MNRR Bilevel/Double Decker Coaches Proposal

DutchRailnut wrote:The LIRR ESA tunnel is under the subway tunnel at 59th street, so no tunneling neccesary, its already there.

Point of Information - ESA tunnel is under the 63rd Street tunnel. The 60th St tunnel (there is no 59th St one) was built as part of the Dual Contracts, long before ESA was on the drawing board

The 63rd Street tunnel has two levels; one for the NYC subway and the other level for the LIRR. ESA will come off of the LIRR segment of the 63rd Street tunnel.

I stand corrected even I have brain farts.

Erie-Lackawanna wrote:1. If the owner of the vehicle says it's not a Comet VI, then it's not a Comet VI - especially if the railfans are the only ones calling it such.

2. To answer the question asked by NJT4300: No, they will not be used in the MN pool. We have an agreement that states that only MN cars on MN trains unless there aren't enough available for service, in which case NJT cars can be substituted. MN is not buying double-deckers.

Jim

Maybe they should reconsider:

http://nationalcorridors.org/df2/df01082007.shtml

Very complimentary. Seeing as there is universal disgust for the middle seat.......didn't Bomb offer CDOT a second chance to piggyback on NJT order?

Also, am I understanding the order right that there's a cab-car and this would be push-pull?

The cars, with upper and lower levels plus a third, smaller, platform-height level, hold between 127 and 142 passengers apiece, about 15-20 per cent more than the single level NJT “Comet” cars they are replacing. The 234 multilevel car order consists of eighty-six 132-seats coach cars with ADA restrooms, thirty-three 127-seat cab cars (also with ADA restrooms), and one-hundred fifteen coach cars (without restrooms) with 142 seats each. The typical five car consist will have a cab car, and four trailers, one with an ADA restroom and three without, totaling 685 riders.

Seems like the cars would have to be powered by a Genesis to operate in MNRR territory, strictly diesel until they hit third-rail in Pelham. With CDOT's studied expansion of service, they may want to consider a few sets, which might allow diversion of diesel-only shuttle equipment off branch service.

-Thanks, guys for posting those nice shots of the trains to Secaucus.

-Raises a question in my mind? Does Metro North or CDOT have any plans for double deckers like the NJT trains which ran for these events?

-would Double Deckers be a useful concept for CDOT and Metro North traffic? Any clearance problems?

Roger

M-8's are just around the corner. You won't be seeing MN double decker units on the New Haven line for 2 or 3 decades if at all. Hudson and Harlem lines have M-7's and Bombs that still have plenty of life in them.

and considering they just bought all those Comet V's I wouldnt expect MN mulitlevels on the port jervis line either, or NJT multilevels for that matter

Say if MNRR were to get the double Decker cars wouldn't there be clearance issues with the park avenue tunnel.

I think that this came up once before ether hear on over on the NJT thread and the conclusion was that they could run on the two inner tracks but not the outer tracks.

Has anyone ever made a bi-level that is EMU?

Yes

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPi ... id=1526362

How high are these? Could you pull something like this off within the profile of the NJT multilevel and a 3ed rail shoo?

Adding Dual-Mode capabilities would probably make the the cars overweight. Besides those cars pictured above only have one door per side. Be hard to keep a schedule with dwell times like that on MNR.

LIRR's C1's have been tested in the Park Avenue Tunnels, and with that, Multilevel coaches can operate on the inner tracks ONLY! Height is 14' 6" on both LIRR's C1/C3, and NJT Comet VI ML! I wouldn't be surprised if when the need for replacement of the Shoreliners do occur, then such equipment as the ML would come in! One good thing here is you can use 6 cars to take the place of lets say 8 single level coaches. We shall see!

The Metra stuff is somewhat higher than eastern equipment, and has a slightly higher pan reach.

Bilevel EMUs are seen in other countries, but aren't overly common (RER and S Bahn Zurich use 'em). What kills them is finding a spot for the main transformer, which is a big item, and heavy, too. Most will put it at the end of one car and do a motor-transformer/motor-trailer-trailer type setup. Motor-trailers can have adhesion issues - NS has a few three truck motors as a result. I don't know why SBB doesn't, you'd think they would.

Metra's got an advantage - they're already a DC at the pan, so no transformer, just converter-inverter, or just inverter, if the propulsion system's that slick. They do have to find a place to stick braking resistances - DC systems generally can't absorb regen.

The French stuff is dual system (1.5kv and 25kv, I'm guessing they also have pans for both systems, as the French pans ARE different between systems), so it's possible to do it within their weight regulations, but UIC compliant. The newer ones have wide doors on 'em, closer to a supermarket entrance than a train car.

I don't know how on earth the French do this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In5PUfyaE60