MNRR Bilevel/Double Decker Coaches Proposal

DutchRailnut wrote: I am sure Bombardier would love to showcase these cars.

I am sure they would.
If the M7 is an indicator of the current build quality coming out of Bombardier we do not need any more of their cars.
I for one will welcome the arrival of our first Kawasaki.

Since we never had Kawasaki products its a guess how they will perform.
The M-7's may very well be a MNCR/LIRR engineering snafu.
The Acela's or bomb cars had hardly any flatspots !!

Do the NJT doubles fit in the Hudson Tunnel?

Also, the M-7 isn't really a Bombardier quality issue, right? More an engineering mistake, something that will be adjusted, no?

Also, I know I'm hijacking my own thread, I've heard that the NYC Subway has had better reliability from their Bombs than Kawasakis.

Yes the Bi levels ran smoothly through the corridor between Trenton and NY penn. There was not one problem on the train. It would really score high with commuters and probably employees if MNRR could get those kind of cars. Only time will tell tho

This forum is NOT about NYC Subway. Go to subtalk or somesuch for that.

My question was completely pertinant. It had nothing to do with the subway and everything to do with concerns on reliability of Kawasaki and Bombardier.

Sorry, but railroads (I know the subway is not a railroad) share operating equiptment and thus they get mentioned across different forums.

If MN should go with bi-levels, sure hope they don't do a LIRR and go all bi-level. It's absurd riding on the Greenport Line, mid weekday, there's a 2 car bi-level train with 10 passengers on the whole train. Keep both. Bi-levels everywhere is a bit much. Do a Boston where they run bi-levels and single level coaches together.

W A T......................

Worth a try!!

Dutch, I'm curious. Why do you think the M-7's are an engineering snafu? The reason I ask is the LIRR crews have told us on that forum that they generally like the new cars, that they have been reliable so far, and have some good features, although there are a few things they don't like. So I'd be interested to hear what issues you and other M-N people have with them.

I personaly believe the brake rate, between Disk(cheek) brake and tread brake are set up right.
I believe their set at 70% disk- 30% tread. this does not allow for wheel to warm up at wheel edge and does not scrape the residue of the wheels.
Software changes won't help this only changing the ttreadbrake units with bigger actuating cylinders.
Also I believe the initial min brake is way to high and locks up the wheels, the brake ratio's should be more set like Bombardier cars 50% 50% and min brake should be near zero.

I'll toss my $0.02 in here: I don't see any reason why they need discs in the first place (ok, the dynamic craps out. The M-1/2/3s did it all the time and had tread units and no discs. We all lived...). I'll also 2nd Dutch's opinion here: the wheels aren't getting scrubbed clean like they need to be. I also don't think the answer's software here - no matter what they do, it's a basically flawed design, not a 'pesky computer' to blame.

Basically, until someone at the MTA decides to fix this 'feature', get used to it happening. Granted, the public outcry might nudge them in that direction...

Which brakes produce a great deal of smoke? Is it the tread brakes?

Question on clearances - I know catenary was pulled down south of Pelham due to clearances in Mt. Vernon making it difficult to maintain. There are also clearance issues on some of the bridges in the Bronx on the Harlem, too aren't there? I'm thinking 233rd, Gun Hill, Tremont, Fordham, etc. Would there be clearance issues there with dbl deckers?

I believe the Hudson has no such issues - a while back, while NY was trying to keep GM in Tarrytown, they raised a bunch of bridges to accomodate larger freights.

I believe the key issue in any event is the clearance of the Park Avenue tunnel. If it doesn't have the shortest clearance in the entire system, I've heard it's at least pretty close to winning that title.

If Dutch is confident they'll fit in the Park Avenue tunnel, and the MNR president is interested, I'd say that's good enough.

However... if needed, it would be "relatively" (I use the term loosely) easy to lower the track bed under street bridges that don't offer enough clearance right now. Yes, it would take a lot of work, especially where station platforms close to highway overpasses would also have to be lowered to meet the new track level. But it would be much more difficult, if not structurally impossible, to lower the floor (or increase the ceiling) in the Park Avenue tunnel.

Even if the double-deckers could only run on the Hudson Line, I'm sure that would still be a big help for passengers there, especially further up the line. When I was a kid growing up near New Hamburg during the 80's, there was no such thing as express trains beyond Croton-Harmon. The fact that there are now multiple express trains serving Cortlandt-through-Beacon and Beacon-through-Poughkeepsie is proof of the increased population to the north, and I'm sure double-decker coaches would be very welcome.

pnaw10 wrote:But it would be much more difficult, if not structurally impossible, to lower the floor (or increase the ceiling) in the Park Avenue tunnel.

I can see why it would be difficult to raise the ceiling in the tunnel, but why would it be so difficult to lower the floor? Is there a structural issue -- cement or steel or something underneath the trackbed, maybe? Or is it because it's a very confined space and so working conditions would make the task difficult?