Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Main Line Electrifications
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH</i> <br /><br />Although dual-mode (FL9-type) locomotives to cover a tunnel-type electrification sound like a good idea to improve utilization, they still have their limitations. Amtrak generally does not allow its P32's to stray beyond Albany, which pretty much restricts their range to not a whole lot too far beyond the end of third rail. Dual-mode locomotives on a tunnel electrification could not be allowed to stray too far from the mainline that has the tunnel, which would restrict their utilization to some extent. They would also be more expensive than conventional diesel-electrics, which would make it hard to justify their purchase when their operating range would still be restricted. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />That was one of the things that pops to mind. However, there are two different subjects I want to broach regarding the FL9 concept: (1)Why the Milwaukee did not consider an FL9 type locomotive, and (2)if an FL9 type solution would work to allow more capacity through the Cascade Tunnel. <br /> <br />1. My thought regarding the Milwaukee circa 1970 was that they were faced with an electrical physical plant that needed to be upgraded (and possibly expanded) or eliminated. With a bi-modal locomotive such as the FL9, they could have eliminated much of the catenary over the more water level grades such as the Clark Fork segments without having to establish new crew districts and locomotive transfer areas. This way they could have focused on upgrading only the mountainous segments of the electrification at a fraction of the cost of upgrading or expanding the entire electrical physical plant. <br /> <br />2. For the current Cascade Tunnel, one would have to balance the cost of rostering FL9-type locomotives that are limited to a small geographic area against the benefits of increasing capacity, perhaps doubling capacity over Stevens Pass (aka no time delays to ventilate the tunnel). I also wonder about clearances in the Cascade Tunnel, whether one can even restring catenary without interfering with double stacks, or whether the third rail option might work (at least in the tunnel). <br />
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy