STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:02 amSo you got three different caternary systems, two third rail systems (one over-running, one under-running) and diesel. Does someone see a problem here?
Catenary isn't an issue. The ACSs and ALPs can run on any of the voltages and frequencies with ease. The ALP-45DPs are a pretty decent dual-mode for both diesel and electric operation. The problems come when you get to third rail.
To through-run right now to Ronkonkoma, you need an engine that can handle both caternary and third rail... or you string caternary out to it.
Amtrak could run diesel with something like an ALP-45DP, which really isn't the greatest solution but it would work for a low level of service.
To be honest? I'd string 60 Hz AC caternary, get rid of all the third rail crap (that's for subways), and start rebuilding Amtrak's power to 60 Hz. Simplify all this crap and you can save by having to buy engines that can handle multi-voltage 60 Hz caternary power.
Mega $$$, and is that really the best place to put your money? Further, the tunnels to Brooklyn and LIRR GCT have even more restrictive clearances than the East River and North River Tunnels, so it's likely impossible to fit both catenary and a train capable of using said catenary inside of them, or even just a train capable of using it elsewhere on the system. Regular GCT cannot handle overhead wire, so it has to use third rail, although it is a terminal with excess capacity only used by MN, so it's less relevant to this discussion.
The PRR catenary system is absolutely monstrous. Even with parts of it dismantled in the 1980's, the portions that are left are huge, it's literally it's own power grid with it's own transmission, substations, etc. There's little reason to convert now that modern locomotives can use any of the three voltages seamlessly.
One interesting side note is that the cost of AC electrification on SNCF is $2.4M/mi, while LIRR claims that third rail costs $22.4M/mi. However, one cannot draw any conclusions from these numbers, as they are clearly apples and oranges, and LIRR would likely claim that overhead AC electrification costs $10-$15M/mi, even though that can easily be disproven by SNCF. There unfortunately are no good comparisons for third rail costs, as few, if any mainline rail systems worldwide use it, so we don't have a comparison for what it should cost. Given the LIRR's extreme cost bloat, it probably costs somewhere in the $3-$5M/mi range, but that's just a guesstimate. If someone could dredge up the cost to do White Plains to Southeast, that would possibility be a decent comparison after an inflation adjustment, although that was half-assed, and they can't run full-sized trains up there due to the substations not providing enough juice.
I've never been able to find reliable numbers on clearances through LIRR GCT and to Atlantic Terminal, but they are quite restrictive. I'd be interested if they could even clear an M-8, even without overhead wire.
The one place that I would convert from third rail to catenary is the Hudson Line from Highbridge to Albany, which would allow MN to run M-8/M-10s to Poughkeepsie, eliminate the third rail from CSX's freight route, and provide an electrified line to Albany for Amtrak by making the new 25kV catenary meet with the PRR 11.5kV system on the Empire Connection. I'd do Oyster Bay, Port Jefferson, and Patchogue with third rail for compatibility with the rest of the LIRR system. Danbury/New Milford naturally would get 25kV catenary.
MattW wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:09 pmIf the catenary was changed to 60Hz, then we do have a train that could serve Ronkonkoma: the M8. Its only hangup is its transformer isn't big enough to handle the 25Hz.
I wonder if they could be adapted for 25hz transformers once they are run somewhere other than the weight-restricted Park Ave Viaduct? Those things are already really heavy for railcars though.
Maybe a future design with the new crash standards could get everything including a 25hz transformer into the same weight envelope? Then there's the clearance issue. If they can't clear Brooklyn and/or LIRR GCT, you end up with a forked fleet on LIRR just for run-through. Is that worth it? NJT uses low-level platforms in some places, can they handle those? They should all be converted to high-level anyway, so I suppose you could argue that is moot, but someone has to do it. Is it worth giving up capacity on the NJT NEC lines that they get with the MLs just to have run-through? Is it worth the massive equipment cost that would be needed for this even more bespoke fleet of highly complex railcars?
Even if all the technical hurdles could be cleared, I'm still not seeing a cost/benefit to this that makes sense. How much time and capacity would through-running really save versus fixing Penn and turning and burning more efficiently with limited run-through between NJT and CDOT, which works with already existing equipment? Where else could the billions upon billions of dollars be spent instead that would have a much larger impact?
