Comments on: LIRR Evaluates Use of DMUs for Low-Ridership Branch Lines http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/30/lirr-evaluates-use-of-dmus-for-low-ridership-branch-lines/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:58:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Alon Levy http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/30/lirr-evaluates-use-of-dmus-for-low-ridership-branch-lines/#comment-43272 Alon Levy Thu, 06 May 2010 03:34:19 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6814#comment-43272 The FRA-compliant trains are more dangerous than the non-compliant ones. Yes, the non-compliant ones crash, too. Countries with an interest in making passenger rail work have solved this by designing crash avoidance systems. Besides, the compliant trains just got into a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chatsworth_train_collision" rel="nofollow">disastrous wreck</a>, too. Do we get to ban them from the tracks? The FRA-compliant trains are more dangerous than the non-compliant ones. Yes, the non-compliant ones crash, too. Countries with an interest in making passenger rail work have solved this by designing crash avoidance systems.

Besides, the compliant trains just got into a disastrous wreck, too. Do we get to ban them from the tracks?

]]> By: Adirondacker12800 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/30/lirr-evaluates-use-of-dmus-for-low-ridership-branch-lines/#comment-43222 Adirondacker12800 Wed, 05 May 2010 15:17:45 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6814#comment-43222 20 passengers a day, or the 5 or 6 on the LIRR, would be better served by an airport shuttle type of service that brings them from their front door to the train station at the new end of the line - where there are passengers. 20 passengers a day, or the 5 or 6 on the LIRR, would be better served by an airport shuttle type of service that brings them from their front door to the train station at the new end of the line – where there are passengers.

]]> By: Yonah Freemark http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/30/lirr-evaluates-use-of-dmus-for-low-ridership-branch-lines/#comment-43090 Yonah Freemark Tue, 04 May 2010 16:59:25 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6814#comment-43090 I'm no expert on LIRR service, but chalk it up to MTA being unable to adjust services based on seasonal demand and limited track capacity. Anyone else? I’m no expert on LIRR service, but chalk it up to MTA being unable to adjust services based on seasonal demand and limited track capacity. Anyone else?

]]> By: Rob B. http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/30/lirr-evaluates-use-of-dmus-for-low-ridership-branch-lines/#comment-43088 Rob B. Tue, 04 May 2010 16:38:39 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6814#comment-43088 Just to follow-up on poncho's valid points. Yonah, can you write an article one day on why there is no good summer train service from Manhattan to Montauk? Just to follow-up on poncho’s valid points. Yonah, can you write an article one day on why there is no good summer train service from Manhattan to Montauk?

]]> By: Max Wyss http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/30/lirr-evaluates-use-of-dmus-for-low-ridership-branch-lines/#comment-43064 Max Wyss Tue, 04 May 2010 09:45:32 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6814#comment-43064 Actually, such a concept would not be such a bad thing, assuming that the "european style" DMUs could be used as non-leading unit on FRA-regulated territory. In such a situation, some limited through-running could be provided. There would be some switching at the main terminal, in order to get the DMU to the rear, but this looks feasible to me. Another approach would be bimode MUs, similar to the French "bi-bi" (bi-mode, bi-tension) AGCs (Automoteurs à Grande Capacité; High Capacity Motor Units), which have electrical equipment for running under 1500 VDC and 25 kVAC, plus a suitably powerful diesel-generator group. Actually, such a concept would not be such a bad thing, assuming that the “european style” DMUs could be used as non-leading unit on FRA-regulated territory. In such a situation, some limited through-running could be provided. There would be some switching at the main terminal, in order to get the DMU to the rear, but this looks feasible to me.

Another approach would be bimode MUs, similar to the French “bi-bi” (bi-mode, bi-tension) AGCs (Automoteurs à Grande Capacité; High Capacity Motor Units), which have electrical equipment for running under 1500 VDC and 25 kVAC, plus a suitably powerful diesel-generator group.

]]> By: Alon Levy http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/30/lirr-evaluates-use-of-dmus-for-low-ridership-branch-lines/#comment-43011 Alon Levy Tue, 04 May 2010 02:56:52 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6814#comment-43011 At Babylon and Ronkonkoma, this scheme would involve a timed connection of about 3 minutes, allowing people to get from one platform to the next. The connecting train would wait for the arriving train in all cases. Alternatively, this could be done zero-penalty at Jamaica. But that would clog the Main Line tracks with trains not going to Manhattan or even Downtown Brooklyn. At Babylon and Ronkonkoma, this scheme would involve a timed connection of about 3 minutes, allowing people to get from one platform to the next. The connecting train would wait for the arriving train in all cases.

Alternatively, this could be done zero-penalty at Jamaica. But that would clog the Main Line tracks with trains not going to Manhattan or even Downtown Brooklyn.

]]> By: poncho http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/30/lirr-evaluates-use-of-dmus-for-low-ridership-branch-lines/#comment-42982 poncho Tue, 04 May 2010 01:19:22 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6814#comment-42982 it shouldnt be too much of a surprise why ridership is poor on the montauk and greenport lines, service is abysmal... 5 trains a day that manage to be at the most inconvenient times of the day (like leaving at 1am, 4am, 11am, 2pm and 11pm), no direct service to manhattan, no food service, slow travel times, no express (except the once a week cannonball) and a cutback in service in the winter. its not that there isnt demand, the hampton jitney is packed despite its much higher price, and there is another service the hampton luxury liner. the hampton jitney was founded 35 years ago <i>because</i> of the poor LIRR service, and which certainly hasnt improved. all they need is decent rail service and they could fill a locomotive hauled train pulling 8-10 carriages plus a bar car. why is it so goddamn difficult to get decent rail service in this country? the public has been demanding it for decades and is willing to tax themselves for it. i am getting sick of having to wait decades for the possibility of seeing minor improvements to our passenger rail system. it shouldnt be too much of a surprise why ridership is poor on the montauk and greenport lines, service is abysmal… 5 trains a day that manage to be at the most inconvenient times of the day (like leaving at 1am, 4am, 11am, 2pm and 11pm), no direct service to manhattan, no food service, slow travel times, no express (except the once a week cannonball) and a cutback in service in the winter. its not that there isnt demand, the hampton jitney is packed despite its much higher price, and there is another service the hampton luxury liner. the hampton jitney was founded 35 years ago because of the poor LIRR service, and which certainly hasnt improved. all they need is decent rail service and they could fill a locomotive hauled train pulling 8-10 carriages plus a bar car.

why is it so goddamn difficult to get decent rail service in this country? the public has been demanding it for decades and is willing to tax themselves for it. i am getting sick of having to wait decades for the possibility of seeing minor improvements to our passenger rail system.

]]> By: Christopher Parker http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/30/lirr-evaluates-use-of-dmus-for-low-ridership-branch-lines/#comment-42931 Christopher Parker Mon, 03 May 2010 20:04:41 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6814#comment-42931 The Long Island Railroad already tried DMU's -- back when the Budd Company made RDC's, the Long Island Railroad got some. They were involved in a disastrous wreck and sold. There's a reason for the FRA's standards (which were not so strict then). The Long Island Railroad already tried DMU’s — back when the Budd Company made RDC’s, the Long Island Railroad got some. They were involved in a disastrous wreck and sold. There’s a reason for the FRA’s standards (which were not so strict then).

]]> By: EngineerScotty http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/30/lirr-evaluates-use-of-dmus-for-low-ridership-branch-lines/#comment-42914 EngineerScotty Mon, 03 May 2010 18:22:32 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6814#comment-42914 Spam on your blog is simply a sign that you've made it as a blogger. :) Spam on your blog is simply a sign that you’ve made it as a blogger. :)

]]> By: Nathanael http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/30/lirr-evaluates-use-of-dmus-for-low-ridership-branch-lines/#comment-42842 Nathanael Mon, 03 May 2010 10:18:18 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=6814#comment-42842 It wold be advisable to make the transfer stations stations with two platforming tracks allowing a cross-platform transfer from the DMU to the "mainline" train. How feasible is this at the logical transfer points? It wold be advisable to make the transfer stations stations with two platforming tracks allowing a cross-platform transfer from the DMU to the “mainline” train. How feasible is this at the logical transfer points?

]]>