Commuter Rail Electrification

Disney Guy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:08 pm A train might have two pantographs on different engines but the circuitry in each could be isolated from the other so both pans can be up without spanning the section break.

I would've thought that's what they would do, which is why I was surprised to learn how big the breaks are. Thanks!

BandA wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:35 pm I'd rather see realistic, sensible legislation than fantasy talking points. This kind of unserious legislation makes the no-build option look good.

Exactly.

Anyone who knows anything about transportation, even the less-intelligent folks who may work at the T, know the timeline isn't realistic.

How about making the proposal a little more realistic?

It's like the Red Sox with Xander Bogaerts or John Lester. They gave low-ball, practically insulting offers to both. The players were like, "forget this, the team is not serious." They both left the team. The T sees this asinine timeline and isn't going to work with the Hill. They figure it's a waste of time.

I think it's good to start with something aggressive, and work back from there. They should be able to get at least one or two Providence trains per day running electric in 23 months even if that's all the current electrical infrastructure can handle. Get the ball rolling, get stuff in the works, and build from there.

Aggressive is good, and then with compromise and setbacks we still have progress. Unrealistic gets the concept laughed out of the room and we end up nowhere.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:30 am I think it's good to start with something aggressive, and work back from there. They should be able to get at least one or two Providence trains per day running electric in 23 months even if that's all the current electrical infrastructure can handle. Get the ball rolling, get stuff in the works, and build from there.

Aggressive is one thing. Living in fantasy land is another.