|
|
| Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station (898795) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 6 |
||
|
| (899658) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Feb 14 18:18:16 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 14 18:00:43 2010. So Amtrak should never attempt to increase their market share in other regions? It's a complete waste to do anything other than the NEC? That is a completely ignorant position, especially in light of the growth California, Illinois, Washington, and Oregon have seen with their much less intensive services. The simple fact is that it is far too expensive to do any sort of proper HSR here in the Northeast Corridor, but elsewhere in the US we can get far lower property acquisition costs for the enroute tracks and thus get far more bang for our collective buck. |
|
|
| (899672) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 14 19:01:24 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 14 18:00:08 2010. PORK |
|
|
| (899677) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 19:10:38 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Feb 14 15:49:39 2010. Just how much HSR money do you think is available . . . ? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (899678) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 14 19:10:39 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by WillD on Sun Feb 14 18:18:16 2010. Thus Spake ROARING LION:Giving Money to AMTK is like pouring money in a rat hole. Granted this particular rat hole needs money. HIGH SPEED RAIL had NOTHING to do with AMTK. HSR is in direct competition with AIR TRAVEL It needs to serve corridors presently served by air. It is BEST set up by REGIONAL AUTHORITIES. That is where Federal Encouragement Dollars need to go. GRANTING states the right to build HSR along existing Interstate ROW is a good beginning. GRANTING construction funds to State HSR authorities is another. Waiting for Fedburocrats to build something is preposterous. This will not happen. Abolish the Highway Trust Fund. Stop collecting ANY federal fuel dollars. Stop all federal highway funding and projects. Let states raise fuel taxes to compensate them for the loss of Federal dollars, and LET THEM SPEND THESE TRANSPORTATION DOLLARS and they see the need for them. Some will join together to make HSR a reality. Others will use the money for other transportation projects. Still others will just lower the taxes on fuel thus rebating it to their constituents and will build fewer roadways. ROAR |
|
|
| (899679) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 19:11:12 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 10:51:17 2010. Wires cannot go to GCT. PERIOD. EOSHow do you know? |
|
|
| (899681) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 19:14:06 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 14 19:10:39 2010. HIGH SPEED RAIL had NOTHING to do with AMTKOnly because that wasn't its mandate. Would you prefer Deutsche Bahn expand to the USA like they're expanding all over Europe and parts of Africa and Asia Minor? GRANTING states the right to build HSR along existing Interstate ROW is a good beginning. GRANTING construction funds to State HSR authorities is another No, that's balkanization. And the states don't need that right granted to them anyhow; they ain't building them. Waiting for Fedburocrats to build something is preposterous They had no problem building interstates and airports. It wasn't the states. |
|
|
| (899682) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 14 19:17:41 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Feb 14 17:52:16 2010. They have physical control over the premises. The owner pays the property taxes.Out here a radio station leased land for a transmission tower, But the landlord stopped paying property taxes for whatever reason, and the county was set to seize the land and the tower. The radio station said that they could not seize the tower since that was regulated by the FCC. The court ruled that they could indeed seize the tower, that it was an improvement on the land, and belonged to the land. AFIK, the land was seized and the radio station pays rent to the county. ROAR |
|
|
| (899686) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 14 19:26:35 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Feb 14 16:44:37 2010. AMTK is not Federal Property. It is a PRIVATE COMPANY that happens to be owned by the Federal Government. The railroads from which it acquired assets were chartered by the several STATES.Can they send the National Guard down there and physically seize it? Probably not. Can they renegotiate with AMTK for control of the station? Certainly. Given AMTKs financial status, maybe they will be open to making a sale of the station, particularly if they get a good deal on the use thereof without the expense. If you cannot think outside of the box, then you are doomed to live in a box. Heck, even my CAT can think outside the box. That is why we keep her box outdoors. ROAR |
|
|
| (899689) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by fisk ave jim on Sun Feb 14 19:27:35 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 19:11:12 2010. There is not enough clearance in the tunnels. There is not enough room between train & tunnel roof. PERIOD.EOS!! How does anyone know?Just go there & look. Take a ride to 125 in the first car lookin out the barrell door window & you'll see & agree.The Genesis's barely fit there. There is just not enough clearence for wire. Its just the way it is... |
|
|
| (899697) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 19:41:34 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 14 19:26:35 2010. AMTK is not Federal PropertyTheir property is. If you cannot think outside of the box, then you are doomed to live in a box Thinking is one thing; acting is another. We've seen the results of acting within one kind of box; nobody's even tried to act outside of it. Why aren't NS and UP building high-speed pax trains? They're private affairs. |
|
|
| (899700) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 19:44:17 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by fisk ave jim on Sun Feb 14 19:27:35 2010. There is not enough clearance in the tunnels. There is not enough room between train & tunnel roof. PERIOD.EOS!! How does anyone know?Just go there & lookAnecdotal evidence is not evidence. I could stick my head out of an Arrow III window in the North River Tunnels and think that there just can't be clearance enough for 11.5 kV 25 Hz wire, but there is. And if there really isn't, the tunnels can be altered so that there is. The cut/cover sections have loads of room for overhead. |
|
|
| (899701) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Feb 14 19:48:57 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 14 19:26:35 2010. AMTK is not Federal Property. It is a PRIVATE COMPANY that happens to be owned by the Federal Government. The railroads from which it acquired assets were chartered by the several STATES.In your zeal for principles trounced with the confederate traitors to the US back in the civil war, you fail to consider relevant legal authority to the contrary. As I noted, your arguments apply to the Federal Reserve too. Your suggestion that states have the authority to seize federally authorized and chartered entities is lunacy that was rejected circa 1865. Can they send the National Guard down there and physically seize it? Probably not. Just 'probably not', comrade? Given AMTKs financial status, maybe they will be open to making a sale of the station, particularly if they get a good deal on the use thereof without the expense. What on earth gives you the idea that anyone else would all of the burden with none of the upside? Get real. If you cannot think outside of the box, then you are doomed to live in a box. You're not thinking outside the box. You're thinking inside a very old, discredited box by thinking that NY can seize NYP from Amtrak. |
|
|
| (899710) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by fisk ave jim on Sun Feb 14 20:03:38 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 19:44:17 2010. Anecdotal evidence is no replacement for eyesight. The North River tunnels are not the Park Ave tunnels. All you have to go there & look. Case in point, the LIRR double deckers wont fit in the Park Ave tunnels. That has been confirmed. Should'nd that give you a hint that installing wire won't work?? As for alterations, not on our lifetime. The MTA just spent $$$$ big time to upgrade the tunnels without any thoughts about clearence adjustments. Were stuck with what we got.. |
|
|
| (899724) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 20:25:38 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by fisk ave jim on Sun Feb 14 20:03:38 2010. Anecdotal evidence is no replacement for eyesightEyesight is anecdotal evidence. . Case in point, the LIRR double deckers wont fit in the Park Ave tunnels. That has been confirmed. Should'nd that give you a hint that installing wire won't work? More anecdotes. And here I read other anecdotes that say they do. |
|
|
| (899766) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 14 21:31:55 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 19:14:06 2010. They had no problem building interstates and airports. It wasn't the states.Gasp, Choke... Who the heck did you think built the interstates. IT WAS THE STATES! Yes some Federal money, Yes some Federal engineering specifications, but it was the STATES who built them. And some were built without Federal money! (Think the Thruway and other tolled turnpikes.) The States laid out the routes and acquired the land on which to build, and the STATES OWN the roadways and maintain them. The Federal Government does NOT build airports. There may be Federal money involved, but not all that much. Mostly they just run the towers. Airports are mostly designed by the localities they serve, or are built by the airlines that have their hubs there. And MOST of the money is state and local money. ROAR |
|
|
| (899769) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 14 21:37:35 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 19:44:17 2010. I need an antidote for your anecdote.The tunnels can not be raised, because it was not "Cut and Cover". The throat leading into GCT was OPEN AIR, and somebody put a street (Park Avenue) over the top of it. And you cannot dig down, because there is a lower level under it. Leastwise, this is how it was explained to the LION, if you do not *like* the LIONS facts, then go find some facts of your own. ROAR |
|
|
| (899779) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 21:56:26 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 14 21:37:35 2010. The tunnels can not be raised, because it was not "Cut and Cover". The throat leading into GCT was OPEN AIR, and somebody put a street (Park Avenue) over the top of it. And you cannot dig down, because there is a lower level under itPlenty of clearance for wires under that. Have a look. And there is a portion that's tunnel. Steamers used to go through there too. |
|
|
| (899793) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 14 22:10:28 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 21:56:26 2010. I tell you what they told me. You not like it go talk to them.ROAR |
|
|
| (899795) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Feb 14 22:14:30 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Feb 14 22:10:28 2010. It's dooable. But of course we got the MTA, who are as wasteful as NJT, who together are somewhat less wasteful than SEPTIC, ad nauseam . . . |
|
|
| (900050) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 15 14:06:46 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Feb 13 13:04:46 2010. Not really. The Main Line in Queens can handle more service than Penn Station can, there will be an increase in overall service to Midtown, even if trains numbers overall remain static. I would expect many of those FBA trains from Long Beach and Far Rock to be converted into Midtown trains. |
|
|
| (900054) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 15 14:11:15 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 16:27:58 2010. Only tracks 20 and 21 cannot be used by Amtrak trains headed towards Jersey. In the other direction, only tracks 1-4 do not connect to the East River tunnels (these were built specifically for commuter train by the PRR). While Amtrak trains are usually limited to tracks 8-15, then can theoretically use any track from 5 to 19.NJT and LIRR often overlap on tracks 12-16. |
|
|
| (900057) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station ?? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 15 14:13:54 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station ??, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Feb 13 11:13:18 2010. If the LIRR wanted to, they could purchase more dual modes and provide more direct service into NYP from diesel territory.Stop laughing! |
|
|
| (900059) | |
Re: Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Feb 15 14:17:20 2010, in response to Re: Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat Feb 13 15:42:53 2010. Change the timeline. The M3A's will go before the S1's. Still, the premise remains sound. All of these unavoidable expenses put PSA access from the New Haven in doubt. Even the cheapest option (buying and rebuilding NJT's oldest ALP-44's) seems hard to fund in this climate. |
|
|
| (900142) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 15 15:43:45 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station ??, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Feb 13 11:13:18 2010. If you go by the ESA documents, which are issued by MTA CC and LIRR, then there will be no peak service cuts when ESA is operational, and LIRR with add 24 AM trains during the peak hour while retaining full current peak hour service.However, most of us don't believe that. For one thing, ESA is approaching completion, and LIRR simply doesn't have the EMU fleet to add 24 peak trains when their monthly meeting minutes reveal that they've barely been meeting EMU car requirements for years. Word is also that LIRR means to retire its M3 fleet and replace that fleet with an M9 fleet, meaning that LIRR would have to get to MTA to sign off on a rather large capital expenditure, which seems doubtful in the present climate Don't go by hearsay. |
|
|
| (900146) | |
Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 15 15:45:08 2010, in response to Re: Future MNR New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Feb 13 22:58:01 2010. This depends on what you want to do with themHaven't seen any application of them that says "look at us, we're cheaper than conventional commuter rail", save stuff like the Portland Streetcar. |
|
|
| (900169) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Feb 15 16:05:15 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 15 15:43:45 2010. If you go by the ESA documents, which are issued by MTA CC and LIRR, then there will be no peak service cuts when ESA is operational, and LIRR with add 24 AM trains during the peak hour while retaining full current peak hour service.However, most of us don't believe that. For one thing, ESA is approaching completion, and LIRR simply doesn't have the EMU fleet to add 24 peak trains when their monthly meeting minutes reveal that they've barely been meeting EMU car requirements for years. Word is also that LIRR means to retire its M3 fleet and replace that fleet with an M9 fleet, meaning that LIRR would have to get to MTA to sign off on a rather large capital expenditure, which seems doubtful in the present climate Don't go by hearsay. Only the non-emphasized portion above is speculative. The remainder is from official LIRR statements. |
|
|
| (900263) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Feb 15 19:13:41 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by arnine on Sun Feb 14 15:58:28 2010. The over/under dual third rail type capable shoes for the M8 haven't been perfected yet. The diesels would need different shoes depending on the Manhattan destination. |
|
|
| (900271) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Feb 15 19:30:27 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Feb 15 19:13:41 2010. Well Diesels don't need 3rd rails do they? They just go straight in as a diesel (if allowed) |
|
|
| (900272) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Feb 15 19:35:12 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by arnine on Mon Feb 15 19:30:27 2010. Diesels aren't allowed in Penn Station due to ventilation issues. |
|
|
| (900273) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 15 19:35:25 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Feb 15 16:05:15 2010. There won't be to many new trains needed, most trains that will run to ESA, will be trains currently terminating at jamaica or LIC.This will relieve over crowding on current Jamaica to nyp trains. |
|
|
| (900274) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Feb 15 19:35:34 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by arnine on Mon Feb 15 19:30:27 2010. They just go straight in as a diesel (if allowed)Diesel operation is not permitted in either the East River, or Park Av, Tunnels. |
|
|
| (900277) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Feb 15 19:38:42 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Feb 15 19:35:12 2010. Ahh ok never mind cannot use the diesels then :( |
|
|
| (900278) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 15 19:39:00 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 15 19:35:25 2010. most trains that will run to ESA, will be trains currently terminating at jamaica or LICThought diesels can't run into ESA? |
|
|
| (900279) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 15 19:40:01 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by arnine on Mon Feb 15 19:30:27 2010. Why do you think they use dual-mode? |
|
|
| (900280) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Feb 15 19:40:06 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 15 19:35:25 2010. There won't be to many new trains needed, most trains that will run to ESA, will be trains currently terminating at jamaica or LIC.HPA/LIC and Jamaica trains are DE/DM30s hauling C3s (except for one EMU train) - they can't clear 63 St Tunnel. My hunch is that you're right that most/all of the ESA trains will turn out to be re-routed current trains, but in my view, these will come from FBA, since those EMUs can be routed to either NYP or ESA not trouble. I doubt that LIRR will add any more dual mode trips, although it's possible because there would be some space freed up at WSY. |
|
|
| (900281) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 15 19:41:05 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Feb 15 19:35:34 2010. No restrictions on diesels in park ave tunnels, only MNCR self imposed restriction on no diesel on revenue passenger trains unless they are dual mode capable. |
|
|
| (900282) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Feb 15 19:41:26 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Feb 15 19:35:34 2010. Yes just pointed out to me. :( Thanks forgot about that |
|
|
| (900283) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 15 19:43:26 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 15 19:39:00 2010. Not all trains going to those two terminal are diesel!!! |
|
|
| (900284) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Feb 15 19:43:38 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 15 19:41:05 2010. No restrictions on diesels in park ave tunnels, only MNCR self imposed restriction on no diesel on revenue passenger trains unless they are dual mode capable.You're correct - that's what I meant. And it's been strictly enforced for at least 2 years or so now, as I'm sure that you can testify to. It used to be a frequently flouted thing, but it looks like supervision really clamped down. |
|
|
| (900285) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Feb 15 19:44:27 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Feb 15 19:40:01 2010. Yes I forget. I am so used to seeing the Gennies in Diesel mode in GCT so it is easy for me to forget (I have to stand near them often), but yes they should be electric there |
|
|
| (900289) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Feb 15 19:46:05 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Feb 15 19:43:38 2010. I beg to differ on the strict part, I sometimes get to stand near them and I always know when they are still in diesel mode |
|
|
| (900290) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Feb 15 19:46:05 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Feb 15 19:43:26 2010. Almost all are diesel/DM, especially peak. There's one EMU round trip for HPA. Other than that, you have the West Hempstead shuttle on weekends, which is EMU, but which terminates at Jamaica. |
|
|
| (900291) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Feb 15 19:47:27 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by arnine on Mon Feb 15 19:46:05 2010. I haven't been there in a while, but that would be a change from what I saw. |
|
|
| (900294) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Feb 15 19:50:58 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Feb 15 19:47:27 2010. I would agree most are in electric, but I can tell you as an employee of MNR it is not 100% in electric while in GCT |
|
|
| (900295) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Feb 15 19:53:00 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by arnine on Mon Feb 15 19:50:58 2010. See Dutchrailnut's comment which may clarify exactly what the rule is. |
|
|
| (900298) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Feb 15 19:58:20 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Feb 15 19:53:00 2010. Yes. I read that, but you said it is 'strictly enforced', which is true most of the time but not 100% which is implied in the term 'strictly enforced', but as I said/implied that it is enforced most of the time |
|
|
| (900299) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Feb 15 19:59:40 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by arnine on Mon Feb 15 19:58:20 2010. Sorry I just realized it is semantics (?sp) don't know why I let this get at me sorry |
|
|
| (900301) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Feb 15 20:07:51 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by arnine on Mon Feb 15 19:58:20 2010. I'll defer to our resident locomotive engineer's view - he certainly knows what the foremen are up to better than either of us. |
|
|
| (900302) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by fisk ave jim on Mon Feb 15 20:08:44 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Feb 15 19:43:38 2010. After all, The tennants who are paying top $$$ in rent to sell their wares in GCT, espically in the lower level food court, get very upset when diesel fumes show up & provoke irritation to say the least. Not to mention, all those fumes impedes the ambiance of dining in a railroad terminal. This is not what they meant by "smoked"!!This is one reason for the strict enforcement. I mean the Oyster Bar has'nt developed a market for Flounder & Fumes just yet!!:) |
|
|
| (900313) | |
Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Mon Feb 15 20:18:40 2010, in response to Re: No Future MN New Haven Line Service to Penn Station, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Feb 15 20:07:51 2010. Ok. Although my experience does count. Remember, I am not saying it is always in diesel in GCT just sometimes, which can be attributed to an engineer forgetting to switch modes, etc they are humans not robots. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 6 |
||
