Discussion relating to the operations of MTA MetroNorth Railroad including west of Hudson operations and discussion of CtDOT sponsored rail operations such as Shore Line East and the Springfield to New Haven Hartford Line

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith

  by DutchRailnut
 
Your comparing apples to oranges, the Bud coaches were ex long distance cars and had 2x2 seating, There is no other equipment than the Bombardier III's (centerdoor) cab cars and M7's that are ADA compliant

  by FEC_Fan
 
Nester wrote:2. I would want the names to make sure that the participants weren't employees, relatives of employees, potential contractors, or their employees/families. MN and the MTA as a whole is a very political beast. Getting the names (or the disclosure forms that indicated that they have no connection to the pending contract(s)) is about transparency and honesty. I don't care what each person individually said, since I have no context - I don't have the drawings.

Nester
Some WERE employees, because a) employees ride trains to get to/from work also, and b) employees have to maintain the design that is finally chosen. Employees and non-employees weren't in the same groups.

If you really want to know names, FOIL the name of the focus group contractor, and ask them.

  by Dieter
 
This topic is still cooking.

This AM with tape measure in hand, I measured the clearances, height, length, whatever, inside an M-1. I'm glad I did, as time is running out.

I'm sure I will be aboard an M-7 at some point in the next few days. Once all the figures are in, I will publish them here for comparison.

In speaking with the conductor, he told me that the majority of passengers complained to him about the new equipment, citing the contortionist issue in getting seated as the biggest beef. Forget what you hear, the majority prefers the M-1 for comfort and spaceousness.

Dieter.

  by Nester
 
FEC_Fan wrote:
Nester wrote:2. I would want the names to make sure that the participants weren't employees, relatives of employees, potential contractors, or their employees/families. MN and the MTA as a whole is a very political beast. Getting the names (or the disclosure forms that indicated that they have no connection to the pending contract(s)) is about transparency and honesty. I don't care what each person individually said, since I have no context - I don't have the drawings.

Nester
Some WERE employees, because a) employees ride trains to get to/from work also, and b) employees have to maintain the design that is finally chosen. Employees and non-employees weren't in the same groups.

If you really want to know names, FOIL the name of the focus group contractor, and ask them.
I never said or implied that employees should not have input in the design of the new cars. The focus group contractor is almost certainly NOT a state or local agency, and is not subject to the FOIL. As such, they aren't under any obligation to disclose the names of the participants.

Any FOIL request I would file would be directed at the MTA or MN directly.

Nester

  by FEC_Fan
 
Nester wrote:
FEC_Fan wrote:
Nester wrote:2. I would want the names to make sure that the participants weren't employees, relatives of employees, potential contractors, or their employees/families. MN and the MTA as a whole is a very political beast. Getting the names (or the disclosure forms that indicated that they have no connection to the pending contract(s)) is about transparency and honesty. I don't care what each person individually said, since I have no context - I don't have the drawings.

Nester
Some WERE employees, because a) employees ride trains to get to/from work also, and b) employees have to maintain the design that is finally chosen. Employees and non-employees weren't in the same groups.

If you really want to know names, FOIL the name of the focus group contractor, and ask them.
I never said or implied that employees should not have input in the design of the new cars. The focus group contractor is almost certainly NOT a state or local agency, and is not subject to the FOIL. As such, they aren't under any obligation to disclose the names of the participants.

Any FOIL request I would file would be directed at the MTA or MN directly.

Nester
Maybe it's just me, but when I read "I would want the names to make sure that the participants weren't employees, relatives of employees...", I get the impression you don't want them to have a say. You can backpedal now, but that's what you wrote.

A more careful reading of my response will reveal that I suggested you direct a FOIL request to MNR, asking for the name of the consultant - not the names of the focus group members - and after you get the name of the consultant, ask the consultant for the names of the focus group members. I'm well aware that the consultant isn't a governmental entity, and that a private company isn't subject to the FOIL.

  by Nester
 
FEC_Fan wrote:
Nester wrote:
FEC_Fan wrote:
Nester wrote:2. I would want the names to make sure that the participants weren't employees, relatives of employees, potential contractors, or their employees/families. MN and the MTA as a whole is a very political beast. Getting the names (or the disclosure forms that indicated that they have no connection to the pending contract(s)) is about transparency and honesty. I don't care what each person individually said, since I have no context - I don't have the drawings.

Nester
Some WERE employees, because a) employees ride trains to get to/from work also, and b) employees have to maintain the design that is finally chosen. Employees and non-employees weren't in the same groups.

If you really want to know names, FOIL the name of the focus group contractor, and ask them.
I never said or implied that employees should not have input in the design of the new cars. The focus group contractor is almost certainly NOT a state or local agency, and is not subject to the FOIL. As such, they aren't under any obligation to disclose the names of the participants.

Any FOIL request I would file would be directed at the MTA or MN directly.

Nester
Maybe it's just me, but when I read "I would want the names to make sure that the participants weren't employees, relatives of employees...", I get the impression you don't want them to have a say. You can backpedal now, but that's what you wrote.

A more careful reading of my response will reveal that I suggested you direct a FOIL request to MNR, asking for the name of the consultant - not the names of the focus group members - and after you get the name of the consultant, ask the consultant for the names of the focus group members. I'm well aware that the consultant isn't a governmental entity, and that a private company isn't subject to the FOIL.
I suspect that it may be "just you" -- your impression and the meaning of my words don't match. I don't need to backpedal, since I never said (or implied) that employees don't have a say or shouldn't have a say. You're making an assumption based on my desire to "check" the MTA.

The article says that the railroad chose not to release the names, citing privacy reasons. There's no need to contact the contractor. MNR can't choose to release what they don't have -- they have the names.

Nester
  by Dieter
 
I'm getting dizzy between the exchange and the visual format.....

OK, I don't have time to put it all down here today, I will before Tuesday but I want you all to know this.......

In a nutshell, there are a few more spaceous dimensions in the M-7 over the M-1, but in my opinion it's all cancelled out with the factor of the spacing of the seats.

At the narrowest point between the bench surface of the seat, and the closest point of the arc of the headrest of the seat in front of it, the total clearance at the narrowest point is a stingy THREE AND A HALF INCHES!

Isn't that a kick in the tail?? That explains why it's such a problem to get quickly settled into the seat of an M-7. It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to stand up between the seats of an M-7 without hanging on to something to steady yourself.

More amazing measurements comparing the two types coming.....

Dieter./

  by railtrailbiker
 
Victoria Hidalgo spoke for the silent masses yesterday when she wished aloud for a cleaner train with more leg room.

While Metro-North Railroad hasn't asked her opinion, Going Places did. The railroad has already heard an earful from riders in focus groups intended to help it design new passenger cars for the New Haven Line. Railroad officials plan to listen some more once a contractor builds a prototype rail car, to be called the M8, but before the railroad shells out the $3 million it expects to spend on each car.

On Thursday, riders who were paid about $100 each to share their views with the railroad called the line's current M2 trains dirty, old-fashioned, sad-looking and dismal. Yesterday, Going Places interviewed random riders who boarded the 8:12 a.m. express from Harrison, or who got on in Mamaroneck and Larchmont, to learn in our own informal way what New Haven Line passengers want in a new train and what they think of their 30-year-old rides.
http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs ... 018/NEWS02