Yard on Port Jefferson Line

If the electrification of Ronkonkoma's so overated, why did traffic on the line tripple the first year?

You can't attribute that to just the elimanation of the change at Jamacia.

They cut a lot off of the running time. Cutting 15 minutes doesn't sound like a lot to you, but it's a lot when it means getting home earlier each day, sleeping later each morning.

1/2 a billion dollars? The LIRR should demand their money back from EMD, it probbably would have been equal or LESS in cost to simply electrify the entire LIRR. And that's just the immediate replacement costs of the diesel fleet. We've not added in the costs of all the track dammage, bridge dammage, delays, failures, etc that the fleet's costing taxpayers.

The DE/DEs and C cars made little long term economic sense. They were simply an expensive way of putting off the inevitable. The days of running diesel on LI really should be behind us by today.

As for acceleration not mattering? The LIRR's existing schedules are nowhere near as agressive as they could be. In fact, a number of branches are down the almost as slow as they were in the teens and 20's, when the MP-54s were new. The MP-54s were <b>slow</b>, and couldn't break 50mph. Even the M-1s could significantly out accelerate them. There's really no reason for such slow schedules.

Electrics are great for curvy lines - they can accelerate out of curves far faster than diesels can. They're even better for lines with grades - electrics simply outperform diesel on lines with steep hills. This is standard 'boilerplate' information in any decent RR text in the motive power chapter.

The higher MAS doesn't mean anything to the diesel fleet. It's bragging rights. They spend so long getting to 80 that the time they spend at 80 simply isn't very long. I've taken them on the OB line. Once leaving Mineola, they take until New Hyde Park to get up to 80, and shortly thereafter, they slow for Queens. Once leaving Queens, they start accelerating, but forget it, they don't reach 80 before having to slow once again. Even a crappy set of M-1s can reach near 80 by Merrilon Ave, and certainly be at 80 before the turnouts between NHP and MA. They'll reach 80 after leaving Queens. It's no contest.

And, let's face it, the DE/DMs are slugs, pure and simple. And unrealiable ones, still. I've seen triple headers, long trains with one unit dead, 7 cars with one locomotive. Just go to Mineola some day and WATCH the traffic. You'll see failed units out on the mainline.

Electrify to Port Jeff now, do Oyster Bay, and out to Patchauge. Set a firm date to phase out diesel ops on LI, and sell the C cars and EMD's junk for scrap. It'll be much better for LI in the long term.

Chris:

I totally understand the benefits of electric over diesel. Yeah, the acceleration is far better, which is always important. Still, to say that electrification is the only way to make a line successful is foolishness. Most people don't really care about acceleration, it's almost always about the one seat ride.

Honestly, I think electrification to PJ is a good idea. That's only cuz LIRR will never otherwise allow the line to perform like it can. Honestly, I think that with the diesel equipment LIRR has now(well, maybe a few more orders), that line could be operating at full potential, all b/c they can go to NYP. If LIRR had something better though, like the MN diesels(Genesis, right?), I'd have full trust in the diesel lines, but it's b/c LIRR bought such crap that I'm in support of electrification of certain lines.

Still, I think there are other things more important. Things like a 3rd track on the main line from Floral Park to Hicksville, and then a 2nd track from Fdale to Ronkonkoma.

Then they should double track the PJ.

Then after they double track the line, then maybe electrify.

<i>That's only cuz LIRR will never otherwise allow the line to perform like it can.</i>

It <b>is</b> performing the way it can. I(t's simply that this just happens to be how diesel lines perform. It's that simple. There's no magic way to fix it, period.

<i>Honestly, I think that with the diesel equipment LIRR has now(well, maybe a few more orders), that line could be operating at full potential, all b/c they can go to NYP.</i>

It's at it's full potential. It's not going to get any better as a diesel line. Not faster, not cheaper, not more reliable, not more frequent.

<i> If LIRR had something better though, like the MN diesels(Genesis, right?), I'd have full trust in the diesel lines, but it's b/c LIRR bought such crap that I'm in support of electrification of certain lines. </i>

The P-32s aren't any better. They're not much more powerful, they're a hell of a lot noisier, and to top it off, they perform poorly on third rail. They can barely get in/out of Penn from Sunnyside totally empty.

<i>Things like a 3rd track on the main line from Floral Park to Hicksville,</i>

This is needed.

<i>and then a 2nd track from Fdale to Ronkonkoma. </i>

An all electric Port Jefferson line could take pressure off of the Ronkonkoma line. The existing Ronkonkoma situation isn't ideal, but an all electric Port Jefferson could help a LOT there.

<i>Then they should double track the PJ. </i>

Why? As a diesel line, it makes no sense to double track it, it'll still be too slow, it still won't attract ridership. You'll just have another Oyster Bay line - expensive to operate, expesive to maintain, and low ridership.

<i>Then after they double track the line, then maybe electrify.</I>

No. Electrify it now. You'll solve a lot of problems now, and be able to justify the third track much better (right now, a decent reconfigureation of Mineola could probbably help the situation by getting the Oyster Bay trains out of the way). You'll also get a lot of pressure off of Ronkoma trains. You'll also fix the sticky terminal situation at Huntington, plus attract a large number of new riders. That's going to get the traffic to justify double tracking. Right now, the 1/2 billion or so double tracking will likely cost can't be taken advantage of very well by diesels, so it's not worth it.

Anyway, electrification will increase capacity on the line so you might be able to put off double tracking for a while. Double tracking is going to cost MUCH more than electrification. Since the diesels can't take advantage of it (They'll get no faster), there's no point.

Nasadowsk wrote: Anyway, electrification will increase capacity on the line so you might be able to put off double tracking for a while. Double tracking is going to cost MUCH more than electrification. Since the diesels can't take advantage of it (They'll get no faster), there's no point.

No it will not, you can run 3rd rail to Wading River if you want but its still single track so some one is going to have to wait in the siding untill some else clears and the current speed restrictions are still going to be in place.
And by the way how do you think tthe Nimbys who oppose the yard will feel about Sub Stations being built in ther neighborhoods.

Phil..

Please don't take this the wrong way but, you don't run trains. Any trains for that matter. How can you speak of their acceleration characteristics? I am no fan of the present diesel fleet, but, they are far from slugs as you call them.

The tripling of ridership on the Mainline was the one-seat ride. Whether you believe me or not doesn't matter. I am saying from personal experience that, the present Mainline scheduling is based on a 60mph MAS...any LIRR Engineer will tell you that he can keep schedule limiting his MAS to 60mph...even the old diesels could make that and did. I have run both the old diesels, new diesels and MU's on the Mainline and was able to keep the schedule regardless of equipment.

Anyone who ran trains before and after signalling modernization on the Mainline will attest to the lessening of running times due to the elimination of Single track 251. Phil, an ordinary single track "Meet" at SD or DK took as long as 15 minutes to get into the siding, lock the switch, clear up with the tower, etc. Make a "Meet" at CI nowadays...you can run right around a train via the siding without even stopping. This NEVER happened before 261. I was there, I saw it.

Electrifying to Pt. Jeff will not increase train frequency if it remains Single track. Even now, where the electrified Mainline is Single track, you have gaps in the schedule to accomidate east and west traffic during their respective priority times. This has NOTHING to do with having a third rail. The LIRR created multiple track territory for portions of the Mainline to increase traffic. They never did this on the Pt. Jeff Branch and the benefits of multiple track have not be able to be realized because of this.

Do you honestly think that you jump in an MU as "wizz" along at 80mph anywhere, anytime? Maybe late at night when you are the only train out there, but, with the LIRR "blocking" trains as close as they safely and legally can during rush hour, any higher acceleration and speed is not going to help at all. If they tightened up the schedules and added more trains, in some areas of the Railroad the average speed would be about 15 mph with the present "blocking" that the FRA requires.

Until we nolonger have weather that causes the MU's to have to be stored in tunnels, the diesels have to be here. The higher diesel MAS is far from "bragging" rights...now they will run a diesel in front of an MU because of the 80mph diesel MAS..they didn't do this before.

I've been an Engineer on the LIRR for a long time. I have witnessed a lot of changes and am speaking from my personal experience.

It is interesting to see such passion about electrifying the PJ branch when the LIRR said that it will not run trains on it on weekends because it does not have enough money. How does the LIRR reconcile this apparent contradiction? On the one hand they don't have enough cash to operate the PJ on weekends, but they want to spend over 200 million on a yard there.

On the merits, Liquidcamphor seems to be closest to the truth. Around 1983, certain people I know encouraged the LIRR to divert money from PJ electrification to KO. We knew this would disappoint north shore folks, but the main line had more potential because of it straigtness and central location. The LIRR wanted one seat rides and a 59 minute train. This was possible because of station consolidation, better track, "adjusting" schedules from other lines, etc. It was a success, but PJ schedules were slowed a little.

Regarding, no one opposes electrification: that is not true. I attended all but one hearing on the yard. Most folks (not commuters) were as concerned about increased service causing traffic congestion as they were about the property value impacts of a yard.

I respectfully suggest we keep in mind that the world and LI does not revolve around trains. The majority of long island residents do not read this board, and they have other priorities.

I dont see it as a matter of LI revolving around trains, but rather LI's highway infistructer cannot hold the compasity of motor vehical traffic.
Besids making the necarry improvments to our roads, it is important that we the people of long island realise that over all its better to take the train to the city then to drive. no matter what if we all work together and more people that just drive the (long haul) to the city every day were to take a train or even carpool the roads ingeneral can be made safer. It's not a matter of making LI residents revolve around the LIRR because thats the last thing the'll ever do. the'll revolve around there personal car/suv, before the conception of masstranset comes to mind.

As much as i like trains, i think its more of an issue to unnecarry motorist of the highway on onto a train/bus. to aid in traffic conditions.

Phil, you mentioned before possibly reconfiguring Mineola. I got an idea that would add a 3rd track. Just east of NHP station, there's a 3rd track on the south side. My idea is to extend that 3rd track to Mineola, then run it past the OB switch, then it re-merges with the eastbound track. So now, an eastbound Oyster Bay train could use the current routing, and trains continuing eastbound don't have to be blocked by that train. They can just take the 3rd track around that train.

<i>Phil, you mentioned before possibly reconfiguring Mineola. I got an idea that would add a 3rd track. Just east of NHP station, there's a 3rd track on the south side. My idea is to extend that 3rd track to Mineola, then run it past the OB switch, then it re-merges with the eastbound track. So now, an eastbound Oyster Bay train could use the current routing, and trains continuing eastbound don't have to be blocked by that train. They can just take the 3rd track around that train.</i>

That's one way to do it.

You could do the following:

* Take the existing lead to the OB line, make it single track to, say, just south of East Williston. This isn't a biggie with OB line traffic.

* Swing the existing 2 main tracks southward. This would mean a bit of work - including demolishing Nassau tower, though

* Turn the existing eastbound platform into an island platform for both main tracks. This has a BIG advantage for Mineola users, because sometimes trains get swapped on tracks and don't stop on the 'normal' track. No more mad running.

* Near Merrilon Ave, go back to two tracks.

The advantages would be that you'd have a platform for OB trains to stop and sit without blocking any mainline traffic at all. And mainline traffic would be on a single platform, making it easy for riders.

The disadvantages are it's a lot of construction and you'd have to demolish a lot of stuff, and reconfigure a lot more.

Thus:

* Single track OB as above.

* Move this single track north a bit, and make the westbound platform an island platform.

* Move the Mineola station house north a few feet to clear things.

* Join the mainline west of Mineola.

This would eliminate a lot of hard construction, but would also get rid of the side street there, and require something be done with the Mineola station house. But you'd still have the advantage of OB trains not tieing up the main while crossing.

Maybe when the third track and grade crossing elimanation happens, they can do something to help out though. But I've noticed time and time again that Oyster Bay trains entering/leaving the main tends to tie things up a while.

Then again, maybe the OB line won't be around by then anyway...

"* Take the existing lead to the OB line, make it single track to, say, just south of East Williston. This isn't a biggie with OB line traffic."

Actually, almost everytime I see an OB train at Mineola, it's meeting an OB going in the opposite direction. And even if the schedule were adjusted, single tracking it is just a stupid idea that they'd regret in the future. It'd limit the growth of the line, and would possibly slow things up.

"* Swing the existing 2 main tracks southward. This would mean a bit of work - including demolishing Nassau tower, though "

Why not just extend that 3rd track and put in another switch from the existing westbound to the existing eastbound just west of Mineola, and one between the 2 tracks just east of Mineola, so that way westbound trains can go from the existing westbound to the existing eastbound just before Mineola, clear an OB train that may be on the existing westbound track, and then re-enter the westbound track ahead of that OB train.

And it wouldn't block eastbounds, cuz they could just switch onto the new 3rd track(which would then re-merge with the existing eastbound just east of Mineola)

"* Turn the existing eastbound platform into an island platform for both main tracks. This has a BIG advantage for Mineola users, because sometimes trains get swapped on tracks and don't stop on the 'normal' track. No more mad running."

Ok, so both of our plans call for making the eastbound platform into an island platform. Difference is with your plan, it'd be both east and westbounds serving that platform, while my plan is mostly eastbounds(of course, the few oddball westbounds that run on the eastbound).

"* Near Merrilon Ave, go back to two tracks. "

Why not just have them re-merge where the 3rd track currently does(just east of NHP).

"The advantages would be that you'd have a platform for OB trains to stop and sit without blocking any mainline traffic at all. And mainline traffic would be on a single platform, making it easy for riders."

Same kind of thing with my plan, just a matter of adding a few switches east and west of Mineola to allow westbounds onto the eastbound(and then back onto the westbound just passed Mineola).

"* Move the Mineola station house north a few feet to clear things. "

You wouldn't even have to. You said before that you'd bring the 2 mainline tracks south a bit, which would probably be enough to stick in another track.


Alright, this is getting too confusing to explain with words. Imma try to draw it up and figure out how to post it here. Basically, we have the same concearn, which is OB trains holding up the mainline trains(which I too have noticed a lot). I think we both have the same general concept, that is having 3 tracks through Mineola.

I concur that public transit on LI is important. If the percentage of commuters on the LIRR went from 10% to 20% of all commuters the region would be better off in terms of air polluton, traffic congestion, energy consumption, traffic injuries and deaths, economic advantage over other US and world regions, etc. Similar benefits would be ours if freight on the NYA were double the 1 or 2% it is now. I just meant that there are other public objectives, and transportation objectives are only a fraction of the whole. Sometimes we get worked up as though rail transportation is the main objective. Having said that, I believe that to improve service on the PJ branch, it should not be electrified based on the following:

1. It would be very expensive in comparison to the improvement in service. The only improvement is a small reduction in travel time. President Dermody told one audience that the LIRR estimates schedules from Kings Park would be 5 to 7 minutes shorter, less for Northport and Greenlawn. Presumably, 2 to 4 minutes is due to a lack of change at Jamaica, Hicksville or Huntington. Based on the LIRR’s past track record of meeting its predictions the actual improvement would probably be less, say 3 to 5 minutes. This probably wouldn’t get much better east of Kings Park where MAS is around 40 MPH along much of the route (30 MPH in Setauket-Port Jefferson.)

2. Electrification would not take the place of the cost of a yard. Thus, there would be the cost of both a yard and electrification.

3. The cost of a yard would be greater, because a bi-level diesel yard is smaller for a given number of seats even though there is a locomotive per 3 to 4 coaches, and because a diesel yard does have the cost of third rails. The LIRR states it needs an 8 to 16 track electric yard plus the PJ diesel yard. This implies that if the branch were electrified the LIRR would need 8 to 16 tracks of a new electric yard plus an enlarged PJ yard.

4. It would divert resources from other more useful improvements. If the goal is to increase service for the most number of riders the funds for electrifying the PJ branch would be better spent on other projects. For example, I am not sure about this, but I suspect that double tracking the mainline between Farmingdale and KO would allow for more frequent service and hence fewer standees there. Of course extra equipment and personnel would be needed. This raises the question of worsening the LIRR’s budget gap.

Merely getting another trainset and crew would allow off-peak headways between Huntington and Port Jeff to be 1 hour instead of 90 minutes. The peak hour service of about 20 minute headways seems to be sufficient based on the underutilization of the parking lots in Kings Park, Smithtown and St. James.

Changing schedules so as to allow at least couple of more peak hour DM trains to Penn would reduce travel times by a few minutes by eliminating the change at Jamaica. Apparently the equipment is available, but the slots in the schedule in the tunnels and Penn are not. For rush hour service any improvement in PJ branch access to Penn will result in an adverse impact on the ridership of another branch. This will be true regardless of whether the train is diesel or electric.

Using one or two DM trainsets on the weekends would be an improvement (providing the LIRR does not cut weekend service as threatened). It seems reasonable that this would not inconvenience riders from other branches inasmuch as there should be available tunnel and platform time available at Penn.

It seems to me that investing in major projects on the PJ will result in little tangible benefit unless the bottlenecks west of Hicksville are eliminated.

If they really want to make an impact on the traffic on LI, LIRR needs to start some serious intra-island service,

Some folks here seem to have all the answers for the LIRR, and also seem to have the answer that Diesels are worthless. They're not, and electrifying the PJ line does not translate to a faster operating schedule. Some of us have forgotten the high number of curves on the PJ line that require a certain speed to be maintained. The Ronkonkoma line is pretty much a straight line from Ronkonkoma to a little bit west of the Farmingdale station. MAS on this branch is much higher but not because it is electrified, but because the landscape permits it. You won't be able to achieve MAS in many places on the PJ line with electrics. I have yet to work on a train that achieved MAS between Syosset and Huntington, and that section is electric. As BlueBelly mentioned before, there is a schedule that we must follow. We can do MAS where ever it is permitted, but what good is it when you arrive at a station earlier than the published time???
MU's generally do accelerate quicker than do Diesels, but have you ever been on a DM in electric mode? They do pick up speed just as fast as MU's do, partly because it is operating in electric mode. Electric trains, be it MU's or Locomotives have better acceleration performances than do Diesels. So what happens when the winter comes and 40% of the electric fleet is dead? What happens when the snow is so high that the third rail gets covered? Should the RR roll over and play dead? Diesels can operate through the snow regardless if the snow has covered the third rail. Now if the switches are frozen and other things of that nature occur, then theres not much one can do.

Another thing that has been brought up by BlueBelly is the signal system. 261 territory, the MAS CAN and is higher than while operating in 251 territory. Hence why Diesels do not operate in excess of 65 MPH on the Montauk branch east of Babylon and east of Ronkonkoma. It has nothing to do with the Diesels themselves. The DE/ DM's are actually capable of reaching 110MPH, Not in service, but in design and capabilities. That they will rip up the tracks or jump them at that speed is another issue.

It has always been known, and it has never changed to this day, LIRR commuters would rather have that 1seat ride to the city, and avoid the change at Jamaica. Ridership increased on the Ronkonkoma line because:

1. Passengers have the luxury of a one-seat trip into Penn Station without changing trains.

2. Population out east has dramatically increased over the past 20 years and will continue to do so.

Naturally, a person's trip does become slightly longer when they are required to change trains from a Diesel to an Electric, but yet then here it is again, the argument of the one-seat ride, and what it means to the LIRR commuter.

Even if the PJ line were to be completely electrified and double tracked all the way out to PJ, the profile of this branch with it's tight curves will still limit the speed of an electric train, and will most likely complete the entire trip to PENN in the same amount of time that the two DM trains do presently. The purpose of the new yard is simply to provide capacity to store trains without having to ferry them from a western terminal. It is very necessary for our operations now and will be greatly needed when the east side access opens and if a third track should be added on the main between Divide and Queens interlocking. Depending on where the site is chosen for the new yard on the PJ line, Huntington can still end up being the western terminus for electrics, but electric service can actually be extended further east if the yard is to be built around Smithtown. In all honesty, if Diesels were truly that worthless, and electrics that superior, NJ Transit would not have placed an order for new Diesels, and all Commuter RR's across the country would be switching to electric operations.

Some folks here seem to have all the answers for the LIRR, and also seem to have the answer that Diesels are worthless. They're not, and electrifying the PJ line does not translate to a faster operating schedule. Some of us have forgotten the high number of curves on the PJ line that require a certain speed to be maintained. The Ronkonkoma line is pretty much a straight line from Ronkonkoma to a little bit west of the Farmingdale station. MAS on this branch is much higher but not because it is electrified, but because the landscape permits it. You won't be able to achieve MAS in many places on the PJ line with electrics. I have yet to work on a train that achieved MAS between Syosset and Huntington, and that section is electric. As BlueBelly mentioned before, there is a schedule that we must follow. We can do MAS where ever it is permitted, but what good is it when you arrive at a station earlier than the published time???
MU's generally do accelerate quicker than do Diesels, but have you ever been on a DM in electric mode? They do pick up speed just as fast as MU's do, partly because it is operating in electric mode. Electric trains, be it MU's or Locomotives have better acceleration performances than do Diesels. So what happens when the winter comes and 40% of the electric fleet is dead? What happens when the snow is so high that the third rail gets covered? Should the RR roll over and play dead? Diesels can operate through the snow regardless if the snow has covered the third rail. Now if the switches are frozen and other things of that nature occur, then theres not much one can do.

Another thing that has been brought up by BlueBelly is the signal system. 261 territory, the MAS CAN and is higher than while operating in 251 territory. Hence why Diesels do not operate in excess of 65 MPH on the Montauk branch east of Babylon and east of Ronkonkoma. It has nothing to do with the Diesels themselves. The DE/ DM's are actually capable of reaching 110MPH, Not in service, but in design and capabilities. That they will rip up the tracks or jump them at that speed is another issue.

It has always been known, and it has never changed to this day, LIRR commuters would rather have that 1seat ride to the city, and avoid the change at Jamaica. Ridership increased on the Ronkonkoma line because:

1. Passengers have the luxury of a one-seat trip into Penn Station without changing trains.

2. Population out east has dramatically increased over the past 20 years and will continue to do so.

Naturally, a person's trip does become slightly longer when they are required to change trains from a Diesel to an Electric, but yet then here it is again, the argument of the one-seat ride, and what it means to the LIRR commuter.

Even if the PJ line were to be completely electrified and double tracked all the way out to PJ, the profile of this branch with it's tight curves will still limit the speed of an electric train, and will most likely complete the entire trip to PENN in the same amount of time that the two DM trains do presently. The purpose of the new yard is simply to provide capacity to store trains without having to ferry them from a western terminal. It is very necessary for our operations now and will be greatly needed when the east side access opens and if a third track should be added on the main between Divide and Queens interlocking. Depending on where the site is chosen for the new yard on the PJ line, Huntington can still end up being the western terminus for electrics, but electric service can actually be extended further east if the yard is to be built around Smithtown. In all honesty, if Diesels were truly that worthless, and electrics that superior, NJ Transit would not have placed an order for new Diesels, and all Commuter RR's across the country would be switching to electric operations.

<i>Some folks here seem to have all the answers for the LIRR</i>

Yes. The day NY state bought the LIRR, the LIRR became property of the state of NY, and as a result, yes, us who pay the taxes do have a say in what a service we pay for is going to be like. Nobody would really care what the LIRR did if we weren't paying for it.

<i>We can do MAS where ever it is permitted, but what good is it when you arrive at a station earlier than the published time??? </i>

Gee. I can't believe you're actually asking this. If the schedule's too lose - tighten it. If the trains can run faster than the schedule, then the schedule's too slow.

<i>MU's generally do accelerate quicker than do Diesels, but have you ever been on a DM in electric mode? They do pick up speed just as fast as MU's do, partly because it is operating in electric mode. Electric trains, be it MU's or Locomotives have better acceleration performances than do Diesels.</i>

Yes, and thanks to EMD's inability to build a locomotive, there's no more E mode east of Jamacia. It was nice while it lasted.

<i>So what happens when the winter comes and 40% of the electric fleet is dead?</i>

In a few years, the M-7s will dominate, the M-1s will be all but gone, and the M-3s are more resistant to snow because they don't have the never corrected design flaw (not the LIRR's fault here, Budd should have known better) the M-1s have. The simple fact is, the M-7s are going to be more resistant to bad weather, and the M-1s are going to the scrapper.

<i>Should the RR roll over and play dead?</i>

Why not? It rolls over and plays dead a lot now. I'm not blaming the operating guys here, but rather amanagement that can't get it's act together whenever anything goes wrong. This isn't unique to the LIRR - witness the recent Amtrak induced screwup in Penn. But ask commuters what they think of system reliability some time. ...

<i>Even if the PJ line were to be completely electrified and double tracked all the way out to PJ, the profile of this branch with it's tight curves will still limit the speed of an electric train, and will most likely complete the entire trip to PENN in the same amount of time that the two DM trains do presently.</i>

Maybe. But if done right, it could be faster. And it would be a heck of a lot more reliable than the existing DMs are.

Of course, if the LIRR wasn't strangled by the FRA, electrifying the PJ branch would be even more of a no brainer since it'd open the way to a modern tilting EMU, which <b>would</b> result in much faster trip times.

As it stands, the M-7s are a bit too heavy to be designed into practical tilters. Of course, if the M-9s can get under 100,000 lbs a car, there's a convincing argument to add tilt. Assuming a full load, 16 tons an axle is pushing it, but still light enough to consider tilt (it's near the point where tilt is useful, unlike the Acelas where it exists for bragging rights). Once you get into the 10 ton per axle realm, really nice things happen, such as 65mph operation on a 1000 foot radius curve, as is seen in Germany (5 inches super elevation, 11.5 inches unbalance). This is an extreme example, but technically possible <i>today</i>. Of course, forget a tilting train with a diesel locomotive (though DMUs are just fine for it) - simply too heavy for it.

And yes, tilt is being used for 'commuter' trains overseas. It's what most tilt trains are used for, actually. That and regional/intercity. Most HSTs are non tilting in Europe.

<i>The purpose of the new yard is simply to provide capacity to store trains without having to ferry them from a western terminal.</i>

Oh <b>please</b>. That line of BS is old and busted. The LIRR was saying from day one in the 90's that there was going to be a storage yard for diesels on the Port Jefferson line. It was origionally going to be at the former Cerro site, the surrounding community (surprise!) didn't want it, so they went up the line and started telling everyone it would be for MUs instead. The surrounding areas aren't buying it, apparently.

Mark my words: There will never be a storage yard built on the Port Jefferson branch. It's not going to be built. The surrounding region simply will not allow it. The LIRR will keep pushing this further and further down the line until they reach Port Jefferson. It will end up in court, the LIRR will lose. You're cutting through a very developed big money area. It's just not going to happen.

<i>It is very necessary for our operations now and will be greatly needed when the east side access opens and if a third track should be added on the main between Divide and Queens interlocking.</i>

Go back and read the newspaper articles from 6-8 years ago when the DMs were being promoted as the greatist thing since sliced bread. The LIRR stated back then that they were building a storage yard for them on the Port Jefferson branch.

<i>Depending on where the site is chosen for the new yard on the PJ line, Huntington can still end up being the western terminus for electrics, but electric service can actually be extended further east if the yard is to be built around Smithtown.</i>

Oh come on. If they're willing to extend the third rail to Smithtown, why not just run it the extra few miles to Port Jefferson and use the already existing and fairly empty yard that's there? This is why nobody's buying into the LIRR's story - <b>it makes no sense</b>.

<i> In all honesty, if Diesels were truly that worthless, and electrics that superior, NJ Transit would not have placed an order for new Diesels,</i>

I'll predict it right now - the PL-42s will be the last order of diesels NJT ever places. They've been drawing up plans for a full system electrification for years. The coast line is clearenced for 25kv catenary, and parts were recently bumped to 25kv, they've been slowly but surely extending their electrification, and they've stated time and time again they have no desire to run dual modes. IIRC, to go from Dover to Hackettstown would require another substation, and that's why they stopped at Dover right now. I believe they've stated their intentions to electrify to Bay Head, and I'm guessing at some point, the Raritan Valley line will be (being really the only diesel NJT line of any consequence left - the upstate NY lines will be so in about 20 years).

Besides, there's a good environmental argument to dumping diesel operation on LI. Even the EPA's much flaunted phase II regulations are murderously dirty compared to what the automotive and truck industry's faced for the last few decades. Not only that, but electrics make better neighbors on account of being quieter, which would have a positive effect on property values near rail lines.

<i> and all Commuter RR's across the country would be switching to electric operations.</i>

Most commuter RRs west of Philly exist to shut up environmentalists, and thusz are built as quick and cheap systems that don't expect to carry anyone. Heck, Metrolink's TOTAL ridership throughout it's history is less than 1/2 of Septa's annual ridership. And that's considered a 'big success' out west. These systems aren't built to for ridership, they're built to appease political groups.

Anyway, Caltrain (only worthwhile operation west of Chicago) has been on the verge of electrifying for a few years now, and once California's money issues get sorted out (i.e., one the economy starts rolling again), they'll likely do it, given there's growing pressure. Or, they'll builds the BART extension to San jose, which will make Caltrain's existing service a useless redundancy.

Anyway, with two exceptions, every LRT system in the US is electric, and a number (Max, Metrolink, DART) are quite sizeable.