Jump to content

M-9 Discussion


East New York

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 811
  • Created
  • Last Reply

To answer kentsfield question, $2 billion in 1990's money is about tripled now. Inflation in today's economy is worse than back in the 80s. and it was only 2 billion cause their entire fleet didn't have to be refitted. If LIRR were to switch to cantenary, which they won't, theybwould have to replace its entire fleet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

No, there's not enough clearance in the Park Ave Tunnel or the Melrose Tunnel.

 

You might like to believe thats an insurmountable problem but the PRR modified the 1.5 mile baltimore and potomac underwater tunnel several times. The first time the floor was dropped by 2 and a half feet in 1917. Park avenue doesn't have millions of gallons of water of it so why not enjoy lower operating costs, and higher speeds.

 

On the LIRR, full cantenary isn't necessary as the majority of its branches don't have the distance to justify it. However replacing it on the Ronkonkoma and Port Jefferson/Huntington lines would create numerous benefits..

 

1. Ronkonkoma runs at about NEC regional station spacing from hicksville to Penn and perennially comes up as an integral part of an alternative HSR path to Boston from the penn design group. Adopting NEC regional speeds would do much to extend the viable commute distance for the good people of eastern long island.

2. Those running costs aren't fun. Port Jefferson to Huntington costs 100 million to operate with an abysmal 23% farebox recovery, while Huntington on and Ronkonkoma are carrying about 4 times the passengers each for ~150 million a piece.

3.It would also be the best way of enabling through running at penn. Ronkonkoma could go to new jersey transit's NEC portion. Trying to do it haphazardly with dual modes will never be able to realistically add capacity with their high running costs.

 

As for funding John Mica won't always be around to focus the House Transportation committee on grinding his axe against Amtrak with constant hearings on dismantling amtrak. Amtrak's master plan for the NEC projects its real funding coming in when those has-bens Mica and Shuster go into the night. Transportation infrastructure spending is the best performing job creator with its stringent Buy American clauses. Once we pass into more enlightened times where the focus has shifted away from zeroing mass transit funding in the name of defeating the imagined socialist threat, Hopefully when those times come spending will be focused on increasing efficiency than building some senator's vanity project to build HSR in the boonies.

Edited by kentsfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might like to believe thats an insurmountable problem but the PRR modified the 1.5 mile baltimore and potomac underwater tunnel several times. The first time the floor was dropped by 2 and a half feet in 1917. Park avenue doesn't have millions of gallons of water of it so why not enjoy lower operating costs, and higher speeds.

 

On the LIRR, full cantenary isn't necessary as the majority of its branches don't have the distance to justify it. However replacing it on the Ronkonkoma and Port Jefferson/Huntington lines would create numerous benefits..

 

1. Ronkonkoma runs at about NEC regional station spacing from hicksville to Penn and perennially comes up as an integral part of an alternative HSR path to Boston from the penn design group. Adopting NEC regional speeds would do much to extend the viable commute distance for the good people of eastern long island.

2. Those running costs aren't fun. Port Jefferson to Huntington costs 100 million to operate with an abysmal 23% farebox recovery, while Huntington on and Ronkonkoma are carrying about 4 times the passengers each for ~150 million a piece.

3.It would also be the best way of enabling through running at penn. Ronkonkoma could go to new jersey transit's NEC portion. Trying to do it haphazardly with dual modes will never be able to realistically add capacity with their high running costs.

 

As for funding John Mica won't always be around to focus the House Transportation committee on grinding his axe against Amtrak with constant hearings on dismantling amtrak. Amtrak's master plan for the NEC projects its real funding coming in when those has-bens Mica and Shuster go into the night. Transportation infrastructure spending is the best performing job creator with its stringent Buy American clauses. Once we pass into more enlightened times where the focus has shifted away from zeroing mass transit funding in the name of defeating the imagined socialist threat, Hopefully when those times come spending will be focused on increasing efficiency than building some senator's vanity project to build HSR in the boonies.

 

If they'd were about to switch they'd better go for the new 3rd rail system that has a higher reliability. Catenary isn't as reliable as you think. I can tell out of 15 years of experience on that (that is, 15 years traveling by train).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Anecdotal evidence from the abysmal bumbling dutch train system is hardly good enough to write off proven technology. The technology at a fundamental level is superior to 3rd rail no matter how many bells and whistles you slap onto 3rd rail. It is more efficient as a transmission method, there is no rectifying to DC and its low maintenance. All of this translates to lower operating costs. Auckland is in process of migrating its diesel commuter railroad to 100 percent catenary. The only advantage the New Zealanders found in 3rd rail was that it was an easier solution for underground subways. Otherwise they considered it to be a throwback to when the only technology available was 3rd rail.

Edited by kentsfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, READ. I didn't name any country did I? Or did you think that I'm some lousy guy who never expands his views? I've also ridden on catenary lines in foreign countries so my opinion about catenary is legit since those were all different types.

 

But yeah, it is bumbling here, that is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it works just fine, and saves money, I would argue that it is a valid excuse.

 

1834 tech saving money in the same sentence wow I can't comprehend the poor judgement here. Not good enough as that old tech is costly so running a huge diesel guzzler saves money? what planet is that valid sir?

 

$900 million to run 2 trains a day = real smart :rolleyes::rolleyes: plz you aren't bad but I can tell this was not one of your better posts.

 

Anecdotal evidence from the abysmal bumbling dutch train system is hardly good enough to write off proven technology. The technology at a fundamental level is superior to 3rd rail no matter how many bells and whistles you slap onto 3rd rail. It is more efficient as a transmission method, there is no rectifying to DC and its low maintenance. All of this translates to lower operating costs. Auckland is in process of migrating its diesel commuter railroad to 100 percent catenary. The only advantage the New Zealanders found in 3rd rail was that it was an easier solution for underground subways. Otherwise they considered it to be a throwback to when the only technology available was 3rd rail.

 

Have you used SEPTA sir?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

1834 tech saving money in the same sentence wow I can't comprehend the poor judgement here. Not good enough as that old tech is costly so running a huge diesel guzzler saves money? what planet is that valid sir?

 

$900 million to run 2 trains a day = real smart :rolleyes::rolleyes: plz you aren't bad but I can tell this was not one of your better posts.

 

You must have failed to consider the context of which I was making my statement, which happened to be a political one. I am personally in favor of whatever upgrades would make any system more modern, especially one as outdated as NYC's transportation system as a whole. But once again, unless you can sell your idea to the local politicians that their short term, and arguably expensive investment of taxpayer dollars (which taxpayers are usually against, especially in this economy) will have long term benefits and save money for future generations, then you better find a way to be happy and satisfied with the current technology that we have in operation on the systems. It's a hard fact of life that I've learned from watching the politics of this country thwart great ideas and auspicious ambitions over the years.

So if you take my previous post in context, I would argue that it was fairly decent.

Edited by Fan Railer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must have failed to consider the context of which I was making my statement, which happened to be a political one. I am personally in favor of whatever upgrades would make any system more modern, especially one as outdated as NYC's transportation system as a whole. But once again, unless you can sell your idea to the local politicians that their short term, and arguably expensive investment of taxpayer dollars (which taxpayers are usually against, especially in this economy) will have long term benefits and save money for future generations, then you better find a way to be happy and satisfied with the current technology that we have in operation on the systems. It's a hard fact of life that I've learned from watching the politics of this country thwart great ideas and auspicious ambitions over the years.

So if you take my previous post in context, I would argue that it was fairly decent.

 

Interesting? indeed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Nice to see M9's coming along.

 

As much as everyone loves to hate on the M3's these days, they do have their advantages. If I'm working a local Babylon stopping everywhere, I prefer the M3's. The doors close faster and the brakes release faster too. It makes a long and tedious trip a little more bearable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as everyone loves to hate on the M3's these days, they do have their advantages. If I'm working a local Babylon stopping everywhere, I prefer the M3's. The doors close faster and the brakes release faster too. It makes a long and tedious trip a little more bearable.

 

Not to mention that M3's have about 138 more seats on a full 12-car train than M7's (and presumably the M9's) would.  That spare capacity is appreciated on certain rush hour trains!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.