Subway emerency generators

Why doesn't the NYC transit authority have emergency generators? I would
have thought they'd have learned a lesson from 1965 and 1977. While we
didn't lose power here in Boston, thank goodness, the news reports told of
two power turbines in South Boston that were put on standby to power the
subway here in case we lost lost power, too. The turbines can keep the
subway running for 24 hours, if necessary. I cannot imagine why NYC doesn't
have something similar that could be switched in on short notice. Even if it
took 1 hour to get the generator[s] up and running, NYC wouldn't have had
such a transportation mess.

I distinctly recall during the 1965 blackout everything went down - street
lights, house lights, traffic signals...but the MBTA kept on running (they
had their own power plant back then).

I saw that Toronto's subway shut down. What about the systems in Buffalo,
Cleveland and Montreal. And doesn't Detroit have a PeopleMover? Don't ANY of
these systems have backups? Same goes for Amtrak.

Steven M. Paris wrote:
>
> Why doesn't the NYC transit authority have emergency generators? I would
> have thought they'd have learned a lesson from 1965 and 1977. While we
> didn't lose power here in Boston, thank goodness, the news reports told of
> two power turbines in South Boston that were put on standby to power the
> subway here in case we lost lost power, too. The turbines can keep the
> subway running for 24 hours, if necessary. I cannot imagine why NYC doesn't
> have something similar that could be switched in on short notice. Even if it
> took 1 hour to get the generator[s] up and running, NYC wouldn't have had
> such a transportation mess.

Until shortly before 1965, the NY subways generated their own power.
(See the book *New York's Forgotten Substations*.)
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net

"Joseph D. Korman" <joekor@thejoekorner.com> wrote in message
news:3F3D5981.19E96D0D@thejoekorner.com...

> Until 1959, the TA's BMT and IRT generated their own power. The IND
> always used Con Ed power. In 1959 a deal was made between the city and
> CE in which the BMT and IRT generating plants were sold to CE. Needless
> to say there was a scandal from that sale.

The London Underground generated most of its own power until very recently.
There used to be three power stations, at the time of the last
modernisation, in the late '60s - early '70s, one was closed, one converted
to gas turbine plant for peak demand, and the third upgraded to new steam
plant, oil and gas fired, and at 50 Hz. rather than 33 1/3.

One problem with generating ypur own power is that you rely on just one, or
a few, power stations, so a failure will result in the loss of a large part
of your power. In Britain the public supply is very reliable, I would say
that a typical house has a power cut only once or twice in each decade,
usually cauesd by local failure. Other than strikes, e.g. by the coal
miners about twenty years ago, I can think of very few large-scale failures
in the London area. There was a very severe storm, I think in was in about
1986, which resulted in wide scale loss of power. about four years ago
there was a failure in the area where I live for a few hours, caused by a
large substation failure, affecting a number of square miles, and a very
localised one a few years before, cauced by a cable fire. The last major
loss caused by a power station failure that I can thin of was a fire at
Battersea Power Station, which put our third television channel off the air
on its opening night; that was in 1964, when the National Grid was much less
well developed than it is today. Of course, there are small scale failures,
affecting small numbers of users, but loss of power over a large area is
very rare.

Is the situation much less reliable in the US? I would be surprised if it
was, but I don't really know about the situation there.

Of course, large scale failures will happen from time to time, but how much
do you spend to reduce, but never completely eliminate, the possibility of
what is already a very rare event?

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 12:25:08 +0100, "Stephen Furley"
<furles@mail.croydon.ac.uk> wrote:


>last week; a few probably died because of it, but, very rarely, these things
>will happen. Most people will never see a failure on this scale in their
>lifetimes.
>
why do you keep saying this? I've seen this 3 times in NY and in 1996
when I was out west CA, NV and AZ where without power for days at a
time. It isn't such a rare occurrence

"Steven M. Paris" <sparis@world.std.com> wrote

> Why doesn't the NYC transit authority have emergency generators? I would
> have thought they'd have learned a lesson from 1965 and 1977. While we
> didn't lose power here in Boston, thank goodness, the news reports told of
> two power turbines in South Boston that were put on standby to power the
> subway here in case we lost lost power, too. The turbines can keep the
> subway running for 24 hours, if necessary.

Even with the smaller size of the Boston subway system, I find
it hard to believe there is sufficient idle backup generation
capacity to run the entire subway system--including the trains,
station and tunnel lighting, and signals. Subway motors use up
a lot of power.

My guess is that the backup supply would more likely be for
lights, drain pumps, and the like only. If there was traction
motor capacity, it likely would be to move a train to the
nearest station at slow speed, not operate a normal schedule.

It would be way to expensive to keep that kind of capacity
idle but ready.


As others mentioned, having a separate network has disadvantages
to in terms of no backup.



> I cannot imagine why NYC doesn't
> have something similar that could be switched in on short notice.

Because it would cost a huge fortune to build and maintain. It's
not only having a huge building, the generators themselves, and a
distribution network, but such facilities need regular (expensive)
maintenance to keeep them available.



> I distinctly recall during the 1965 blackout everything went down - street
> lights, house lights, traffic signals...but the MBTA kept on running (they
> had their own power plant back then).

It is generally much more costly to generate your own power
than to buy it commercially. That's why subway systems
ceased using their own power and buy commercial instead.


The telephone company keeps running because (1) phones work
mostly using low voltage DC (except the ringing signal) supplied
by batteries, and (2) they have backup diesel generators to keep
the batteries charged. But telephones use very little power
in comparison to subway traction motors.

"Steve Lackey" <stevelackey@m> wrote

> You're always going to have a huge trade-off between cost and
> reliability, no matter where you go. The cost of having much
> emergency power capacity in NYC would be enormous, enough
> so that a tradeoff of a blackout every couple of decades might be
> worthwhile.

Having something on reserve for a once-every-15-years is pretty
expensive.

There is considerable existing emergency capacity in the subway
system now. Trains and stations have some battery powered lights.
The power supply comes from multiple power plants and substations
so if one fails, others will fill in. I would hope that Command
Center and the key towers have emergency power for radios and lights.


> Upstate and elsewhere, having a little generator behind the house
> might be feasible (as we had) because power goes out for a lot
> of reasons, like a downed tree over power lines. You can count
> on losing power for a little while at least once a year. In NYC?

Just curious--was your home generator capable of supply all
home power needs, including air conditioning and all appliances?

From what I've seen of home generators, they're reasonably
priced for pretty light loads, but to supply the 100 or 200 amp
load of a modern house would require a pretty expensive one.

> There is considerable existing emergency capacity in the subway
> system now. Trains and stations have some battery powered lights.
> The power supply comes from multiple power plants and substations
> so if one fails, others will fill in. I would hope that Command
> Center and the key towers have emergency power for radios and lights.
>
>
> > Upstate and elsewhere, having a little generator behind the house
> > might be feasible (as we had) because power goes out for a lot
> > of reasons, like a downed tree over power lines. You can count
> > on losing power for a little while at least once a year. In NYC?
>
> Just curious--was your home generator capable of supply all
> home power needs, including air conditioning and all appliances?
>
> From what I've seen of home generators, they're reasonably
> priced for pretty light loads, but to supply the 100 or 200 amp
> load of a modern house would require a pretty expensive one.

Nope, just the critical stuff... like the furnace or the freezer.
A downed wire can be put back up in a few hours, or a day at best.
Not that it has anything to do with the Northeast blackout last week...
You wouldn't want to run your house off a generator... the power
is pretty "dirty", and you run a fair chance of frying your electronics
with it. Ok for a furnace or refrigerator / freezer though.

There is always a chance of failure in the power grid. The problem is that
many businesses that rely solely on this power are taking a big chance. A
small investment in a backup generator or even a high capacity power
inverter for a car or van can make a big difference in keeping critical
equipment like freezers running. Computer companies rely on backup systems
for providing shutdown of data centers to safely save data. Hospitals also
have backup power generation that allows them to operate for many hours at a
lowered capacity.

There are many options that can be considered for power that can survive a
blackout. I saw a building a number of years ago that generated its own
power utilizing a diesel generator. Waste heat was used for water and keep
the building warm in the winter. Excess power was sold to the local power
company. The building had sufficient capacity to operate without ever
needing power from the local power company. Only a failure of their
generator would have required this sort of intervention.

danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> What *does* work in apartment complexes is a standard diesel or, even
> better, co-gen unit. They used to be practical only in supersize complexes
> such as Rochdale or Big Six, but the reliability is higher, control costs
> are lower, etc. I wish, for example, that the school system, when dumping
> the coal boilers, had taken the opportunity to install generators.

North Shore Towers generates its own electricity (residents get an
electric bill from the complex, not from Con Ed), and did not lose
power during the blackout. How many buildings or complexes still
generate their own power in NYC?

-Apr