I'd rather see realistic, sensible legislation than fantasy talking points. This kind of unserious legislation makes the no-build option look good.
Moderators: CRail, sery2831
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.
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.