Shoreliner Discussion

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

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

Re: Shoreliner Discussion

Post by F-line to Dudley via Park » Sat Jan 09, 2016 7:18 pm

The MLV form factor Bombardier came up with is designed to be 'universal' to all low-clearance tunnels: Penn + North River, GCT + Park Ave., SEPTA Center City, and AMT's Mt. Royal Tunnel. The only passenger route on the continent where they can't go is East Side Access, because of that recycled 1970's tunnel segment that was predicated to M1 car dimensions and not an inch taller. Any MLV order, be it from Bombardier or a copycat using different design/same dimensions, is going to be fine for both tight overhead clearance under catenary and tight underclearance over 3rd rail. Board search is being a P.I.T.A. at pulling up the exact confirming posts, but the Bombardier prototypes were clearance-tested in GCT years ago and other than some obstructing signal heads that need to be relocated on a couple of the tracks the vanilla design is A-OK for the full MNRR system.


It's no question the MTA needs them bad. Limited number of long platforms at GCT and dwell penalties for longer sets than will fit on many Upper Hudson and Upper Harlem platforms means the only way that can satisfy the crowding without ops compromises is to go vertical and max out the per-car capacity. Makes perfect sense for them to go whole-hog and knock out the Shoreliner I's + II's + III's in one mega-order w/ stepped-out options. CDOT's in a different place as its diesel routes don't run into GCT often enough to get pinched by availability of platforms of certain length, and are still short-enough consists that they're nowhere near maxed out on the very shortest 4- and 6-car platforms. Nor are dwell times on a Danbury or Waterbury platform going to be any problem. So they've got a more nuanced strategic decision to make on whether to join in on the MLV order or do an ownership swap for displaced MTA Shoreliner III's as rebuild-and-replace units for scrapping their I's, II's, and (maybe) Mafersas + padding for expansion.

DutchRailnut
Posts: 22266
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: Shoreliner Discussion

Post by DutchRailnut » Sat Jan 09, 2016 8:01 pm

NJT has multilevels LIRR has Bilevels both are 14'6" high but NJT cars have better corner clearance. just because you see Catenary wire does not set height.
the Catenary on New Haven line has many low spots barely leaving equipment room for 14'6" , while NJ and south NEC have much more uniform height and clearance.
one of reasons max Catenary voltage is 12.5kv 60 hz places like darien and few others the catenary gets to about 8 or 9 inches from locomotives like Genesis.
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.

User avatar
GirlOnTheTrain
Posts: 570
Joined: Mon May 25, 2015 7:19 pm

Re: Shoreliner Discussion

Post by GirlOnTheTrain » Sat Jan 09, 2016 8:06 pm

YamaOfParadise wrote:I assume bilevels wouldn't be able to run under the NH Line electrification? I know the MBTA does run bilevels under Amtrak's North-end Electrification, so I know you can run bilevels under wire, but I would assume that during the construction of that system it was designed to have a high enough loading gauge for that.
Don't forget, before they realized the Meadowlands trains are patronized more by foamers wanting New Haven Line Penn access than actual football fans that the trains were run from NHV with NJT multilevels, which as Jaap said is the basis for any CDOT/MTA multilevels - and that GCT clearance is what you'd have to worry about - except it's already known that they fit.
"I am no longer just a girl on the train, going back and forth without point or purpose."

Moderator: Amtrak, MTA Metro-North, MTA New York City Subway/PATH/NYC Area Light Rail

Jeff Smith
Site Admin
Posts: 8535
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: If it's Tuesday, It Must Be Belgium

Re: Shoreliner Discussion

Post by Jeff Smith » Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:05 pm

As has been noted here before, bi-levels are very important for Hudson service, as they run far more diesel service into GCT. Harlem line has a couple/three rush-hour trains; Danbury has what, two? And I know for equipment turns, there are some NH main line trains that run using Maxi's. Now, if CT decides to fund some outer-zone super expresses from New London or New Haven as the one former employee alludes to in that article, maybe they'd need a few bi-levels. Some train that starts at New London or New Haven, Bridgeport, SoNo, and Stamford, and that's it. Of course, the power would have to be qualified on Amtrak (you couldn't use the non-DM CtDOT fleet into GCT).

So I think F-Line's idea of CtDOT recycling all the NYS Shoreliners is a good idea; they'd MAYBE only need or want a few bi-levels for the Danbury maxi's (that make not only branch but main-line stops), and those main-line trains from out past Bridgeport, etc.
Next stop, Willoughby
~el Jefe ("Jeff Smith Rules") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator/Co-Owner

DutchRailnut
Posts: 22266
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: Shoreliner Discussion

Post by DutchRailnut » Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:12 am

Danbury runs 3 maxis, two 7 car / one 6 car.

Wassaic runs 5 maxi's all 5 are 7 car.
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.

Jeff Smith
Site Admin
Posts: 8535
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: If it's Tuesday, It Must Be Belgium

Re: Shoreliner Discussion

Post by Jeff Smith » Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:47 pm

Wow, I had no idea Wassaic ran that many Maxi's. I thought 2, 3 at the most. I could have figured that out from the schedule; I guess. Those will all end up bi-level I guess, along with the sets from the Hudson. I imagine the Danbury runs, 20 cars, could remain single. Depends on how many stops past SoNo. Still, they'd fill up at Stamford anyway. Might as well make them bi-level too. That leaves CtDOT with the mini's, Hartford Line, SLE New London and any expansion beyond, and any other expansions.
Next stop, Willoughby
~el Jefe ("Jeff Smith Rules") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator/Co-Owner

DutchRailnut
Posts: 22266
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: Shoreliner Discussion

Post by DutchRailnut » Sun Jan 10, 2016 2:08 pm

you would still have to have two fleets , MN pool and SLE pool is different craft and unions, they won't work on each others stuff.
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.

NH2060
Posts: 1518
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: Shoreliner Discussion

Post by NH2060 » Sun Jan 10, 2016 2:32 pm

Agreed I don't see why CDOT would piggyback on an order for more $$$ per car for only a small fleet compared to having a 100% separate and homogenous coach/cab fleet that would practically cost pennies on the dollar. When/if the time comes for CDOT to go all bilevel as well (sans electric operations of course) they can piggyback on a NJT or SEPTA order 10 years or so from now. If NJT is aiming to replace the last of their single levels by 2025 (which who knows could end up being 2028-2030) and if SEPTA decides to go with more MLVs and electrics then the timing will be perfect for CDOT to jump onboard. They would more than likely be last in line as it is so they would still get quite a bit of use out of those swapped/rebuilt Shoreliner IIIs, etc.


And if they decide to get more than 10-15 (20?) years out of them NJT will likely be back to Bombardier for replacements for the original MLVs; unless they're still hanging in there in 2040!

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

Re: Shoreliner Discussion

Post by F-line to Dudley via Park » Sun Jan 10, 2016 4:45 pm

Jeff Smith wrote:Wow, I had no idea Wassaic ran that many Maxi's. I thought 2, 3 at the most. I could have figured that out from the schedule; I guess. Those will all end up bi-level I guess, along with the sets from the Hudson. I imagine the Danbury runs, 20 cars, could remain single. Depends on how many stops past SoNo. Still, they'd fill up at Stamford anyway. Might as well make them bi-level too. That leaves CtDOT with the mini's, Hartford Line, SLE New London and any expansion beyond, and any other expansions.
Danbury Improvements Study service increase alternatives all plan for moving the shuttle terminus to Stamford through a reconfigured CP 241 that adds extra tracks between SoNo and the branch split + more fluid crossovers. It jibed better with MNRR 2030 mainline traffic modeling to do it that way rather than try to make lemonade out of lemons with the SoNo stub platformlets. Track 5 is pinched for too little room to group all terminating trains on the northerly side away from mainline co-mingling. So the need to keep using--and increase service--on the Track 6 stub remains the turd in the punchbowl at SoNo. Sending more trains crossing over all 4 mainline tracks fouled the mainline worse than a CP 241 reconfig + permanent shift to a Stamford terminus. Your opinion may vary, but the ultimate deciders deemed that service plan checked out better for the long term.

GCT has only that one 4-car platform pair that's useless for most trains. All the other shorties on the lower level are 6-car. 7-car Danbury trains aren't going to be an aggravating factor if the most sardine-packed runs of the day get bookended with more adjacent schedule slots. They're much better-able to hold to absorb all probable ridership growth by having more rush hour schedule options rather than needing to go ever-longer on consist length with what few trains are currently on the schedule. Overspilling those 6-car mainline platforms are way, way more a concern for mushrooming New Haven-Stamford locals. They should have no problem holding the line at 6-car max Danbury consists if additional frequencies were there to absorb the growth. So that alone is not going to sway a CDOT executive decision on vehicle procurement strategy. Too many other bigger factors outweigh the current (and future- moving target) Danbury equipment assignments in that calculation.

User avatar
GojiMet86
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:04 pm

Re: Shoreliner Discussion

Post by GojiMet86 » Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:55 pm

This is a bit of a bump (I see the last post was made in 2016), but I was (and still am) confused on what trains are Shoreliners I, II, III, or IV, and what year they were built.

The Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-Nor ... ling_stock" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), the TTMG roster (http://ttmg.org/transitwiki/MTA_Railroads_Fleet_Roster" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), and the Canadian Public Transportation Data Base roster (https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/Metro-N ... r_Railroad" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) have conflicting info on which cars are which and when they were built. I also see that these pages are missing some cars (don't see 6182 and 6184 accounted for in either one). Of course, these are wiki sites and anyone can edit them (except TTMG), but the information does come from real sources.

The Metro-North Equipment Roster of 2009 PDF (don't have the link, but I think it is in another thread here) divides the cars by door placement (end doors vs. middle door), type (trailer vs. cab vs. bathroom), years built, contracts (38, 38A, 38B, 82, etc) and dates accepted and/or refurbished. However, it doesn't distinguish between the I, II, III, and IV designations.

So I decided to compile a list from the MNRR roster file, and this is the result:




1983 Comet IIA 6125-6129 (Odd) (Former 5175-5177)
1987 Comet IIB 6131 (Ex 5178)
1987 Comet IIB 6134-6136 (Even) (Former 5986-5987)
1983 Comet IIA 6138-6148 (Even) (Former 5988-5993)
1987 Comet IIB 6143-6149 (Odd) (Former 5980-5983)
1985 Shoreliner I 6101-6109 (Odd)
1987 Shoreliner I 6111-6119 (Odd)
1985 Shoreliner I 6150-6160
1987 Shoreliner I 6161-6165 (Odd)
1985 Shoreliner I 6162-6166 (Even)
1987 Shoreliner I 6167-6174
1987 Shoreliner I 6176-6184 (Even)
1986 Shoreliner I 6201-6209 (Odd)
1986 Shoreliner I 6251-6260
1986 Shoreliner I 6262-6266 (Even)
1991 Shoreliner II 6121-6123 (Odd)
1991 Shoreliner II 6175-6179 (Odd)
1991 Shoreliner II 6186-6190 (Even)
1991 Shoreliner II 6211-6219 (Odd) (Some former Shore Line East units)
1999 Shoreliner II 6223-6229 (Odd) (All former Shore Line East units)
1991 Shoreliner II 6230-6240 (Even) (All former Shore Line East units)
1991 Shoreliner II 6270-6278 (Even) (Some former Shore Line East units)
1996 Shoreliner III 6301-6308
1997 Shoreliner III 6309-6310
1999 Shoreliner III 6311-6320
1996 Shoreliner III 6330-6352
1997 Shoreliner III 6353-6361 (Odd)
1996 Shoreliner III 6354-6358 (Even)
1997 Shoreliner III 6360-6374 (Even)
1999 Shoreliner III 6363-6371 (Odd)
1999 Shoreliner III 6376-6398 (Even)
1999 Shoreliner III 6430-6374 (Even)
2002 Shoreliner IV 6221-6222
2002 Shoreliner IV 6280-6286
2002 Shoreliner IV 6288
2002 Comet V 6700-6714
2002 Comet V 6750-6799




I divided them in batches: Shoreliner I (1985-1987), Shoreliner II (1991), Shoreliner III (1996-1999), and Shoreliner IV (2002), plus the Comets (1983, 1987, and 2002). I used the acceptance date as a proxy for the year.

Can anyone double-check this?

Also, is there a more recent edition of the Metro-North Equipment Roster?

Backshophoss
Posts: 6323
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Shoreliner Discussion

Post by Backshophoss » Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:37 pm

You may have mixed the WOH fleet in with the Shoreliners ,double check against the NJT roster to break out the WOH fleet from the Shoreliners.
They are part of the MN fleet but will never see Harmon shop or cross the Hudson river! :wink:
The Land of Enchantment is not Flyover country!

DutchRailnut
Posts: 22266
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: Shoreliner Discussion

Post by DutchRailnut » Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:43 pm

All of them older WofH are part of EofH fleet , the fleet WofH is all new Alstom build Comet V for a totally new fleet
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.

R36 Combine Coach
Posts: 5480
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Shoreliner Discussion

Post by R36 Combine Coach » Tue May 07, 2019 9:02 pm

GojiMet86 wrote:I divided them in batches: Shoreliner I (1985-1987), Shoreliner II (1991), Shoreliner III (1996-1999), and Shoreliner IV (2002), plus the Comets (1983, 1987, and 2002). I used the acceptance date as a proxy for the year.
The 2002 ConnDOT center door coaches fascinate me. If the delivery date is correct, these are indeed the last aluminum coaches built on the 1970 NJDOT/Pullman design. But I heard somewhere the ConnDOT coaches were actually built in 1998 or 1999, but not delivered until 2002. I do know SEPTA tagged an add-on of 10 cars to the 1999 Shoreliner coach order. The 1996 center doors were built slightly ahead of the Comet IVs.

The 65 MNCR Comet Vs were actually built/delivered 2004, after the 200 NJT cars. When riding a Comet V, the date on the FRA glass glazing can be a rough date of the age of the car. Early build (low 6000s/6500s) have '01/'02 dates, higher cars have '03 or early '04 dates and the MNCR cars have glass dated '04 (eg. 05/04).
Since my friend continues to chain smoke nonstop, she is probably an Alco.

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