Why wasn't there an M5?

Discussion relating to the operations of MTA MetroNorth Railroad including west of Hudson operations and discussion of CtDOT sponsored rail operations such as Shore Line East and the Springfield to New Haven Hartford Line

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, Jeff Smith

Why wasn't there an M5?

Postby Union Tpke » Fri Jun 15, 2018 8:24 am

This might be a stupid question, but something I have wondered is why there was no railcar known as the M5. Do any of you have an idea? Thanks.
Union Tpke
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:22 pm

Re: Why wasn't there an M5?

Postby Traingeek3629 » Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:03 am

I always wondered about that too. After all, we've had everything from M1 to M9 except for M5.
TRAIN APPROACHING, PLEASE REMAIN BEHIND THE YELLOW LINE
Traingeek3629
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:00 am

Re: Why wasn't there an M5?

Postby DutchRailnut » Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:51 am

the design for M-5 was made as a single car, compatible with M1-and M-3 it was to be made as replacement of ACMU cars.
LIRR nixed the Idea and it was cost prohibitive to go it alone by Metro North. instead the M-7's were designed and ordered.
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer
User avatar
DutchRailnut
 
Posts: 21705
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: Why wasn't there an M5?

Postby R36 Combine Coach » Sat Jun 16, 2018 5:08 pm

Were the M-5s supposed to be trailers (like the M-8 single units) or true single unit MUs as the ACMUs?
Since my friend continues to chain smoke nonstop, she is probably an Alco.
User avatar
R36 Combine Coach
 
Posts: 5165
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Why wasn't there an M5?

Postby Backshophoss » Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:25 pm

The M-5 was a stillborn concept,was to be a single car MU along the lines of the ex-NYC 1100 series MU.
Believe part of the problem was Too much underframe equipment to fit on a single car.
Not surprised that LIRR veto'ed the design.
Backshophoss
 
Posts: 5430
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Why wasn't there an M5?

Postby R36 Combine Coach » Sat Jun 16, 2018 7:31 pm

Backshophoss wrote:Believe part of the problem was Too much underframe equipment to fit on a single car.

Most passenger MUs in North America are married pairs. However, every SEPTA Silverliner series from I (Pioneer III) in 1958 to the V has been built in a single unit configuration.
Since my friend continues to chain smoke nonstop, she is probably an Alco.
User avatar
R36 Combine Coach
 
Posts: 5165
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Why wasn't there an M5?

Postby BuddR32 » Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:33 am

Amazing what one will learn on this forum. I always assumed that there was no M5, because by the time the M1s came due for replacement, there was already an M6, and they didnt want to go backwards on the designation in the series of models.
BuddR32
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:14 pm

Re: Why wasn't there an M5?

Postby MACTRAXX » Tue Jun 19, 2018 1:24 am

R36:

Both the Silverliner Four and Five were built as a combination of married pairs and single units.

The Silverliner Four cars were built with custom features for both the Penn Central and Reading
and were made completely compatible over time with service unification by SEPTA.

The 1968 PATCO One cars were also built as both single units and married pairs.

I remember reading about the M5 proposal that was introduced during the 1990s. I was uncertain
about exactly why this car type was rejected - this question gets answered. After the M5 it made
sense to move on to what would be a major fleet replacement with the M7-836 LIRR and 338 for
MNCR totalling 1174 cars changing the face of both third rail EMU fleets.

I remember an interesting DMU variation proposed by Bombardier for a single unit M7 type car.
This could have been used on routes such as the LIRR Greenport Scoot or MNCR's Upper Harlem
Line to Wassaic and the Waterbury Branch...What ever became of this proposed car type?

MACTRAXX
EXPRESS TRAIN TO NEW YORK PENN STATION-NO JAMAICA ON THIS TRAIN-PLEASE STAND CLEAR OF THE CLOSING TRAIN DOORS
MACTRAXX
 
Posts: 3793
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:55 am
Location: Islandia,Long Island,NY

Re: Why wasn't there an M5?

Postby DutchRailnut » Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:05 am

no one was interested in the DMU version .

it will remain to be seen if just like M-5 the M-9 designations is dropped as Metro North has opted to not buy M-9's
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer
User avatar
DutchRailnut
 
Posts: 21705
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: Why wasn't there an M5?

Postby Traingeek3629 » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:47 pm

The M7s are 10+ years old, there should be some newer cars coming in to refresh the fleet and get rid of those M3s.
TRAIN APPROACHING, PLEASE REMAIN BEHIND THE YELLOW LINE
Traingeek3629
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2018 9:00 am

Re: Why wasn't there an M5?

Postby DutchRailnut » Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:43 pm

MN is not getting M-9's instead will continue the overhaul of M-3's despite your advise.
Maybe MN will even obtain more M-3's from LIRR as overhaul candidates.
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer
User avatar
DutchRailnut
 
Posts: 21705
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: Why wasn't there an M5?

Postby R36 Combine Coach » Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:53 pm

MACTRAXX wrote:I remember an interesting DMU variation proposed by Bombardier for a single unit M7 type car. This could have been used on routes such as the LIRR Greenport Scoot or MNCR's Upper Harlem Line to Wassaic and the Waterbury Branch...What ever became of this proposed car type?

It was mentioned only briefly, but given the SPV, doubt MNCR would try a DMU again.
Since my friend continues to chain smoke nonstop, she is probably an Alco.
User avatar
R36 Combine Coach
 
Posts: 5165
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Why wasn't there an M5?

Postby DutchRailnut » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:23 pm

not only MN but no one .
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer
User avatar
DutchRailnut
 
Posts: 21705
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: Why wasn't there an M5?

Postby GojiMet86 » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:28 pm

What sort of modifications would MNRR do to get M3 from LIRR? Just modify the third rail shoes?
User avatar
GojiMet86
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:04 pm

Re: Why wasn't there an M5?

Postby BuddR32 » Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:15 am

GojiMet86 wrote:What sort of modifications would MNRR do to get M3 from LIRR? Just modify the third rail shoes?


At a minimum:
Speed control aspects would have to be changed.
The contact shoes would need changing as you noted, which would probably require replacing the entire outrigger assembly to match the MNR type.

To do it right, add:
Also, the acceleration rates would need to be set back to the original setting (LI Lowered theirs) This is a simple change on the 1366 card
But it would never happen. LI M3s are in junk state, they became an orphan fleet when the M1s left, and forgotten as if they were retired as well. Also, MNR retained the original Motor-Alternators, DC traction motor cooling blowers.
BuddR32
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:14 pm

Next

Return to MTA Metro-North Railroad and CtDOT Passenger Rail

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests