M9 Cars Design Delivery and Acceptance

M-3 and M-7 is LIRR, the M-3a and M-7a are MNCR. lots of differences but do search on that
As for powrer the m-7a(1060 hp) is nearly twice the horsepower of a M-3a (560 hp)

DutchRailnut wrote:.. As for powrer the m-7a(1060 hp) is nearly twice the horsepower of a M-3a (560 hp)

Thanks for the information. Obviously, more horsepower = more (electric) power demand.

But: what was the reason for spec'ing the M-7a's for so much more horsepower? Were the M-3a's considered underpowered? Or are the M-7a's a lot heavier than the M-3a's? (Inquiring minds want to know )

cars are heavier and with AC propulsion higher horsepower is easier and will compensate for dead cars

Based on the M8's record so far, how likely is it that MTA would award the M9 contract to Kawasaki?

MTA has to go with lowest bidder, I don't think a Kawasaki bid will come in as low next time...

Could this be the return of Bombardier??? I doubt they'll get under bid by another builder this time. That's the way they lost the M8 contact.

Why do they keep pushing the bid award date back? Do the potential vendors need more time, or does the MTA keep changing the spec? I'd imagine it would be very similar to the M-7, since the M-9's are spec'd to be interchangeabe with the M-7's/

Also, is there any more info to confirm if Metro North will be using bi-level cars on the options for this order? 've heard from a reliable source that one of the bidders consultants was seen measuring underpass heights on the Harlem line a few weeks ago and my friend got to speak with him. I'm told that MNRR/MTA are really interested since bi-level cars would allow them to do more with less trains and accomodate future predicted rider growth. This may or may not be an M-9 option, but possibly an M-10, depending on many factors. The main concern is whether the trains would be able to fit into GCT. They are trying to design a train concept that would require minimum investment to accomodate the trains without taking away from rider comfort. If they have to invest millions of dollars and embark on a massive construction project expanding tunnels for these traincars, then that would devalue the benefits of these cars and would be the dealbreaker.

Call me crazy, but I really do hope that MNR doesn't go with bi level cars. For one, they'd be limited to only the center 2 tracks in the Park Avenue Tunnel, making operational flexibility impossible. Not to mention that they would be heavier and, therefore, cause more wear and tear on the track (as NJ has seen with the multilevels). And the short distances between stations on the electric zones on the Hudson and Harlem lines would make them, IMO, inefficient.

What MNR should seriously consider for the M-9s is having a higher percentage of cars WITHOUT restrooms and possibly cabs too; like unpowered, cabless trailers with 3rd rail shoes for lighting, AC/Heat, etc. The amount of space the restrooms in the M-7s and M-8s take up is ridiculous (though I do realize that its for making them handicapped accessible). Removing the restrooms (and the cabs if possible) and replacing them with seats would significantly increase seating capacity per car.

Increased headways and lengthening existing trains where extra cars are needed (without overburdening the electrification system, obviously) will accomodate increased ridership just fine. Permut himself has said that he'd like to see 20 minute headways becoming more commonplace if the demand is there. Single level MUs are in this case the wheel that needs no re-inventing.

MNCR has been looking into NJT multilevels with electric power heads (locomotives) on each side.
There would NOT be a center track only restriction. that only held for LIRR C-1's that got tested.
NJT type multilevels would fit on all tracks in tunnel and terminal, Multi levels would increase capacity without having to go for more trains.
Im not sure if MNCR would be able to use 2x2 seating or if cars would be configured for 3x2 seating.
The power heads would be third rail power only as this fleet would be ment for rush hour replacements of M-3 cars.

DutchRailnut wrote:MNCR has been looking into NJT multilevels with electric power heads (locomotives) on each side.

I'm confused by this. "Locomotives" suggest non-EMU cars with a separate locomotive at one end (or both ends.) "Each side" sounds like motors on the passenger cars.

Can anyone explain in more detail what this means?

DutchRailnut wrote:The power heads would be third rail power only as this fleet would be ment for rush hour replacements of M-3 cars.

So this would be in (Hudson/Harlem) EMU territory, where stops are fairly close together.

My experience with the NJT multilevels is that boarding and deboarding are much slower than single-level cars because of the need to go up or down stairs within the car during the boarding/deboarding process. This is true both for low-level platforms and for level-boarding platforms.

Does MNCR have a way around this? Or will we just have to live with longer dwell times?

Perhaps your experience with slow boarding etc on the NJT multilevels is just your (and everyone else's) misperception? The multilevels have (I believe) approximately 20% higher capacity. That will naturally take longer to load/unload unless the cars had more exits which would require longer cars (or lower capacity). That being said there is definitely an issue with unloading moreso than loading because people refuse to use the vestibule doors. If people would use the mezzanine door only from the stairway closest to it and the vestibule door for the other stairway unloading would be much quicker. Boarding is not as much of an issue as people will use whichever door is closest to them.

DutchRailnut wrote:MNCR has been looking into NJT multilevels with electric power heads (locomotives) on each side.
There would NOT be a center track only restriction. that only held for LIRR C-1's that got tested.
NJT type multilevels would fit on all tracks in tunnel and terminal, Multi levels would increase capacity without having to go for more trains.
Im not sure if MNCR would be able to use 2x2 seating or if cars would be configured for 3x2 seating.
The power heads would be third rail power only as this fleet would be ment for rush hour replacements of M-3 cars.

Thanks for clarifying that bit about that tunnel restrictions.

I hope MNR decides to fix the tracks before committing to multi-levels, it might get messy for a passenger going up or down stairs while going over soft spots in the bronx.

DutchRailnut wrote:MNCR has been looking into NJT multilevels with electric power heads (locomotives) on each side...
The power heads would be third rail power only as this fleet would be ment for rush hour replacements of M-3 cars.

So is there a separate spec out for 3rd rail electric locomotives? And what were the last 3rd rail electrics built for the North American market? The New York Central's 1929-vintage P motors?

They would not be locomotives, but powerheads and could only be used with dedicated cars.
kind of like a DC only Acela for local traffic.