MNRR Joint EMU Procurement with LIRR - Alt/Successor to EMU

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, FL9AC

dowlingm
Posts: 1177
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:42 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: MNRR Joint EMU Procurement with LIRR - Alternative to M9

Post by dowlingm » Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:41 pm

Has stringing catenary into GCT even been on the table?

lirr42
Posts: 2726
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: Montauk, NY (MP 115.8)

Re: MNRR Joint EMU Procurement with LIRR - Alternative to M9

Post by lirr42 » Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:59 pm

dowlingm wrote:Has stringing catenary into GCT even been on the table?
I highly, highly, highly doubt it. It's roughly 15 miles from Grand Central to Mt. Vernon E/Pellham (where the centenary begins) and that's a long way to string overhead wires. Plus you'll have to get wires into every nook and cranny in GCT so you don't lose that flexibility to put trains practically wherever.

So 15 miles of wire over 4 tracks plus all of GCT adds up to 70-75 miles of wire and millions if not billions of dollars in expenses.

(Plus you'll have to electrify around the Mott Haven Wye to Yankee Stadium (and subsequent staging points east) unless you'll want to run that with all diesels).

A project of that magnitude (with all of its expense, annoyances and necessary down-time for installation) is not worth the trouble

DutchRailnut
Posts: 22246
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: MNRR Joint EMU Procurement with LIRR - Alternative to M9

Post by DutchRailnut » Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:22 pm

There is absolutly no clearance for catenary in Bronx or in Park avenue tunnel, for 12.5 Kv catenary you need at least a height of 16" 9" currently the clearances to bridges and tunnel room is around 15 feet.
now can we stick to M-9 procurement, they won't run on overhead and are for third rail only...
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.

dowlingm
Posts: 1177
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:42 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: MNRR Joint EMU Procurement with LIRR - Alternative to M9

Post by dowlingm » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:38 pm

thanks for the clarifications.

morris&essex4ever
Posts: 2012
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:11 pm
Location: MP 20.5

Re: M-9 Cars

Post by morris&essex4ever » Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:52 pm

khansingh wrote:Does this mean they've ruled out bi-levels?
Were bi-levels ever considered?
"To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches." Margaret Thatcher

lirr42
Posts: 2726
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: Montauk, NY (MP 115.8)

Re: M-9 Cars

Post by lirr42 » Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:18 am

morris&essex4ever wrote:
khansingh wrote:Does this mean they've ruled out bi-levels?
Were bi-levels ever considered?
Bi-levels may still be being considered. The base order cars are only for the LIRR. If Metro-North would want in on the M9 fun it would be as an option down the road, but they still have some time to decide.

DutchRailnut
Posts: 22246
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: M-9 Cars

Post by DutchRailnut » Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:06 am

morris&essex4ever wrote:
khansingh wrote:Does this mean they've ruled out bi-levels?
Were bi-levels ever considered?
yes, MN can only go up, longer trains or more trains are out of the question. GCT is at capacity.
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.

Thomas
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 10:04 am

Re: M-9 Cars

Post by Thomas » Sun Sep 22, 2013 8:59 pm

lirr42 wrote:i-levels may still be being considered. The base order cars are only for the LIRR. If Metro-North would want in on the M9 fun it would be as an option down the road, but they still have some time to decide.
I thought that bi-levels could not navigate the switches and tunnels north of Grand Central Terminal?

F-line to Dudley via Park
Posts: 7355
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: M-9 Cars

Post by F-line to Dudley via Park » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:14 pm

Thomas wrote:
lirr42 wrote:i-levels may still be being considered. The base order cars are only for the LIRR. If Metro-North would want in on the M9 fun it would be as an option down the road, but they still have some time to decide.
I thought that bi-levels could not navigate the switches and tunnels north of Grand Central Terminal?
Full generic bi-levels can't. NJ Transit's shorter multi-level coaches can, since they are designed to fit into Penn and clear the LIRR third rail. Whatever minor differences may exist between Penn's and GCT's switch clearances are easily tweaked at the factory for an MNRR order. It's a negligible difference. A regular 3rd rail EMU stuffed into the MLV dimensions or a power car + blind coach mixed consist (like NJT's Arrow-replacement proposal) in those dimensions would fit. As would any regular P32-hauled push-pull using off-shelf MLV blind coaches. The only thing you definitely cannot do at MLV dimensions is a New Haven Line car with pantograph. The MLV car height + the pantograph is too much, so these would have to be 3rd rail-only cars for Hudson/Harlem with New Haven permanently having to make do with M8-dimension single-levels.

Thomas
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 10:04 am

Re: M-9 Cars

Post by Thomas » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:23 pm

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Full generic bi-levels can't. NJ Transit's shorter multi-level coaches can, since they are designed to fit into Penn and clear the LIRR third rail. Whatever minor differences may exist between Penn's and GCT's switch clearances are easily tweaked at the factory for an MNRR order. It's a negligible difference. A regular 3rd rail EMU stuffed into the MLV dimensions or a power car + blind coach mixed consist (like NJT's Arrow-replacement proposal) in those dimensions would fit. As would any regular P32-hauled push-pull using off-shelf MLV blind coaches. The only thing you definitely cannot do at MLV dimensions is a New Haven Line car with pantograph. The MLV car height + the pantograph is too much, so these would have to be 3rd rail-only cars for Hudson/Harlem with New Haven permanently having to make do with M8-dimension single-levels.
So you are saying that NJ Transit's Bi-Levels could be equipped with 3rd Rail Shoes to still handle the switches and all four main tracks under Park Avenue in Manhattan?

Is it likely for Metro North's potentially new Bi-Level Cars to be pulled by locomotives or be 3rd Rail equipped?

F-line to Dudley via Park
Posts: 7355
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: M-9 Cars

Post by F-line to Dudley via Park » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:35 pm

Thomas wrote:
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Full generic bi-levels can't. NJ Transit's shorter multi-level coaches can, since they are designed to fit into Penn and clear the LIRR third rail. Whatever minor differences may exist between Penn's and GCT's switch clearances are easily tweaked at the factory for an MNRR order. It's a negligible difference. A regular 3rd rail EMU stuffed into the MLV dimensions or a power car + blind coach mixed consist (like NJT's Arrow-replacement proposal) in those dimensions would fit. As would any regular P32-hauled push-pull using off-shelf MLV blind coaches. The only thing you definitely cannot do at MLV dimensions is a New Haven Line car with pantograph. The MLV car height + the pantograph is too much, so these would have to be 3rd rail-only cars for Hudson/Harlem with New Haven permanently having to make do with M8-dimension single-levels.
So you are saying that NJ Transit's Bi-Levels could be equipped with 3rd Rail Shoes to still handle the switches and all four main tracks under Park Avenue in Manhattan?

Is it likely for Metro North's potentially new Bi-Level Cars to be pulled by locomotives or be 3rd Rail equipped?
NJT's MLV's are just coaches, not EMU's. Those aren't an option except for loco-hauled push-pulls. They can buy them to their heart's content for future coach orders for Hudson and Harlem diesel territory, Waterbury, Danbury, Port Jervis, etc. They can lash up to a P32 and go to GCT just like the Shoreliners. But straight-up coaches are not what they're evaluating here.

What they would be evaluating is a 3rd rail EMU built to fit within the MLV dimensions. It wouldn't be the same cars NJT runs, just the same size as NJT's coaches. And hopefully similar seating capacity to NJT's coaches after they make room for all the EMU electrical equipment. These would be sort of like Metra Electric's gallery car EMU's, except much smaller. The trick is whether any qualified manufacturer can build a reliable bi-level EMU inside that constrained a space and have it perform roughly equivalent to the M3/M7's. NJT's MLV coaches are not the greatest-riding coaches out there because it's a tricky design to make work. So if they don't find a satisfactory bid, this LIRR order for the M9's is the 'known-known' safe fallback position and they can pick up their option for those more-or-less M7 clones. But they have a couple more years to study out the options before they're required to make that decision.

Thomas
Posts: 829
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 10:04 am

Re: M-9 Cars

Post by Thomas » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:39 pm

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:NJT's MLV's are just coaches, not EMU's. Those aren't an option except for loco-hauled push-pulls. They can buy them to their heart's content for future coach orders for Hudson and Harlem diesel territory, Waterbury, Danbury, Port Jervis, etc. They can lash up to a P32 and go to GCT just like the Shoreliners. But straight-up coaches are not what they're evaluating here.

What they would be evaluating is a 3rd rail EMU built to fit within the MLV dimensions. It wouldn't be the same cars NJT runs, just the same size as NJT's coaches. And hopefully similar seating capacity to NJT's coaches after they make room for all the EMU electrical equipment. These would be sort of like Metra Electric's gallery car EMU's, except much smaller. The trick is whether any qualified manufacturer can build a reliable bi-level EMU inside that constrained a space and have it perform roughly equivalent to the M3/M7's. NJT's MLV coaches are not the greatest-riding coaches out there because it's a tricky design to make work. So if they don't find a satisfactory bid, this LIRR order for the M9's is the 'known-known' safe fallback position and they can pick up their option for those more-or-less M7 clones. But they have a couple more years to study out the options before they're required to make that decision.
When (what year) will they have to make that decision?

When is the MTA planning on replacing their diesel locomotives?

F-line to Dudley via Park
Posts: 7355
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: M-9 Cars

Post by F-line to Dudley via Park » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:55 pm

Thomas wrote:
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:NJT's MLV's are just coaches, not EMU's. Those aren't an option except for loco-hauled push-pulls. They can buy them to their heart's content for future coach orders for Hudson and Harlem diesel territory, Waterbury, Danbury, Port Jervis, etc. They can lash up to a P32 and go to GCT just like the Shoreliners. But straight-up coaches are not what they're evaluating here.

What they would be evaluating is a 3rd rail EMU built to fit within the MLV dimensions. It wouldn't be the same cars NJT runs, just the same size as NJT's coaches. And hopefully similar seating capacity to NJT's coaches after they make room for all the EMU electrical equipment. These would be sort of like Metra Electric's gallery car EMU's, except much smaller. The trick is whether any qualified manufacturer can build a reliable bi-level EMU inside that constrained a space and have it perform roughly equivalent to the M3/M7's. NJT's MLV coaches are not the greatest-riding coaches out there because it's a tricky design to make work. So if they don't find a satisfactory bid, this LIRR order for the M9's is the 'known-known' safe fallback position and they can pick up their option for those more-or-less M7 clones. But they have a couple more years to study out the options before they're required to make that decision.
When (what year) will they have to make that decision?

When is the MTA planning on replacing their diesel locomotives?
LIRR's M9 order is set for 2016-2020 delivery. MNRR's options would be the very last ones in the order, for 2019-20. So they probably have until about 2018 to decide on the option unless there's a deadline built into the contract. They still have extra options on the M8's they don't have to exercise for at least another year because those deliveries are still chugging through the main order.

Of course, with procurement schedules being what they are if they would never be able to hold out till 11th hour on picking up the M9 option. To buy multilevels instead they would have to have their financing locked-and-loaded and their vehicle selected by, realistically, 2016. It takes 3-4 years from contract to build, and if anything falls apart with that order they need enough safety margin to pick up the M9 option. The initial specs evaluation and manufacturer pitches would have to take place in 2014 and 2015 to make that decision by '16. Remember, these aren't M7 clones...they're a design nobody's tried before and they have to be sure it's a good one before they buy. So they've probably bought themselves 2 years of 'comfortable' evaluation time before it's go/no-go on whether to buy MLV EMU's or take the 'safe' M9's.


MNRR isn't going to be replacing the diesels for a long time. The BL20GH's are brand new. They'll be around for 2 more decades. The P32's might be a replacement decision around 2020...but it depends a ton on what LIRR needs for running dual modes from diesel territory into GCT. If they decide to junk the DM30AC's it could end up being a very large combo order split between both MTA carriers. Or might not. Too early to tell. They don't have to make that decision for 3-4 more years either, and it's a moving target the way ESA keeps slipping so too early for anyone to give it much advance thought.

Jeff Smith
Site Admin
Posts: 8494
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: MP 67.2 Georgia Southern Railway

Re: MNRR Joint EMU Procurement with LIRR - Alt/Successor to

Post by Jeff Smith » Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:56 am

You may see some non-sequiters in here from the M-9 thread. Apologies. I was trying to get the discussion of the M-9 separate from the discussion of alternatives and successors...
Next stop, Willoughby
~Jeff Smith (fka "Sarge") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator/Co-Owner

MattW
Posts: 570
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 8:00 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA (ATL)

Re: M-9 Cars

Post by MattW » Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:03 pm

DutchRailnut wrote:
morris&essex4ever wrote:
khansingh wrote:Does this mean they've ruled out bi-levels?
Were bi-levels ever considered?
yes, MN can only go up, longer trains or more trains are out of the question. GCT is at capacity.
(Should I kick this question to the MNRR forum?)
What are the constraints on longer trains into GCT? Is it simply GCT platform length, or power supply issues elsewhere?

Return to “MTA Metro-North Railroad and CtDOT Passenger Rail”