M-7 seating article in Newsday

Today's Newsday 4/9 has 6 letters to the Editor in response to the article about the M-7's. All the writers clam to be daily commuters. Not one letter was was in support of the new cars. Some even had complaints that have never been voiced here(length and height of arm rest, inability for 2 people to read newspaper at same time, too many facing seats) So these must be real commuters.

As for who designed these cars, I am assuming that the MTA got the Dutch ergonomic engineers cheap, because they obviously didn't have a clue about what was wanted or needed.

I just read the 6 responses to the editor in Newsday and I agree whole heartedly with all of them.

Valenti probably rode the train at 1 in the afternoon when there's about 15 people in each car !

Funny the article in Newsday came out when it did, I think I posted my original thread a week or 2 ago about the hideous seating. Funny thing was that I didnt even get that many responses, whether defending the seating or trashing it like I did. But that just supports the fact the overwhelming majority of the people who post in this forum do not commute twice a day 5 days a week.

Add me to the list of the 2-trips-a-day, 5-days-a-week, 28 year commuters. And yes, I cringe at the sight of an M-7, for all the reasons listed (I dont care what the article stated about the seat widths, THEY'RE NARROW !! )

I just can't understand what the designers were thinking... I mean, yes they have guidelines and all that other BS to follow, but did they honestly think that no one would notice smaller seats and less of them to boot?

They should have at least ordered more Bi levels to increase service as compensation... oh wait a minute, that would require a reliable engine like a P42 to pull them, but LIRR is too good to go buying what MN uses... nevermind!

I still am convinced that LIRR could have taken the time to work with designers to create a bi-level MU.

helloooo nimby we tried to explain this before, they do not want double deck MU's cause they won't fit into GCT's new LIRR tunnel and terminal and they can not fit into flatbush and they ..........................
why do we explain this cause you bring up this argument over and over and over, maybe if you finish school you can get a job at LIRR and change things?

Hmmm.........Well Dutch, I'm sure your points are correct but it's really a shame. An electric version of the C-3 would have been interesting. But.........I guess it would not have been feasible to build a car that could only be used in Penn Sta. service, but not Flatbush or GCT. Then we would still have needed the M-7 anyway and money would have been wasted designing 2 different replacements for the M-1.

NIMBY: don't sweat it! There was a time about a hundred years ago when nobody believed you would ever ride trains through a tube under a river either. Or that you could operate ALL the doors in EVERY car of a train from one door panel! You're young enough that maybe 30 years from now, when the M-7's get replaced, a bi-level MU for LIRR might just happen! (Have you seen photos of Chicago's Metra Electric bi-levels?)

While I can sympathize with those who feel crowded in their commutes on the new M-7s...

For the love of God, people!

You're complaining about 19.3" wide seats? I, and many other riders of SEPTA's RRD, would kill to have 19.3" wide seats. (Our current seats are FRA-minimum 18", and SEPTA's unwillingness to include wider seats in the new Silverliner V specs leaves many of us suspecting that SEPTA would go narrower if they could.) And this in Philadelphia, where 3+2 seating isn't the requirement that it is in New York (but we have it anyways.)

So yes, your complaints are justifiable, but please understand that even your current status is potential cause for envy.

Dutch, I keep bringing it up b/c it is something that makes sense. Yeah, a design that is restricted to certain lines may not be the smartest thing, but then why did LIRR go with the C3s and the DMs? They can go into NYP, but not FBA or GCT.

Also, we wouldn't need 2 replacement designs for M1s, b/c, AFAIK, the M7s are NOT entirely replacing the M1 fleet. That means you'd have bi-levels for electric NYP runs, and M1s and M3s for all electric runs.

LIRR will not get more slots into Penn station so thats out. All M1's eventualy will be replaced by M-7's
there will not be any more electrification.
any more questions ??

Who said anything about more electrification?

Oh, and why would LIRR need more slots are NYP? I've been saying they should've done bi-level MUs instead of the M7s. That means that instead of seeing the M7s at penn, they'd be bi-level MUs.

And where did you hear that all M1s are goin?

The rebuilt M1's for now are staying but after the MNCR cars are delivered LIRR will get their second batch of M-7's replacing all M1's.
the M3's are gone be overhauled and will stay for another 10 years or so.
read the MTA budget its on their webpage or was anyway.

We lost this info with the demise of the old site, so here goes again:

Current total funded order of LIRR M-7 cars is 678.

All 172 remaining LIRR M-3 cars are being overhauled in phases, and will remain in service. That process is going on as we speak.

132 LIRR M-1 cars were overhauled several years ago, and will remain in service. These are the cars that are most identifiable to riders by the "improved" bathrooms in them. Or look for the converter/inverter box where the M/A used to be. These cars will remain even after all M-7s in the current orders are received. They have to. The LIRR can't replace a 944 car EMU fleet with a fleet of 850 cars (678 + 172) with less available total seating in those 850 cars. (It's been well- documented here about the M-7s having a lot less seats than the legacy equipment.)
Also, current A.M. commission hour requirement is 844 EMU cars. That would leave only 6 EMU cars possible out of service for PI and repair. On a good day, we have 70-80 EMU cars out of service.

All non-overhauled M-1s will go bye-bye as a like number of M-7s are received.

I rode an M-7 for the first time the other night, after having ridden an M-1 out of the city. What's the problem? I mean, sure I'm not a commuter that travels everyday, but what, am I going to be less comfortable on the same seats the second day?

I'm sorry, but I have to laugh, LIRR commuters are the worst in the country. When was the last time you heard complaints from Metro-North, NJ Transit or SEPTA commuters? It's a commuter train for God sakes, it's not the Acela! If you can honestly tell me that you would prefer to ride in those old relics who's air-conditions always break, doors always break, pa system non-functional, dirty seats, screws falling from everywhere, (need I say more????), instead of riding in a new M-7, guys, then you have problems. You think airlines give a rats behind about cramping you in their seats? Cry all you want, they don't care. Nothing is perfect, and you can never satisfy LIRR commuters, ever! Even if we served dinner on our trains, they just may complain that the food sucks, or that it's too cold, too hot, whatever! Just a reminder to all, the M-7 HAD TO MEET FRA specifications, and the LIRR had to also make them compliant with the Citizens with Disabilities ACT. But I suppose that commuters won't care about that either.