If M-7s can mate with M-8s, why not M-1s with M-2s?

My understanding is that one of the leading proposals for new seats on the New Haven branch is to link up two M-7 cars with a new "M-8". Only the M-8 would have a pantograph, and would provide power to the M-7 trucks when in CT. The process would reverse in 3rd rail territory.

Well, seeing as the MTA has a bunch of (admittedly worn-out) M-1s being discarded, what would stop them from enlarging the M-2, M-4 and M-6 fleet by similarly connecting M-1s to them? Aren't some of the M-2s already set up this way (i.e. the units without pantographs)?

I'm obviously showing my lack of understanding of the equipment, so fire away with all the reasons this would not work.

If it worked it could alleviate some of the current shortage of equipment.

NH Chris

The M7 and M8 (if both were built by Bombardier), would have compatible brake systems.
But The M8 contract has to go up for bid first and lets see what manufacturer gets the contract, maybe someone else comes up with a better Idea than the M8 as currently planned.
The M1 and M3 have a Wabco brake system controlled with a P wire loop.
The M2/4/6 have Westcode brake controlled just like a locomotive trottle and stepping brake trouf 7 steps and emergency.
So no the current equipment can not be electricaly coupled, only if set up for tow, they can mechanicaly couple and the brakes can be set up as freight cars for towing move.

DutchRailnut wrote: But The M8 contract has to go up for bid first and lets see what manufacturer gets the contract, maybe someone else comes up with a better Idea than the M8 as currently planned.

That would be cool, because the M8 as planned is kinda sucky, being awfully heavy and sluggish, and the no dynamic brake in the middle car doesn't look too good either.

Though I'd like to see who would want to take up this job, as both Kawasaki and Alstom are going to quite busy for some time.

Question: do the builders design the cars or does the agency ordering them do, or is it different in each case? I ask because MTA had many of its subway cars built by two different builders, each based on the same general design. I recall BBD put forward this proposal for the M8, did they do the same with the M7 originally or did someone at MTA draw up the design?

A railroad draws up a list of specifications that the cars have to meet, but the manufacturer designs the car, with the limited clearance profile most designs do look about the same with the semi Tubular body and doors that need to be at certain locations.

Here's a thought: perhaps a more effective approach for an M8 design would be to design it as if we were making a straight AC EMU, with the necessary AC gear spread between all cars (in say a triplet), then squeeze in the DC equipment, as opposed to the other way around like the Bombardier proposal. Would that help any, or no?

The incompatabilty of braking systems between units of the same railroad is more proof of the gross imcompetence of MNR management; who writes the specs for these trains?
Donald Duck ?

But then, in their defense, MNR management is no more incompetent than other railroads, or the transportation industry in general.

TimV before you vent about MNCR management the M2's and M1''s were ordered in early 70's and can be blamed on Penn Centrals management.
So if venting on incompetence start by studying the Railroads first.

DutchRailnut wrote:TimV before you vent about MNCR management the M2's and M1''s were ordered in early 70's and can be blamed on Penn Centrals management.
So if venting on incompetence start by studying the Railroads first.

Exactly. Never mind the fact that the cars in question were never intended to run on the same lines, much less mixed in the same trains. Operationally, there's no need to put M1/3's in the same train as M2/4/6's, so there's no need to make them compatible.

Tim, rather than suggest that transportation managers in general, and MN managers in particular, are incompetent, you might want to study your area of criticism and develop some competence in it before you criticize others. You obviously don't know what you're talking about here.

Jim

Ok....I apologize for the childish "incompetence" comments.
Let me try a question:

I have a company that needs a certain type of vehicle to carry people from point A to point B, and point C to point B, etc.

It seems to make sense to make these vehicle as much alike as possible, (being different where necessary, such as power supply). as they are all doing the exact same thing - moving customers.
BTW, this is not a new or high-tech requirement.

Economy of scale for purchase, flexibility for operations, spare parts inventory, operation and maintenance skills, maintenance facilities are reasons that I can think of for buying identical vehicles

All of these vehicles have exactly the same function.

Why are they built differently?

To not anticipate the common usage of these vehicles on ALL lines is the part that does not make sense to me.

Life would probably be a lot easer ( and cheaper) for the railroad and the customers if MNR had 3 fleets of MU's (third rail, catenary, and dummies that would "trail" either type of power) identical except for the 3rd rail vs. catenary.

TimV wrote:Life would probably be a lot easer (and cheaper) for the railroad and the customers if MNR had 3 fleets of MU's (third rail, catenary, and dummies that would "trail" either type of power) identical except for the 3rd rail vs. catenary.

We have that already: M1/3/7s run on third rail, M2/4/6 on catenary, and diesel-hauled coaches for everything else. If you start putting trailers behind powered MUs, the powered MUs have to be designed differently to haul around the dead weight. Considering that an unpowered trailer isn't orders of magnitude cheaper than a powered MU, you're not saving much, if anything.

TimV wrote:Why are they built differently?

Why is a BMW built differently than a Chevy? Different requirements. Function isn't the only determining factor in equipment design.

TimV wrote:To not anticipate the common usage of these vehicles on ALL lines is the part that does not make sense to me.

Why would you spend the additional money to buy equipment capable of running on the entire railroad when you don't have to? You seem to be ignoring the fact that there isn't a need to mix the fleets. You don't need AC-powered equipment on trains to Harmon. So why spend the extra bucks? That it doesn't make sense to you says more about your lack of knowledge of the operating characteristics of the railroad than the competence of the people running it.

And don't talk about costs to the customers...customers pay less than 55% of the cost of providing the service, and that doesn't even count the cost of capital expenditures, like buying all this new, compatible equipment you dream of. Even if you reduced fleet operating costs by 25% because of a common vehicle design, customers would still be paying much less than the cost of running the operation. So no, it wouldn't be cheaper for customers.

Jim

TimV wrote:To not anticipate the common usage of these vehicles on ALL lines is the part that does not make sense to me.

Jim put everything great, but just to add a bit of my own thoughts. Connecticut is going to be purchasing these new cars themselves, even if they ended up getting something compatable with the other lines, I doubt in the long run Connecticut will want to share anything anyways. Also, since they're paying, even if it doesn't make perfect sense they have the option of getting what they want, if it means something totally different then the M-7's then thats going to be it.

TimV wrote: Why are they built differently?

Remember that all these cars were bought over a number of years, like 30+. Why are they built differently, would you want all the cars to be the ACMU's, or even worse, the MU's before the AC. Yeah, I'd love to ride into NYC with no AC in August. Change happens, and technology improves. The equipment is updated to serve a need. There is no need for an M2 to run on the Husdon line, nor a need for an M3 to run on the New Haven line. Different equipment for different needs.

TimV wrote: All of these vehicles have exactly the same function.

Really? Ok, on the most basic level, they all transport passengers. But so do rickshaws. I know it sounds like a stupid comparsison, but think about this, a M2/4/6/8 is meant to carry passengers from Conn using both Cat and 3rd rail. M1/3/5/7 are meant to carry people from Southern NY using just 3rd rail. And the Gennies and bomb coach are ment to carry people longer distance. I wouldn't want to ride a M3 to Albany, or a Bomb for that fact. Thus the different coachs that Amtrak uses.

Why spend the money to allow these cars to do things that they are not needed to do. An M4 isn't going to pull a Bomb coach, so why desgin it to do that? A Gennie isn't going to pull an M6 in revenue service, so why design it to do that? Sure, it can tow them, and there are designed to allow for that, but not in service, just a trailers like a freight car.

I can say this. Regardless of who builds the M8 and whether they base it on the M7 or not one thing I want done right on these trains are the horns. They should keep the M-family horn, even the M7 horn sounds like the M1. It just wouldn't be right if it was done any different. I know I'm nitpicking over a detail that is insignificant, but what can I say, I grew up on the M- horns.

I cant belive that of all the things wrong on the M7 - you think the one thing they MUST get right is a horn?

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!

Now I've heard it all.

I guess as long as the horn works well - everything wlse will fall into place.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I don't deny they aren't any problems with the M7, and the proposed M8 design (after all we still have to yet to see if another builder can produce a better design than the one on the table) -- I just meant that I'd like to see the M-family horn kept on the new cars, as just a personal whim.