DMU Purchase

I saw an article in an east end newspaper that the LIRR had ended plans to purchase some DMU's because the off the shelf products weren't compatible with LIRR operations. Since money had been set aside for the initial purchase this is disappointing. Does anyone know what the story is?

Here's a link to the article:

http://suffolktimes.timesreview.com/201 ... k-on-hold/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Considering that there is only 1 type of DMU in service/being built that is designed for high level boarding I think we can forget the idea of DMUs on the East End. Furthermore with the bilevel replacement process around the corner in possibly a few years might have convinced the MTA to just stick with the "same old thing".

The quote from the MTA guy doesn't make any sense to me..."too heavy" and don't "fit the tracks"??? I still don't understand why the existing models are not "compatible" with the LIRR "system." What is the problem?

The problem is the "MU" mentality. DMU's or M9 capatabel "DM"DMU's would be a nice investment for single car or married par units for mid day diesel service and east of KO service.
But truly is not needed. When one looks at the expense to design and build these custom things unique to LIRR and have absolutely no other takers.
If the LIRR would get tier heads out of their "we are special" bubble maybe just maybe a DMU for the north east commuter rail agencies would be possible, with LIRR actually stepping to the plate as the leader and not the follower making things special to only them.

Truth is you don't need DMU's lease equipment, there is stuff out there. The internal culture especially in the operating Dept. has the fear of God to run the M7s, some won't even run a DE/DM but their supposedly "qualified" on . Change that culture and get rid of the ones who prevent operations from happening. Problem solved.
Divide the roster system qualified, and "EMU ONLY" qualified those who are "EMU ONLY" get 90% System qualified rate. As the company is restricted to using them on EMUs only. It's fair.

As for the c3s they got a good 30 years left if they go for a mid life overhaul within the next 5 years.
A overhaul that makes them compliment with the national standard and not the LIRR special.

I feel that the LIRR is "lost" becaus failures of the 90s and no one has the lesdership ability to undo those failures.

Problem with off shelf DMU's is they do not comply with FRA specifications.
A/ coupler height
B/ handrails
C/ collision post
D/ door compatibility with high level platforms
E/ signal shunting
F/ buff strength less than 1 million pounds

DRN Posted some key points, stock off the shelf DMU's are not FRA compliment.

So back to what I said, the LIRRNwould have to design them from the ground up and for a limited amount it does not pay.
If the LIRR was truely I treated and wanted to wake up and be an industry leader again, they could negotiate with other commuter carriers to see if as a collective unit DMUs would be possible. Then and only then do I see something happening.

Lease equipment. It's cheaper. But the RDCs Canada was scrapping. NOPE not LIRR!

Too bad they couldn't figure out a DMU version of an M9. I know it's more complicated than just jamming a diesel engine underneath, but they toyed with the idea before with the M7 I believe.

MattW wrote:Too bad they couldn't figure out a DMU version of an M9. I know it's more complicated than just jamming a diesel engine underneath, but they toyed with the idea before with the M7 I believe.

Even if they did they wouldn't come cheap unless there were enough other certain or potential buyers (Metro North, CDOT, MBTA, etc.). The LIRR was only looking at buying 5 2-car sets to begin with.

The Nippon Sharyo DMU in Marin County is marketed as FRA compliant.

yes marketed, but does it have right floor height ? will it shunt LIRR signal system, does it fit LIRR clearances ?

and the big big question have those cars proven to work and proven a benefit yet ??

NH2060 wrote:

MattW wrote:Too bad they couldn't figure out a DMU version of an M9. I know it's more complicated than just jamming a diesel engine underneath, but they toyed with the idea before with the M7 I believe.

Even if they did they wouldn't come cheap unless there were enough other certain or potential buyers (Metro North, CDOT, MBTA, etc.). The LIRR was only looking at buying 5 2-car sets to begin with.

MBTA put out an RFP for DMUs and then pulled it when they found out no one was going to bid.

If MBTA, MNCR, NJT, and maybe MARC, and the NHSP line along with LIRR join forces to designs 1 DMU of 3 styles?
COACH, BAGGAGE/COACH, PRLOR/LOUNGE. All will have (LI plug your ears) Low platform traps. And all be capatabel with each other, and interchangeable. FRA/PTC compliment and floor hight for high platforms.
Truthfully they don't need to be "DM" due to the new emissions regulations. A DMU Making occasional moves in NYP won't be a major issue.

Just food for thought

leviramsey wrote:MBTA put out an RFP for DMUs and then pulled it when they found out no one was going to bid.

Still don't have an official explanation as to why no one bid. The specs in that RFP were pretty similar to Nippon Sharyo's default design, so remains a mystery why interest was nonexistent in that RFP.

And Nippon Sharyo has thirty year history of providing trouble-free cars to Marc, Metra, South Shore, VRE... They've had a bit of trouble with the new cars for Amtrak but their track record up until then was one of the best. Consider how much trouble the average passenger car procurement has been and contrast it to any Nippon Sharyo project.

MTA and LIRR are psychologically opposed to D-MU's because it would solve a problem they would have to admit exists. The people on the east end want more service, but all the MTA and LIRR give are excuses.