• Arrow II Retirement

  • Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.
Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.

Moderators: lensovet, Kaback9, nick11a

  by Jersey_Mike
 
Can anyone explain why the Arrow II's were retired so early compared with the IIIs? I can't find much information about them on the web and the forum search refuses to lock onto the term. The II's were 1975 Budd products and as such they should have easily lasted a good 40 or 50 years instead of 20. Did NJT just go push-pull crazy?

If there were mechanical issues could someone explain what was wrong and what sort of control system they employed compared with the GE SL-IVs and A-IIIs?
  by R36 Combine Coach
 
They were replaced by (you guessed it): push-pull. The option (Microprocessor) order of ALP44s and Comet IVs that were delivered in late 1996 for Midtown Direct. Once Midtown Direct was in full swing, the last few Arrow IIs were withdrawn off the M&E division by 1997.

They were more or less the NJDOT version of the Silverliner IVs to some variation. The last two survivors, 1236 and 1237 are on the SEPTA wire train.
  by Jersey_Mike
 
Once Midtown Direct was in full swing, the last few Arrow IIs were withdrawn off the M&E division by 1997.
Did the Arrow II's have similar voltage limitations as the III's? It just seems odd how anti-MU NJT is. It's one thing to buy new push pulls for express services, but to replace perfectly cromulent MU's with 20 years of life left in them just seems entirely short sighted. It's a shame that SEPTA didn't pick them up. Hell, SEPTA could have traded its under utilized Push-Pull sets to NJT for its Arrow IIs.
  by redarrow5591
 
Jersey_Mike wrote:
Once Midtown Direct was in full swing, the last few Arrow IIs were withdrawn off the M&E division by 1997.
Did the Arrow II's have similar voltage limitations as the III's? It just seems odd how anti-MU NJT is. It's one thing to buy new push pulls for express services, but to replace perfectly cromulent MU's with 20 years of life left in them just seems entirely short sighted. It's a shame that SEPTA didn't pick them up. Hell, SEPTA could have traded its under utilized Push-Pull sets to NJT for its Arrow IIs.
Here's the deal with them as it was told to me. After they came back from their time with MARC in the late 80's they all had various problems - floor rot, leaky ceilings, high voltage issues to name a few - and at the time it was being considered to put the AII's through the same overhaul that the AIII's got. The various issues with the cars made them financially nonviable to overhaul. The Comet IV's and the ALP44M's was ordered instead. Those cars then sat almost through the entire decade at the MMC until 2001 when NJT sold them to scrap. Although the cars was in poor shape for SEPTA's needs, one set: 1236/1237 was brought by the TA to be split up and converted for use as work cars. 1237 became 601, the new camp car for the Wire Train replacing the Reading Bluebird 9127; 1236 became 602 and is now on one of the Gel Trains.
  by Jtgshu
 
boy that refrain sounds familar......

(cough cough Comet 3 rebuild vs. more Multilevels)
  by Jersey_Mike
 
Were the AII's entirely Budd built or Budd-GE combination? In either case any reason why the quality was so low compared with the SL-IV's and AIIIs or did MARC do something to ruin them?
  by sixty-six
 
Jersey_Mike wrote:Were the AII's entirely Budd built or Budd-GE combination? In either case any reason why the quality was so low compared with the SL-IV's and AIIIs or did MARC do something to ruin them?
According to the Penn Central/NJDOT operators manual, it was entirely a GE product.
  by Jersey_Mike
 
According to the Penn Central/NJDOT operators manual, it was entirely a GE product.
Budd built the shells for the AIIIs and SIV's and i assume the AIIs as well. This sometimes leads to them being listed as built by Budd/GE. Thanks for the info on the GE origin tho.
  by Sid Farkus
 
Why was MARC using them and how many sets did they borrow? I never, ever remember hearing this are there any photos from there time on MARC? I do remember seeing the MARC AEM-7s on NJT in the '80s as a demo unit.
  by R36 Combine Coach
 
Jersey_Mike wrote:
According to the Penn Central/NJDOT operators manual, it was entirely a GE product.
Budd built the shells for the AIIIs and SIV's and i assume the AIIs as well. This sometimes leads to them being listed as built by Budd/GE. Thanks for the info on the GE origin tho.
FInal assembly with Budd shells and GE components was done at Red Lion. I believe the Arrow IIIs were among the best cars to ever roll out of Red Lion.
  by keyboardkat
 
Well, you guys have answered my long unanswered question about why the Arrow IIs were not converted for push-pull service with diesels, as the Arrow Is were.

The issue, by the way, is not being anti-MU. Its simply a matter of dollars and cents. A fleet of MU cars is expensive to buy (not an issue with the Arrow IIs because they were already in existence), and expensive to maintain because of the large number of motors (and these were D.C. series wound motors with brushes and commutators to wear out and be replaced) and the control equipment on each car. Further the Feds consider every motorized car to be a locomotive for purposes of inspection intervals, etc. NJT was going to rebuild these cars with A.C. traction, dynamic brakes and "long" doors for low platforms, but the bids came in high and with the condition of the cars being what it was, it was decided that it wasn't worth it.

It is cheaper to buy and maintain a relatively small fleet of electric locomotives and a large fleet of unpowered cars than to buy and maintain a large fleet of EMUs. Today's electric locomotives are so powerful that train performance is only a little worse than that of EMUs - terminal -to -terminal schedules are only a few minutes longer. And the railroad gets better equipment utilization because the same fleet of cars can be used interchangeably on electrified or diesel routes.
  by ChrisU
 
Susquehaniewikiwokiwani wrote:Why was MARC using them and how many sets did they borrow? I never, ever remember hearing this are there any photos from there time on MARC? I do remember seeing the MARC AEM-7s on NJT in the '80s as a demo unit.
I don't know how many sets they are but what I do know is that it was a deal that NJT & MARC made so NJT leased the AEM7s and MARC leased the AII's and a few GP40FH-2's as well I have also heard that MARC outright bought a few RDC's from NJT.
  by nomis
 
NJTArrow2 wrote:... I have also heard that MARC outright bought a few RDC's from NJT.
MARC 26 = NJT 5186 = PRSL M-409
MARC 27 = NJT 5187 = PRSL M-410
MARC 28 = NJT 5188 = PRSL M-411 (c. J.Almeida)
MARC 29 = NJT 5189 = PRSL M-413

'Bought outright' i believe is not correct however ...
  by CNJGeep
 
Susquehaniewikiwokiwani wrote:Why was MARC using them and how many sets did they borrow? I never, ever remember hearing this are there any photos from there time on MARC? I do remember seeing the MARC AEM-7s on NJT in the '80s as a demo unit.
NJT got AEM-7 4901 for use on the NJCL as a trade with MARC for 4131, which was used on the evening express to Martinsburg (Formerly Amtrak's Blue Ridge). This swap transpired because, at the time, MDOT was rebuilding its F9PH units, and the GP39s did not have enough power for the train (which was usually 2 F9s and seven or so cars). GP40WHs had not yet been delivered, IIRC.
  by Sid Farkus
 
Didn't NJT get two AEM-7s? I know one was used on the NJCL. Also where do the Arrow IIs factor in to that trade, or where they something different all together and what line did Marc use them on? I didn't think the voltage of the Arrow IIs could handle the NEC which I assume Marc would have them running on? I'm not familiar with MARC lines so I'm just speculating. Thanks