|
|
| LIRR Diesel Question ? (851498) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (851498) | |
LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by JFK DEPOT on Mon Nov 2 10:31:23 2009 I always wondered why LIRR didnt just follow Metro North when it came to DieselsWhy didnt they get the Genesis II DM's instead instead of the DE/DM30-AC's ? |
|
|
| (851521) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Nov 2 11:41:13 2009, in response to LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by JFK DEPOT on Mon Nov 2 10:31:23 2009. Because they suck as a railroad.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (851522) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Nov 2 11:41:39 2009, in response to LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by JFK DEPOT on Mon Nov 2 10:31:23 2009. AFIK LIRR placed their order before the G-IIs were available for this sort of service. Maybe I am wrong. Terp seems to think so, so he may be right.LIRR did want locos with better specifications especially acceleration, and frankly they probably also wanted a better looking locomotive, and *that* is NOT hard to do. Of all NYC area locomotives, LIRR's are absolutely the best looking, which is a backward way of saying that ALL of the current locomotives are dead-ass UGLY. That LIRR did not realize the quality that they were anticipating is not something that can be addressed when the locomotive is being designed. (In ohter words, you can take your hindsight and shove it.) ROAR |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (851526) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Nov 2 11:50:08 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Fred G on Mon Nov 2 11:41:13 2009. IAWTP :-) |
|
|
| (851567) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Neil Feldman on Mon Nov 2 13:51:24 2009, in response to LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by JFK DEPOT on Mon Nov 2 10:31:23 2009. LIRR wanted to stick to MTA's game plan in having a company make their equipment made in New York State, so Super Steel Industries which was based in Schenactady (Pardon me for if spelling is incorrect) assembled them in their plant while EMD was the main supplier/manufacturer of the parts. |
|
|
| (851573) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 14:24:33 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Nov 2 11:41:39 2009. And frankly they probably also wanted a better looking locomotive, and *that* is NOT hard to do.......LIRR's are absolutely the best looking, which is a backward way of saying that ALL of the current locomotives are dead-ass UGLY.I disagree, as ugly as the Genesis units may be, they are a lot better than those god-awful DM/DE30 "things". Ugh, they couldn't get any uglier! |
|
|
| (851574) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 14:26:21 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Neil Feldman on Mon Nov 2 13:51:24 2009. Not to mention, I think at the time the LIRR ordered their god-awful lemon excuses for locomotives, MN and Amtrak were still having bug problems with the Genesis units. As dumb as the LIRR's decision was, I think they were "trying" to avoid the bug problems the Genesis units had. "If they only know" what was in store for them with the the DM/DE 30's! |
|
|
| (851582) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Nov 2 15:09:06 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 14:24:33 2009. That is a subjective opinion not an objective fact.Ergo, my subjective opinion is just as good as your subjective opinion. Which of course is why I choose to stir the pot. ROAR |
|
|
| (851588) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Nov 2 15:30:53 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by arnine on Mon Nov 2 11:50:08 2009. LOL, I was stirring the pot. Although they're my least favorite railroad, they do pretty good with the constraints they operate under, not to mention some of the most rabid NIMBYs and CAVEs anywhere. The locomotives were a blunder, yes.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (851589) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Nov 2 15:31:25 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by arnine on Mon Nov 2 11:50:08 2009. LOL, I was stirring the pot. Although they're my least favorite railroad, they do pretty good with the constraints they operate under, not to mention some of the most rabid NIMBYs and CAVEs anywhere. The locomotives were a blunder, yes.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (851593) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 15:37:15 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Nov 2 15:09:06 2009. Okay. |
|
|
| (851594) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 15:37:54 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Fred G on Mon Nov 2 15:30:53 2009. Ahhh, again, you are just pissed off we ruin your oceanfront property.... |
|
|
| (851608) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Nov 2 16:11:41 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Fred G on Mon Nov 2 15:31:25 2009. Nah, I knew you were stirring the pot :-). The LIRR to me can do much better in several areas including maintenance, but they really gotta do something about their crews attitudes, they need a internal PR action IMHO. I have to take them for work tomorrow and honestly, I dread it. Put me on NJT/SEPTA/MNR anyday. |
|
|
| (851609) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Neil Feldman on Mon Nov 2 16:15:24 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 14:26:21 2009. It could of been, but I do remember that that wasn't the issue! Again, it was from what I mentioned in the previous post! |
|
|
| (851619) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Nov 2 16:37:32 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 15:37:54 2009. Hahaha no, but I'm appreciative of the breakwater maintenance :Dyour pal, Fred |
|
|
| (851623) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by JFK DEPOT on Mon Nov 2 16:42:29 2009, in response to LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by JFK DEPOT on Mon Nov 2 10:31:23 2009. I think the Bi-level Pushpull cars they have are pretty crappy too...they should have stuck with the reliable Comet Push Pulls instead |
|
|
| (851626) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Q4 on Mon Nov 2 16:57:18 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 14:24:33 2009. Concur with Broadway Lion's take on the acceleration issue. The LIRR also likes equipment specifically built for them. As far as the better looking locomotive, I have to go with the Genesis, of course that is just my own subjective opinion, LOL. |
|
|
| (851634) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Mon Nov 2 17:48:54 2009, in response to LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by JFK DEPOT on Mon Nov 2 10:31:23 2009. Prendergast, who was running the RR at the time, was from Chicago. Thus: Bilevels and EMDs. The LIRR tried all sorts of arcane excuses for why the Gen II couldn't be bought.The P-32ACDM isn't a perfect unit. But it's a fuckload more reliable than the DE/DMs ever were, and I doubt it's any slower in real life - the DE/DMs fall on their face once they get over 30 or so. |
|
|
| (851645) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Nov 2 18:20:49 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by nasadowsk on Mon Nov 2 17:48:54 2009. LIRR was brand-loyal to EMD becuase the GP-38 and MP15 were great engines.That's as dumb as liking present-day Chrysler Corp because you liked your father's Slant-6. LIRR should have electrified to Port Jeff, and bought off the shelf equipment: 60 more M-3's, 20 GE P40's, and about 100 Comet-IV's. Then they wouldn't have had to bother raising platforms out to Greenport or closing all those stations, which got them unnecessary political scars in Glen Street, Southampton (the college station), and Bellport. |
|
|
| (851655) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Nov 2 18:30:22 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 14:26:21 2009. The cure was worse than the disease.I'm pretty sure that the LIRR's diesel fleet would be just as awful as the current one is if they had decided in the mid 90's to go with P-32's and/or P-40's. Metro North just takes better care of it's stuff. |
|
|
| (851656) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Nov 2 18:33:19 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by nasadowsk on Mon Nov 2 17:48:54 2009. The C-3's were made by Kawasaki, but there was really no American alternative for rolling stock.You'd think the purchases made by the MTA alone in the last 10 years for it's various railroads would be enough to sustain a domestic passanger car manufacturer. |
|
|
| (851659) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Nov 2 18:34:21 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 14:24:33 2009. The DE/DM's aren't that bad, but they are noisy! It was an engineering mistake to not order them with separate HEP generators. |
|
|
| (851660) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Nov 2 18:34:32 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Nov 2 18:30:22 2009. Exactly:-) |
|
|
| (851661) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Nov 2 18:36:59 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Fred G on Mon Nov 2 15:30:53 2009. I have developed a similar distaste for the LIRR. I don't fan it much these days. |
|
|
| (851664) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Mon Nov 2 18:41:02 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Joe V on Mon Nov 2 18:20:49 2009. Glen street never closed, it's just got a stupid 2 car platform tucked in the most brain dead location possible.What they _should_ have done was terminate the OB line there and straighten out the track to make a 2 track terminal. There's only 3 stations after Glen Street - Glen Cove, litterally a 10 minute WALK to Glen Street, Locust Valley - no ridership, and Oyster Bay - pretty much no ridership either, since the service sucks so badly. Electrification was a no brainer, but I'm guessing the electric rates thanks to everyone's hard-on for closing Shoreham, make it a losing proposition financially. |
|
|
| (851666) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by D to E to Jamaica on Mon Nov 2 18:47:36 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Q4 on Mon Nov 2 16:57:18 2009. If the Gennies and the DE/DM's were women, you would take the Gennieshome if you were drunk enough.... |
|
|
| (851667) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by JFK DEPOT on Mon Nov 2 18:48:54 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by D to E to Jamaica on Mon Nov 2 18:47:36 2009. LOL Honestly I feel they need to test out a few Gennies now.See how they do pull those C3's |
|
|
| (851668) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by JFK DEPOT on Mon Nov 2 18:52:18 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Joe V on Mon Nov 2 18:20:49 2009. I see alot of those M7a's layed up by that LIRR Facility in Sunnyside everytime on on the 7As much as I see those there there shouldnt be a reason why LIRR couldnt borrow a few Gennies for testing purposes 1 hand washes the other right ? |
|
|
| (851669) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by D to E to Jamaica on Mon Nov 2 18:54:52 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by JFK DEPOT on Mon Nov 2 18:52:18 2009. They leased those fl9's years ago, so I don't see why not |
|
|
| (851673) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Nov 2 19:16:30 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by JFK DEPOT on Mon Nov 2 18:52:18 2009. Both the bi-levels and the Super Steels are totally incompatible with anything else. I don't even think the MU jumper cables are the same, like 32 verses 27 pin.The RLW FL-9's were practically custom-built for the Bitanic, and compatible with nothing else. They and the 7 others that MN had were all cut up in Croton-Harmon. |
|
|
| (851679) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 19:38:26 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Nov 2 18:30:22 2009. The LIRR probably would have been better off with the rolling disasters that they retired..... The GP38's are all still around, rebuilt, owned by a holding company, and leased out and used every day! |
|
|
| (851681) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 19:39:00 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Nov 2 18:36:59 2009. That's a pity. |
|
|
| (851682) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 19:40:53 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 19:39:00 2009. That said, I have not railfanned it much or photographed it much since the old diesel equipment is gone.....BTW, did you ever do your Hempstead branch trip to see the abandoned Clinton Rd station you talked about back when I was doing the "Where is this?" series? I should start that series up again, I enjoyed that. |
|
|
| (851683) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 19:42:18 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Q4 on Mon Nov 2 16:57:18 2009. The LIRR also likes equipment specifically built for them.???? The MP15's, GP38's, SW1001's, F units, etc were all off the shelf locomotives many railroads own(ed) |
|
|
| (851684) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 19:43:43 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Nov 2 18:34:21 2009. The GP38's were louder, at least when moving. Granted though, the humming noise the DM/DE's make is pretty loud in idle....I can hear them all the way at my house when they are at the station. |
|
|
| (851687) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Mon Nov 2 19:50:47 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Nov 2 18:36:59 2009. I don't dislike the railroad so much as I prefer the others. It's just a phase.your pal, Fred |
|
|
| (851688) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Nov 2 19:51:37 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 19:38:26 2009. The C-3's are only able to work with these lemons, I expect the LIRR to sink a ton of effort and $$$ into them for another 15-20 years, minimum. |
|
|
| (851694) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Nov 2 20:17:24 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Joe V on Mon Nov 2 18:20:49 2009. Brand Loyal?We'd still be using Fairbanks-Moorse products. Their second generation diesels were Alcos. Looks to LION that they buy locomotives from companies just before they go belly up. ROAR |
|
|
| (851696) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Nov 2 20:23:50 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 19:42:18 2009. Alcos were off the shelf, as were the Fairbanks locomotives.ROAR |
|
|
| (851718) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Nov 2 20:47:39 2009, in response to LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by JFK DEPOT on Mon Nov 2 10:31:23 2009. IMHO the more important question is why they didn't invest the millions of dollars they squandered on the diesels on electrification. A smaller order of an F59 model, a tack-on to NJT's Comet IV order, and a large number of new EMUs for the newly electrified lines would have been far more sustainable and provided nearly the same number of one seat rides. Now we're stuck with the garbage DE and DMs, with the acceptable C3s being both restricted in operating envelope and a long way from fully ammortizing their purchase cost. Because those cars have a long lifetime ahead of them the LIRR's best route out now would be to attract federal funding to fully electrify their diesel routes with high voltage AC wire and purchase multisystem electric locomotives. Thus they could eliminate the most troublesome element of their system and take a step toward further improvement in the future without having to fully replace their rolling stock right now. |
|
|
| (851728) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Nov 2 20:57:58 2009, in response to LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by JFK DEPOT on Mon Nov 2 10:31:23 2009. "Follow Metro-North" . . . ? Amtrak was the first with the P32AC-DM, and Metro-North followed Amtrak, IIRC. Metro-North was banking on the FL9AC for a while, or so it looked to me. |
|
|
| (851762) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 22:06:45 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by WillD on Mon Nov 2 20:47:39 2009. . Now we're stuck with the garbage DE and DMs, with the acceptable C3s being both restricted in operating envelope and a long way from fully amortizing their purchase cost.I couldn't agree more. And it's bad, because the C3s are totally acceptable coaches. They are good. But the problem is that they also are limited in what can pull them as they are taylor made Because those cars have a long lifetime ahead of them the LIRR's best route out now would be to attract federal funding to fully electrify their diesel routes with high voltage AC wire and purchase multisystem electric locomotives. It may be a pipe dream, but I like the idea. |
|
|
| (851764) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Mon Nov 2 22:09:33 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by nasadowsk on Mon Nov 2 18:41:02 2009. I'm guessing the electric ratesWouldn't the LIRR (and MNRR) qualify for power via the New York State Power Authority, and basically end up buying at subsidized rates? IIRC, it's supposedly why NJT built a subtation at Sunnyside in the early 90s... |
|
|
| (851770) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 22:20:52 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Nov 2 19:51:37 2009. The C-3's are only able to work with these lemons, I expect the LIRR to sink a ton of effort and $$$ into them for another 15-20 years, minimum.The C3's are nice units....I have nothing against them...it's those horrendous engines that have to go. There was already talk of them being replaced. But that said, what about this? (LOL) This ran for years on the Port Jeff Branch.... 
|
|
|
| (851771) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 22:22:05 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Nov 2 20:23:50 2009. Correct, but as I said....what about the GP38-2's, the MP15's, the SW1001's, and the F units? And RS1's, etc too.... |
|
|
| (851772) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 22:23:38 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by Fred G on Mon Nov 2 19:50:47 2009. I like the LIRR....even if it's not as interesting to me as it once was. Metro North always was better taken care of by the MTA. The LIRR was always treated like s stepchild, even since the MTA took over the lines that would become Metro North in 1983. |
|
|
| (851784) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Nov 2 22:56:37 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 22:23:38 2009. I don't know much about the LIRR being treated like a stepchild, but I can tell you IMHO that the LIRR can be a much better RR if they were to make some management style changes. Their train crews (not all but a good number of them) tend to not be very personable, and I would even venture to say in some cases unprofessional, for example, I had one c/r snatch a ticket from my hand.One thing I have heard many customers say at MNR several times is that our train crews are a bit more personable than they have experienced at other RR's. I have even had the pleasure to hear that from other RR agency employees as well. I am not trying to toot my agency's own horn, but these are my professional observations from working for MNR for 10+ years. I will say that the LIRR is a very by the book RR, which I can tell you is not 100% the case at MNR. We follow the rules 100% but do it with some personality if that makes sense. Just my .02 |
|
|
| (851954) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Nov 3 12:08:16 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by JFK DEPOT on Mon Nov 2 16:42:29 2009. Like others posted, the C3 are fine coaches. The DE/DM are the problem. |
|
|
| (851960) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Nov 3 12:19:15 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Nov 2 19:39:00 2009. Fare hikes have also hampered my MTA outings. I can buy a round trip ticket from Hoboken to Hackettstown or Newark to High Bridge for only a dollar or two more than a similarly distanced one way trip on the NY railroads. RIght now, NJT is cheaper. |
|
|
| (851963) | |
Re: LIRR Diesel Question ? |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Nov 3 12:20:52 2009, in response to Re: LIRR Diesel Question ?, posted by JFK DEPOT on Mon Nov 2 16:42:29 2009. There's nothing wrong with the bilevel coaches. Their only real problem is the fact that only the DM/DE30's can pull them. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
