack under the whineburg rules of internet justice and fair play. In my own boorish way, I was reminding you that you have no real credentials in this field and you are simply regurgitating snippets of info you read on the internet . |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (577257) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Tue Feb 26 23:28:30 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Feb 26 23:22:54 2008. Absolutely correct |
|
|
| (577262) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Feb 26 23:44:42 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Train Dude on Tue Feb 26 23:27:26 2008. In my own boorish way, I was reminding you that you have no real credentials in this field and you are simply regurgitating snippets of info you read on the internetThat's fine. However, where else do you find this idea being espoused on the internet? Any search I do turns up previous posts I've made on the subject. This is just a few bits of basic knowledge drawn from very knowledgable folks with Amtrak, SEPTA, and NJT into a workable solution to completing the East End electrification in the lowest cost manner possible. In the end it's all pretty simple electrical engineering. I don't really care if the DE/DM30ACs are failing or not, I'm more interested in what comes after them, be it 5 years from now or 30 years from now. The DM30ACs are just the last in a long string of 5 generations of failed dual mode designs. I know you think you can make them work, and by all means feel free, but at this point why throw good money after bad? For the money the LIRR has spent on dual modes they could have fully electrified 25 years ago. People bitch about the Greenport line "not justifying electrification" yet we're pumping more money into dual modes to give those people a one seat ride to Manhattan. |
|
|
| (577268) | |
Re: clearance thru Jamaica? |
|
|
Posted by TunnelRat on Wed Feb 27 00:05:44 2008, in response to Re: clearance thru Jamaica?, posted by d to e to jamaica on Tue Feb 26 22:28:23 2008. about 12 miles. |
|
|
| (577271) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Feb 27 00:14:26 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by WillD on Tue Feb 26 23:44:42 2008. People bitch about the Greenport line "not justifying electrification" yet we're pumping more money into dual modes to give those people a one seat ride to Manhattan.To be sure, people east of Huntington and Babylon, respectively have one-seat rides, courtesy of some DM30 runs. To my knowledge, passengers east of Ronkonkoma have always had to switch trains; if a DM30 runs there, it's purely just another diesel locomotive, really, pulling the two car train. For the money the LIRR has spent on dual modes they could have fully electrified 25 years ago. I'm in favor of moving toward full electrification, but it's a question of priorities, paying for it, and interim service; among other things (like NIMBYs getting in the way just because, agencies refusing funding, etc.). Those factors are going to have huge effects on how, if ever, electrification continues. |
|
|
| (577300) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Feb 27 04:21:28 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by WillD on Tue Feb 26 23:44:42 2008. I ride the DMs 2-3 times a week and the DEs more often than that. I enjoy the quiet & comfort they afford at the same speet as the M-7s.Who are the ones saying the dual modes design are flawed? Let me guess that they can be divided into two main groups. 1) The railfans 2) Those who can't get them to perform. They remind me of those who, when the R-68s were running with an MDBF of 16,000 miles, wrote them off as "lemons" and "turkeys". Personally, I live almost equidistant between the Ronkonkoma and Montauk branches and while the Ronkonkoma Branch offers a better schedule, the Montauk branch offers a better ride and that is where I opt. The fact is that, sadly, the vast majority of people here in Suffolk County do not use the LIRR. They do not want 3rd rails - they do not want fences. I must say, I do not want to give up my dual mode option. Until there is a comprehensive and independent study of why the DMs are having their problems, I have no interest in politicos and rail non-professionals telling me that they "CAN'T". The R-68s were 8 years old when fresh blood was brough in to look at them and then it took another 4 to get a handle on the problems. I don't know if the same approach will work with the DMs but I'd damn well exhaust every possibility before I'd write them off. One thing you said is very true. It's taxpayer money and I don't appreciate seing mine swirling around in the bowl. Not without a fight. |
|
|
| (577301) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Wed Feb 27 04:24:47 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Train Dude on Wed Feb 27 04:21:28 2008. "The fact is that, sadly, the vast majority of people here in Suffolk County do not use the LIRR. They do not want 3rd rails - they do not want fences."Let me also add, they certainly do not want wire. |
|
|
| (577354) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Johnnytrains on Wed Feb 27 08:50:16 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Feb 26 23:22:54 2008. I love Black Forest cake... |
|
|
| (577355) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Johnnytrains on Wed Feb 27 08:51:10 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Train Dude on Tue Feb 26 23:27:26 2008. LOL !!! |
|
|
| (577356) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Johnnytrains on Wed Feb 27 08:52:40 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by WillD on Tue Feb 26 23:44:42 2008. The LIRR wil NEVER electrify LD to Greenport. NEVER ! |
|
|
| (577357) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Johnnytrains on Wed Feb 27 08:53:54 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Train Dude on Wed Feb 27 04:21:28 2008. I agree !!! |
|
|
| (577358) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Johnnytrains on Wed Feb 27 08:54:32 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Train Dude on Wed Feb 27 04:24:47 2008. YOU WILL NEVER SEE CATENARY ANYWHERE ON THE LIRR >>>NEVER |
|
|
| (577365) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Feb 27 09:10:33 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Train Dude on Tue Feb 26 23:27:26 2008. I believe that your basic premise is flawed. I believe that the dual mode concept is clearly workable and that the DMs could be brought to a level of performance that is comparable to other locos. As I said before, I'd welcome the challenge.One could get the reliability of the dual modes to acceptable levels. However, it's unlikely that even you could get their reliability up to the level of single mode locomotives. The problem is that dual modes must have more components than single modes. All components must operate properly for the locomotive to operate. All components have some non-zero probability for failure. So, the system with the fewer components will be more reliable. One could try to make the components on the dual mode less prone to failure. However, that would be begging the issue because comparable measures should also be applied to the single mode's components. We are disallowing the strategy to let the single modes go to pot to equalize reliability. |
|
|
| (577409) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 27 10:53:38 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Feb 26 22:14:03 2008. Then perhaps the LIRR should inquire about leasing some from Amtrak, if available. |
|
|
| (577410) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 27 10:55:29 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Feb 26 16:47:10 2008. I'm pretty sure Port Jefferson ridership collectively outnumbers the NIMBYies that count. |
|
|
| (577411) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 27 10:57:10 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by WillD on Tue Feb 26 23:10:00 2008. The dual mode concept is not flawed. The DM30's are just shitcans. |
|
|
| (577413) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 27 10:58:31 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Feb 27 09:10:33 2008. One could get the reliability of the dual modes to acceptable levels. However, it's unlikely that even you could get their reliability up to the level of single mode locomotives. That's a given. But it doesn't justify installing catenary everywhere on the LIRR, which is what Will wants. |
|
|
| (577414) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 27 11:01:16 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Feb 26 21:44:57 2008. It is the same power supply. After all, it was originally all one company (PRR) when NYP was built.ROAR |
|
|
| (577455) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 27 12:39:28 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 27 10:53:38 2008. Amtrak is probably the tightest agency with regard to DMs.They swap out DMs for straight diesels at albany on longer runs so that they can keep the DMs where theyre needed. Sometimes a straight diesel will go all the way to Penn, when no DMs are available(An electric will meet up with it to pull it into the station.) |
|
|
| (577456) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Wed Feb 27 12:39:48 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Feb 26 21:44:57 2008. The issues have to do with third rail gaps and with voltage swings. A single car (i.e locomotive) will always have issues with gaps since they're too short to span most of them without having to use the batteries. You therefore have to design this switch gear to an appropriately high duty cycle. If you don't, it wears out a lot faster than expected. The same issue holds for voltage swings - make the equipment too sensative or design it to the wrong range and you'll get extra wear and tear. |
|
|
| (577458) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Feb 27 12:40:30 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 27 10:53:38 2008. Furthermore, they would have trouble working with LIRR equipment. |
|
|
| (577473) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Feb 27 13:05:21 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 27 12:39:28 2008. They used to change engines from F40PH's to FL9's over at Albany on trains I used to take down from Vermont. I assume they probably still do a switch there. |
|
|
| (577475) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Feb 27 13:06:35 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 27 10:57:10 2008. And not only are the mechanically and structurally shitcans...they are the ugliest things I have ever seen besides. |
|
|
| (577479) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Wed Feb 27 13:11:11 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Johnnytrains on Wed Feb 27 08:50:16 2008. I've never had a crappy one either...your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (577520) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Feb 27 15:25:28 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Fred G on Wed Feb 27 13:11:11 2008. You Ridgewooditer you.SchwartzWalderKirschTorte. |
|
|
| (577524) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 27 15:28:40 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by R30A on Wed Feb 27 12:40:30 2008. Non-issue. A different electrical portion can be swapped out for the existing one. ROAR |
|
|
| (577574) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 27 17:12:45 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 27 10:57:10 2008. So the dual mode concept isn't flawed, but the "good" dual modes still fall well short of the MDBF's achieved by 40 year old EMUs or NJT's electrics? Hell, I'm fairly certain NJT's ALPs have more than double the MDBF of the MNRR P32s, and those have a more demanding operating regimen which can include a local run on the M&E followed by a 100mph express on the NEC. Last year the "crappy" M2s somehow managed to achieve an MDBF more than triple the P32's annual 2007 numbers. Maybe MNRR should look into replacing the unreliable P32s with M8s rather than the M2s. |
|
|
| (577665) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Feb 27 20:40:45 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Feb 27 09:10:33 2008. One could get the reliability of the dual modes to acceptable levels. However, it's unlikely that even you could get their reliability up to the level of single mode locomotives.Given the probabilities, you're right of course, and state a logical truth. Of course, just getting the reliability of DE/DM30s up to acceptable levels - on LIRR, right now, the acceptable level would officially be only 30k miles=MDBF - would be spectacular. We are disallowing the strategy to let the single modes go to pot to equalize reliability. I hope we are! |
|
|
| (577668) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Feb 27 20:43:14 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 27 10:55:29 2008. Since when does our system of politics always allow the outcome favored by majorities of people to happen? Entrenched but passionately devoted constituencies can have far greater impact than their numbers would otherwise dedicate. |
|
|
| (577671) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Feb 27 20:45:34 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 27 17:12:45 2008. Maybe MNRR should look into replacing the unreliable P32s with M8sOn the Hudson Line? I expect the fight THERE would be absolutely fierce with regard to stringing up wire. (Not that it wouldn't be fierce elsewhere, but it would be really fierce there, from what I've heard). |
|
|
| (577673) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Wed Feb 27 20:48:21 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Jace on Wed Feb 27 12:39:48 2008. OK thanks.But wouldn't the designers know THAT? Either way, whether they did or didn't, depending on what the final product actually was rigged for, that could possibly be a design defect leading to relatively poorer performance. |
|
|
| (577895) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 28 11:39:35 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Feb 27 13:06:35 2008. Actually, I don't mind their looks. The paintjob is a little loud, much like the engines themselves. NJT engines are much more tasteful, despite their disco striped logo. |
|
|
| (577896) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 28 11:41:25 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 27 17:12:45 2008. Dual mode engines will never perform as well as a single mode type of propulsion. However, dual modes are used extensively by both Metro North and Amtrak and CAN be made to work, if effort is put into doing so. None of these problems justifies your insane idea to use catenary on the LIRR. |
|
|
| (577899) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Feb 28 11:51:45 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 28 11:39:35 2008. NJT engines are much more tasteful,Barf Barf Barf.... |
|
|
| (577901) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 28 11:54:22 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by trainsarefun on Wed Feb 27 20:43:14 2008. All I know (or care about) is that the folks who oppose(d) Port Jefferson electrification must be crushed, and crushed in a way that leaves a lasting impression of NIMBYies elsewhere. Stop fucking with the LIRR. |
|
|
| (577911) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Feb 28 12:30:50 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 28 11:54:22 2008. All I know (or care about) is that the folks who oppose(d) Port Jefferson electrification must be crushed, and crushed in a way that leaves a lasting impression of NIMBYies elsewhere. Stop fucking with the LIRR.Another conservative who becomes a militant socialist when rail transportation is involved! There must be a joke here along the lines of a conservative being a liberal who has been mugged. |
|
|
| (577913) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Feb 28 12:32:16 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 28 11:41:25 2008. Dual mode engines will never perform as well as a single mode type of propulsion. However, dual modes are used extensively by both Metro North and Amtrak and CAN be made to work, if effort is put into doing so.In what way do MNRR dual mode locomotives work less well than pure diesels? |
|
|
| (577917) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 28 12:41:21 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by AlM on Thu Feb 28 12:32:16 2008. It's a generalization based on the more technically complicated dual mode. More points of potential failure. It'd be very hard to get an engine like this to perform as well as a simple diesel. |
|
|
| (577918) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 28 12:42:15 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by AlM on Thu Feb 28 12:30:50 2008. I freely admit to being left of center when it comes to rail issues (or mass transit in general). |
|
|
| (577925) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Feb 28 13:06:59 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 28 11:41:25 2008. Except that the M2s are decried around here as "falling apart" and are equally complicated (at least according to the folks who dismiss an AC/DC locomotive out of hand), yet they achieve an MDBF triple that of the "good" dual modes, and more than 6 times that of the DM30ACs.None of these problems justifies your insane idea to use catenary on the LIRR. How is it insane? AC/DC operation is very common, far more common than diesel/DC operation, which aside from the US really only involves the massively underpowered Class 73s in England and a few DMMUs in France. Compared to the hundreds of multisystem locomotives which are currently roaming across Europe the only thing that changes is the voltage and current, down from 1500vdc for France and Holland to 750vdc with a corresponding rise in current. Beef up the DC bus and the cables connecting it to the third rail shoe to account for that higher current and you're in business. The New Haven ran AC/DC locomotives off third rail for nearly 70 years with far less sophisticated technology. That being said, a catenary electrification of the East End and conversion from the DM30ACs to dual voltage electrics remains by far the cheapest option to extend electrification while not placing the future of the Greenport or Montauk lines in jeopardy. The rolling stock costs are lowest because the smallest possible proportion of equipment is being replaced while the vast majority of equipment goes unchanged. The installed infrastructure costs are lower because we're not building a substation every mile. A piecemeal third rail electrification to some intermediate point on either line will likely result in inflated costs to operate the diesel shuttles and abandonment shortly thereafter. With AC catenary now a few miles of track which wouldn't recieve third rail at the moment would be electrified, but once they're electrified those lines aren't going anywhere and they're cheaper to operate. |
|
|
| (577934) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 28 13:27:40 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by WillD on Thu Feb 28 13:06:59 2008. The New Haven line has needed catenary/third rail powered vehicles for almost a century. The wire is already there. What you advocate is the MTA spending millions to add another propulsion source, then spend billions on cars which can use it, all because the DM30AC's break down more often than most would accept. Sorry, but this sounds like collossal stupidity to me. How can you justify spending $1 on wire east of Riverhead? Or East of Speonk? For 3-5 trains a day!!?? |
|
|
| (577942) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Feb 28 13:41:39 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 28 11:54:22 2008. But who are you hurting? The NIMBY's would love to see the Port Jeff Branch abandoned. Forget about "no electrification", give them full abandonment to get that menace out of their baqck yards! That'll show em! |
|
|
| (577944) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 28 13:45:31 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Thu Feb 28 13:41:39 2008. But the reaction of those who RIDE said line will offset the NIMBYies. I'm not advocating abandonment, I just want to enrage regular riders and have that rage focused against the opponents of electrification. |
|
|
| (578004) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Feb 28 16:48:01 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 28 13:27:40 2008. The New Haven line has needed catenary/third rail powered vehicles for almost a century. The wire is already there.No, the wire is not naturally occuring, it was not already there. They had to make a conscious decision to install a system which was very specifically incompatible with the system being installed in GCT at that same time. The New Haven could have gone with NY Central style third rail right off the bat and avoided any compatibility problems. That they didn't is a tribute to their faith in the technology of the era and its ability to overcome the power supply differences. It also points to the fact that there is no major problem in mixing third rail and overhead power supplies. What you advocate is the MTA spending millions to add another propulsion source, then spend billions on cars which can use it Where? Where have I said "buy new cars for the LIRR"? All I can conclude at this point is that you're illiterate because the ONE overriding principle I have built this entire argument on is that no cars would be replaced in the conversion from DC/Diesel dual modes to AC/DC dual system locomotives. It is the third rail extension which becomes very expensive in terms of rolling stock since you have to replace the C3s before they have served out their useful lifespan with brand new EMUs and thus eat a lot of the cost which was to be amortized over 30 to 40 years. One need not look further than the C1s which still languish after years on the market for an example of just the sort of resale price the C3s will garner. Thus a direct replacement of just the DE/DM30ACs and a move away from the DM concept, which is on its 5th generation of failure, to a solution which still provides a source of motive power capable of moving those C3 cars is the overriding concern of mine. That catenary is significantly cheaper than third rail is a nice bonus. How can you justify spending $1 on wire east of Riverhead? Or East of Speonk? For 3-5 trains a day!!?? If you extend the third rail to those points then you're going to have an ever-increasing cost for diesel operations as your territory becomes smaller and smaller. At a certain point the LIRR is going to reach a point where they'll either have to electrify or just abandon the operation. Under the third rail solution with its very high cost per track mile it'd never make sense to electrify out there, they'd be abandoned and 50 years from now we'll go through the 'Wading River branch regret' stage again. However, with catenary, which is far cheaper on a per-track mile basis once the substations are in place you can install the wire on an economical basis. Once installed you're going to have lower operational costs EVERY YEAR for those 3-5 trains, and likely it won't stay at that number for very long at the rate LI is going. Thus the one-time expense of installing wire today would be compared to the compounded difference in cost of maintaining diesel operations on an ever shrinking territory on the East End relative to a fully electrified system combined with the rising capital costs of piecemeal electrification installations on individual lines over say the next 40 years. Under this analysis, for which I am sorely lacking figures other than approximate costs of the various electrification installations, it is extremely likely that the catenary installation will be by far the cheapest operation should the LIRR choose to take the long view of their problems for a change. |
|
|
| (578082) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Feb 28 20:26:47 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 28 13:27:40 2008. It's an interesting back and forth between WillD and you. Some observations:1. As I've said before, without LIRR setting priorities and MTA budgeting on the issue of electrification and better service, there's a ton of missing data. 2. You have a valid point that rolling stock purchases for straight DC equipment would be cheaper. It also has historical precedent on LIRR, although that same precedent indicates that the pace of electrification is very slow. 3. WillD has a valid point that AC electrification is cheaper and it requires (many) less substations. Historically, the New Haven Line electrification counts as a huge success, I think (and not only that - consider furthermore how much AC catenary the NYNH&H tore down as well, e.g., on the Bay Ridge Branch of LIRR and over the Hell Gate. 4. Up to this point, I would give the edge to WillD, but there's a big BUT to follow, since I think he has two big, and so far fatal, flaws to his proposal: 4a. How would a locomotive on the third rail pulling DC operate at speed successfully? 4b. A political problem: People - NIMBY people especially - tend not to like overhead wire; can opposition be overcome? I'm not so sure, to be honest. |
|
|
| (578084) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Thu Feb 28 20:33:41 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Feb 28 11:54:22 2008. Personally, I think the political reaction can be sweet or bitter, or maybe bits of both to showcase the power. Now whether or not LIRR has enough and powerful enough allies to pull this off, I don't know.On the sweet side: do non-rail related favors for legislators, e.g., sponsor their pet projects in return for their vote. (LBJ was a master of the political deal, and read Caro's or Dallek's books to see how effective he was in buttering people up to support civil rights laws by rewarding allies). On the bitter side: withhold support from pet projects, have legislative superiors be petty with their non-cooperating inferiors, spite the non-cooperating legislator on any transit project, smear the non-cooperating legislators, etc. |
|
|
| (578337) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 29 10:44:50 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by trainsarefun on Thu Feb 28 20:26:47 2008. Many questions, but the LION will not *give* you the fact of wire being cheaper than rail. Building all of those (unsightly) towers is not cheap. Dropping down some insulated seats and setting a third rail on it has to be cheaper than stringing a wire. It is certainly easier in 1:87 scale, and so I presume the same would be true of 1:1 scale.The substations are a non-issue issue. They are not all that expensive. And they *could* be supplied by the power company. If LIRR tells LILCO (or its successor or whatever it is you guys use out there now) that they want 750 volts DC delivered in these places, they will, like good business men, sell them the power that they want to buy the way they want to buy it. Obviously at a slightly higher $/KWH, since they are also in the business of making money. BNSF does it this way. Long gone are the "telegraph" poles and the DC transmission service that maintained the signal batteries. They buy voltage from the power company on the locations where they want it, AND will not even allow the utility to run its wires along the RR ROW. The lines must come in across country, and the utility will have to gain easements across private properties to get it to them. In places where *that* is too costly, BNSF simply sets up solar grids to maintain the signal batteries. ERGO, says LION: Methinks the Third Rail is easier, cheaper, cleaner, and just as good at LIRR speeds as overhead wire. PROFF Otherwise or be EATEN! ROAR |
|
|
| (578353) | |
Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Feb 29 11:14:37 2008, in response to Re: LIRR DE/DMS Some reasons why, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 29 10:44:50 2008. Many questions, but the LION will not *give* you the fact of wire being cheaper than rail.Nor should you, really. I think it's all a matter for lots of investigation and analysis, but so far at least, I'm inclined to think that as to the costs of electrification alone, the AC overhead job might be cheaper than the DC third rail job. But this is an empirical question, so our answer can change as does technology and know-how. The substations are a non-issue issue. They are not all that expensive. Not individually, given the other costs involved, e.g., rolling stock purchases, indeed. But there will be many more substations required, relative to AC electrification. And they *could* be supplied by the power company. If LIRR tells LILCO (or its successor or whatever it is you guys use out there now) that they want 750 volts DC delivered in these places, they will, like good business men, sell them the power that they want to buy the way they want to buy it. Obviously at a slightly higher $/KWH, since they are also in the business of making money. That's an interesting proposal. I don't know enough about the cost that LIPA would charge for such a service, assuming they were willing to supply it, to know whether it makes fiscal sense. BNSF does it this way. Long gone are the "telegraph" poles and the DC transmission service that maintained the signal batteries. They buy voltage from the power company on the locations where they want it, AND will not even allow the utility to run its wires along the RR ROW. The lines must come in across country, and the utility will have to gain easements across private properties to get it to them. In places where *that* is too costly, BNSF simply sets up solar grids to maintain the signal batteries. 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. :) |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 3 |
||
