M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

Crabman1130 wrote:I saw on FB that the FRA rejected the M9 proto and the car is being redesigned. Does anyone have anything on why?

Other forums are showing a paint scheme change. Nothing about an FRA rejection. Do you have a link?

not FRA rejection , but brainiacs of LIRR/MN engineering forgot to specify a in car PTC locker, so car had to be redesigned.
they still had to find place for digital storage for sh** load of camera's and keep same amount of seats.

As far as the paint scheme goes, it's being cuomoized. See the last post on this page:

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/ ... on/page-24" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well LOL, at least we'll be able to tell an M-9 from an M-7 at a glance.......

And re: Dutch's comment on redesigning the M-9's, at the rate we're going pretty soon there will be no room for any passengers. The entire car will be taken up by equipment compartments, and the passengers will be riding on the roof and sides like in India. LOL

They will find a way to shoehorn it under a seat near the cab bulkhead or under the seat at the vestibule wall near the door.

The FRA required collision posts and corner posts on the B-end of the cars, which wasn't in the original spec-out. This became required after the MNR derailment where the B-end of the M8 was torn open by the train on the adjacent track. Until then, none were required as the cars never operate B-end open, and (the thought was) can't collide with anything.

While a redesign of the paint scheme may be inconvenient, I have to admit to liking it better than either the original, or the current schemes.

The MTA Blue is a nice add on, but I think it should be old school and have that blue as a stripe that goes down the entire 85' length of the car like the M1 since the car numbers will be the same as them along with the M3's (9001-9946, 9891-9892 were the Ferguson Cars unfortunately). The front though should still have yellow on it to give it some fluorescence, and I would make it just like the M7's by putting a horizontal stripe across the lower headlights.

Everyone:

From reading about the changes to the M9 cars - specifically the B end bulkhead reinforcement and
new color scheme choice replacing the original prototype color scheme which had a yellow front end
it gives an indication that this is going to be a significant change depending on just how many M9s
were constructed in Japan before this revision was made to the specifications...

This new color scheme will likely use superreflectorized white sheeting on the lower front end and
the side gold/blue striping will likely be a color decal type that will be applied. A good move is to
keep the light up side number signs and the front numbers above the door.

The LIRR M9 car version does not need a full side stripe similar to the M3s (9771-9944 built 1985-
1986) and looks better with this revision without the yellow used on the lower front ends.

Changing the M7 front end color scheme to the M9 revised type is something that I would welcome
but would be low or even no priority to spend funds for what would be an unnecessary change.

It remains to be seen how this car redesign will affect the timeline of the M9 order but since the
M3 cars will be needed for at least a few more years hopefully they are kept in good running order.
M3s will have to be in service until enough M9s get delivered, tested and placed into service.

MACTRAXX

Hmmm..........won't the extra collision posts on the "B" ends add yet more weight to an already extremely heavy car?

This youtube video was posted on another board.

This is the first time doing this, hope it works.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pYBsMcPmkd0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This works better:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/pYBsMcPmkd0

Trains will get delivered to Pueblo Colorado when they are ready then shipped back up to NY.

I gather testing will go on late this year/ early next year and cars will start to arrive next year for service.

The problem here is this : The LIRR could have been made to support high speed rail with local stops and surely we could have done better tha the M9 trainset designs.

I admit the M7 and M9 were improvements over M1 and M3 based on LIRR trainsets, but USA is way behind in passenger rail compared to other nations.

The LIRR and MN have in the past used different Air Brake setups,hence the M-1/M-1 A,M-3/M-3 A,and M-7/M-7 A.
Hopefully this time both LIRR and MN will use the same setup,that allows for towing on it's own wheels and has a "normal"
brake response when towed.
LIRR Air brake setup only allows for emergency air brake when towed.

One of the things that always annoyed me about the M-7's was their noisy door opening/closing machinery; that high-pitched jackscrew noise. Remember how quiet the double-leaf doors were on the M-1's and M-3's? And I've wondered if the doors on the M-9's will sound just as bad.

This week I happened to take a ride on Metro-North's New Haven Line's new Kawasaki M-8 cars and guess what? The single-leaf doors open and close quietly, unlike the M-7's.

So I wonder if the M-9's will have quiet doors too. Ya' have to wonder if door machinery technology has improved in the years since the M-7's were built. Or if Kawasaki just builds a better product than Bombardier. Or if maybe MTA got enough complaints from the public about the M-7's noisy doors that they spec'd something better in the more recent cars.