Nasadowsk wrote:No, there isn't. I regularly talk to a LOT of people at NJT - they all say the same thing: it's Warrington's bright idea. It'll die when Warrington leaves.
You're simply wrong about that, and it's probably just because you're speaking with "...a LOT of people..." at NJT who don't know the full story because they're not involved in it on a day to day basis. In my current capacity, I speak to those that are. And the dual mode idea is not going anywhere.
Nasadowsk wrote:No, ARC doesn't. It's a new tunnel into NYC. Right now, it's questionable when that tunnel will be built. ARC assumed full system electrification.
I've never heard or read that, and it certainly has not been the assumption through the EIS phase. Better check your sources again.
Nasadowsk wrote:It was never built, never ran. It was a paper locomotive. On paper, the E60 worked, the TEL worked, the Turbotrains worked, the Metroliners worked.
Please note that nowhere in my post did I say that the Genesis III was built and/or ran. It was a *proof of concept*, intended only to show that it was reasonable to assume that such a beast would be technologically feasible, and that designers, manufacturers, and engineers are studying it right now.
I'm not sure where you're going with the E60, Metroliners (I assume you mean the MUs), and so forth. They absolutely did run; perhaps not to the expectations, but they were used in daily service for a long time. More importantly, the lessons learned through the design of those technologies has led to vast improvements in motive power design. So, rather than proving some inscrutable point you're trying to make about the impossibility of diesel / AC catenary dual mode motive power, these examples would seem to rather show that advances in loco technology are not only POSSIBLE, but reasonable and probable.
Nasadowsk wrote:If that's the 'planning horizon', then electrification is the only logical route. the cost savings, ease of dispatching, better overall equipment matching, will beyond pay for the minor costs of catenary. And that's before you figure in today's oil prices, which make diesels even more expensive long term.
Logical? From a cost perspective? "Minor costs of catenary"?
Mainline catenary construction costs, right now, average $100 to $150 per track foot, excluding the actual catenary structures and supporting infrastructure. The structures run upwards of $400,000.000 per mile. Any "unusual" features (such as moveable bridges, overhead crossings, and so forth) that increase complexity jack the price up exponentially. Substations, which normally require some real estate acquisition, or (God forbid) takings, are notoriously expensive, not to mention the EISs that would have to be done (and approved by the feds) at each location to assess environmental impacts. That would add years and expense to the project timeline.
OCS construction is no "minor cost", especially when added to the cost of ARC itself. It would make little or no sense to break the bank electrifying the entire remains of the system (and any proposed system extensions) if you can still only get 23 trains per hour through the North River Tunnels.
Nasadowsk wrote:My sources are people who live around specing and designing this stuff. They all say it's difficult, at best. Even the Gen III's proponents said it's not likely to be possible under existing rules. GE withdrew the unit, and they're not going to build ANY new passenger power without a sizeable order. NJT just bought new diesels. A 5 unit order won't even get GE to return their calls.
That's funny, because I do this for a living, and my sources (who actually design the things) tell me that it's not only possible, but reasonable and likely.
Nasadowsk wrote:Nope. I know why. And it's not money. It's well known throughout the industry that Warrington is vehemently opposed to electrification. He's been quoted as saying it an 'old fashioned idea'. The simple fact is, a full system electrification of NJT was 'on the table' until he arrived, at which point it was quietly shelved.
We're not talking theoretical 'gee, let's put wires here' plans. We're talking specifics, down to what feeder would be used, substation locations, etc etc etc. i.e., the stuff you see right before you start sending out RFPs.
Didn't the Montclair Connection happen on his watch? I could be wrong, but I think it was under Warrington's administration that it opened. I seem to recall some electrification of a formerly diesel line there. There are other examples of electrifications in the "planning" stages going on right now, that I'm unfortunately not at liberty to discuss. But I've never gotten the sense that there was a bias at NJT. I believe the idea behind the new starts using diesels (River LINE is a good example) was to get them up and running in a shorter amount of time, for a lower capital cost, in order to "plant the flag", so to speak. Once a service is up and running, it's difficult (though not impossible, I'll concede) to eliminate it. SEPTA is a notable and sad exception (just to get this moderately back on topic here in the SEPTA forum). Those types of installations don't preclude the later extension of electrification.
My overall point still stands, however - you're not going to see systemwide electrification within the planning horizon of ARC, for a number of reasons (cost only being one), while ARC does indeed require a way to get trains from the "diesel" lines through the new tunnels and into NYC. Hence, dual mode motive power.
Nasadowsk wrote:Why not? The coast line needs it, WORMs desperatly need it, the RVL needs it. If anything, it should be done with the new tunnel, because the new tunnel's going to have severe capacity troubles with any DM locomotive that results - to get the weight to where a 4 axle locomotive is possible, the main transformer will be severely constrained, meaning it'll overheat easily. The ALP-46's main transformer is already marginal, ditto for the '44.
Why not? Well, I can't speak for NJT, but the cost of systemwide electrification, plus the cost of ARC, plus the cost of network improvements that will have to happen in order to deliver the ARC volumes, are hugely prohibitive.
I'll say it again - there are very smart people in the industry, right now, as I type this, working on the problems of the dual mode. This is just my opinion, although it's supported by most of the people with whom I come into contact who have some connection with the effort, but it is simply unreasonable to me, given the huge advances in locomotive technology that we've seen over the past 20 to 30 years, to expect that the issues of dual mode technology are *unsolvable*.
Nasadowsk wrote:Take a PL-42 and add about 20 tons. That's the weight penalty we're talking, and that pushed the axleload out of 4 axle range. No commuter operator will run 6 axle locomotives, especially not up here, after the E60 fiasco.
......
All good points, if we were talking about a locomotive that exists *today*. The DMMU, the dual mode loco, they're all under development, and very serious development. ARC is 20 to 25 years away; I happen to believe, based on my conversations with the experts with whom I work, that we'll see dual mode motive power well within that time frame.
Nasadowsk wrote:When Warrington leaves NJT, the idea will die. Trust me, he's the only one there pushing for it.
The DMMU might happen if NJT pushes hard enough, but Begen's pushing back. A catenary dual mode is unworkable under today's FRA rules, and will likely be even more so when the new EPA and FRA rules come around next year or so.
Wrong on the first point. As I said, my employment puts me in contact with people that would know if Warrington is "...the only one there pushing for it." He's not.
On the second point - the DMMU might *not* happen in Bergen, but dual mode motive power will, FRA and EPA rules notwithstanding. I can only tell you what I've been hearing and the sense that I get from the people that matter - designers and engineers. They believe that it's eminently 'do-able'. Perhaps you'll be right in the end; we won't know for some time. But I'm betting on my horse.
