Discussion relating to the operations of MTA MetroNorth Railroad including west of Hudson operations and discussion of CtDOT sponsored rail operations such as Shore Line East and the Springfield to New Haven Hartford Line

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith

  • 96 posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7

  by RailBus63
 
Are there any numbers available to show the relative reliability of the P32's, diesels and MU cars? Does Metro-North measure MDBF (Mean Distance Between Failures)?

Jim

  by Dieter
 
We've gotten off of the electrification issue. Yes, the Genesis is the best investment made, and it was probably dumb luck......

Hudson electrification. I'm against it. Surprised?

A third rail is dangerous. Electric equipment can't get through standing water like a diesel can. Electrics have more problems in snow than diesels. In a power failure, you can't budge an electric, but you can push the hulk with a diesel. Diesels rule in the post steam era.

OK, let's put juice on the Division.

Third rail, or catenary? There was talk in 78 about putting up catenary on the Harlem instead of that cursed third rail. What do you guys think??

Dieter.

  by Clean Cab
 
A bit of trivia........

The 3rd rail that was installed on the New Haven line between CP 212 and Pelham was originally slated for installation on the Hudson line from CP 35 to CP 40, but all money and resources were diverted to the NH line project by then MN president Don Nelson due to the many low bridges west of Mt. Vernon (east) station that the new catenary system could not address.

  by Rockingham Racer
 
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that I remember third rail in the 60's as far as Peekskill, and a few rush hour trains ran up there on electric, and deadheaded back to Croton in the evening.

  by Noel Weaver
 
Rockingham Racer wrote:I could be wrong, but it seems to me that I remember third rail in the 60's as far as Peekskill, and a few rush hour trains ran up there on electric, and deadheaded back to Croton in the evening.
There was never third rail to Peekskill, NEVER EVER.
What you saw was probably the old Non AC MU's being towed up to
Peekskill from time to time by a diesel.
Noel Weaver

  by Nasadowsk
 
<i>capecodlocoguy:

but all money and resources were diverted to the NH line project by then MN president Don Nelson due to the many low bridges west of Mt. Vernon</i>


That's not the same Don Nelson that's running the HBLRT over at 21st century rail, is it?

  by RedSoxSuck
 
njt/mnrrbuff wrote:I think a third track should be added for expanded diesel service wherever you can. Not only will it benefit MN but Amtrak trains improve , especially if there is high speed service on the Empire Corridor.
Even if there is no need?

  by Dieter
 
A third track north of Peekskill really isn't necessary, given the volume of traffic. Freight in the dark, passenger in the day and not 24 hours, there's still lots of "slots" for more traffic without pressing the need for another track - yet.

Likewise, there's no need for the expense of electrifying beyond Croton North, except for the reason of standardizing a fleet for maintenance purposes.

Dieter./
  by Thunderbolt78YT
 
So I know that south of Croton-Harmon, on the Hudson Line, there is 700V DC Third Rail Electrification. But I just recently found out that the Northbound Express Track (Track 1) is not electrified. Is this true for all locations between Croton-Harmon and the DV Interlocking (Where Amtrak and Metro-North join)? Thanks!
  by Thunderbolt78YT
 
So Track 1 is not electrified between Greystone and Croton-Harmon, but south of Greystone is electrified?
  by RearOfSignal
 
Track 1 is not electrified between CP 19 and 25 and between CP 26 and 33.
  by fredmcain
 
I seem to vaguely remember that ALL FOUR tracks were once electrified but M-N removed one of the tracks in the 1980s, I think, then Amtrak made a stink about it. They may have later, at Amtrak's insistance, restored the track that had been removed but evidently they did not electrify it. Does anybody know if that theory is correct?

Regards,
Fred M. Cain
  by DutchRailnut
 
Fred you got story backwards, MN wanted to remove track 1, Amtrak and Conrail balked and went to court.
MN got ordered to leave track but since at that time MN had no real interest in 4 tracks the third rail was removed.
over years some third rail was put back for projects like retaining walls etc .
  by fredmcain
 
Thanks, Dutch, I knew it was something like that but I was having trouble remembering for sure. I thought they had actually removed the track for a while. I used to live in the Northeast and I remember reading about the suit you mentioned in the news.

Unfortunately, M-N WAS successful in removing one of the tracks on the New Haven line in places between South Norwalk and West Haven. I think they may have restored some of it but not all of it the way it looks.

Regards,
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7