DMU Purchase

I understand the frustration, but discriminate implies INTENT. You're saying LIRR is saying "screw east enders" by intentionally not increasing service.

The fact likely is they don't have the budget wherewithal to do it; we know they don't have the equipment. Whether that's $37m (did I remember that amount right?) for DMU's, or push-pull equipment, is besides the point. There's been a pretty good argument against DMU equipment. I'm not expert enough to know which is better. So, let them buy some second-hand stuff. CtDOT is pretty good at that. I'd get with your state rep or senator or governor and ask them why the MTA can't do something like that? Or go to a board meeting. That one comment I posted above is pretty much on the mark.

As for east end traffic, um, yeah, I lived and worked in Holtsville for over a year, so I know the traffic on 25 by the bull in Smithtown or Sunrise Highway 27 out in the Moriches, as well as the Northern State, LIE, you name it (did I pass my LI bonafides test? ). There may be some who use it to commute; it's not typical past KO. And of course, if the service would be better, maybe you wouldn't need a parking lot the size of an airport (ironic given it's proximity to Macarthur) at Ronk. So they run an infrequent scoot.

Yes a locomotive is way safer than a EMU or DMU, this weeks crash in Netherlands showed that again. as for Cab car , its just as safe as EMU or DMU.
as for inspection cost say LIRR wanted a 2 or 3 car consist for east end service , you would either have to go for some kind of light rail DMU , which is not compatible, or heavy rail DMU with 2 or 3 engines per car.
or go with Push pull, a cab car and locomotive need regular inspection intervals like 92 day 365 day etc but so would any DMU ,the coaches only need daily and one year inspections.
For daily maintenance the electrical testing remains same, but maintenance cost for servicing all engines on a DMU would take time and take time away from inspections of other equipment.
A machinist would rather check one propulsion engine and a HEP unit vs 3 or 6 propulsion engines under a DMU.
Locomotives don't have much debris damage, but DMU's get hoses and engine parts destroyed everytime the little darlings put something on rails, and spill all their fluid all over place.

If the railroad is getting power back from NYA, couldn't they just buy some second hand coaches and use them as needed?

DutchRailnut wrote:Yes a locomotive is way safer than a EMU or DMU, this weeks crash in Netherlands showed that again. as for Cab car , its just as safe as EMU or DMU.
as for inspection cost say LIRR wanted a 2 or 3 car consist for east end service , you would either have to go for some kind of light rail DMU , which is not compatible, or heavy rail DMU with 2 or 3 engines per car.
or go with Push pull, a cab car and locomotive need regular inspection intervals like 92 day 365 day etc but so would any DMU ,the coaches only need daily and one year inspections.
For daily maintenance the electrical testing remains same, but maintenance cost for servicing all engines on a DMU would take time and take time away from inspections of other equipment.
A machinist would rather check one propulsion engine and a HEP unit vs 3 or 6 propulsion engines under a DMU.
Locomotives don't have much debris damage, but DMU's get hoses and engine parts destroyed everytime the little darlings put something on rails, and spill all their fluid all over place.

Why 2 or 3 engines per car? The Nippon Sharyo DMUs have one engine per car, the Stadler units seem to have variants with one engine.

let them prove, that they are up to US service, on paper even Danish flexliner worked, in reality it did not in US.
and even with one engine per car you would exceed the 2 engines per train very easily.
and again your naming units unfit for LIRR as the floor height is NOT compatible with high level platforms

Crabman1130 wrote:If the railroad is getting power back from NYA, couldn't they just buy some second hand coaches and use them as needed?

Not with the stupid voltage difference from the rest of the world on the DE/DM30's + C3's. Supplemental power and cars would have to be segregated from the current push-pull fleet, which is a lousy deal for the kind of scale needed to do truly meaningful Scoot service everywhere.

Have to wait until the next equipment purchase for standard MLV coaches and coordinated power order with Metro North, which will clean the slate on the P-P fleet and give them fully standardized equipment. Then you can start ID'ing secondhand options above-and-beyond the current diesel baseline to start scaling up Scoot options. It'll happen soon enough since current fleet's 20-year mark is fast approaching and they've already decided that midlife overhaul is a poorer value vs. going in with Metro North/CDOT for a common new order. They'll have to program those funds in the next 2-3 years if they want the new fleet in-service by 2020-22. But options for supplemental service will have to wait until then before the scale is there to do it in non- ham-fisted fashion.


Probably better to do that and get the pump primed on some real demand rather than making a big, big leap to DMU's and then not having any follow-through on the service levels. That was the scariest thing about the MBTA's RFP for DMU's. They were pathologically evasive on what the actual service plan and scale-up was for their Indigo Line service rollout. Which now looks they never had any sincere desire whatsoever to implement. Buy DMU's and not have the frequent, clock-facing, dense stop-spacing service the investment in specialty rolling stock needs to pay off? Disaster. They would've been white elephants running longer-distance on conventional commuter rail routes. The vehicle is not the service...the service is the service. It's entirely reasonable to hold a dysfunctional organization's feet to the fire by demanding a little proof that they're serious about their service plan. Starting the scale-up with the best that push-pull equipment can do is a reasonable prerequisite for giving them the funds to splurge on specialized equipment. Gotta establish some trust that they'll use their resources wisely.

So what is alternative? Excuse for not increasing service has been no equipment ... big diesel equipment costs lots of $$$, which MTA does not seem to be have much of with capital program. D-MU's seem to be cheaper to purchase up-front, no?

Isn't the new airport line in Toronto using these D-MU's? They must have seen advantages of getting D-MU's?

DutchRailnut wrote:let them prove, that they are up to US service, on paper even Danish flexliner worked, in reality it did not in US.
and even with one engine per car you would exceed the 2 engines per train very easily.
and again your naming units unfit for LIRR as the floor height is NOT compatible with high level platforms

I wasn't saying "these should be used on the LIRR" I was only pointing out that there are DMUs with a single engine per car. Also, for the record, the Nippon Sharyo DMU has a LIRR platform compatible floor height based on everything I can find.

pparalikia wrote:So what is alternative? Excuse for not increasing service has been no equipment ... big diesel equipment costs lots of $$$, which MTA does not seem to be have much of with capital program. D-MU's seem to be cheaper to purchase up-front, no?

Isn't the new airport line in Toronto using these D-MU's? They must have seen advantages of getting D-MU's?

Metrolinx isn't a good comparison because they incurred absolutely silly cost overruns in their haste to get that airport project open. That project was so rife with political corruption that the cost/benefit calculation on their DMU purchase is lost amid all the extracurricular "pollution".

Hillside shop is not the best place for DMU maintaince/repair,you wind up building a shop at Ronkonkoma and
at Babylon for their running repairs.

If the "C-5's" are to be based off the NJT/MARC(MN) MLV car specs,LIRR will be better off to build a dedicated shop
at Morris Park to maintain the diesel Fleet and the "C-5's",Hillside is too overloaded and barely maintains the M-3/M-7 fleet
Heavy repairs

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

Crabman1130 wrote:If the railroad is getting power back from NYA, couldn't they just buy some second hand coaches and use them as needed?

Not with the stupid voltage difference from the rest of the world on the DE/DM30's + C3's. Supplemental power and cars would have to be segregated from the current push-pull fleet, which is a lousy deal for the kind of scale needed to do truly meaningful Scoot service everywhere.

Have to wait until the next equipment purchase for standard MLV coaches and coordinated power order with Metro North, which will clean the slate on the P-P fleet and give them fully standardized equipment. Then you can start ID'ing secondhand options above-and-beyond the current diesel baseline to start scaling up Scoot options. It'll happen soon enough since current fleet's 20-year mark is fast approaching and they've already decided that midlife overhaul is a poorer value vs. going in with Metro North/CDOT for a common new order. They'll have to program those funds in the next 2-3 years if they want the new fleet in-service by 2020-22. But options for supplemental service will have to wait until then before the scale is there to do it in non- ham-fisted fashion.


Probably better to do that and get the pump primed on some real demand rather than making a big, big leap to DMU's and then not having any follow-through on the service levels. That was the scariest thing about the MBTA's RFP for DMU's. They were pathologically evasive on what the actual service plan and scale-up was for their Indigo Line service rollout. Which now looks they never had any sincere desire whatsoever to implement. Buy DMU's and not have the frequent, clock-facing, dense stop-spacing service the investment in specialty rolling stock needs to pay off? Disaster. They would've been white elephants running longer-distance on conventional commuter rail routes. The vehicle is not the service...the service is the service. It's entirely reasonable to hold a dysfunctional organization's feet to the fire by demanding a little proof that they're serious about their service plan. Starting the scale-up with the best that push-pull equipment can do is a reasonable prerequisite for giving them the funds to splurge on specialized equipment. Gotta establish some trust that they'll use their resources wisely.

You didn't understand my post.

The GP38-2 that they would get back could be matched up with second hand coaches purchased to be paired with them. MP15ac could be used as hotel power.
They would not be used with the existing bi level fleet.

This could fill the gap until new equipment could be purchased.

Two-loco lash-ups? That is a ghastly, ghastly pig on ops cost for running a low-margin Scoot. No way are they going to use that getup as a short-term supplement. The days of plugging second hotel power units behind a HEP-less leader were over in the 1970's and very early-80's for U.S. commuter rail agencies, when they had all replaced the last of their vintage steam-generator equipment and gone uniformly HEP-equipped. LIRR isn't in such dire, desperate straits with push-pull equipment shortages that it would ever consider running non-emergency consists like that which are such huge loss leaders to operate. They can easily wait for the DE/DM30-replacement and MLV coach orders to arrive and boost the fleet numbers. It's only 2-3 more years before those funds have to be programmed, RFP's issued, bids evaluated, and so on for that joint LIRR/MNRR/CDOT procurement.

the power packs provided 660 volt DC for hotel power, not 480 volt AC, so they would be useless for any of today's cars

Regardless to what the power packs of the 90s provided for hotel power. A Diesel engine was used to generate electricity to provide that "head end power" so I theory they could have be rebuilt for them umpteen time to provide the prober 480VAC and run with the current. With 2 geeps up front and a pack in the back capable of providing 10-12'cars of HEP.

The "we can't" sprit installed in the mid to late 90s is the problem. Anything was and or is possible with the MTA check book of that period. As was seen with the trillions flushed in the sewer on the current fleet.
It would have cost less money to over haul the best geeps and conventional coaches for "seasonal service" and bought comet 3 center doors and GP60s with HEP for power and double end most trains. ( the one seat fantasy to penn was not needed)

Millions would have been saved by not having to build crossovers at ND and SN, and the full high platforms, a 1-2 car high spot for ADA would suffice and a well trained staff to operate would know how to platform and spot a wheel chair there.
And at small stations such as greenport, and wheelchair lift would do.

Either way and locomotive she'll able to hold a Diesel engine and generator could be built to provide modern HEP. It's a matter of what urinal to stand in front of. The LIRR chose the one with The gold plated plumbing instead of the chrome.
Apples and bananas

Time to closed the topic on this thread. LIRR isnt going to get no DMU plain and simple.