Hell Gate Bridge Thread

I suspect with the cost of led lighting dropping rapidly, it would be cheaper to light it than repaint it.

You're going to pay a small fortune to Con-Ed for the power to light the lights.

Backshophoss wrote:You're going to pay a small fortune to Con-Ed for the power to light the lights.

ConEd only delivers electricity, it does not generate or sell it. It does have an affiliate that sells power in competition with other third party suppliers. The power can be bought from any or several of the independent suppliers by negotiated contract or competitive bids. That's how Amtrak and NJT acquire traction power, for example, and probably other railroads in the middle Atlantic and northeast. It will certainly be a small fortune, not matter which vendor supplies it.

Could they install solar panels to power highly-efficient LED lights?

MEC407 wrote:Could they install solar panels to power highly-efficient LED lights?

Yes, but that probably ends up being more expensive for a project like this since now you need batteries to store the power.

Thinking about it, they need to do something like they did with the Bay Bridge where as trains cross, it changes the lighting on the bridge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxYeZ9GOdpQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Greg Moore wrote:

MEC407 wrote:Could they install solar panels to power highly-efficient LED lights?

Yes, but that probably ends up being more expensive for a project like this since now you need batteries to store the power.

I'm sure the up-front cost would be higher but I'm wondering if it would be more cost-effective over the long term.

If not solar, what about some sort of small-scale hydro/tidal power from the river below? I think there's a bridge somewhere else (can't remember where) that's using that type of power for its lighting.

MEC407 wrote:

Greg Moore wrote:

MEC407 wrote:Could they install solar panels to power highly-efficient LED lights?

Yes, but that probably ends up being more expensive for a project like this since now you need batteries to store the power.

I'm sure the up-front cost would be higher but I'm wondering if it would be more cost-effective over the long term.

If not solar, what about some sort of small-scale hydro/tidal power from the river below? I think there's a bridge somewhere else (can't remember where) that's using that type of power for its lighting.

What's the point? You have easy access to power as it is?

The advantage residential installations have with say solarpv is they can use it during the day and feedback any extra. And at night they draw from the grid.

The moment you try to go off-grid, you need batteries. And since the bridge lights are only needed at night, you either need to feed back into the grid during the day (so you already have grid access, and might as well just use that and keep things simple) or use batteries, which typically are lead-acid, so every 5 years you're replacing them (or rather 20% every year.)

Hydro might be "interesting" but again, probably not cost-effective. Unless there's a VERY clear benefit to Amtrak, they should not be in the power generation business.

(now, perhaps using braking regeneration to power the lights could be interesting.. the more braking the brighter they get

And the major advantage for home solar is that they are heavily subsidized by taxpayers and/or other electric ratepayers, both as to installation and operations, the latter by the utility not charging for standby power costs.

Batteries certainly are expensive and environmentally unfriendly at end of life disposal time. And tidal is costly and has ongoing maintenance needs and batteries as well for slack tide times.

If this is to be done, and it would make for attractive appearance, it's most cost effective to purchase power from the grid.

Greg Moore wrote:What's the point? You have easy access to power as it is?

Two people on the previous page said that using power from the grid would cost "a small fortune." I was simply brainstorming to see if there was any way to spend less than a small fortune to light the bridge.

Greg Moore wrote:

MEC407 wrote:Could they install solar panels to power highly-efficient LED lights?

Yes, but that probably ends up being more expensive for a project like this since now you need batteries to store the power.

Thinking about it, they need to do something like they did with the Bay Bridge where as trains cross, it changes the lighting on the bridge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxYeZ9GOdpQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Trains don't cross on the Bay Bridge. They used to, but alas no longer.

If that bridge was covered with bright sparkly red and yellow lights, and the trains going over it were puffing smoke - well, it would look like Hell. I'm all in favor of it.

Trainer wrote:If that bridge was covered with bright sparkly red and yellow lights, and the trains going over it were puffing smoke - well, it would look like Hell. I'm all in favor of it.

It would probably pay for itself. Heavy metal bands will be lining up to Make videos there.

MEC407 wrote: . . . Two people on the previous page said that using power
rom the grid would cost "a small fortune." . . .

Going "upriver" from New York Harbor, it's the Brooklyn Bridge,
the Manhattan Bridge, the 59th St. Bridge, the Triboro Bridge.
(Excuse me for omitting the names of beloved politicians used
in the "official" bridge names, but I live in New York City, LOL).
Then the darkened Hellgate Bridge. Going east there's two big
long bridges over Long Island Sound. All six of these bridges
are lighted. Not to mention the smaller bridges over the Harlem
River and the giant George Washington Bridge to Fort Lee .
I suppose a case could be made that the lighting helps prevent
small planes from hitting the bridges at night. But I do believe
that the main reason for lighting them is aesthetic: They are
very pretty lighted against the night sky, and their beauty helps
draw tourists to the city.

I don't think it would cost a small fortune to light the Hellgate,
like the other NYC bridges, and enjoy the same good results.

Woody wrote:I don't think it would cost a small fortune to light the Hellgate,
like the other NYC bridges, and enjoy the same good results.

If LED lighting is used, the ongoing costs will be significantly less than those other bridges. In addition to the huge electricity savings, LEDs have the added benefit of greatly-reduced maintenance — the bulbs have to be replaced far less frequently.

Up here in Maine, government entities and private companies alike are now embracing LEDs for outdoor lighting. One of the largest employers in my city is Texas Instruments. They recently replaced all of the lights in their parking lots with LEDs. There was nothing wrong with the old lights, but the energy savings must have been significant enough to warrant the conversion. The nearby criminal detention center is in the process of doing the same thing. All new street lighting and bridge lighting I've seen within the past year has been LED. This suggests to me that it's now a "mainstream" technology and that the long-term savings do indeed offset the higher up-front costs.

Woody wrote:

MEC407 wrote: . . . Two people on the previous page said that using power
rom the grid would cost "a small fortune." . . .

Going "upriver" from New York Harbor, it's the Brooklyn Bridge,
the Manhattan Bridge, the 59th St. Bridge, the Triboro Bridge.
(Excuse me for omitting the names of beloved politicians used
in the "official" bridge names, but I live in New York City, LOL).
Then the darkened Hellgate Bridge. Going east there's two big
long bridges over Long Island Sound. All six of these bridges
are lighted. Not to mention the smaller bridges over the Harlem
River and the giant George Washington Bridge to Fort Lee .
I suppose a case could be made that the lighting helps prevent
small planes from hitting the bridges at night. But I do believe
that the main reason for lighting them is aesthetic: They are
very pretty lighted against the night sky, and their beauty helps
draw tourists to the city.

I don't think it would cost a small fortune to light the Hellgate,
like the other NYC bridges, and enjoy the same good results.

You forgot the Williamsburg Bridge, but that is okay. I don't like that one.