M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Discussion of the past and present operations of the Long Island Rail Road.

Moderator: Liquidcamphor

AlKaLI
Posts: 228
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 8:08 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by AlKaLI » Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:58 pm

Came home yesterday after 1/2 day and caught a glimpse of the M-9s on the main line.
As my train headed east to Woodside at 1:15 PM, a 4-car set of M-9s was on Track 1 apparently stopped. Only caught 1 number 9005.
As we continued to Forest Hills (1:20 PM), a 2-car set of M-9s was heading west towards the others. Was it a rescue?
AlKaLI

Head-end View
Posts: 2656
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: The second row on a SEPTA Silverliner V

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by Head-end View » Thu Dec 06, 2018 5:30 pm

Dutch, re: only having one non-powered trailer per consist, is that also so the train will not be underpowered/too slow?

DutchRailnut
Posts: 22256
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by DutchRailnut » Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:27 pm

no but computer will see two non powered cars as failure of a pair.
and fail to set up.
basically with a pair on each side only half the coach is added to each pair and since each car has 1047 hp that is not even close to being probem.
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.

BuddR32
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:14 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by BuddR32 » Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:42 am

AlKaLI wrote:Came home yesterday after 1/2 day and caught a glimpse of the M-9s on the main line.
As my train headed east to Woodside at 1:15 PM, a 4-car set of M-9s was on Track 1 apparently stopped. Only caught 1 number 9005.
As we continued to Forest Hills (1:20 PM), a 2-car set of M-9s was heading west towards the others. Was it a rescue?
AlKaLI
No, testing, you either saw the setting up, or finishing up of it. Part of the testing is single unit testing, however, they cannot go out to the test location with just the one pair.

BuddR32
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:14 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by BuddR32 » Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:47 am

ConstanceR46 wrote:Yes, but that's for M8s. The M9 could theoretically be set up to have blind cars in between some pairs.
Between an A & B car? Not possible. As Dutch mentioned (I think), the S cars have a coupler on both ends. However, between the A & B car there is no coupler (At least on LI) but a drawbar, and electric jumpers and air hoses, etc.

berlintransit
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 2:36 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by berlintransit » Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:48 pm

Do you know facts that preclude the potential LIRR M9A 'S' or 'C' cars from being specified, built and delivered with the required drawbar/reception, air hoses, electric jumpers etc, or was the 'not possible' still related to what is known from the M8?

BuddR32
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:14 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by BuddR32 » Sat Dec 08, 2018 10:12 am

Yes, the specifications for the married pair set up, and the LI’s fifty year history of using married pairs in this manner. LIRR has no desire or need for single MU cars, but if they did, what would make more sense?

A- one with MU style automatic couplers that fit easily in between separate married pairs

Or

B- one which they would have to separate a draw bar, 8 cannon plugs, two air hoses, three phase hard wire jumpers, and a 750v hardwire jumper

While B is technically possible, I think you can see I said it as ‘not possible’ it can be done. The on-board electronics can be programmed to accept anything.

Leaving the third car in between an A&B wouldn’t be possible because none of LIRRs shops can handle three coupled cars.

DutchRailnut
Posts: 22256
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by DutchRailnut » Sat Dec 08, 2018 12:23 pm

and again in option B you loose half your repair spots in shop as a track that now fits 4 cars all of a sudden only fits 3.
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.

berlintransit
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 2:36 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by berlintransit » Sat Dec 08, 2018 5:48 pm

Budd and Dutch, thank you both for pointing out again and so clearly the MoE/shop aspect. I was aware that coupling the 'S' car in between the A and B with the drawbar connection etc. is not something that is done in 5 minutes. I supposed that with this done though, the fixed 3 car configuration could stay in service for a while, this setup making it easier for passengers to walk from car to car through the powered blind end doors in order to get to the restroom, as discussed above. Of course, the impracticability of maintaining these configurations was not on my mind and I will not bother you more with the idea of triplets.
BuddR32 wrote: [...] LIRR has no desire or need for single MU cars, but if they did, [...]
It was not my idea, I just picked up the strange notion of "30 LIRR M9A option coaches" in the LIRR Board Notes and really started to wonder what purpose they could be for. To me, too, the number of vehicles sounded to small to really be relevant for expansion of electric service. The overall fleet is so large that having those 'strangers' in between eventually will end up causing some trouble in operational terms. The idea of specifying these option coaches for diesel service seemed a bit off-the-wall to me, too, but then from what I think, 30 single-level cars would be the optimal size of a relief diesel fleet to take over some services on the Pt Jeff Branch, freeing up C3s for Montauk services. Well. Time will show what (if ever something) becomes of the 'option coaches'.

Besides, I am a bit disappointed about the lack of a further large option in that M9A contract in order to fill up the aspired Mid Pt Jeff Branch electric yard. Planning and land acquisition is funded in the current 2015-2019 capital program and the size of the yard was supposed to be about 16 tracks for 12 car trains. (Far more than could ever be achieved within the current footprint of Port Jefferson yard, which is why this cannot be an alternative to a new yard further west even if the whole line were to be electrified and at least partially double tracked, just besides.)
http://web.mta.info/capitaldashboard/al ... s&PLTYPE=5
Using simple maths, the 236 M9 and M9A 'surplus' cars can be distributed as follows:
  • Pt Washington Yard enlargement 18 cars
    Mid-Suffolk Yard up to 11x12=132 cars
    leaving at least 86 cars for maintenance and other ESA services probably operated from NYC, including trains reversing at the new Massapequa pocket track
This leaves no cars for the new Pt Jeff Branch electric yard.
While the Main Line 3rd Track Project makes it a bit easier to continuously get trains from NYC to Huntington during the AM Peak, in order to make best use of the new express track and at the same time maintain decent service levels for local stations Hicksville through New Hyde Park, a lot of local trains starting from the Pt Jeff Branxh and thus the electric yard will be urgently needed. It seems a pity that a new EMU may have to be procured if the yard is built maybe 2025/30.

Head-end View
Posts: 2656
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: The second row on a SEPTA Silverliner V

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by Head-end View » Sat Dec 08, 2018 8:02 pm

I can easily understand LIRR's wanting to stay with married-pairs in the electric fleet. The existing configuration has served them well for fifty years. It's simple effective, and uniform in an otherwise complex rail network. Adding in extra single cars here and there would only complicate what is now a very predictable train configuration. :-D

Train2009
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:52 pm
Location: White Plains, New York Westchester County

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by Train2009 » Sun Dec 09, 2018 6:08 am

At 9:27 AM a 8 car set was seen leaving Hillside for testing in Woodside yesterday morning, at 2:52 PM in the afternoon it was seen in Jamaica headed east as it was headed up the Main Line.

BuddR32
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:14 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by BuddR32 » Mon Dec 10, 2018 1:32 am

Head-end View wrote:I can easily understand LIRR's wanting to stay with married-pairs in the electric fleet. The existing configuration has served them well for fifty years. It's simple effective, and uniform in an otherwise complex rail network. Adding in extra single cars here and there would only complicate what is now a very predictable train configuration. :-D
Like a irked yardmaster making up a ten car train of unpowered S cars? LOL

Head-end View
Posts: 2656
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: The second row on a SEPTA Silverliner V

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by Head-end View » Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:54 pm

LOL Well yeah, that a good point. The married-pairs that always face the same way are fool-proof in that regard.

User avatar
PlaneLoverA380
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed May 02, 2018 2:04 pm
Location: Railfanning at Mineola

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by PlaneLoverA380 » Thu Dec 13, 2018 12:45 pm

Lol, I would get triggered if the M9s had a B end and an A end without cab windows. I just want to see 2 B ends, like MNR 9464, the M8 S car. I’m a symmetry boi.
As you leave the train, please step over the gap between the train and the platform

https://m.youtube.com/c/RailstormersRailAviation - My channel, I upload my railfanning catches here.

ConstanceR46
Posts: 386
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:57 pm

Re: M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Post by ConstanceR46 » Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:03 pm

what does any of that mean

Return to “Long Island Rail Road (LIRR)”