Multi-Level Cars—Delivery/Status

trainbrain wrote:

Matt Johnson wrote:Interesting news...I hope some sort of ML EMU is part of the plans, because NJ Transit kinda needs an Arrow III replacement. (Can't see anything but an EMU on the Princeton branch, and the Gladstone line kinda needs 'em too.)

The Comet V seems awfully young to retire, but maybe they'll stick around on the Pascack Valley and Port Jervis lines at least?

The Comet 5's would probably go to the ACL and the southern portion of the NJCL. The southern NJCL has a multilevel ban and the ACL will never need the capacity. Some of the Port Jervis Express trains do need the capacity and the line from Suffern to Hoboken already has them on a few trains.

Why can't the southern NJCL use MLVs?

The Multilevel cars do not play nicely with the loop in Bay Head. Perhaps with the signal upgrades and new interlocking going in in Bay Head, it may not be an issue in the not-too-distant future.

ryanov wrote:Some quality reporting there: wrong "it's", and claiming that mutli-level cars can go longer between maintenance than single-level cars.

I think what they mean is that the ML cars are not as prone to mechanical failures as the MUs. Keep in mind, this is the media. These are the same people that can't figure out the difference between a Conductor and an Engineer.

Suburbanite wrote: This proves you can't satisfy everybody. Most of us hate the "three and two" configuration of the older coaches, because we seldom take the trains at hours when they are that empty and one is that sleep-deprived. The same goes for reversible seats: somebody has always rearranged the seats so that there is a facing pair which, as the train fills up, means that four (or five or six!) riders are going to have to sit with their knees right up against a facing passenger. These aren't European trains which are designed with enough room (usually at the expense of vertical backs, at least on the newer coaches) for the legs of people to sit facing one another. I like the compartment concept as it works in older European trains (it encourages conversation for one thing—if you want it), but I think it always implies fewer seats per car, which is probably why it is uncommon in newer European coaches.

3+2 seating is ideal because in off-peak hours it becomes 2+1 seating. In 2+2, neither of the twos have a comfortable buffer zone even if they are slightly wider. That extra middle seat space is perfect to put coats or bags or books to better define one's personal space. The reversible seats are also win win since off peak they can be reversed to create a conference space and on peak the crews can set them facing the proper direction and bitch out anyone who reverses them.

What it comes down to is that if riders don't like 3+2 seating they can drive. As long as NJT keeps seeing high ridership it doesn't have to cater to the rider's every whim.

Mod Note- merged the replacing single level coaches thread with the Multilevel thread.

As has been said before, the metro north territory could use the extra capacity provided by the new multilevels, but if so then that would defeat the purpose of and render useless mnr's purchase of the 65 comet fives-unless of course mnr kept them and used them in conjunction with the multilevels...(hopefully not on the same consist though

Jersey_Mike wrote: What it comes down to is that if riders don't like 3+2 seating they can drive. As long as NJT keeps seeing high ridership it doesn't have to cater to the rider's every whim.

Except that surveys of ridership (in NJ, and in other cities such as Chicago as well) have consistently found that the most common complaint about rolling stock was 3+2 seating. In every source I've read, anyway.

Exactly who is it who should drive?

Random bump; I was able to dig up an official spec sheet from Bombardier, buried in a MARC meeting minutes pdf file (https://web.archive.org/web/20141118062 ... outs-1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;):

This is a funny question. What is the most number of full MLV coaches that the ALP46A can pull? I understand that acceleration will decrease, but for example, would it be possible for a single engine to pull 16 coaches?

FRN9 wrote:This is a funny question. What is the most number of full MLV coaches that the ALP46A can pull? I understand that acceleration will decrease, but for example, would it be possible for a single engine to pull 16 coaches?

The HEP limit (I believe) is 12 cars, but even when NJT used to run the 12 car "motherships" they used a locomotive on the front and the rear. From a physics standpoint, sure, one locomotive can pull more than that, but performance would decrease to the point where it's not really possible to attain track speed with such a consist. Given a fixed maximum speed limit, the longer (and heavier) a train is, the more horsepower you need to attain said max speed.

Look at it this way. The max consist today is one ALP-46 + 10 MLV coaches. You've got about 7,500 hp from the locomotive for traction. This is reasonable for a passenger consist (you can still make track speed [100 mph] with this power to weight ratio). If you look at freight, you've got a 4,400 hp locomotive for every 30 or so cars, but top speed is lower (55mph usually). So yes, an ALP locomotive is physically capable to pulling much longer consists, but given their design purpose in mind, it makes no sense to do so.

One more example; here are two ACS-64 locomotives hauling the 60 car circus train: https://youtu.be/VHuvVkg_Uw0?t=3m26s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fan Railer wrote:

FRN9 wrote:This is a funny question. What is the most number of full MLV coaches that the ALP46A can pull? I understand that acceleration will decrease, but for example, would it be possible for a single engine to pull 16 coaches?

The HEP limit (I believe) is 12 cars, but even when NJT used to run the 12 car "motherships" they used a locomotive on the front and the rear. From a physics standpoint, sure, one locomotive can pull more than that, but performance would decrease to the point where it's not really possible to attain track speed with such a consist. Given a fixed maximum speed limit, the longer (and heavier) a train is, the more horsepower you need to attain said max speed.

Look at it this way. The max consist today is one ALP-46 + 10 MLV coaches. You've got about 7,500 hp from the locomotive for traction. This is reasonable for a passenger consist (you can still make track speed [100 mph] with this power to weight ratio). If you look at freight, you've got a 4,400 hp locomotive for every 30 or so cars, but top speed is lower (55mph usually). So yes, an ALP locomotive is physically capable to pulling much longer consists, but given their design purpose in mind, it makes no sense to do so.

One more example; here are two ACS-64 locomotives hauling the 60 car circus train: https://youtu.be/VHuvVkg_Uw0?t=3m26s" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's an amazing video. I'm thinking the trip will be between Newark Penn Station and Sunnyside, so there won't be high speeds needed. But regardless, it would be possible to use two engines (front and rear).

They also will not be able to PUSH more than 12 cars, since the analog AAR MU connections are only good for 12 cars to correctly communicate with the locomotive.

Are there not also yarding issues for long consists, such as in long branch?

TrainPhotos wrote:Are there not also yarding issues for long consists, such as in long branch?

oh yeah! yarding issues along with making sure every set gets a good under carriage inspection every 3 days, not every yard has a pit track for this to be done.

I guess some of you are too young to remember the Clockers that ran with ALP46. They regularly used 14-16 amfleet cars. Granted there was no push pull operations, but they did run this way.

http://www.trainweb.org/phillynrhs/RPOT ... 524_RJ.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.trainweb.org/phillynrhs/RPOT ... 083_RJ.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;