electrical stuff, was: When the LIRR goes to Grand Central--what about Penna Station?
danny burstein
>> Could one of the folk more familiar with the systems
>> just jog my memory as to which type of power is
>> currently spec'ed for the various parts? Thanks
>1. 750VDC third rail from GCT to just west of Pelham
Just wondering again... the NYC Transit AUthority
uses 600 VDC for the subway. Are those two numbers
close enough to allow cross-through without too
horrendous a problem?
(Running a 750 VDC unit on 600 should just slow
down the acceleration a bit, I'd guess, and unless
you forced the issue I doubt there'd be an overheat
or fire risk. Maybe...
What about the other way?)
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
> In <hg1hmk$2ms$1...@news.eternal-september.org> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>
>>> Could one of the folk more familiar with the systems
>>> just jog my memory as to which type of power is
>>> currently spec'ed for the various parts? Thanks
>
>> 1. 750VDC third rail from GCT to just west of Pelham
>
> Just wondering again... the NYC Transit AUthority
> uses 600 VDC for the subway. Are those two numbers
> close enough to allow cross-through without too
> horrendous a problem?
>
> (Running a 750 VDC unit on 600 should just slow
> down the acceleration a bit, I'd guess, and unless
> you forced the issue I doubt there'd be an overheat
> or fire risk. Maybe...
> What about the other way?)
>
They ran LIRR rolling stock on the Staten Island Railway when the latter
was awaiting its R-44 order, though the voltages may have been different
then.
(I thought that MNRR/LIRR also ran 600 volts DC.)
If it is possible, then the LIRR stock would have an easier time running
on the subway as their trains also use overriding shoes.
It would not be possible for MNRR trains, however, as they have
underriding shoes.
Regardless of electrical equipment, I tend to believe that loading
gauges and manoeuvring space would make it very difficult for any
M-series trains to run on the Subway.
I bet PATH trains could run on the Subway, and vice-versa. But my guess
is that only the Subway's B division would be interchangeable.
gl4...@yahoo.com
<houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Regardless of electrical equipment, I tend to believe that loading
> gauges and manoeuvring space would make it very difficult for any
> M-series trains to run on the Subway.
I read a rather recent article about a LIRR caboose that was moved to a
transit museum of some sort, and the last few miles of the move happened
over some of the NYC subway lines. Therefore, there must be some
reasonably good sized clearances on the subway.
--
-Glennl
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
Philip Nasadowski
> (I thought that MNRR/LIRR also ran 600 volts DC.)
Both went to 750 VDC when the M-1s came in. It's 150 volts, he normal
variation on the third rail can be more than that.
> If it is possible, then the LIRR stock would have an easier time running
> on the subway as their trains also use overriding shoes.
It's just the shoe beam. They change the beam out and it's not a
problem.
> It would not be possible for MNRR trains, however, as they have
> underriding shoes.
True, but you just swap the beam out for one that hold overriding shoes
and it'll work. Unlike other systems, both MN and the LIRR use a
'slipper' type that enters from the side - LIRR third rail has a cover
board over it.
> Regardless of electrical equipment, I tend to believe that loading
> gauges and manoeuvring space would make it very difficult for any
> M-series trains to run on the Subway.
Likely. The M-1s weren't much heavier than the IND stock of the era (in
fact, I think the R-68 is slightly HEAVIER). I think at one time,
running hem on the A line was in fact considered, to give direct
downtown access. Of course, today, the FRA wouldn't allow that.
Remember the MP-41s were built to IRT dimensions and the Flatbush Ave
Line did once do shared operation I believe.
> I bet PATH trains could run on the Subway, and vice-versa. But my guess
> is that only the Subway's B division would be interchangeable.
Likely. FWIW, the PA-1s were speed tested on the LIRR, as were a few
NYC subway cars.
Stephen Sprunk
> In <hg1hmk$2ms$1...@news.eternal-september.org> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>>> Could one of the folk more familiar with the systems
>>> just jog my memory as to which type of power is
>>> currently spec'ed for the various parts? Thanks
>
>> 1. 750VDC third rail from GCT to just west of Pelham
>
> Just wondering again... the NYC Transit AUthority
> uses 600 VDC for the subway. Are those two numbers
> close enough to allow cross-through without too
> horrendous a problem?
Remember, both are nominal voltages; what you actually get at the rail
will vary--sometimes significantly. For instance, one of the DART folks
I talked to said that, while their catenary is nominally 750VDC, the
trains may get anything between 600 and 900VDC, and they work just fine
anywhere in that range (or even a fair ways outside it, though the
breakers would trip first). The acceptable voltage range is quite
wide--far wider than one might expect from looking at a single nominal
voltage specification.
So, yes, a 750VDC train could _theoretically_ run on a 600VDC (nominal)
system. It's probably not wise to do it unless the system is designed
for it (as DART's is), but it would probably work, at least for some
definition of the word "work".
> (Running a 750 VDC unit on 600 should just slow
> down the acceleration a bit, I'd guess, and unless
> you forced the issue I doubt there'd be an overheat
> or fire risk. Maybe...
> What about the other way?)
The main problem is that MNRR's trains are significantly heavier than
NYCT's, so if an MNRR train somehow made in into the subway, it could
draw a _lot_ more current than the system is designed for. If the
engineer was gentle with the throttle, it probably wouldn't cause any
problems, but if he reacted to the slower-than-usual acceleration by
increasing the throttle (and thus current draw), it might blow some
breakers or even start a fire at wayside.
OTOH, if you put an NYCT train on MNRR's tracks, it would
_theoretically_ work, but if the higher voltage exceeded the capacity of
the insulation or other equipment inside the train, it might blow some
breakers or even start a fire on board.
In short, it would be unwise to try it unless you've done the detailed
research to verify the _exact_ operating and safety margins of _every_
piece of equipment involved, from the substations all the way to the
traction motors.
On a related note: It has been pointed out that NJT electrified to
2x27.6kV; 25kV trains are fine with that. MNRR went with 2x13.8kV
(half); 12.5kV trains and even 11kV trains are fine with that. It
wouldn't surprise me at all if the New Haven-Boston line was actually
2x27.6kV, not the 2x25kV claimed, or if (at least part of) the NEC from
DC to NYP (er, Gate) was now actually 12.5kV or 13.8kV. If the voltage
drops a bit, that merely brings it down near nominal; if not, the trains
will just be a little punchier.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Philip Nasadowski
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> The main problem is that MNRR's trains are significantly heavier than
> NYCT's, so if an MNRR train somehow made in into the subway, it could
> draw a _lot_ more current than the system is designed for.
The current draws on NYCTA equipment are quite aggressive, and I believe
the third rail will supply in excess of 10,000 amps continuous.
> If the
> engineer was gentle with the throttle, it probably wouldn't cause any
> problems, but if he reacted to the slower-than-usual acceleration by
> increasing the throttle (and thus current draw), it might blow some
> breakers or even start a fire at wayside.
No, you won't start a fire. You'll trip the breakers, maybe, but not
start a fire.
> OTOH, if you put an NYCT train on MNRR's tracks, it would
> _theoretically_ work, but if the higher voltage exceeded the capacity of
> the insulation or other equipment inside the train, it might blow some
> breakers or even start a fire on board.
I bet most subway cars would tolerate it just fine. They don't
typically design with thin margins - the insulation's no doubt good to
at least 1kv, more likely 2kv.
> In short, it would be unwise to try it unless you've done the detailed
> research to verify the _exact_ operating and safety margins of _every_
> piece of equipment involved, from the substations all the way to the
> traction motors.
I'm sure the NYCTA would know. They're very good at that kind of stuff.
> On a related note: It has been pointed out that NJT electrified to
> 2x27.6kV; 25kV trains are fine with that. MNRR went with 2x13.8kV
> (half); 12.5kV trains and even 11kV trains are fine with that. It
> wouldn't surprise me at all if the New Haven-Boston line was actually
> 2x27.6kV, not the 2x25kV claimed, or if (at least part of) the NEC from
> DC to NYP (er, Gate) was now actually 12.5kV or 13.8kV. If the voltage
> drops a bit, that merely brings it down near nominal; if not, the trains
> will just be a little punchier.
I'm not sure what New Haven-Boston is - the locos might have a decently
accurate voltage readout on the console.
BTW, NJT likes to keep the Gladstone Branch a little bit higher than
27.6. 28.2 sticks in my mind for some reason.
On the Hoboken division, the Arrows are a *very* punchy MU. Even on the
Trenton line, they can sometimes accelerate out of stations at eyebrow
raising rates. Generally, if all cars are working, the engineman stays
on the power, and the power's not sagging any. From what I understand,
the computer tries to maintain 2.0 mph/s, and can do a considerable
short time overload to do that - I believe from the Arrow IV specs, the
III's acceleration start to taper at around 35 - 40 mph. FWIW, the
PL-42's TE, for all the unit's weight, doesn't even come close to the
ALP-46's, it peaks shortly at low speed and then falls to the floor over
30mph. Yet folks call it a 'slippery' unit. Ok, the '46 is 'slippery',
to, but one would think the '42s extra 75,000 or so lbs would help out a
bit...
danny burstein
>The current draws on NYCTA equipment are quite aggressive, and I believe
>the third rail will supply in excess of 10,000 amps continuous.
Hmmm, let's try a back of envelope...
Per Kawasaki's web page about their r-142 cars [a]:
"3 phase AC traction motor. VVVF IGBT 2 level inverter with
slip slide control, rated at 225 KVA continuous output..."
Their description isn't quite clear as to whether there's
one or two motors per double-axle truck. I'm guessing at
one, meaning two per car. So that's 450 kva/car, which
gets us to 3,600 kva per 8-car train.
Add in the HVAC, which seems to be 16 kw each, two per car..
so that's another 256 kva. Kick in the lighting and misc,
round it around, and we're at 4,000 kva.
Now... divide that by 600 volts, and we get to about 6,666 amps
for each train. Add a bunch of percentage poitnts for conversion
inefficencies, etc... So 10,000 amps continuous is certainly
in the ballpark.
[a] http://www.kawasakirailcar.com/LRTR142A.htm
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
> In article <rQYUm.31564$lP6...@newsfe13.ams2>, "houn...@yahoo.co.uk"
> <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Regardless of electrical equipment, I tend to believe that loading
>> gauges and manoeuvring space would make it very difficult for any
>> M-series trains to run on the Subway.
>
>
> I read a rather recent article about a LIRR caboose that was moved to a
> transit museum of some sort, and the last few miles of the move happened
> over some of the NYC subway lines. Therefore, there must be some
> reasonably good sized clearances on the subway.
>
There's a gateway between the LIRR/National grid and the Subway on the L
line at Livonia Avenue.
Larry Sheldon
> In<nasadowsk-DE49C...@news.optonline.net> Philip Nasadowski<nasa...@usermale.com> writes:
>
>> The current draws on NYCTA equipment are quite aggressive, and I believe
>> the third rail will supply in excess of 10,000 amps continuous.
>
> Hmmm, let's try a back of envelope...
>
> Per Kawasaki's web page about their r-142 cars [a]:
> "3 phase AC traction motor. VVVF IGBT 2 level inverter with
> slip slide control, rated at 225 KVA continuous output..."
I don't really know enough to be asking questions, but since we are on
the back of the envelope...
Are you not assuming 100% efficiency here? With a 225 kVA output I
would guess something like 270-300 kVA input.
> Their description isn't quite clear as to whether there's
> one or two motors per double-axle truck. I'm guessing at
> one, meaning two per car. So that's 450 kva/car, which
> gets us to 3,600 kva per 8-car train.
If I'm right above, using the more optimistic guess, 540 and 4320.
> Add in the HVAC, which seems to be 16 kw each, two per car..
> so that's another 256 kva. Kick in the lighting and misc,
> round it around, and we're at 4,000 kva.
I thought the don't-know-the-answer estimate used a pf of .8 so that
would make the kW -> kVA arithmetic 16 * .8 * 16 = 320 kVA
So, 4320 + 320 = 4683, call it 5,000 kVA.
> Now... divide that by 600 volts, and we get to about 6,666 amps
> for each train. Add a bunch of percentage poitnts for conversion
> inefficencies, etc... So 10,000 amps continuous is certainly
> in the ballpark.
Since the system is DC we need to do the pf thing again.
5,000 kVA is about 4,000 kW
4000 kW / 600 V = 7,000 Amps--not sure that is close enough to 10K for
government work.
Is that 225 kVA back up there "running at speed" or "stalled"?
> [a] http://www.kawasakirailcar.com/LRTR142A.htm
http://www.hallindustries.com/Third%20Rail%20Current%20Collector.htm #
has some interesting claims and triggered anthe question--is it one-shoe
per car? per train? 2 per?
--
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
danny burstein
>5,000 kVA is about 4,000 kW
>4000 kW / 600 V = 7,000 Amps--not sure that is close enough to 10K for
>government work.
>Is that 225 kVA back up there "running at speed" or "stalled"?
I'd make the misundereducated guess that the 225 kVA is only
when the system is maxed out, that is, under high accelartion.
When the trains are just cruising along the motors don't
draw much power.
(And I was shocked, SHOCKED, to see that the maximum
speed is only 55 mph).
Note that the third rail assembly and related components
(power feed cables, etc.) has to handle "x" amount
of track length, which depending on who/what/where
might be "y" number of trains...
However, the peak power draw is only during the
acceleration phase, which isn't very long timewise.
>> [a] http://www.kawasakirailcar.com/LRTR142A.htm
>http://www.hallindustries.com/Third%20Rail%20Current%20Collector.htm #
>has some interesting claims and triggered anthe question--is it one-shoe
>per car? per train? 2 per?
>
--
wa...@fordham.edu
> is that only the Subway's B division would be interchangeable.
IIRC, the truck centers on PATH cars are three feet closer together,
so the overhang on curves would be different; possibly different
enough to cause clearance problems.
Michael Wares
Jimmy
> On a related note: It has been pointed out that NJT electrified to
> 2x27.6kV; 25kV trains are fine with that. MNRR went with 2x13.8kV
> (half); 12.5kV trains and even 11kV trains are fine with that.
What does the "2x" mean in those voltages?
Jimmy
Larry Sheldon
I suspect t is the stuff (discussed in fascinating length AND breadth
last week here, or maybe it was all last month) about center-tapped
systems that I still do not completely understand, not for want of
attempts to explain it.
Why not have a peek into the archives and see what you can find?
Stephen Sprunk
See the discussion in the recent thread titled "Short-distance power
outages on the NE Corridor".
Michael Moroney
>Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On a related note: It has been pointed out that NJT electrified to
>> 2x27.6kV; 25kV trains are fine with that. =A0MNRR went with 2x13.8kV
>> (half); 12.5kV trains and even 11kV trains are fine with that. =A0
>What does the "2x" mean in those voltages?
It's a way of cutting current (and therefore resistive losses) from the
feeding substation by having the return current from transformers
along the route at 25kV, rather than at ground potential. See the
recent (long) thread titled: "Short-distance power outages on the NE
Corridor".
Aside: The quoted post states "2x13.8kV" on the MNRR - I thought the older
system didn't have that arrangement.
Stephen Sprunk
>> Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> On a related note: It has been pointed out that NJT electrified to
>>> (half); 12.5kV trains and even 11kV trains are fine with that.
>
> Aside: The quoted post states "2x13.8kV" on the MNRR - I thought the older
> system didn't have that arrangement.
The older system did not, no. Aaccording to a paper I found) MNRR
didn't just remove the frequency converters in the early 1980s when
switching from 25Hz to 60Hz; they completely replaced the wayside power
infrastructure.
Michael Moroney
>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Aside: The quoted post states "2x13.8kV" on the MNRR - I thought the older
>> system didn't have that arrangement.
>The older system did not, no. Aaccording to a paper I found) MNRR
>didn't just remove the frequency converters in the early 1980s when
>switching from 25Hz to 60Hz; they completely replaced the wayside power
>infrastructure.
They certainly didn't replace the power lines along the route, the original
steel towers are still in use, complete with over three quarters of a
century of rust and even broken/storm damaged wiring in some cases (appears
that not all of the several wires are used). I see old substations that
appear to be disused, but I don't see anything that looks like the
autotransformers that are along the 2x25 kV segment.
I'll look to see what I can see next time I go, probably in a few weeks.
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Aside: The quoted post states "2x13.8kV" on the MNRR - I thought
>>> the older system didn't have that arrangement.
>
>> The older system did not, no. Aaccording to a paper I found) MNRR
>> didn't just remove the frequency converters in the early 1980s when
>> switching from 25Hz to 60Hz; they completely replaced the wayside power
>> infrastructure.
>
> They certainly didn't replace the power lines along the route, the
> original steel towers are still in use, complete with over three
> quarters of a century of rust and even broken/storm damaged wiring in
> some cases (appears that not all of the several wires are used).
One reference I found said that the NH and PRR systems used
medium-voltage distribution lines atop the catenary poles, which
independently fed closely-spaced segment substations. It's possible
that when MNRR switched to a 2x12.5kV system, they simply left those
wires up and substations in place because it was cheaper/easier than
removing them.
The catenary and its supports certainly haven't been replaced; it's the
same variable-tension crap that's been there for nearly a century.
Upgrading that to modern constant-tension stuff would be a major project
all its own--far bigger than changing frequencies or even going to an
autotransformer system (which doesn't require touching the catenary at all).
It's possible that going to 25kV would have required too much catenary
work (more insulators, checking clearances, etc.), so they punted and
went half way, fixing the frequency but not the voltage. Hopefully, if
they ever replace the catenary, they'll put it in with 25kV-compatible
spacing so that bumping up the voltage in the future would only require
replacing a few transformers (or even just changing taps on the existing
ones).
> I see old substations that appear to be disused, but I don't see
> anything that looks like the autotransformers that are along the
> 2x25 kV segment.
They may be hard to see among the other stuff lying around--or the paper
I found may be flat-out wrong. Nobody else here has chimed in one way
or the other, which worries me.
Philip Nasadowski
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> The catenary and its supports certainly haven't been replaced; it's the
> same variable-tension crap that's been there for nearly a century.
Between Pelham and the CT state line, this was done years ago. I
believe they're now doing the CT line to Stamford, and New Haven
downward.
> It's possible that going to 25kV would have required too much catenary
> work (more insulators, checking clearances, etc.), so they punted and
> went half way, fixing the frequency but not the voltage.
The issue was that the low overpasses, IIRC. I'm pretty sure the
M-2/4/6 cars have taps for 25kv, but no tap change equipment - most
GE-equipped stuff had it.
> Hopefully, if
> they ever replace the catenary, they'll put it in with 25kV-compatible
> spacing so that bumping up the voltage in the future would only require
> replacing a few transformers (or even just changing taps on the existing
> ones).
My guess is they're tapped for it already, at least in places. The NJ
Coast extension was done this way - the last sub I was in still had
panel meters that read 12.5kv, but the actual voltage was 25kv.
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
The older catenaries may still be in place, but I definitely remember
seeing newer wires on the New Haven line in New York State. Have they
not replaced them in Connecticut?
Michael Moroney
>Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>> They certainly didn't replace the power lines along the route, the original
>> steel towers are still in use, complete with over three quarters of a
>> century of rust and even broken/storm damaged wiring in some cases (appears
>> that not all of the several wires are used). I see old substations that
>> appear to be disused, but I don't see anything that looks like the
>> autotransformers that are along the 2x25 kV segment.
>>
>> I'll look to see what I can see next time I go, probably in a few weeks.
>The older catenaries may still be in place, but I definitely remember
>seeing newer wires on the New Haven line in New York State. Have they
>not replaced them in Connecticut?
I remember explicitly the New Rochelle station, looking up at the rusty
towers while waiting for a train, and wondering what configuration needed
15 individual power lines to power a 4 track railroad. This was a few
months ago. Some still had warning signs warning of 11,000 volts (in
Spanish, too, unusual for so long ago)
John Albert
"The catenary and its supports certainly haven't been
replaced; it's the
same variable-tension crap that's been there for nearly a
century.
Upgrading that to modern constant-tension stuff would be a
major project
all its own"
Um, where have you been for the past 20 years?
The New York state segment of the catenary was replaced with
constant-tension in the late 80's or very early 90's, if I
remember (it's been a while now).
The Connecticut portion of the system has been undergoing
replacement since the mid-90's. The work is incremental and
slow, as the existing operation has to "run around the
construction".
New Rochelle-to-Stamford is completed for a while now, as is
New Haven to CP 261.
They've been working on Stamford-to-Norwalk for about 3
years now and have tracks 1 and 3 completed, with 2 under
construction.
They're doing a stretch between Southport and Green's Farms
so that they can get the new CP248 (4-track, 80mph)
interlocking working. Track 4 is complete and track 2 is
nearing completion.
It will take decades more to get all this done. Expect at
least 10-15 years. That doesn't include the replacement of
the South Norwalk swing bridge, which will become the most
complex and difficult reconstruction on the entire railroad
between New York and Boston, due to its location and the
fact that the current bridge is a 4-track swing bridge,
can't just replace two tracks at a time.
The power system was switched from 25hz to 60hz in the early
1980's. A lot of new transmission lines were installed. All
most folks see when they ride the train are the old catenary
towers, easy to understand why folks think "it's still the
old installation".
- John
Stephen Sprunk
> I remember explicitly the New Rochelle station, looking up at the rusty
> towers while waiting for a train, and wondering what configuration needed
> 15 individual power lines to power a 4 track railroad.
Like this?
http://www.webcircle.com/users/cobrandt/pennsywire.jpg
The wires on the lowest level are obviously the four messenger/contact
wires and the related support wires. AFAIK, the two sets of four wires
are 25Hz three-phase (plus ground for lightning) high-voltage
distribution to substations. I can't figure out what the eight wires in
the middle are for, though.
It looks atrocious, I'll grant, but remember that stuff was put in
before there were even regional electrical grids in the US, so the RRs
had to generate their own (25Hz) power. I can understand why there's so
much NIMBY resistance whenever someone mentions electrifying a line,
though, if that's what folks in the region are used to.
These aren't quite as bad, though IMHO they're still more visually
distracting than modern stuff:
http://i324.photobucket.com/albums/k329/mestevet/CoatesvilleIMG_7479sm.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/8/6/9/5869.1235869816.jpg
http://i44.tinypic.com/33wac1x.jpg
At least (I think) I can identify what all the wires are there for...
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Like this?
>
> http://www.webcircle.com/users/cobrandt/pennsywire.jpg
This appears to be a Pennsylvania Railroad catenary, not New Haven
(though I'm not sure). There are at least three different catenary
approaches in the NEC: 1) Pennsylvania Railroad, between NYC and NYC;
2) Metro North (New Haven Railroad), between NYC(LI) and New Haven;
and Amtrak, New Haven to Boston. They were built and rebuilt at
different times and there are differences between them. The New Haven
was done first and the PRR took lessons from the NH's actual
experience, and Metro North is replacing the original NH system. For
purposes of this discussion it's help to distingusih which section is
under discussion.
> The wires on the lowest level are obviously the four messenger/contact
> wires and the related support wires. AFAIK, the two sets of four wires
> are 25Hz three-phase (plus ground for lightning) high-voltage
> distribution to substations. I can't figure out what the eight wires in
> the middle are for, though.
William Middleton's "When the Steam Railroads were Electrified"
contains a photo with identifications for each piece of the catenary.
> It looks atrocious, I'll grant, but remember that stuff was put in
> before there were even regional electrical grids in the US, so the RRs
> had to generate their own (25Hz) power. I can understand why there's so
> much NIMBY resistance whenever someone mentions electrifying a line,
> though, if that's what folks in the region are used to.
The New Haven generated its own power. However, commercial power had
developed to the extent that the great 1930s Pennsylvania Railroad
Electrification utilized commercial power.
As to NIMBY resistance, some of it is realistic, but some of it is
foolish. A few catenary poles, even on a high structure, aren't a
visual problem. Railroad power supplies (at least old ones), are
nowhere nearly as obtrusive as say high tension power transmission
lines. I think some NIMBY resistance may be a fear of more train
traffic, even though electric passenger trains are very quiet and not
a problem (I know from experience). Some NIMBY resistance may be a
fear of being near high power currents, such as from a high tension
major power transmission line, but I doubt railroad catenary carries
that kind of load. (However, some RR ROWs are used to provide a
corridor for power company lines, such as the SEPTA-Reading's
Norristown line.)
Michael Finfer
That stuff about health risks of power lines is pseudoscience, so it
should not be allowed to be a consideration in an ideal world.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > fear of being near high power currents, such as from a high tension
> > major power transmission line, but I doubt railroad catenary carries
> > that kind of load. (However, some RR ROWs are used to provide a
> > corridor for power company lines, such as the SEPTA-Reading's
> > Norristown line.)
>
> That stuff about health risks of power lines is pseudoscience, so it
> should not be allowed to be a consideration in an ideal world.
I can not comment about the science. However, the effects of the
energy radiated by the large tower high-tension lines are plainly
visible to a human observer, such as causing florescent lamps to glow,
no snow cover, etc. (Railroad power lines do NOT produce any effects
except to an AM radio directly under the lines). Accordingly, it is
perfectly reasonable that people would be concerned about unseen
radiation effects, whether justified by science or not.
Personally, I've been around long enough to have seen things labeled
as "safe and a good idea" later to be labeled "dangerous", and
enormous sums of money spent to remove said "safe" items. Certain
drugs were over-the-counter when I was a kid and today are prescrption
only--and vice versa. Of course, I wonder if the stuff today labeled
"dangerous" is indeed as dangerous as they claim it is. Science and
engineering are subjective. Multiple observers of the exact same raw
data may reach multiple conclusions about it. Further, some
scientists are unable or unwilling to shed their internal cultural or
political biases relating to their work.
Joseph D. Korman
http://www.thejoekorner.com/photos/erie-lack/3220037.gif
http://www.thejoekorner.com/photos/njtransit/P011001.gif
Dover, NJ on the NJT M&E line. The two shots are taken in opposite
directions, but note the catenary support.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
Michael Moroney
>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> I remember explicitly the New Rochelle station, looking up at the rusty
>> towers while waiting for a train, and wondering what configuration needed
>> 15 individual power lines to power a 4 track railroad.
>Like this?
>http://www.webcircle.com/users/cobrandt/pennsywire.jpg
No. I recognize that as being somewhere between DC and NYC. The wiring
(other than the catenary/contact wires) appear to be quite a bit newer
than the New Haven wiring I mentioned.
The way I interpret things from the photos and from observing the line
itself: The wires (other than the catenary/contact wires) are all
insulated for a rather high voltage. Compare the size of the insulators
for the catenary/contact wires (~11kV) and the others. This must be
because it's the private 25 Hz "grid" for that segment of the NE Corridor
plus the other railroads that use 25 Hz. From the photo and what I've
seen, the topmost 6 wires are two 3-phase circuits (one on each side),
while the 8 in the middle are two 4-wire 2-phase circuits. They'd use
two phase since it would be easier to balance the load by splitting it
approximately equally two ways rather than 3 ways like they'd have to
do if they use 3-phase throughout. I'd imagine (but cannot confirm)
that every so often there is a simple transformer whose primary is
connected between two of the midlevel wires (one of the two phases) and
whose secondary is connected between one of the catenaries and ground/the
rails. Elsewhere I've seen side branches in New Jersey with only the
catenary/contact wires and a pair of the higher voltage cables (one single
phase circuit).
>The wires on the lowest level are obviously the four messenger/contact
>wires and the related support wires. AFAIK, the two sets of four wires
>are 25Hz three-phase (plus ground for lightning) high-voltage
>distribution to substations. I can't figure out what the eight wires in
>the middle are for, though.
See above. They run 3 phase through a transformer configuration called
"Scott-T" to convert between 3 phase and 90 degree 2 phase.
>It looks atrocious, I'll grant, but remember that stuff was put in
>before there were even regional electrical grids in the US, so the RRs
>had to generate their own (25Hz) power. I can understand why there's so
>much NIMBY resistance whenever someone mentions electrifying a line,
>though, if that's what folks in the region are used to.
As I said it appears newer than the New Haven stuff, so it was upgraded at
some time in the not-so-distant past.
The only picture I found of the New Haven stuff was on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NHRR_New_Rochelle_So_jeh.JPG,
which is from their article on the Metro-North Railroad.
You can see two towers in with a catenary bridge between them. These
actually look new, must have been upgraded as part of the catenary upgrade
(the catenary insulators in the foreground look new) but are similar in
style to the older stuff. The catenary bridge in the middle (with the
"65" sign on it) is older and it appears that its right support was one of
the old towers with the top cut off.
There are 7-8 wires per tower, insulated for 11-12kV. Maybe the large
number of wires at that point is because of the interlocking in the
background (which I think is where the Hell Gate line connects).
Here there aren't any 3-phase circuits at higher voltage paralleling the
tracks, many places elsewhere there are. The southern section of the NE
corridor seems to have high voltage circuits along the entire route, which
makes sense since there they have a private 25 Hz "grid". The HV stuff is
more visually obtrusive than the stuff along the NH line, but the NH line
stuff appears (to me) ancient.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> The way I interpret things from the photos and from observing the line
> itself: The wires (other than the catenary/contact wires) are all
> insulated for a rather high voltage. Compare the size of the insulators
> for the catenary/contact wires (~11kV) and the others.
Just a note about catenary insulators--today, when old 1930s
insulators have been replaced, the newer ones are smaller. I presume
the di-electric strength of modern insulators is greater than the
1930s, thus a smaller unit may be used.
Further, perhaps in the 1930s they were providing for higher current
draw for anticipated heavy freight trains which would not be needed
today.
Keep in mind the catenary built at the same time for the same railroad
will vary depending on the branch--a low use commuter branch will have
simpler catenary than the main trunk line.
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
>
http://i324.photobucket.com/albums/k329/mestevet/CoatesvilleIMG_7479sm.jpg
Is that SEPTA territory?
>http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/8/6/9/5869.1235869816.jpg
Princeton Junction.
> http://i44.tinypic.com/33wac1x.jpg
>
Looks like the Harlem River Branch, based on the catenaries' rounded
features.
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
> The New Haven generated its own power. However, commercial power had
> developed to the extent that the great 1930s Pennsylvania Railroad
> Electrification utilized commercial power.
>
> As to NIMBY resistance, some of it is realistic, but some of it is
> foolish.
Like the resistance to electrifying New Haven-Boston?
IIRC,residents along the Connecticut shorline didn't like that concept,
because they felt that catenaries would be aesthetically displeasing.
I wonder if that project was delayed, because of those NIMBYs.
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
Charles Ellson
>On Dec 16, 1:53�pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>
>> The way I interpret things from the photos and from observing the line
>> itself: The wires (other than the catenary/contact wires) are all
>> insulated for a rather high voltage. Compare the size of the insulators
>> for the catenary/contact wires (~11kV) and the others. �
>
>
>Just a note about catenary insulators--today, when old 1930s
>insulators have been replaced, the newer ones are smaller. I presume
>the di-electric strength of modern insulators is greater than the
>1930s, thus a smaller unit may be used.
>
If it is the same experience as in the UK then it has possibly been
found that clearances (and insulator sizes) can be reduced without
adverse effect , the materials in use being mostly unaltered (i.e. the
original specs were over-engineered rather than new equipment being an
improvement). When 25kV electrification was introduced in the UK in
the 1950s there were some sections which were only fed with 6.25kV
(and locos and rolling stock were provided with appropriate
tap-changers on the transformer inputs) but it was since found that in
nearly all such places the voltage could be increased to 25kV without
changing clearances (or IIRC insulators) and 6.25kV working has been
eliminated.
Stephen Sprunk
> The only picture I found of the New Haven stuff was on:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NHRR_New_Rochelle_So_jeh.JPG,
> which is from their article on the Metro-North Railroad.
> You can see two towers in with a catenary bridge between them. These
> actually look new, must have been upgraded as part of the catenary upgrade
> (the catenary insulators in the foreground look new) but are similar in
> style to the older stuff. The catenary bridge in the middle (with the
> "65" sign on it) is older and it appears that its right support was one of
> the old towers with the top cut off.
>
> There are 7-8 wires per tower, insulated for 11-12kV. Maybe the large
> number of wires at that point is because of the interlocking in the
> background (which I think is where the Hell Gate line connects).
Does it only look like this around interlockings? I wonder if the extra
wires are spare circuits for the extra tracks ahead so that the
transformers for their wires (and the HV lines to feed them) don't have
to be located right at the interlocking...
(I haven't seen this section of the NEC in person, only the
DC-Baltimore, Philadelphia area, Newark Airport-NYP, and New
Haven-Boston sections, so I'm guessing based on the photos.)
Stephen Sprunk
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:25:23 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Dec 16, 1:53 pm, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>> wrote:
>>> The way I interpret things from the photos and from observing the line
>>> itself: The wires (other than the catenary/contact wires) are all
>>> insulated for a rather high voltage. Compare the size of the insulators
>>> for the catenary/contact wires (~11kV) and the others.
>>
>> Just a note about catenary insulators--today, when old 1930s
>> insulators have been replaced, the newer ones are smaller. I presume
>> the di-electric strength of modern insulators is greater than the
>> 1930s, thus a smaller unit may be used.
>
> If it is the same experience as in the UK then it has possibly been
> found that clearances (and insulator sizes) can be reduced without
> adverse effect , the materials in use being mostly unaltered (i.e. the
> original specs were over-engineered rather than new equipment being an
> improvement). When 25kV electrification was introduced in the UK in
> the 1950s there were some sections which were only fed with 6.25kV
> (and locos and rolling stock were provided with appropriate
> tap-changers on the transformer inputs) but it was since found that in
> nearly all such places the voltage could be increased to 25kV without
> changing clearances (or IIRC insulators) and 6.25kV working has been
> eliminated.
Was that 6.25kVAC or 6.25kVDC? If the former, what frequency?
While arc distance goes up when voltage goes up, it goes _down_ when
frequency goes up (and DC is effectively 0Hz).
If it was 6.25kVAC 50Hz before, that means they had a rather excessive
safety margin. If it was DC, though, the insulators might actually be
about right or even overkill for 25kVAC 50Hz.
Philip Nasadowski
"houn...@yahoo.co.uk" <houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Like the resistance to electrifying New Haven-Boston?
Yes.
> IIRC,residents along the Connecticut shorline didn't like that concept,
> because they felt that catenaries would be aesthetically displeasing.
Given how badly overbuilt the system is, I can see their fears. There's
better examples, even in the US, of how to do it. The NEC is, by and
large, an example of everything NOT to do when electrifying. Partly
because the south end was done by the PRR, who overbuilt everything,
partly because the New Haven line was done by the New Haven, at a time
when nobody had any clue HOW to do it, and partly because the north end
was done by an agency who had the prior two sections as an 'example',
and stunk royally at project control - to the point where the contractor
managed to fleece them a good one or two hundred million.
Better examples:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2460/3645316667_afb4998877_o.jpg
(50kv 60hz)
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/4/1/2/6412.1225219684.jpg
http://images.nycsubway.org/i46000/img_46416.jpg
(25kv, 60hz)
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1177/871740781_b2c47321ce.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2849891418_f83b84a15a_b.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=89690&nseq=0
(25kv, 60hz Canadian, 17kv, 42hz American ;)
Compare to:
http://www.trainweb.org/crocon/goodenow/Acela_NL.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/6/7/0/9670.1138705200.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/0/8/6/2086.1146351600.jpg
> I wonder if that project was delayed, because of those NIMBYs.
Probably. That and the US DOT's infatuation with turbine powered
trains...
Charles Ellson
AC at 50Hz.
>While arc distance goes up when voltage goes up, it goes _down_ when
>frequency goes up (and DC is effectively 0Hz).
>
>If it was 6.25kVAC 50Hz before, that means they had a rather excessive
>safety margin.
>
Before the days of laboratory testing there had been a long tradition
of building railway structure by estimating well on the side of
caution, as can be seen with many older bridges.
>If it was DC, though, the insulators might actually be
>about right or even overkill for 25kVAC 50Hz.
>
The line was originally electrified by the LNER at 1500V DC. As can be
seen in e.g. the Gidea Park photograph :-
http://dewi.ca/trains/london/br_trains.html
the insulators appear somewhat minimal compared with the later 25/6.25
kV scheme :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Class_306_Green.jpg#file
The class 306 train in the photograph was originally built to run on
1500V DC and was later converted for AC working by adding a
transformer and rectifier.
Philip Nasadowski
<9f1fc58c-399f-47b2...@r1g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> I can not comment about the science.
AFAIK, no study's ever conclusively linked it to anything.
> However, the effects of the
> energy radiated by the large tower high-tension lines are plainly
> visible to a human observer, such as causing florescent lamps to glow,
> no snow cover, etc.
I'm not aware of power lines having no snow cover under them, and
glowing lamps is something that you get in the mid 6 figure range. The
bigger issues are corona leakage (which produced ozone) and electric
leakage because of bad insulators, which can have bad effects.
> Accordingly, it is
> perfectly reasonable that people would be concerned about unseen
> radiation effects, whether justified by science or not.
Given what passes for science education these days, I'm amazed folks
aren't afraid of everything and anything.
> Personally, I've been around long enough to have seen things labeled
> as "safe and a good idea" later to be labeled "dangerous", and
> enormous sums of money spent to remove said "safe" items.
Wait till all the asbestos litigation candidates are dead. The next
target's fiberglass...
> Of course, I wonder if the stuff today labeled
> "dangerous" is indeed as dangerous as they claim it is.
I recall reading a long time ago that pretty much anything will cause
caner in lab rats.
> Science and engineering are subjective.
Not really.
> Multiple observers of the exact same raw
> data may reach multiple conclusions about it.
Then your data sucks. Experiments should be reproducible. If they're
not, something's wrong. Most 'breakthroughs' that can't be reproduced
turn out to be much ado about nothing, or flat-out frauds.
> Further, some
> scientists are unable or unwilling to shed their internal cultural or
> political biases relating to their work.
Sure. Nobody gets funding by observing no problem. Funding drives
research, therefore, find a problem to research.
Stephen Sprunk
> In article
> <9f1fc58c-399f-47b2...@r1g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> Accordingly, it is perfectly reasonable that people would be
>> concerned about unseen radiation effects, whether justified by
>> science or not.
>
> Given what passes for science education these days, I'm amazed folks
> aren't afraid of everything and anything.
That certainly explains the BANANAs and the tree-huggers, right?
>> Of course, I wonder if the stuff today labeled "dangerous" is indeed
>> as dangerous as they claim it is.
>
> I recall reading a long time ago that pretty much anything will cause
> caner in lab rats.
Yep. I stopped paying attention to "X causes cancer" reports after a
study in Japan was published proving that _water_ causes cancer.
Without numbers showing the _relative rate_ that something causes
cancer, any such claims are meaningless.
>> Science and engineering are subjective.
>
> Not really.
Not at all. Either something works or it doesn't. The problems usually
come when people misinterpret science or engineering for other purposes,
particularly businesspeople and politicians misrepresenting the truth to
make a quick buck at the public's expense.
>> Multiple observers of the exact same raw
>> data may reach multiple conclusions about it.
>
> Then your data sucks. Experiments should be reproducible. If they're
> not, something's wrong. Most 'breakthroughs' that can't be reproduced
> turn out to be much ado about nothing, or flat-out frauds.
Oh, the _results_ may be perfectly reproducible, but different people
may come up with conflicting explanations as to _why_ the results are
what they are. That is, in fact, the engine that powers science:
everyone has different ideas to explain the old data, and they set about
finding new experiments to prove their explanation was correct.
>> Further, some scientists are unable or unwilling to shed their
>> internal cultural or political biases relating to their work.
>
> Sure. Nobody gets funding by observing no problem. Funding drives
> research, therefore, find a problem to research.
It's not so much that as the willful ignorance of alternate explanations
for what they're seeing due to dogma.
In the last few weeks, for instance, we've seen the publication of data
and emails from CRU that proves they "adjusted" historical climate
records for the last century, which the entire scientific community has
been using as the basis for all research in the field, because it
conflicted with their models of global warming and therefore "must be
wrong". It never even occurred to them that their _models_ might have
been wrong, though they were smart enough to order each other (in vain,
apparently) to destroy evidence of the "adjustments" lest their enemies
find out and use it to discredit them.
Miles Bader
> As to NIMBY resistance, some of it is realistic, but some of it is
> foolish.
I get the feeling much of the time they don't even care about the details.
It basically comes down to "Rich person buys house he likes, wants any
and all development to cease completely."
I'm not sure I can really blame them for the general attitude, given the
horrid state of "development" in the U.S. (which generally means "more
horror sprawl, mcmansions, strip malls, fast food, and walmarts").
-Miles
--
Neighbor, n. One whom we are commanded to love as ourselves, and who does all
he knows how to make us disobedient.
Miles Bader
> Compare to:
> http://www.trainweb.org/crocon/goodenow/Acela_NL.jpg
> http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/6/7/0/9670.1138705200.jpg
> http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/0/8/6/2086.1146351600.jpg
The absurdity in those shots seems a bit exaggerated by the telephoto
lens compression though ... I suspect there's not really a catenary
support every 2 meters!
-Miles
--
Non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
Peter T. Daniels
> It's not so much that as the willful ignorance of alternate explanations
> for what they're seeing due to dogma.
>
> In the last few weeks, for instance, we've seen the publication of data
> and emails from CRU that proves they "adjusted" historical climate
> records for the last century, which the entire scientific community has
> been using as the basis for all research in the field, because it
> conflicted with their models of global warming and therefore "must be
> wrong". It never even occurred to them that their _models_ might have
> been wrong, though they were smart enough to order each other (in vain,
> apparently) to destroy evidence of the "adjustments" lest their enemies
> find out and use it to discredit them.
Do you believe everything Monica Crowley says? It "proves" nothing of
the sort.
Maybe you just want to ignore the facts about climate change because
Houston will soon be under water and Dallas can gain some sort of
status as a result.
Stephen Sprunk
> Better examples:
>
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2460/3645316667_afb4998877_o.jpg
> (50kv 60hz)
That's an interesting design I haven't seen anywhere else.
> http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/4/1/2/6412.1225219684.jpg
This is what I think of when I picture modern catenary: clean, simple,
relatively unobtrusive.
Then again, aside from the large insulators cleverly integrated into the
two main support arms and the feeder line(s?) on the side, this is
identical to what most light rail systems are using. Unless you look
closely, you won't even notice the differences.
> http://images.nycsubway.org/i46000/img_46416.jpg
> (25kv, 60hz)
Almost as good, but I have to wonder why there are _five_ lines at the
tops of the poles.
> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1177/871740781_b2c47321ce.jpg?v=0
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2849891418_f83b84a15a_b.jpg
Same as above, with a slightly different feeder arrangement.
> http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=89690&nseq=0
Way overbuilt; I can see the justification for a horizontal support when
there are more three-plus tracks, though that can still be done with
wires, but for two tracks it's overkill--and this design is particularly
visually disruptive. However, it looks like it's only at the station so
the poles can be further from the tracks; you can't really see the
arrangement past the end of the platform.
> (25kv, 60hz Canadian, 17kv, 42hz American ;)
:)
> Compare to:
> http://www.trainweb.org/crocon/goodenow/Acela_NL.jpg
> http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/6/7/0/9670.1138705200.jpg
> http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/0/8/6/2086.1146351600.jpg
To be fair, those are in multi-track sections, one at a curve where
catenary is particularly difficult. The poles are much shorter than
you'd need for a wire-based design.
The telephoto lens also makes them look much worse than they really are.
>> I wonder if that project was delayed, because of those NIMBYs.
>
> Probably. That and the US DOT's infatuation with turbine powered
> trains...
The French went through the same thing when they first developed the
TGV. Too bad NIH Syndrome prevents us from learning from foreigners'
mistakes.
Rising oil prices will eventually fix this, though; not only will they
drive more traffic onto the rails, they will also make electrification
economically justified for the freight lines--and, as private industry,
at least one of them will come up with a good, cheap, easily repeated
design that the rest of the industry can copy.
gl4...@yahoo.com
<mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
Part of it is that those are wide multi-track areas that have birdge type
catenary supports from the day they were built.
http://images.nycsubway.org/nywb/nywb1-01.jpg
Trying to put something other than those bridges in there would mean
moving tracks to make space for poles.
In some of those yard areas, who cares if there are large multi-track
bridges to support the catenary anyway? It isn't as if there is much of
anything to look at.
It isn't like this:
http://img.youtube.com/vi/WmFZFJB4adc/0.jpg
--
-Glennl
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
Philip Nasadowski
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> That's an interesting design I haven't seen anywhere else.
I think M-K came up with it. But then: Private builder/owner looking
for low cost/high performance.
> This is what I think of when I picture modern catenary: clean, simple,
> relatively unobtrusive.
I believe it was patterned after British designs of the era, the
electric equipment in the subs is a mix of GE (US), GEC, AEI, South
Wales Switchgear, and someone else from over there. I think the
distance relays are AEI and the thermals GEC, or vice versa. The
thermal's redundant, unless you're Amtrak and you miswire the breakers
at Portal and never bother to test the system...
> Almost as good, but I have to wonder why there are _five_ lines at the
> tops of the poles.
That's more NJ coast - the 5 lines are 25kv feeder, 7200v 100hz signal,
and static collector.
> > (25kv, 60hz Canadian, 17kv, 42hz American ;)
>
> :)
(For those Europeans who don't get it, historically, the Canadian Dollar
was a fraction of the US dollar, abut 50 - 75%, thus discounted as such
in places like upstate NY, and other states where such coins regularly
show up, thus the common joke is that any Canadian measurement/value
gets discounted an arbitrary amount when converted to 'US' numbers. I
don't know if they still do, but the NY state Thruway used to take
Canadian currency)
> To be fair, those are in multi-track sections, one at a curve where
> catenary is particularly difficult. The poles are much shorter than
> you'd need for a wire-based design.
>
> The telephoto lens also makes them look much worse than they really are.
Nobody said cheating with photos wasn't allowed :)
Though if you've seen the segments in real life, the pole spacing *IS*
tighter than other systems, though IMHO, the winner for pathetically
tight pole spacing is the HBLRT.
> The French went through the same thing when they first developed the
> TGV. Too bad NIH Syndrome prevents us from learning from foreigners'
> mistakes.
Railroads seem to be afflicted with NIH in the US - they won't even look
at innovations in the US in other industries. But everyone else here
seems to have gotten over NIH: Boeing uses fly by wire, Ford makes FWD
cars, European electric gear is widely accepted, GSM exists for
cellphone, kinda, etc etc etc. But heaven forbid US RRs actually try
_anything_ from overseas...
> Rising oil prices will eventually fix this, though; not only will they
> drive more traffic onto the rails, they will also make electrification
> economically justified for the freight lines
Driving traffic to the rails might be enough: most customers will
expect and demand truck delivery speeds, or close enough. And as coal
loses favor in the US (look where Futurgen's gone..), the RRs will lose
that source of easy money. They'll have to start attracting truck
traffic to survive. I'll boldly predict right now, if you see large
nuclear build-out and coal retirement in the southeast (where the bulk
of such things planed are now anyway), you will see the first privately
built freight electrification in the US in a long time *there*.
California ain't gonna do it, they're all talk and no action, and the
northeast simply can't justify it - what freight traffic?
>--and, as private industry,
> at least one of them will come up with a good, cheap, easily repeated
> design that the rest of the industry can copy.
The first 100 miles will cost a lot. The next 100 will cost less, and
the next few hundred will cost less than the first 200 did. I wouldn't
at all be surprised to see it turn into a semi-automated process, using
more or less tinker-toy mix 'n match components. Heck, the latter
already exists overseas. Figuring out where to put the poles and
actually putting them in there will be the big part of it. Substations
will be cookie cutter - they already are, somewhat, on most LRT systems.
Stephen Sprunk
> On Dec 16, 10:12 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> It's not so much that as the willful ignorance of alternate explanations
>> for what they're seeing due to dogma.
>>
>> In the last few weeks, for instance, we've seen the publication of data
>> and emails from CRU that proves they "adjusted" historical climate
>> records for the last century, which the entire scientific community has
>> been using as the basis for all research in the field, because it
>> conflicted with their models of global warming and therefore "must be
>> wrong". It never even occurred to them that their _models_ might have
>> been wrong, though they were smart enough to order each other (in vain,
>> apparently) to destroy evidence of the "adjustments" lest their enemies
>> find out and use it to discredit them.
>
> Do you believe everything Monica Crowley says?
I have no idea, since I have no idea who Monica Crowley is. I tend not
to believe everything that _anyone_ says, though, not even myself.
That you are so absolutely convinced that you _must_ be right and that
you're convinced anyone who disagrees even a tiny bit with you must be a
right-wing idiot (despite ample evidence to the contrary) means I'm not
likely to believe what _you_ say either. You're just as closed-minded
and dogmatic as the right-wing idiots you constantly reference.
> It "proves" nothing of the sort.
Your claim only demonstrates that you have not actually read and
understood the material.
The software they used to "adjust" the data has been leaked, along with
emails describing how they used it to "fix" the data that "must be
wrong". It has mysterious coefficients that serve _no_ documented
purpose other than what the emails admit: doctoring the data to false
show a continuously increasing global temperature that they _wanted_ to see.
Run the algorithm backward on the "adjusted" data CRU has released and
you get the original data that they claim to have destroyed: an increase
of global temperature in the early 1930s (when most factories went
idle), a decrease back to 1900 levels in the early 1940s (when factories
started back up and went into overtime for WWII), flat temperatures for
the next 45 years, a single unexplained increase of 1°F in 1987, and
flat temperatures since.
This leak constitutes evidence of the single greatest scientific fraud
since alchemy. It doesn't even require potentially-biased analysis;
anyone who understands the software and can read email can see it for
themselves in black and white. If you'd put aside your biases and
left-wing nutjob spin doctors for a moment and actually read the primary
source, you'd see it for yourself--but, like the scientists at CRU, you
are unable to do that because reality disagrees with your dogma.
> Maybe you just want to ignore the facts about climate change because
> Houston will soon be under water and Dallas can gain some sort of
> status as a result.
Even the most extreme models I've seen don't have the oceans rising
40ft+, which is what it would take to put Houston under water. If that
somehow _did_ happen, the city would just migrate a few miles further
inland to higher ground. Well, the world economy would probably be in
ruins long before that happened, so who knows...
As for my position on climate change and the environment in general,
I'll just quote something I said in another forum a while back:
"I don't doubt that our climate is changing. I also understand that the
climate was changing long before human civilization _could_ have had any
effect on it. It seems illogical that pumping zillions of tons of new
CO2 into the atmosphere will have _no_ effect. What is _not_ clear to
me is (a) how much of the climate change we're experiencing is caused by
humans, (b) how much capacity nature has to correct for what we're
doing, and (c) whether altering nature's course is a bad thing for
humanity. After all, we _are_ overdue for the next Ice Age, which would
be catastrophic to our species.
Still, it makes little sense to waste energy or raw materials, to
pollute our air and drinking water, etc., and to that extent I support
_some_ environmental regulations and taxes. It also makes little sense
to send a significant fraction of our GDP to middle-eastern countries
that would like nothing better than to murder us all and/or convert us
to their anachronistic, fascist, extremist religious views. We have
enough anachronistic, fascist, extremist religious nutjobs of our own
here at home to deal with."
Philip Nasadowski
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> That certainly explains the BANANAs and the tree-huggers, right?
And a host of other idiots...
> Yep. I stopped paying attention to "X causes cancer" reports after a
> study in Japan was published proving that _water_ causes cancer.
> Without numbers showing the _relative rate_ that something causes
> cancer, any such claims are meaningless.
I recall reading that lab rats are so predisposed to getting cancer,
basically any change in variables will cause it. Humans are not lab
rats, anyway, thus why lab rats are useful is beyond me. Cats like to
eat mice and rats, and I suspect a cat would eat a lab rat if given the
chance. My cat never tried to eat me, though. She did sometimes chase
the rare mouse that got into the house, but wasn't a very good mouser.
> Not at all. Either something works or it doesn't. The problems usually
> come when people misinterpret science or engineering for other purposes,
> particularly businesspeople and politicians misrepresenting the truth to
> make a quick buck at the public's expense.
Well, things can be a bit bendy in places - there *are* some fudge
factors, and safety factors tend to mostly be arbitrary.
> Oh, the _results_ may be perfectly reproducible, but different people
> may come up with conflicting explanations as to _why_ the results are
> what they are.
Then one needs to study things more, because it's not understood. If I
drop an anvil off a building, it should hit the ground in the same time
span, always. If it's not, then either I'm not accounting for something
(air resistance?) or gravity's broken.
> In the last few weeks, for instance, we've seen the publication of data
> and emails from CRU that proves they "adjusted" historical climate
> records for the last century, which the entire scientific community has
> been using as the basis for all research in the field, because it
> conflicted with their models of global warming and therefore "must be
> wrong".
Frankly, I don't see how any data from X hundred years ago, particularly
on such small numbers, can even be trusted as anything more than a
guideline. Ice core samples, tree rings, etc, are somewhat subjective.
Even temperature readings - I read a blurb about how they 'know' some
lake was getting warmer (by 1 or 2 degrees) because of daily temperature
measurements by the staff of a local dam. I'm sorry - I know the
average water company guy, and to them, 62.2346 degrees might be 62 or
62.25 or 62.23 or 62.24. And you've got different folks reading the
same thermometer randomly, and they all read it differently. And
recording type instrumentation, especially from back then, has all sorts
ofd fun pitfalls to it (ask anyone who's ever had to use pulse-duration
pressure or flow transmitters)
> It never even occurred to them that their _models_ might have
> been wrong, though they were smart enough to order each other (in vain,
> apparently) to destroy evidence of the "adjustments" lest their enemies
> find out and use it to discredit them.
Two things about models:
1) A model is not realty. It won't match reality.
2) That said, if your model isn't reasonably fitting and can't
forward/back predict with decent accuracy, your model sucks.
When I hear statements like 'XYZ is happening far faster than the model
predicted', or 'XYZ is happening but our models didn't predict it', my
first thought isn't that the sky's falling, it's your model sucks.
And really, models? That tells me they all suck. If they were right,
there'd be only one...
John Albert
"Compare to:
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/6/7/0/9670.1138705200.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/0/8/6/2086.1146351600.jpg"
First pic is Old Saybrook, second is Providence station
looking east.
All one has to do is to gaze at these pics, to see the ugly
mess that is the catenary system from New Haven to Boston.
It's why I gave up the Shoreline. What was once a beautiful
stretch of railroad was ruined by the worst-designed
electrification project in America. It works, but the people
who built it had no sense of design.
Contrast this to the New Haven line, with its catenary
bridges evenly spaced 200 feet apart.. Yes, I understand
that there are engineering requirements which must be met
(such as the counterbalance system, etc.). Yet those old
catenary towers from Stamford to New Haven were designed not
only to be functional, but with a sense of art as well. If
you look closely, they even have proscenium arches!
Having written that, I will complement whoever did the
design work for the currently-under-reconstruction of the
Hell Gate line catenary. It's light and clean, and -
SURPRISE! - it's NOT "constant tension". Rather, it looks
like they decided to use a kind of "hybrid" with fixed
tension on the messenger wire, with swinging stabilizers on
the contact wire. Not sure how it's tensioned at the
anchors, but there aren't any visible counterbalancers. It's
actually simpler than the old original catenary which it
replaces.
- John
Philip Nasadowski
John Albert <j.al...@snet.net> wrote:
> All one has to do is to gaze at these pics, to see the ugly
> mess that is the catenary system from New Haven to Boston.
Or just drive around the coast...
> It's why I gave up the Shoreline. What was once a beautiful
> stretch of railroad was ruined by the worst-designed
> electrification project in America. It works, but the people
> who built it had no sense of design.
They had no sense of anything. It's a poorly designed and very
overbuilt system. IIRC, they also messed up the design of the constant
tension, thus negating the general purpose of CT catenary - they have to
adjust the weights every season.
> Contrast this to the New Haven line, with its catenary
> bridges evenly spaced 200 feet apart.. Yes, I understand
> that there are engineering requirements which must be met
> (such as the counterbalance system, etc.).
Even for a CT system the towers are way too closely spaced and there's
an excessive amount of bridges where simple cantilevers would work as
well. Even worse, there's a good number of two track cantilevers, which
are generally the MOST expensive structures to use. Look at how Germany
or France does it - it's MUCH less intrusive and equally reliable.
Sweeden's another example.
> Yet those old
> catenary towers from Stamford to New Haven were designed not
> only to be functional, but with a sense of art as well. If
> you look closely, they even have proscenium arches!
I always thought the A frame arches that France used at one time on
1.5kv lines was a nicer solution to the issue. Probably less expensive,
too.
> Having written that, I will complement whoever did the
> design work for the currently-under-reconstruction of the
> Hell Gate line catenary. It's light and clean, and -
> SURPRISE! - it's NOT "constant tension". Rather, it looks
> like they decided to use a kind of "hybrid" with fixed
> tension on the messenger wire, with swinging stabilizers on
> the contact wire.
It might be designed to be changed to CT once it's all in place. Given
the nonexistent speeds on the line, I don't see a need for CT (it'd be
nice). NJT has a lot of non CT wires and they work fine because they
were well hung and decently maintained...
> Not sure how it's tensioned at the
> anchors, but there aren't any visible counterbalancers. It's
> actually simpler than the old original catenary which it
> replaces.
I think just about anything is better than that old floating beam shit.
Maybe the triangular stuff's worse, but the floating beam design was
about as stupid as you could get. Ok, granted Westinghouse and the New
Haven didn't have much of an example to go on for the initial portions,
but even still, it was a bad answer. Ok, the PRR's build out wasn't
much better - I believe constant tension was already used in Europe by
then, and had the PRR not been inflicted with their amazing amount of
NIH*, maybe they would have picked a better system.
*They basically ignored all of the New Haven's motor development, until
it was obvious they had no clue what the fuck they were doing, which was
around the time the P5s appeared (bad riding qualities, axle
cracking/breakage issues). They borrowed a few year's old EP-3 from the
New Haven, and then used it as a basis for the design of 4899.
Why 4899? The R-1 was 4800 - on the assumption that the prototype would
be the first of a series. 4899 was a better design, worked better in
testing, got renumbered 4800, and became the first of the first truly
successful PRR motor fleet, designated GG-1.
AMM
> On Dec 16, 11:56 am, Michael Finfer <fin...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > That stuff about health risks of power lines is pseudoscience, so it
> > should not be allowed to be a consideration in an ideal world.
>
> I can not comment about the science. However,
> the effects of the energy radiated by the
> large tower high-tension lines are plainly
> visible to a human observer, such as causing
> florescent lamps to glow, no snow cover, etc.
> (Railroad power lines do NOT produce any effects
> except to an AM radio directly under the lines).
> Accordingly, it is perfectly reasonable that
> people would be concerned about unseen radiation
> effects, whether justified by science or not.
I've never heard of power lines -- whether
high- or low-tension -- causing flourescent
lights to glow unless you actually touch
them. We have lots of high-tension lines
in our area and lots of noisy NIMBYs, so I
think I would have heard if they did.
You may be confusing them with radio
transmitters, which _do_ cause flourescent
tubes to glow if they're real close to the
antenna. But there's a big difference:
radio antennas are designed to radiate
as much energy as possible, while power
lines are designed to radiate as little
as possible. And, yes, electrical engineers
do worry about radiative losses from
power lines, hence the switch to
DC power transmission, but I don't think
it's enough in any spot to ionize even
the gas in a flourescent tube.
I've also never noticed that snow disappears
any faster under high-tension lines than
other equally exposed areas. This is the
first time I've ever heard this claim.
As for AM radio interference: I've noticed
this under _low_-tension (7.5kV) lines,
the kind in residential neighborhoods, but
not under _high_-tension lines (and I drive
under high-tension lines rather regularly.)
My guess is that the low-voltage (120/240v)
wires are radiating the electrical noise
generated by home appliances (computers,
motors, flourescent lights, etc.); it's
probably not coming from the 7.5kV wires,
since the transformer would probably block
most of the noise. But that's just a guess.
AMM
..
> Just a note about catenary insulators--today, when old 1930s
> insulators have been replaced, the newer ones are smaller. I presume
> the di-electric strength of modern insulators is greater than the
> 1930s, thus a smaller unit may be used.
I doubt that the dielectric strength is an issue.
(Intact ceramic has, AFAIK, a higher flash-over voltage
and higher resistance than air, and I suspect that's been
known for a long time -- cf. the use of ceramic tubes
to pass wires through walls.)
IIRC from my dad, who was an engineer for the local
power company, the real issue is current along the
_surface_ of the insulator, which collects dust and
dirt and water, and through cracks in the insulator,
which also collect dirt and water. Wet dust, especially
wet dust with metal dust in it, is a moderately good
conductor. I believe the funny shapes of insulators
is a way to reduce dirt and water build-up.
My guess why modern insulators are smaller for
the same voltage is that either (a) experience has
shown that the leakage is not as much of a problem
as thought or (b) better designs to reduce dirt build-up
and/or leakage.
For what it's worth, I believe the insulators inside
Penn Station (NYC) are quite short -- maybe 6 inches
(15 cm.) -- and the wire there handles the same ~13 kV
that the rest of the line handles.
I don't know if they've worked on designs to deal
with another form of catastrophic leakage which
Metro-North has to deal with on a rather regular
basis: shorts caused by squirrels.
> Further, perhaps in the 1930s they were providing for higher current
> draw for anticipated heavy freight trains which would not be needed
> today.
Insulator size has nothing to do with current,
only voltage. Although higher current draw
might necessitate more _frequent_ insulators
-- either to deal with the heavier conductors
necessary, or to reduce drooping when the
conductors heat up and stretch due to high
current.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Dec 16, 10:12 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> It's not so much that as the willful ignorance of alternate explanations
> >> for what they're seeing due to dogma.
>
> >> In the last few weeks, for instance, we've seen the publication of data
> >> and emails from CRU that proves they "adjusted" historical climate
> >> records for the last century, which the entire scientific community has
> >> been using as the basis for all research in the field, because it
> >> conflicted with their models of global warming and therefore "must be
> >> wrong". It never even occurred to them that their _models_ might have
> >> been wrong, though they were smart enough to order each other (in vain,
> >> apparently) to destroy evidence of the "adjustments" lest their enemies
> >> find out and use it to discredit them.
>
> > Do you believe everything Monica Crowley says?
>
> I have no idea, since I have no idea who Monica Crowley is. I tend not
> to believe everything that _anyone_ says, though, not even myself.
She sits beside Pat Buchanan on the McLaughlin Report (and has a daily
radio program), and she's just the last one I heard it from. It's last
week's republican talking points. Where do you get your republican
talking point feed, since your "positions" uniformly agree with
theirs?
> That you are so absolutely convinced that you _must_ be right and that
> you're convinced anyone who disagrees even a tiny bit with you must be a
> right-wing idiot (despite ample evidence to the contrary) means I'm not
> likely to believe what _you_ say either. You're just as closed-minded
> and dogmatic as the right-wing idiots you constantly reference.
>
> > It "proves" nothing of the sort.
>
> Your claim only demonstrates that you have not actually read and
> understood the material.
>
> The software they used to "adjust" the data has been leaked, along with
> emails describing how they used it to "fix" the data that "must be
> wrong". It has mysterious coefficients that serve _no_ documented
> purpose other than what the emails admit: doctoring the data to false
> show a continuously increasing global temperature that they _wanted_ to see.
And where did you "learn" all this?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
wrote:
> IIRC,residents along the Connecticut shorline didn't like that concept,
> because they felt that catenaries would be aesthetically displeasing.
Maybe it's because I grew up with them my whole life, but I think the
PRR's triangle catenary poles, in a long line down the tracks,
represents an attractive symetrical pattern. The web of wires
themselves, especially above switches, is fascinating. I note that
NJT used continued using that triangle design for new poles along the
NEC.
From a neighbor's point of view, electric trains are better neighbors
than diesels.
> I wonder if that project was delayed, because of those NIMBYs.
I believe it was delayed for that reason, adding to the cost.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > IIRC,residents along the Connecticut shorline didn't like that concept,
> > because they felt that catenaries would be aesthetically displeasing.
>
> Given how badly overbuilt the system is, I can see their fears. There's
> better examples, even in the US, of how to do it. The NEC is, by and
> large, an example of everything NOT to do when electrifying. Partly
> because the south end was done by the PRR, who overbuilt everything . . .
The Pennsylvania Railroad catenary was not overbuilt in most places.
It was designed for future growth to support heavy freight and
passenger traffic. During WW II the electrification was vital in
keeping a massive amount of materiel and passengers moving along.
Building something solid lays a foundation for the future.
Infrastructure built in those days, such as office buildings, was
solid. Part of it was that they were conservative in design; another
posted suggested not as much technology was known.
However, today many light rail systems have grossly overbuilt
catenary. The NJT HBLR in Jersey City is ridiculous--giant heavy
poles for street trackage of slow speed operation! SEPTA was smart
and saved itself a ton of mile--it still uses plain simple trolley
wire. Its suburban lines uses pantographs, but city cars still to
this day use cheap plain old trolley poles. (They wasted money
building steel support beams for the suburban lines which they never
used.)
(Never answered is the question of where the break-even point is
between using diesel cars (ie NJT River Line) vs. electric cars. _
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> AFAIK, no study's ever conclusively linked it to anything.
One problem I have with large group "studies" in general is that,
IMHO, the basic survey methods are often crap because there are
practical and cost limits to doing it properly. IMHO, often the base
sample size is too small and imperfectly defined and selected. The
data collection is often done by untrained and uncaring people, such
as bored college kids picking up some spare change or temp employees.
Individual people often fill out survey forms inaccurately or even
deliberately falsely*. The data reduction might be inaccurately
programmed. It is very difficult to define all variables so as to
isolate out other causes.
This is definitely not to say most 'sudies' are bad, but rather there
is a risk of a poor foundation. It's just that often times a very
weak study gets prominent publicity and becomes part of the
conventional wisdom. Every month we learn of another food that is
supposedly good for us or bad for us.
(*Some sociological or psychological survey forms have internal cross
checks, such as duplicate questions phrased in different ways so as to
catch contradictions and garbage responses. *Many low-income people
deliberately overstate their troubles in the hopes of getting more
benefits).
> Given what passes for science education these days, I'm amazed folks
> aren't afraid of everything and anything.
And some people are NOT afraid of certain things they should be. Lots
of industrial workers refuse to utilize all safety precautions, partly
because they're cumbersome, but partly because they feel macho.
> I recall reading a long time ago that pretty much anything will cause
> caner in lab rats.
>
> > Science and engineering are subjective.
>
> Not really.
>
> > Multiple observers of the exact same raw
> > data may reach multiple conclusions about it.
>
> Then your data sucks. Experiments should be reproducible. If they're
> not, something's wrong. Most 'breakthroughs' that can't be reproduced
> turn out to be much ado about nothing, or flat-out frauds.
It's not the experiment. It's about interpreting the results of the
experiment. Yes, numerous reserachers can conduct the same experiment
and get the exact same results, but reach different conclusions from
the results.
Read Richard Rhodes' history of the atomic bomb and how different
scientists would do the same experiment, get the same results but
reach different conclusions. IIRC, numerous scientists had seen the
effect of atomic fission but missed the significance of it.
Per your example of cancer in lab rats--the problem is in translating
the results into how it will impact human beings. For example, I
believe it was first said diet sodas could cause cancer, but they had
left out a key fact that it required massive soda consumption to do
so.
> > Further, some
> > scientists are unable or unwilling to shed their internal cultural or
> > political biases relating to their work.
>
> Sure. Nobody gets funding by observing no problem. Funding drives
> research, therefore, find a problem to research.
It's not only funding, but personal beliefs. In the Manhattan
Project, all the scientists all saw the same physical aspects but had
different expectations of the results. When the first bomb was
tested, the expected yield estimates varied from zero to destruction
of the earth. Later, they had greatly varying opinions about the
utilization of the bomb which affected their subsequent
recommendations--Edward Teller pushed hard to develop the hydrogen
'super' bomb ASAP while others opposed it.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> It basically comes down to "Rich person buys house he likes, wants any
> and all development to cease completely."
>
> I'm not sure I can really blame them for the general attitude, given the
> horrid state of "development" in the U.S. (which generally means "more
> horror sprawl, mcmansions, strip malls, fast food, and walmarts").
I would not call it "a rich person". Plenty of middle and lower class
people want their families protected from hazards, be they real or
perceived. People quite naturally want to protect the property value
of their houses as well as potential lowering of the quality of their
life.
Plenty of people bought a house with a big lot on a quiet country
road. Then suddenly the DOT comes along and widens the road into a
major highway, taking their front lawn along with it. Now their house
sits right up against the road with no buffer. While they get
compensation for the lost lawn, their house is still almost worthless
because of the noise and resultant small size of the lot. (This is a
big reason I am pro-railroad for transportation since trains require a
much smaller footprint and are far less intrusive on the neighbors
than highways) In many suburbs the highway noise is audible even
quite a distance from the road, while in the midst of Manhattan there
are numerous places where it is extremely peaceful and still.)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Railroads seem to be afflicted with NIH in the US - they won't even look
> at innovations in the US in other industries.
Nonsense. Railroads today use a great deal of modern and imported
technology. Unfortunately, tight capital makes it difficult to
modernize as fast as railroads would like to, so you don't as many
examples as you'd like.
> Driving traffic to the rails might be enough: most customers will
> expect and demand truck delivery speeds, or close enough.
Speed is only one of many factors in determing shipping method. It
really only matters with perishable items; interestingly, railroads do
have expedited trains that move fresh fruit and vegatables long
distances.
Certainly shippers don't want their inventory tied up in transit, but
the cost of transit is balanced against the cost of time. Some goods
are shipped air freight where time is truly critical, but most are
not.
The super mergers of US railroads has hurt the business and forced
shippers to go to truck. The CSX/NS merger promised us better service
that would get the trucks off the road, but it turned out to be a big
mess and increased truck traffic.
Lousy traffic in the NYC area has resulted in time critical freight
leaving trucks and returning to the LIRR freight oeprator.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The software they used to "adjust" the data has been leaked, along with
> emails describing how they used it to "fix" the data that "must be
> wrong". It has mysterious coefficients that serve _no_ documented
> purpose other than what the emails admit: doctoring the data to false
> show a continuously increasing global temperature that they _wanted_ to see.
As an aside, the highway world got hammered when it was discovered
that they fudged data, despite advocates swearing up and down the data
was accurate. Opponents of a highway project said the adverse impact
would be worse than the highway advocates claimed. They want to court
and got an order to produce the basic methodology. Fudging!
Robert Caro won a Pulitzer prize with his book criticizing the adverse
highway impacts of master builder Robert Moses.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> "I don't doubt that our climate is changing. I also understand that the
> climate was changing long before human civilization _could_ have had any
> effect on it. It seems illogical that pumping zillions of tons of new
> CO2 into the atmosphere will have _no_ effect. What is _not_ clear to
> me is (a) how much of the climate change we're experiencing is caused by
> humans, (b) how much capacity nature has to correct for what we're
> doing, and (c) whether altering nature's course is a bad thing for
> humanity. After all, we _are_ overdue for the next Ice Age, which would
> be catastrophic to our species.
>
> Still, it makes little sense to waste energy or raw materials, to
> pollute our air and drinking water, etc., and to that extent I support
> _some_ environmental regulations and taxes. It also makes little sense
> to send a significant fraction of our GDP to middle-eastern countries
> that would like nothing better than to murder us all and/or convert us
> to their anachronistic, fascist, extremist religious views. We have
> enough anachronistic, fascist, extremist religious nutjobs of our own
> here at home to deal with."
All good points. All good reasons to support rail.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Cats like to
> eat mice and rats, and I suspect a cat would eat a lab rat if given the
> chance. My cat never tried to eat me, though. She did sometimes chase
> the rare mouse that got into the house, but wasn't a very good mouser.
RR reference: that old boy looked just like Peake, the other less
known C&O cat.
Subway reference: In the book, "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" it said
there was an army of cats living in the subway feeding on the mice.
Is that true? (I know there are mice in the subway, but are there
cats?)
I've been told that cats instinctively only like to kill (pounce)
mice, or basically anything that crawls along (like your hand).
Actually _eating_ the mouse is taught by the mother in wild cats.
My old cat brought me home a live mouse, and seemed perplexed that I
made him drop the poor thing and let it go. (Thankfully I saw my cat
before he brought the mouse into the house). As to eating, that cat's
policy was "feed me or be my feed". He'd poke me in the morning and
if I failed to get up to his satisfaction he'd dig in on me. (This
cat clearly ruled the house. I got him because he followed me home.
I sat down and he jumped on me, locking on. Once inside, he explored
the house, then settled down at the head of my bed as if it was always
his.)
Stephen Sprunk
> On Dec 16, 12:46 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> I can not comment about the science. However,
>> the effects of the energy radiated by the
>> large tower high-tension lines are plainly
>> visible to a human observer, such as causing
>> florescent lamps to glow, no snow cover, etc.
>> (Railroad power lines do NOT produce any effects
>> except to an AM radio directly under the lines).
>> Accordingly, it is perfectly reasonable that
>> people would be concerned about unseen radiation
>> effects, whether justified by science or not.
>
> I've never heard of power lines -- whether
> high- or low-tension -- causing flourescent
> lights to glow unless you actually touch
> them. We have lots of high-tension lines
> in our area and lots of noisy NIMBYs, so I
> think I would have heard if they did.
A high school near where I grew up was built directly under some
high-tension power lines (because the land was cheap). There was a
photo in the paper of someone standing on the roof holding a fluorescent
tube aloft. It was lit. The public outcry (and lawsuits) forced the
power company to move the high-tension lines around the school--closer
to homes in the surrounding neighborhoods.
There have also been numerous studies which show "cancer clusters" in
kids living near high-tension power lines. OTOH, there have been other
studies which showed no correlation at all, and still others that showed
parents of kids with cancer had deliberately moved near power lines
after diagnosis in hopes that a class-action lawsuit would pay for their
kids' un- or underinsured health care.
Stephen Sprunk
> In article <hgc7io$hsa$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> Yep. I stopped paying attention to "X causes cancer" reports after a
>> study in Japan was published proving that _water_ causes cancer.
>> Without numbers showing the _relative rate_ that something causes
>> cancer, any such claims are meaningless.
>
> I recall reading that lab rats are so predisposed to getting cancer,
> basically any change in variables will cause it. Humans are not lab
> rats, anyway, thus why lab rats are useful is beyond me.
Rats, mice, and pigs all react similarly to humans to various drugs; our
organs and metabolisms aren't very different. All three are commonly
used in research, depending on the size of subject desired. Primates
are only used in scenarios that require intelligence, due to limited
supply and public outcry about it being "inhumane". (Of course it's
"inhumane" you morons; they're not human!)
> Cats like to
> eat mice and rats, and I suspect a cat would eat a lab rat if given the
> chance. My cat never tried to eat me, though. She did sometimes chase
> the rare mouse that got into the house, but wasn't a very good mouser.
Cats rarely chase, much less eat, things that are larger than they;
they're not dumb like dogs. Mine chase insects and (small) lizards;
they've never seen a live rodent and probably wouldn't know what to do
with one if they caught it...
>> Oh, the _results_ may be perfectly reproducible, but different people
>> may come up with conflicting explanations as to _why_ the results are
>> what they are.
>
> Then one needs to study things more, because it's not understood. If I
> drop an anvil off a building, it should hit the ground in the same time
> span, always. If it's not, then either I'm not accounting for something
> (air resistance?) or gravity's broken.
That the astronauts had to drop a pound of lead and a pound of feathers
on the moon to prove a point says something.
>> In the last few weeks, for instance, we've seen the publication of data
>> and emails from CRU that proves they "adjusted" historical climate
>> records for the last century, which the entire scientific community has
>> been using as the basis for all research in the field, because it
>> conflicted with their models of global warming and therefore "must be
>> wrong".
>
> Frankly, I don't see how any data from X hundred years ago, particularly
> on such small numbers, can even be trusted as anything more than a
> guideline. Ice core samples, tree rings, etc, are somewhat subjective.
> Even temperature readings - I read a blurb about how they 'know' some
> lake was getting warmer (by 1 or 2 degrees) because of daily temperature
> measurements by the staff of a local dam. I'm sorry - I know the
> average water company guy, and to them, 62.2346 degrees might be 62 or
> 62.25 or 62.23 or 62.24. And you've got different folks reading the
> same thermometer randomly, and they all read it differently. And
> recording type instrumentation, especially from back then, has all sorts
> ofd fun pitfalls to it (ask anyone who's ever had to use pulse-duration
> pressure or flow transmitters)
There are certainly measurement inaccuracies, at least back before we
had automated digital equipment doing the job, but some of the other
methods are reliable enough for long-term trends.
Stephen Sprunk
> I've been told that cats instinctively only like to kill (pounce)
> mice, or basically anything that crawls along (like your hand).
> Actually _eating_ the mouse is taught by the mother in wild cats.
Very true, at least in big cats. There's a long process by which the
mother teaches her cubs how to kill and eat prey. Cubs instinctively
stalk and pounce on each other and smaller animals, but they don't seem
to understand that the prey are _edible_ until their mother teaches them
how to get to the tasty parts inside, nor do they instinctively
associate their play with solving their hunger problems. When cubs get
hungry, they actually _stop_ playing to conserve energy.
Scientists have had a major breakthrough recently: a leading expert has
managed to teach two adult, captive-born tigers (from the Toronto Zoo)
to hunt for themselves in a private reserve in Africa. Interestingly,
they now hunt together, which has previously only been seen in lions,
though it's not clear yet if that'll last after their skills improve to
the point they can successfully hunt alone. Interestingly, they have
remained friendly to and affectionate with humans; they don't seem to
think we're prey, even though they _must_ understand we're a lot easier
to hunt and kill than a buffalo or gazelle.
(This was a major achievement; big cats' habitats are shrinking so
rapidly, and poaching is still so rampant, that ecologists have changed
their primary strategy from protecting them in the wild to preserving
them in zoos in hopes that they can be reintroduced to the wild in the
future. However, until the above was successful, nobody was sure that
reintroduction was _possible_. Prior attempts had always ended in the
animals starving to death because they didn't know how to hunt.)
> My old cat brought me home a live mouse, and seemed perplexed that I
> made him drop the poor thing and let it go.
You were rejecting his gift. He was bringing you food, just like he
would for a mate or kitten, and was understandably perplexed by your
rejection.
Food is pretty much the only gift that wild or feral animals understand,
since getting enough of the stuff is almost the entire focus of their
lives. If a cat has survived on its own for a while, that feral mindset
will stick forever, even if it gets adopted by a human and acts
domesticated most of the time.
> As to eating, that cat's policy was "feed me or be my feed". He'd
> poke me in the morning and if I failed to get up to his satisfaction
> he'd dig in on me.
Mine do the same. I got tired of them nibbling on me when I forgot to
refill their dish, so now they have an automatic feeder.
Still, unless they were literally starving to death (i.e. more than a
week without food), fully domestic cats wouldn't actually attempt to
_eat_ another animal. It just doesn't occur to them under normal
circumstances; other animals are something for them to _play with_ (or
run from, if larger), not eat.
Jimmy
> Lousy traffic in the NYC area has resulted in time critical freight
> leaving trucks and returning to the LIRR freight oeprator.
Um, what? What time-critical freight is ever delivered on the LIRR?
I'm not even going to ask for a cite on this one.
Under the very worst traffic conditions (a Friday afternoon at the
start of a summer holiday weekend), it would take about 3 hours to
drive from the Nassau-Suffolk border to the NJ side of the Goethals
Bridge on roads that allow trucks (a trip that normally takes about an
hour during the 18 non-rush-hour hours of the day). I doubt a rail
shipment would even make it off the siding in that time, especially
since freight on Long Island is mostly carried at night because of
high passenger train traffic.
Jimmy
danny burstein
[snip]
>That the astronauts had to drop a pound of lead and a pound of feathers
>on the moon to prove a point says something.
Was that a pound as measured in Earth's gravity field, or
the Moon's?
(Actually, it was a hammer and a feather).
Video clip:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6926891572259784994#
ob nyc transit: It would have taken the D train
about 6 months to get to the moon. The electric
motors would have been ok in vacuum.
Setting up the rails is left as an exercise
to the student.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Bolwerk
> Cats rarely chase, much less eat, things that are larger than they;
> they're not dumb like dogs. Mine chase insects and (small) lizards;
> they've never seen a live rodent and probably wouldn't know what to do
> with one if they caught it...
My mother's runt cat chases Canadian geese. Not a smart move,
considering I think they could harm a human being pretty badly if they
wanted to.
David Lesher
>> I've never heard of power lines -- whether high- or low-tension --
>> causing flourescent lights to glow unless you actually touch them. We
>> have lots of high-tension lines in our area and lots of noisy NIMBYs,
>> so I think I would have heard if they did.
>A high school near where I grew up was built directly under some
>high-tension power lines (because the land was cheap). There was a
>photo in the paper of someone standing on the roof holding a fluorescent
>tube aloft. It was lit.
I'm exteremely dubious. I have used such tubes to demonstrate RF detection
but can't see how you could get enough 60 Hz to light one...unless you
were close enough to the HV such that you'd be a crispy critter.
I did some work in a plastic dish factory, where the owner HAD to meet
Mr. OSHA with $500 in bribe; there was no other way it would pass.
The RF heaters used to warm the powder being dumped in the mold were
allegedly at 27 Mhz in the ISM band, but they really were where they
wanted to be.
I would take a dead tube from the pile, and slide it alongside. As it
passed the cracks in the case, it would illuminate; so the light would
seemingly travel back and forth in the tube. It REALLY spooked out the
illiterate help that worked there; they thought it magic.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
danny burstein
>My mother's runt cat chases Canadian geese.
Them's "Canada Geese".
> Not a smart move,
>considering I think they could harm a human being pretty badly if they
>wanted to.
As well as aircraft....
ob NYC transit: I suspect that an R-[any number] vs. a Canada
Goose collission would be pretty one sided...
Larry Sheldon
>> My old cat brought me home a live mouse, and seemed perplexed that I
>> made him drop the poor thing and let it go.
>
> You were rejecting his gift. He was bringing you food, just like he
> would for a mate or kitten, and was understandably perplexed by your
> rejection.
We may have worked out a compromise with our elderly (18 yrs?) cat.
It is clear that he brings in some mice and voles and eats most of them
(certain innards he leaves--not exactly sure which they
are--stomachs??)(we find the evidence in the morning).
At other times, usually when he thinks we are up or awake, he brings in
a prize with much fanfare (it is amazing how loud he can be with his
mouth) and drops the dead-but-other-wise-undamaged carcass expecting a
trade for one of the kitty-treats he favors.
And we always speak approvingly, even as we are cleaning up as required.
--
Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
Requiescas in pace o email
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Eppure si rinfresca
ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml
Larry Sheldon
> Um, what? What time-critical freight is ever delivered on the LIRR?
> I'm not even going to ask for a cite on this one.
>
> Under the very worst traffic conditions (a Friday afternoon at the
> start of a summer holiday weekend), it would take about 3 hours to
> drive from the Nassau-Suffolk border to the NJ side of the Goethals
> Bridge on roads that allow trucks (a trip that normally takes about an
> hour during the 18 non-rush-hour hours of the day). I doubt a rail
> shipment would even make it off the siding in that time, especially
> since freight on Long Island is mostly carried at night because of
> high passenger train traffic.
With time to spare, ship by air.
If you really don't care, ship by rail.
I used to pull a lot of "intermodal" freight. Most of the time I spent
in rail yards was picking up empties that had been shipped from
somewhere. (From where there was no load coming back, is my
guess--truck a load that needs to get somewhere, ship the empty back by
rail. There are some problems with that analysis, but it's the best I
have been able to figure out.
I have taken trailers to the rail yards--always loaded. But about half
or more of the pickups at rail yards were for empties.
Joseph D. Korman
> Joseph D. Korman wrote:
>> I found this comparisons interesting:
>> http://www.thejoekorner.com/photos/erie-lack/3220037.gif
>> http://www.thejoekorner.com/photos/njtransit/P011001.gif
>>
>> Dover, NJ on the NJT M&E line. The two shots are taken in opposite
>> directions, but note the catenary support.
>>
>>
> When was the first of the two, with the much older rolling stock, taken?
The slide was taken in either the late 1960's or early 1970's. Those
cars operated into the 1980's.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
Larry Sheldon
> Stephen Sprunk<ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>
>>> I've never heard of power lines -- whether high- or low-tension --
>>> causing flourescent lights to glow unless you actually touch them. We
>>> have lots of high-tension lines in our area and lots of noisy NIMBYs,
>>> so I think I would have heard if they did.
>
>> A high school near where I grew up was built directly under some
>> high-tension power lines (because the land was cheap). There was a
>> photo in the paper of someone standing on the roof holding a fluorescent
>> tube aloft. It was lit.
>
> I'm exteremely dubious. I have used such tubes to demonstrate RF detection
> but can't see how you could get enough 60 Hz to light one...unless you
> were close enough to the HV such that you'd be a crispy critter.
I recall driving our pickup-camper combo in the moutains and stopping in
a "turnout" under a huge powerline--dunno what voltage, and I can't
remember just where it was --Sierra Nevada somewhere probably.
The line crossed the road (and the turn out) at an angle (in two axes)
from a tower whose top was below the road, to one above the road.
The wires seemed awfully damned close to the wall at the edge of the
turnout, and I could feel the hairs on my head and neck raise, due to
the wind-induced static field, I think.
The lights in the camper did not glow (the camper was an aluminum-foil
shelled structure).
But I did worry that we might be close enough to pull an arc so I moved.
Be interesting to compare the field-strength of the AC power in my house
to that of a power-line at normal residential area heights.
The RF fields for a mile or more awy from the antennae farm on North
72nd street is enough to plock my car-key door remote.
> The RF heaters used to warm the powder being dumped in the mold were
> allegedly at 27 Mhz in the ISM band, but they really were where they
> wanted to be.
I lived and did a little consulting work in Silicon Valley. I often
wondered how much of the 27 MHz I was working with came from the Henry
in the rack and how much from the one next door.\
A spectrum analyzer hooked up to a CB antenna at my house painted an
interesting picture.
Stephen Sprunk
> I used to pull a lot of "intermodal" freight. Most of the time I spent
> in rail yards was picking up empties that had been shipped from
> somewhere. (From where there was no load coming back, is my
> guess--truck a load that needs to get somewhere, ship the empty back by
> rail. There are some problems with that analysis, but it's the best I
> have been able to figure out.
>
> I have taken trailers to the rail yards--always loaded. But about half
> or more of the pickups at rail yards were for empties.
That seems odd, particularly in the US; with containers, at least, the
pattern is usually the opposite: full ones being picked up at intermodal
yards, empties being brought back for return to Asia or scrapping.
Were you hauling empties to warehouses that repacked containerized goods
for distribution to individual stores, perhaps?
(Consider that a container from Asia usually comes filled with a single
product, but what retailers want are a single truck filled with dozens
of different products. Warehouses do the mixing and matching.)
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > Lousy traffic in the NYC area has resulted in time critical freight
> > leaving trucks and returning to the LIRR freight oeprator.
>
> Um, what? What time-critical freight is ever delivered on the LIRR?
> I'm not even going to ask for a cite on this one.
Then you're not gonna get one. However, it was significant enough to
be published.
> Under the very worst traffic conditions (a Friday afternoon at the
> start of a summer holiday weekend), it would take about 3 hours to
> drive from the Nassau-Suffolk border to the NJ side of the Goethals
> Bridge on roads that allow trucks (a trip that normally takes about an
> hour during the 18 non-rush-hour hours of the day). I doubt a rail
> shipment would even make it off the siding in that time, especially
> since freight on Long Island is mostly carried at night because of
> high passenger train traffic.
Even on the busy trunk line through Mineola in the afternoon there are
freight movements, just as there are freight movements on the NEC and
other commuter lines in the evening rush hour. Not many, to be sure,
but some. Railroad tracks have enormous carrying capacity, especially
with two or more tracks and bi-directional signalling.
Driving to NJ on a summer weekend as you describe faces extremely bad
traffic congestion along numerous parts of the route. (Returning,
there are bad backups at the tollgates of the Goethals and
Outerbridge). There are frequent accidents and other disruptions
adding to the travel time even in otherwise 'good' spots.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Would you know if they are cats in the subway, per the mention in
Pelham?
Miles Bader
> Cats rarely chase, much less eat, things that are larger than they;
'course, the exceptions can be amusing...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060613-cat-bear.html
-Miles
--
One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to
do, and always a clever thing to say. -- Will Durant
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > My old cat brought me home a live mouse, and seemed perplexed that I
> > made him drop the poor thing and let it go.
>
> You were rejecting his gift. He was bringing you food, just like he
> would for a mate or kitten, and was understandably perplexed by your
> rejection.
I thanked him profusely and petted him as he likes so hopefully he got
the message it was appreciated. I was very proud he was a real
mouser.
He loved the hunt. There was a thicket near me in which he'd sit and
stake it out for a long time waiting for prey. Normally he'd come
running home when I called him, except when he was on the hunt.
He was an outdoor cat when he adopted me, so I let him continue to
stay outside. However, I let him in in the daytime only and made sure
to bring him in well before dusk. I learned that once dusk came he
objected to coming in (cats are night animals) and there were serious
hazards out there. I had to compromise with his love of the outdoors
and my not wanting him hurt. (My mother said, "better the child
should cry than the parent cry".)
> > As to eating, that cat's policy was "feed me or be my feed". He'd
> > poke me in the morning and if I failed to get up to his satisfaction
> > he'd dig in on me.
>
> Mine do the same. I got tired of them nibbling on me when I forgot to
> refill their dish, so now they have an automatic feeder.
My current cat has a much different, softer personality. He's indoor
only, thankfully. However, he wants his breakfast, too. He simply
meows loudly right in my ear. It's spooky to wake up and have a cat
staring you in the face. Kliebold (sp?) did a picture of that.
P.S. As mentioned, my first cat followed me home and adopted me.
Before him I didn't like cats. (Sadly, he has passed on.) NYC
ref: There's a station on MNRR named for him. Anyway, I learned it's
better for a cat to adopt you than for you to adopt a cat.
Getting back to railroads, did railroads employ cats in yards to
control mice? I wouldn't think of a railroad yard as attractive to
rodents, however, if grain is being hauled and leaking out, cats will
be needed.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> If you really don't care, ship by rail.
United Parcel Service cares a very great deal about the timeliness of
its shipments, and has numerous expedited freight trains carrying its
parcels.
As mentioned, fresh perishable food is carrying by expedited freight
trains.
Stephen Sprunk
>> high-tension power lines (because the land was cheap). There was a
>> photo in the paper of someone standing on the roof holding a fluorescent
>> tube aloft. It was lit.
>
> I'm exteremely dubious. I have used such tubes to demonstrate RF detection
> but can't see how you could get enough 60 Hz to light one...unless you
> were close enough to the HV such that you'd be a crispy critter.
He may have been dangerously close to crispy-critter territory. It was
the roof of a three-story building, and the picture showed normal
towers, i.e. nothing that would have put the lines higher than usual
(50ft?) over the school. It might have been an artifact of the lens
used, but he appeared to be _at least_ as close to the wires as the
wires were to each other. The lines were moved before I ever saw that
particular school in person, though, so I can't say exactly how close he
would have been. The tube was definitely lit, though.
Larry Sheldon
> Larry Sheldon wrote:
>> I have taken trailers to the rail yards--always loaded. But about half
>> or more of the pickups at rail yards were for empties.
>
> That seems odd, particularly in the US; with containers, at least, the
> pattern is usually the opposite: full ones being picked up at intermodal
> yards, empties being brought back for return to Asia or scrapping.
Trailers, not containers. Haven't hauled many containers OTR. (And the
few that I can remember were loaded.)
> Were you hauling empties to warehouses that repacked containerized goods
> for distribution to individual stores, perhaps?
The empties I haul (as most of the loads) are dry vans or an occasional
reefer, and yeah the empties are going to shippers for loading.
> (Consider that a container from Asia usually comes filled with a single
> product, but what retailers want are a single truck filled with dozens
> of different products. Warehouses do the mixing and matching.)
But it is interesting how may OTR containers I do see--but one of the
things get-rid-of-all-the-trucks folks seem not to understand is that a
freight railroad is not like your old cummuter trains with a stop every
mile or two.
There are what, three intermodal yards in Kansas City, I think. The
next ones east are in Chicago, I think. Dunno about west, south or
north. (Have we got an intermodal yard in Omaha or CB?)
Heh. Was binging about looking for answers and saw this (still don't
know the answers):
They added that this service allows customers to have their
refrigeration units serviced at the UP�s El Paso, Texas-based
stop, which reduces the risk of protective service failure during
transit. And they also noted that this service offers shippers a
viable alternative to over-the-road transportation through its
�truck-like� speed�at more than 500 miles per day�and reliability.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Michael Finfer
> A high school near where I grew up was built directly under some
> high-tension power lines (because the land was cheap). There was a
> photo in the paper of someone standing on the roof holding a fluorescent
> tube aloft. It was lit. The public outcry (and lawsuits) forced the
> power company to move the high-tension lines around the school--closer
> to homes in the surrounding neighborhoods.
I have to point out here that it's a VERY long way from using an
electric field to light a fluorescent bulb to showing that an electric
field can damage DNA in a way that causes cancer.
> There have also been numerous studies which show "cancer clusters" in
> kids living near high-tension power lines. OTOH, there have been other
> studies which showed no correlation at all, and still others that showed
> parents of kids with cancer had deliberately moved near power lines
> after diagnosis in hopes that a class-action lawsuit would pay for their
> kids' un- or underinsured health care.
There's no good evidence that power lines (or cell phones) cause cancer.
Reference: Skeptical Inquirer, September/October, 2009. Back issues
are available at www.csicop.org
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
Michael Moroney
>I used to pull a lot of "intermodal" freight. Most of the time I spent
>in rail yards was picking up empties that had been shipped from
>somewhere. (From where there was no load coming back, is my
>guess--truck a load that needs to get somewhere, ship the empty back by
>rail. There are some problems with that analysis, but it's the best I
>have been able to figure out.
>I have taken trailers to the rail yards--always loaded. But about half
>or more of the pickups at rail yards were for empties.
I figured out what was happening. You were hauling food for the
trains, then hauling away the empties after they were done with
them.
:-)
Stephen Sprunk
> On Dec 16, 11:37 pm, Philip Nasadowski <nasado...@usermale.com> wrote:
>> Driving traffic to the rails might be enough: most customers will
>> expect and demand truck delivery speeds, or close enough.
>
> Speed is only one of many factors in determing shipping method. It
> really only matters with perishable items; interestingly, railroads do
> have expedited trains that move fresh fruit and vegatables long
> distances.
>
> Certainly shippers don't want their inventory tied up in transit, but
> the cost of transit is balanced against the cost of time. Some goods
> are shipped air freight where time is truly critical, but most are
> not.
Very little freight is actually time-critical. What matters far more
than speed is how _predictable_ the shipping time is. It's relatively
easy to adjust your logistics for predictable shipping delays--just
order X days before you actually need the stuff.
More importantly, if you're in the middle of the supply chain, your
inventory is not "tied up" in shipping because, until it arrives at your
dock, it's not actually "yours" (it's still the shipper's), and as soon
as it leaves your dock, it's not "yours" anymore (it's now the
customer's). That leads to some interesting economics.
> The super mergers of US railroads has hurt the business and forced
> shippers to go to truck. The CSX/NS merger promised us better service
> that would get the trucks off the road, but it turned out to be a big
> mess and increased truck traffic.
OTOH, once the (hideously ugly) transition was over, service for SP
customers _and_ UP customers was much improved. Unfortunately, their
screwups shortly after the merger lost them a lot of customers, which
could have been avoided if management had just listened to their own
employees and/or exercised a little common sense.
> Lousy traffic in the NYC area has resulted in time critical freight
> leaving trucks and returning to the LIRR freight oeprator.
But, really, how much time-critical freight is there on Long Island?
Peter T. Daniels
> On Dec 16, 10:20 pm, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > It basically comes down to "Rich person buys house he likes, wants any
> > and all development to cease completely."
>
> > I'm not sure I can really blame them for the general attitude, given the
> > horrid state of "development" in the U.S. (which generally means "more
> > horror sprawl, mcmansions, strip malls, fast food, and walmarts").
>
> I would not call it "a rich person". Plenty of middle and lower class
> people want their families protected from hazards, be they real or
> perceived. People quite naturally want to protect the property value
> of their houses as well as potential lowering of the quality of their
> life.
>
> Plenty of people bought a house with a big lot on a quiet country
> road. Then suddenly the DOT comes along and widens the road into a
> major highway, taking their front lawn along with it. Now their house
> sits right up against the road with no buffer. While they get
> compensation for the lost lawn, their house is still almost worthless
> because of the noise and resultant small size of the lot. (This is a
> big reason I am pro-railroad for transportation since trains require a
> much smaller footprint and are far less intrusive on the neighbors
> than highways) In many suburbs the highway noise is audible even
> quite a distance from the road, while in the midst of Manhattan there
> are numerous places where it is extremely peaceful and still.)
This season the International Linguistic Association has been holding
its monthly meetings at the John Jay College English Department, which
is a rented floor of an office building on West 54th Street -- VERY
West 54th, between Eleventh and Twelfth Avenues. So the past three
months I've walked along three blocks of six different side streets to
get from and to the subway. Even in the 50s, they're very varied --
and very quiet.
But I have to wonder about the "big lot" that could be entirely
consumed by road construction? Several times Frank Lloyd Wright
designed low-cost housing projects with four two-bedroom houses per
acre (isn't that the Levittown formula?), but they were built as a
unit in the middle of the acre, far from the four surrounding streets,
and the "lawns" were meant to be vegetable gardens (along with
decorative plantings, of course).
But it was the 30s, and the developers didn't have the money to build.
I think one unit was put up during the war where there was a need for
quick cheap housing (near Detroit?) but without his supervision and it
seems to have had no consequences.
Peter T. Daniels
Please provide evidence of this last claim.
It sounds like Reagan's fairy tales about welfare queens in Cadillacs.
Peter T. Daniels
> > Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> Yep. I stopped paying attention to "X causes cancer" reports after a
> >> study in Japan was published proving that _water_ causes cancer.
> >> Without numbers showing the _relative rate_ that something causes
> >> cancer, any such claims are meaningless.
>
> > I recall reading that lab rats are so predisposed to getting cancer,
> > basically any change in variables will cause it. Humans are not lab
> > rats, anyway, thus why lab rats are useful is beyond me.
>
> Rats, mice, and pigs all react similarly to humans to various drugs; our
> organs and metabolisms aren't very different. All three are commonly
> used in research, depending on the size of subject desired. Primates
> are only used in scenarios that require intelligence, due to limited
> supply and public outcry about it being "inhumane". (Of course it's
> "inhumane" you morons; they're not human!)
Kindly look up the word "humane."
> That the astronauts had to drop a pound of lead and a pound of feathers
> on the moon to prove a point says something.
And when did that happen? Who at NASA authorized two pounds of payload
for such idiocy? (Not to mention how much space a pound of feathers
would take up.)
Peter T. Daniels
> On 12/17/2009 11:18 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> >> My old cat brought me home a live mouse, and seemed perplexed that I
> >> made him drop the poor thing and let it go.
>
> > You were rejecting his gift. He was bringing you food, just like he
> > would for a mate or kitten, and was understandably perplexed by your
> > rejection.
>
> We may have worked out a compromise with our elderly (18 yrs?) cat.
>
> It is clear that he brings in some mice and voles and eats most of them
> (certain innards he leaves--not exactly sure which they
> are--stomachs??)(we find the evidence in the morning).
>
> At other times, usually when he thinks we are up or awake, he brings in
> a prize with much fanfare (it is amazing how loud he can be with his
> mouth) and drops the dead-but-other-wise-undamaged carcass expecting a
> trade for one of the kitty-treats he favors.
>
> And we always speak approvingly, even as we are cleaning up as required.
Once (in Chicago) my rather large and lethargic cat somehow managed to
catch the small bird that had gotten into the enclosed back porch
before I could open the door for it -- and gobbled it down whole.
When he went out in the back yard, he was more interested in touching
noses with the enormous dog next door than in paying attention to the
avifauna. (They were both orange.)
A couple of times there was a possum on the back steps. Like an
enormous rat but slower and meaner.
Stephen Sprunk
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> A high school near where I grew up was built directly under some
>> high-tension power lines (because the land was cheap). There was a
>> photo in the paper of someone standing on the roof holding a fluorescent
>> tube aloft. It was lit. The public outcry (and lawsuits) forced the
>> power company to move the high-tension lines around the school--closer
>> to homes in the surrounding neighborhoods.
>
> I have to point out here that it's a VERY long way from using an
> electric field to light a fluorescent bulb to showing that an electric
> field can damage DNA in a way that causes cancer.
Of course. Given that _everything_ causes cancer, though, it's the
wrong question anyway.
Still, the truth doesn't stop the general public (including politicians,
reporters, and juries) from being stupid. Just look at all the hoopla
about Dihydrogen Monoxide (see: <http://www.dhmo.org>) for a perfect
case study. Appeal to idiots' desire to protect their spawn and they'll
happily give you all their money, civil liberties, etc., even if the
risk is orders of magnitude less than the everyday ones that the idiots
themselves expose their spawn to every day.
Peter T. Daniels
> Michael Finfer wrote:
> > Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> >> A high school near where I grew up was built directly under some
> >> high-tension power lines (because the land was cheap). There was a
> >> photo in the paper of someone standing on the roof holding a fluorescent
> >> tube aloft. It was lit. The public outcry (and lawsuits) forced the
> >> power company to move the high-tension lines around the school--closer
> >> to homes in the surrounding neighborhoods.
>
> > I have to point out here that it's a VERY long way from using an
> > electric field to light a fluorescent bulb to showing that an electric
> > field can damage DNA in a way that causes cancer.
>
> Of course. Given that _everything_ causes cancer, though, it's the
> wrong question anyway.
>
> Still, the truth doesn't stop the general public (including politicians,
> reporters, and juries) from being stupid. Just look at all the hoopla
> about Dihydrogen Monoxide (see: <http://www.dhmo.org>) for a perfect
> case study. Appeal to idiots' desire to protect their spawn and they'll
> happily give you all their money, civil liberties, etc., even if the
> risk is orders of magnitude less than the everyday ones that the idiots
> themselves expose their spawn to every day.
Don't you realize that if you breathe dihydrogen monoxide, you will
die in minutes (at the most)?
Stephen Sprunk
> On 12/17/2009 12:54 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> Larry Sheldon wrote:
>>> I have taken trailers to the rail yards--always loaded. But about half
>>> or more of the pickups at rail yards were for empties.
>>
>> That seems odd, particularly in the US; with containers, at least, the
>> pattern is usually the opposite: full ones being picked up at intermodal
>> yards, empties being brought back for return to Asia or scrapping.
>
> Trailers, not containers. Haven't hauled many containers OTR. (And the
> few that I can remember were loaded.)
Still, I would have expected them to have somewhat similar patterns.
>> Were you hauling empties to warehouses that repacked containerized goods
>> for distribution to individual stores, perhaps?
>
> The empties I haul (as most of the loads) are dry vans or an occasional
> reefer, and yeah the empties are going to shippers for loading.
I suppose the major question is whether the trailers are trucked all the
way to their destination (perhaps by some other company than yours) or
head back to the intermodal yard, going by rail most of their trip.
>> (Consider that a container from Asia usually comes filled with a single
>> product, but what retailers want are a single truck filled with dozens
>> of different products. Warehouses do the mixing and matching.)
>
> But it is interesting how may OTR containers I do see--but one of the
> things get-rid-of-all-the-trucks folks seem not to understand is that a
> freight railroad is not like your old cummuter trains with a stop every
> mile or two.
It's not so much "get rid of all the trucks" but "use intermodal as much
as possible". It's infeasible for every warehouse, every store, every
restaurant, etc. to have a rail siding, so you'll always need trucks for
the last few dozen miles.
> There are what, three intermodal yards in Kansas City, I think. The
> next ones east are in Chicago, I think. Dunno about west, south or
> north. (Have we got an intermodal yard in Omaha or CB?)
Yep. At current diesel prices, intermodal doesn't make sense below
about 700 miles, so there isn't much point in putting lots of yards all
over the place. One or two at each major city is all that's really needed.
> Heh. Was binging about looking for answers and saw this (still don't
> know the answers):
> ...
> “truck-like” speed—at more than 500 miles per day—and reliability.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I suspect that most long-haul truckers manage to average a lot more than
21mph; I follow the blog of one team, and they run nearly 24x7 when
they've got a load, easily beating the average speed of US RRs.
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
> In article <buoy6l2...@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com>, Miles Bader
> <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> writes:
>>> Compare to:
>>> http://www.trainweb.org/crocon/goodenow/Acela_NL.jpg
>>> http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/6/7/0/9670.1138705200.jpg
>>> http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/0/8/6/2086.1146351600.jpg
>> The absurdity in those shots seems a bit exaggerated by the telephoto
>> lens compression though ... I suspect there's not really a catenary
>> support every 2 meters!
>
>
> Part of it is that those are wide multi-track areas that have birdge type
> catenary supports from the day they were built.
>
> http://images.nycsubway.org/nywb/nywb1-01.jpg
>
>
Columbus Avenue, where you could change from the New Haven to the New
York, Westchester & Boston.
Shame about the latter, really.
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
> Philip Nasadowski wrote:
>> Better examples:
>>
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2460/3645316667_afb4998877_o.jpg
>> (50kv 60hz)
>
Where is that, Australia?
>> http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/4/1/2/6412.1225219684.jpg
>
> This is what I think of when I picture modern catenary: clean, simple,
> relatively unobtrusive.
Also easy to repair if the wire should come down
>> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1177/871740781_b2c47321ce.jpg?v=0
When did they replace the old rolling EMUs with new ones in Montreal?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3234/2849891418_f83b84a15a_b.jpg
Don't know why, but that looks like something you'd see on an old
Interurban.
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
> In article <hgcaoa$93r$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>
>> That's an interesting design I haven't seen anywhere else.
>
> I think M-K came up with it. But then: Private builder/owner looking
> for low cost/high performance.
>
>> This is what I think of when I picture modern catenary: clean, simple,
>> relatively unobtrusive.
>
It was.
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
> In article <buoy6l2...@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com>, Miles Bader
> <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@usermale.com> writes:
>>> Compare to:
>>> http://www.trainweb.org/crocon/goodenow/Acela_NL.jpg
>>> http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/6/7/0/9670.1138705200.jpg
>>> http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/0/8/6/2086.1146351600.jpg
>> The absurdity in those shots seems a bit exaggerated by the telephoto
>> lens compression though ... I suspect there's not really a catenary
>> support every 2 meters!
>
>
> Part of it is that those are wide multi-track areas that have birdge type
> catenary supports from the day they were built.
>
> http://images.nycsubway.org/nywb/nywb1-01.jpg
>
systems?
Valentin Brückel
> Once (in Chicago) my rather large and lethargic cat somehow managed to
> catch the small bird that had gotten into the enclosed back porch
> before I could open the door for it -- and gobbled it down whole.
My parents' cat specialized in pigeons. They once saw him pick one out of
the air when it was trying to start - it had reached a height of about one
meter when it was brought down.
Unfortunately, he also had the habit of eating them more or less whole - and
puked them back out afterward.
> When he went out in the back yard, he was more interested in touching
> noses with the enormous dog next door than in paying attention to the
> avifauna. (They were both orange.)
Ours felt more like putting claws in the neighbors' Rottweiler's nose
through the fence...
Val
Stephen Sprunk
*rolls eyes* Only if the concentration is high enough--all air contains
DHMO in small amounts. That's where clouds, fog, dew, frost, etc. come
from.
Most of us are smart enough not avoid breathing excessively high
concentrations; if your spawn aren't smart enough, and you fail to
protect them from it, it's probably best they be removed from the gene
pool anyway.
Charles Ellson
<wb8...@panix.com> wrote:
>Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>
>>> I've never heard of power lines -- whether high- or low-tension --
>>> causing flourescent lights to glow unless you actually touch them. We
>>> have lots of high-tension lines in our area and lots of noisy NIMBYs,
>>> so I think I would have heard if they did.
>
>>A high school near where I grew up was built directly under some
>>high-tension power lines (because the land was cheap). There was a
>>photo in the paper of someone standing on the roof holding a fluorescent
>>tube aloft. It was lit.
>
>I'm exteremely dubious. I have used such tubes to demonstrate RF detection
>but can't see how you could get enough 60 Hz to light one...unless you
>were close enough to the HV such that you'd be a crispy critter.
>
Here's a bunch of NIMBYs demonstrating how to get free lighting from
power lines :-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zGnfL_Cc7M
>I did some work in a plastic dish factory, where the owner HAD to meet
>Mr. OSHA with $500 in bribe; there was no other way it would pass.
>
>The RF heaters used to warm the powder being dumped in the mold were
>allegedly at 27 Mhz in the ISM band, but they really were where they
>wanted to be.
>
>I would take a dead tube from the pile, and slide it alongside. As it
>passed the cracks in the case, it would illuminate; so the light would
>seemingly travel back and forth in the tube. It REALLY spooked out the
>illiterate help that worked there; they thought it magic.
Michael Finfer
>> That the astronauts had to drop a pound of lead and a pound of feathers
>> on the moon to prove a point says something.
>
> And when did that happen? Who at NASA authorized two pounds of payload
> for such idiocy? (Not to mention how much space a pound of feathers
> would take up.)
It was a geology hammer and one feather. The feather was the extra
payload. That was noise in the calculations made to pull off the mission.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
gl4...@yahoo.com
<houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> gl4...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Part of it is that those are wide multi-track areas that have birdge type
> > catenary supports from the day they were built.
> >
> > http://images.nycsubway.org/nywb/nywb1-01.jpg
> >
> To where did that spur track lead? Was that a gateway between the two
> systems?
Unfortunately I don't know. It was just a stock photo of the New Haven
electrification (they used the triangular shaped catenary, with two
support wires on one contact wire) in the early days I was able to find.
The web page it came from provided little information about the various
surrounding features.
--
-Glennl
Please note this e-mail address is a pit of spam, and most e-mail sent to this address are simply lost in the vast mess.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 3:27 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> >> Still, the truth doesn't stop the general public (including politicians,
> >> reporters, and juries) from being stupid. Just look at all the hoopla
> >> about Dihydrogen Monoxide (see: <http://www.dhmo.org>) for a perfect
> >> case study. Appeal to idiots' desire to protect their spawn and they'll
> >> happily give you all their money, civil liberties, etc., even if the
> >> risk is orders of magnitude less than the everyday ones that the idiots
> >> themselves expose their spawn to every day.
>
> > Don't you realize that if you breathe dihydrogen monoxide, you will
> > die in minutes (at the most)?
>
> *rolls eyes* Only if the concentration is high enough--all air contains
> DHMO in small amounts. That's where clouds, fog, dew, frost, etc. come
> from.
Why "*rolls eyes*"?
That's the vapor form of the chemical, which is innocuous even at 100%
saturation.