M9 Cars Design Delivery and Acceptance

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

Re: M9 Cars Design Delivery and Acceptance

Postby Jeff Smith » Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:05 pm

So why the single designation? And a separate designation for LIRR for a second order M9-A. Doesn't make any sense.
Next stop, Willoughby
~Jeff Smith (fka "Sarge") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator
Jeff Smith
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7054
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: MP 67.2 Georgia Southern Railway

Re: M9 Cars Design Delivery and Acceptance

Postby runningwithscalpels » Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:53 pm

DutchRailnut wrote:As far as I can see in specifications, they will NOT get dual purpose third rail shoes.


Seems silly that going forward they wouldn't strive for uniformity with flippable shoes. Yeah the M7's would keep the MNR shoes, but you'd think they'd get a volume discount with M8s and M9's (and whatever replaces the P32's) using the same third rail shoes.
Change at Bridgeport for service to Derby-Shelton, Ansonia, Seymour, Beacon Falls, Naugatuck and Waterbury
User avatar
runningwithscalpels
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 6:01 pm
Location: Waterbury Branch MP 22.0

Re: M9 Cars Design Delivery and Acceptance

Postby DutchRailnut » Thu Oct 29, 2015 7:19 pm

There is no such thing as flippable shoe, the M-8 shoe is steady shoe sprung to flex up or down with a wear surface on top and bottom.
The M-9's will never be interchanged between LIRR and MN so why go through expenses of putting something on that you never will use ??
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer
User avatar
DutchRailnut
 
Posts: 20921
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: M9 Cars Design Delivery and Acceptance

Postby nomis » Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:33 am

Because the cost of buying two boatloads of over-under shoes (and hardware) vs. a boatload of under running shoes (and hardware) and another boatload of over running shoes (and hardware) can be cheaper when you do t have to pay a second tooling charge that will get amortized across the units.
Moderator: Metro-North (with CDOT)

Avatar: An overnight trip on Girard Ave. stumbles upon 6 PCC's and an LRV stuck within two blocks.
User avatar
nomis
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: MRS 43 & QA 9 (was QB 2)

Re: M9 Cars Design Delivery and Acceptance

Postby DutchRailnut » Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:41 am

If you put two sided shoes on these cars, yet it never gets used, you would throw away half a shoe every 6 weeks. multiply by 8 shoes per pair and you see its ludicrous to use two sided shoes.
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer
User avatar
DutchRailnut
 
Posts: 20921
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: M9 Cars Design Delivery and Acceptance

Postby Jeff Smith » Fri Oct 30, 2015 11:18 am

Thinking VERY long-term, if MNRR ever gets to it, if you ran Hudson branch trains into Penn (part of the PSAS plan, not currently funded) you might want through running trains. That would require over/under. Or, say you have fleet issues on either side of the sound due to an incident such as Sandy, flat-spotting (remember when the 7a's first came out?), etc., it would be nice to be able to rotate in and out as needed.
Next stop, Willoughby
~Jeff Smith (fka "Sarge") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator
Jeff Smith
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7054
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: MP 67.2 Georgia Southern Railway

Re: M9 Cars Design Delivery and Acceptance

Postby Fan Railer » Sat Nov 07, 2015 10:55 pm

Jeff Smith wrote:So why the single designation? And a separate designation for LIRR for a second order M9-A. Doesn't make any sense.

Again, the "A" designation on the M9 order is simply to distinguish between the Federally funded cars and the locally funded cars. They are SUPPOSED to be nearly identical (if not completely identical), and be interoperable.
Fan Railer
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:32 pm

Re: M9 Cars Design Delivery and Acceptance

Postby Penn Central » Wed Apr 06, 2016 8:42 pm

Jeff Smith wrote:Thinking VERY long-term, if MNRR ever gets to it, if you ran Hudson branch trains into Penn (part of the PSAS plan, not currently funded) you might want through running trains. That would require over/under. Or, say you have fleet issues on either side of the sound due to an incident such as Sandy, flat-spotting (remember when the 7a's first came out?), etc., it would be nice to be able to rotate in and out as needed.


As there is no third rail from 36 St to CP 12 (almost 10 miles) this suggestion makes absolutely no sense at all unless you think NY State is going to pay to add third rail to the entire Empire Branch. That is never going to happen.
User avatar
Penn Central
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:19 pm

Re: M9 Cars Design Delivery and Acceptance

Postby Jeff Smith » Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:17 am

Agreed; merely postulating the possibilities out loud, even if far-fetched. We've talked about this both here, the PSA thread, and the Empire Connection thread. Sometimes it just takes a while to get there :wink: . At the Empire thread, even the subject of catenary was being discussed.
Next stop, Willoughby
~Jeff Smith (fka "Sarge") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator
Jeff Smith
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7054
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: MP 67.2 Georgia Southern Railway

Re: M9 Cars Design Delivery and Acceptance

Postby DutchRailnut » Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:11 am

wait till you know who trows in his fantasies of Rohr Turboliners and the BB&T rr gets tracking rights..
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer
User avatar
DutchRailnut
 
Posts: 20921
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Previous

Return to MTA Metro-North Railroad and CtDOT Passenger Rail

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests