MLV EMU Procurement

Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.

Moderators: Tadman, nick11a, Kaback9, ACeInTheHole

Re: MLV EMU Procurement

Postby EuroStar » Fri Dec 14, 2018 9:58 am

Here is an image from the article cited above. As per Wikipedia a standard cab car has 127 seats. A trailer with restroom has 132 and a regular trailer 142. Either those numbers are a little off or the new ones have a slightly different configuration (sorry, I have better things to do than to verify that Wikipedia has the correct numbers) because with these the math for the second configuration is 1*127+2*132+7*142=1385 not 1394 as specified in the image. Now let's back out the seats in the power cars from the last configuration: 1552-2*127-2*132-4*142=466 or about 116 seats per power car (4 of them). Taking a regular trailer with 142 seats if you take out all the seating at the mid-level (at the end), that is 20 and you are down to 122, so the claim is that the space of only 6 additional seats is necessary to house the transformers and all other equipment (of course they gain some space by eliminating the quarter doors). That seems aggressive to me, but hey I do not design these things for a living. I would guess that they could probably fit everything OK if they took out another 16 or so seats(4 rows on the lower level) going down to about 100 seats. That still is not bad though. Let's hope that BBD can actually do this. I do see where Backshophoss's scepticism is coming from though.

The one thing that I do not get though is how exactly they plan to MU these things if regular old trailers (MLV I and II) are in between them. It has always been my understanding that due to train dynamics, the multiple engines in a MU set need to talk to each other (and in this case they need to talk not only to each other, but to the two cab cars that *might* also be an older generation). The only way to do this without rewiring the existing MLV I and MLV II will be to use wireless. Wireless has been in use for "talk" between engines in the freight industry for a long time, but is there an example of it used in passenger service?

As for the Dinky, don'w worry, the last Arrow to be retired will be from the Dinky. Converting it light rail will be very expensive because they will need maintenance facility. There is enough space to extend the storage track for another car and doing so is much cheaper. Yeah, three cars will be a waste on the Dinky, but it is worth it if they can actually achieve the uniform fleet they are shooting for.

NJT also claims that the new trains will accelerate faster, so the power cars will really be overengined and overpowered otherwise there is no way they will be able to beat the acceleration of the Arrows. The overengine and the overpowering is also needed in case of failure. In a 12 car train, 4 power cars haul 8 trailer for ratio of 2 to 1. If one of the power cars fails then 3 power cars need to be able to limp with what is now 9 trailers for ratio of 3 to 1. So these things will need to be "about" 50% overpowered.
Attachments
NJT_ML_III_Presentation_Board-Call-2018-12-11_Rev2-5.jpg
EuroStar
 
Posts: 585
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:26 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere

Re: MLV EMU Procurement

Postby andrewjw » Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:36 am

Because of the conflict point where the stairs meet on the midlevel, there ends up being very little usage of the end doors for deboarding on the current MLVs, compared to the second set of doors. I don't expect a massive increase in dwell times.

Besides three-car sets, the Dinky could also be operated as one or two MLV coaches with an ALP-46 or even with an older diesel; operated with RiverLINE equipment (increasing complexity of equipment moves, but an ALP-46 could be dispatched overnight to haul DMUs back and forth when necessary); or operated by Silverliner Vs. The current crowd levels during peak travel times (University breaks) on the Dinky replacement bus is very high (many passengers are turned away), and I'd be surprised if the town and University allowed the train service to be abandoned.
andrewjw
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:48 am

Re: MLV EMU Procurement

Postby Nasadowsk » Fri Dec 14, 2018 4:31 pm

mtuandrew wrote:Mr. Dawe: the RER equipment is about 14’ 3” (about 4 1/2 meters?) The existing Alstom equipment is too slow for the Corridor, only 87 mph I think, but still an interesting body for future NEC-centered agency car orders if it can meet FRA Tier 1A crash regs.


Is a top speed of 87mph *really* that big of an issue? What percentage of NJT trains ever run in conditions allowing 100mph operation, and what percentage of those trains ever actually *reach* 100mph?

I mean, I doubt we're going to see performance better than an arrow, and certainly not on the order of a FLIRT, where 100mph is achieved in a minute and 20 seconds. I'd imagine...I'd hope... the spec has a performance listed, but who knows what the hell it's asking for.

Even with acceleration at the better end of what an Arrow can do, I don't see many places where going faster than 87mph is really going to make a difference. And certainly there's nowhere off the Corridor where it can be done.
Nasadowsk
 
Posts: 3912
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:45 pm

Re: MLV EMU Procurement

Postby mtuandrew » Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:57 am

According to the graphic EuroStar just posted, a twelve car Arrow IV/Comet VI consist would carry 1552 seated passengers - and (adding a car to the middle train) an eleven car Comet VI consist behind an ALP-46A would carry 1526. Is this new toy worth twenty-six additional passengers per train? And if these will increase acceleration and reliability, will it again be enough to make this half a billion dollar contract worthwhile?

Someone in Canada is popping a lot of champagne over this deal.
User avatar
mtuandrew
 
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:59 am
Location: the Manassas Gap Independent Line

Re: MLV EMU Procurement

Postby lensovet » Sat Dec 15, 2018 2:39 am

Nasadowsk wrote:
mtuandrew wrote:Mr. Dawe: the RER equipment is about 14’ 3” (about 4 1/2 meters?) The existing Alstom equipment is too slow for the Corridor, only 87 mph I think, but still an interesting body for future NEC-centered agency car orders if it can meet FRA Tier 1A crash regs.


Is a top speed of 87mph *really* that big of an issue? What percentage of NJT trains ever run in conditions allowing 100mph operation, and what percentage of those trains ever actually *reach* 100mph?

I mean, I doubt we're going to see performance better than an arrow, and certainly not on the order of a FLIRT, where 100mph is achieved in a minute and 20 seconds. I'd imagine...I'd hope... the spec has a performance listed, but who knows what the hell it's asking for.

Even with acceleration at the better end of what an Arrow can do, I don't see many places where going faster than 87mph is really going to make a difference. And certainly there's nowhere off the Corridor where it can be done.

i believe the issue here is more amtrak, which does not want slow-moving equipment on the corridor. this gives them the flexibility to run these as full or semi-expresses, something slower equipment cannot do. so from an operational flexibility standpoint it makes perfect sense.
Paul Borokhov

Last RRPicArch addition – NJ Railfan.

NJT RailCalifornia commuter (mod)
User avatar
lensovet
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: SF Bay Area, CA

Re: MLV EMU Procurement

Postby njt/mnrrbuff » Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:10 am

Yes, the Arrows are only good for 80 and on the NEC, Amtrak doesn't like that. It's their railroad and their passengers would rather not have to follow closely behind a train doing 80 for several miles when there are track outages. The Arrows have great acceleration but to me, they are better off running on the Ex-Lackawanna electric lines entirely. In addition, many of the stops on the former Lackawanna Lines are very close to each other and in fact, were originally meant for MUs. As for the Multilevel MUs, I like what I see so far. It sounds like they will be geared for 100 mph which is very important when operating on the NWK Division. I hope that, though, these Multilevel MUs can be able to run on Midtown Direct trains to Dover.

By the way, I was just looking at a very old timetable from 1995 of the M&E and local trains from Hoboken to Dover took an hour and ten minutes. Now, it is longer and the NYP to Dover local trains take just over an hour and a half and they obviously run with push pull equipment. Those ALP46 and ALP45DP units still have good acceleration but not as good as an Arrow III.
njt/mnrrbuff
 
Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:33 pm

Re: MLV EMU Procurement

Postby DutchRailnut » Sat Dec 15, 2018 10:21 am

Gearing commuter equipment for speeds higher than 80 has always been a bad Idea.
that higher speed does harm to acceleration and deceleration (blended brake) .
a lower gearing will assure a higher train throughput since it simply shortens each station event.
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.
User avatar
DutchRailnut
 
Posts: 21909
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: MLV EMU Procurement

Postby njt/mnrrbuff » Sat Dec 15, 2018 11:31 am

Multiple commuter railroads do about 100 miles per hour. I think that MARC is one of them but I think the super express trains get up to that speed but on the Penn Line; if not, then at least 90. Septa's Silverliner Vs are good for 90, I think. Yes, many commuter railroads operate at 80 mph and there are probably more that do at that speed than 100 mph. Metro North is one of them, especially on the New Haven Line.

Back to NJT, I think the NEC is the only line where 100 mph is done. If you are lucky, 80 is done, especially on the Coastline but only as far as Long Branch. On the ex-Lackawanna lines, the M&E, I think is good for 70. The Gladstone Branch and Montclair-Boonton Line, electrified portion, is good for 60. On the Trenton Locals, any trains doing 100 mph probably do it between New Brunswick and Princeton Junction. On the NEC, even though many of the stations are not a "light rail" distance from one another, they are still fairly close to each other. Examples-Metuchen and Edison, Edison and New Brunswick, Linden and Rahway.
njt/mnrrbuff
 
Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:33 pm

Re: MLV EMU Procurement

Postby Matt Johnson » Sat Dec 15, 2018 12:11 pm

njt/mnrrbuff wrote:It sounds like they will be geared for 100 mph which is very important when operating on the NWK Division.


110 mph according to the Railway Age article.
User avatar
Matt Johnson
 
Posts: 4128
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:57 pm
Location: Hazlet, NJ

Re: MLV EMU Procurement

Postby ryanov » Sun Dec 16, 2018 5:24 pm

DutchRailnut wrote:Gearing commuter equipment for speeds higher than 80 has always been a bad Idea.
that higher speed does harm to acceleration and deceleration (blended brake) .
a lower gearing will assure a higher train throughput since it simply shortens each station event.

Does "gearing" even have any relevance on electric equipment?
|=| R. Novosielski |=|
User avatar
ryanov
 
Posts: 4815
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:19 am
Location: Newark, NJ

Re: MLV EMU Procurement

Postby DutchRailnut » Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:08 pm

yes as there is a gear between Traction motor and axle gear .
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.
User avatar
DutchRailnut
 
Posts: 21909
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: MLV EMU Procurement

Postby cnj1524 » Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:01 am

cnj1524
 
Posts: 376
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 5:57 pm

Re: MLV EMU Procurement

Postby mtuandrew » Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:30 am

I want to reiterate to the new NJT President: why don’t you put a cab on one end? You already have to inspect the entire train more frequently as essentially three locomotives (according to the FRA) so adding another set of controls isn’t going to make that inspection schedule any less frequent. It also allows the middle one of those three cars to be a simple trailer, allowing more fleet flexibility, and would re-enable two-car trains where appropriate (like the Princeton Dinky.) I’m also concerned that relying on two control trailers will introduce yet another MU cable failure point whether it appears now or in the future.

There’s a reason this arrangement is vanishingly rare, and why companies that have adopted control trailers and blind motors have generally dropped the concept again.
User avatar
mtuandrew
 
Posts: 5178
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:59 am
Location: the Manassas Gap Independent Line

Re: MLV EMU Procurement

Postby DutchRailnut » Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:07 am

one of problems of adding cab is weight, for cab to function a lot of other stuff needs to be added.
More airbrake controls
cab signal/PTC equipment.
Control air reservoirs.
snow plow etc.

plus due to that cab you now loose another set of doors .
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.
User avatar
DutchRailnut
 
Posts: 21909
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: MLV EMU Procurement

Postby WhartonAndNorthern » Thu Jan 03, 2019 11:12 pm

Anyone have an idea of how much power the motor cars will need to put out? I'm thinking it may be in the range of 1800-2200 HP before HEP. And they will need to supply HEP to the cabs and trailers which could make things interesting (phase sync) if all 4 power cars are supplying HEP.

EuroStar wrote:The one thing that I do not get though is how exactly they plan to MU these things if regular old trailers (MLV I and II) are in between them. It has always been my understanding that due to train dynamics, the multiple engines in a MU set need to talk to each other (and in this case they need to talk not only to each other, but to the two cab cars that *might* also be an older generation). The only way to do this without rewiring the existing MLV I and MLV II will be to use wireless. Wireless has been in use for "talk" between engines in the freight industry for a long time, but is there an example of it used in passenger service?


I'm an electrical engineer, not a railroad engineer but I'm thinking they may treat them as 4 mid-train B-units and use standard couplers, brake hoses, HEP connectors, 27-pin MU and comm trainlines. I know previous EMUs used pin and cup couplers and automatically connecting air and comms. They also used a different trainline format and control handles than traditional locomotives.

If they don't do it that way, which would preserve interoperability with the ML Is and ML IIs, I could see the ML IIIs being custom rigged (like prior EMUs) or even having the ML III cabs get a two position control mode switch (EMU or push-pull) which tells it to either use a different set of trainline connectors or change trainline formats. They could re-purpose the 27-pin connectors to run a network (CANbus, automotive Ethernet, etc.) over the "notch" pins when in EMU mode.
WhartonAndNorthern
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to New Jersey Transit NJT Rail and Light Rail LRT

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 6 guests