New Dinky to Nassau Street

Would a Stadler FRA compliant DMU/EMU work?

Jeff Smith wrote:Would a Stadler FRA compliant DMU/EMU work?

How about something like this?

The easiest thing would probably be leasing a few Silverliner Vs from SEPTA. I wouldn’t even change the branding on them and just cycle the units down to Pennsylvania for maintenance when needed.

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:12 am

Jeff Smith wrote:Would a Stadler FRA compliant DMU/EMU work?

How about something like this?

Um, no.

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 8:12 am

Jeff Smith wrote:Would a Stadler FRA compliant DMU/EMU work?

How about something like this?

lol please no, can we stop beating the colorado railcar dead horse…i can't believe how many years were lost to Northern Branch reactivation because of this misguided effort.

You would be much better off taking a River Line or HBLR/NLR set and either raising the rail or lowering the platforms to allow for low level boarding.

Yes, the Colorado Railcar situation is a done deal-it's not happening. It wasn't successful during tests on the Princeton Branch.

If the Princeton Branch were to remain rail on the current portion of the route, then the latter would probably be in the form of light rail. I would make it a light rail vehicle that can also operate it as a bus. Looking at a map of Princeton, if the transit vehicle does continue to Downtown Princeton, probably the best plan would be for the westbound vehicles to take Alexander Street to University Ave and make one or two stops between the present NJT rail station before ending at University near Nassau St. These vehicles should not not travel on Nassau Street on a revenue run as that will cause them to lose time in a lot of traffic resulting in people missing their trains at the Junction.

I'm sorry, what? The only vehicles like that that exist are 3 buses in Japan that have yet to be launched into regular scheduled service.

lensovet wrote: ↑Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:27 am It's pretty self-evident no?

The current Arrows will not last forever. Maintaining them costs more and more $$$ every year.
The replacement will require running 3-car trains. Absolutely insane and wouldn't even fit on the current platform at Princeton Junction (not sure about the terminus).

Not sure where the statement that light rail is "way more expensive" is coming from. [citation needed]?

Doesn't take too long to look up costs of HBLR and to figure out it came out to an average of $100 million per mile, mostly on pre-existing rights of way. Estimates for Northern Branch extension also work out to these exorbitant costs. The River Line was about a third of that per unit length, and is costing the public still more with all of the Stadler GTW prime movers being replaced due to high failure rates after a scant 16 years.

It really is a wonder that the so-called MLV III would be built sans cabs, particularly since SEPTA seems to be looking at them to replace the Silverliner IVs and those had a lot of single units with married pairs. The lowest-cost option for the Dinky at this stage would be a dual-cab MLV power car; the cab design already exists for the trailer cars.

i don't understand why you're comparing the costs of building a new LR line (existing ROW or not) to the cost of taking an existing, already built rail line and changing two platforms on it to support low-level boarding. the question here isn't one of capital costs, but rather operational ones. an LRV does not require two employees to run the train. i suspect the maintenance cost of a relatively new electric LR vehicle is going to be a fraction of the cost to keep the arrows up and running.

there's no dual cab power car, because the cab would take up the room needed for the traction components. just like the mythical rail vehicle that can drive on roads, you're asking for equipment that does not exist. wishing it did will not make it happen.

I'd like to see them try something really novel like this:

You win the interwebs!

Options for the Dinky have been narrowed down to keep the existing system or convert it into a light rail with a bus connection.

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews ... o-options/

PRINCETON, N.J. — The nation’s shortest scheduled commuter rail line now has a 50-50 chance of remaining as it is.

The Daily Princetonian reports that a study of possible options to replace “Princeton Dinky,” the 2.7-mile electrified NJ Transit line connecting the Princeton University campus to the Northeast Corridor, has reduced four potential options to two — one of which is keeping the line as it is.

The other option still under consideration is building a light-rail line that would be imbedded in a bus rapid transit route; the two transit modes would alternate, with light rail ending at the existing university station while buses would continue into downtown Princeton. The cost of that project is estimated at $100 million; the as-is option is estimated to cost $15 million for maintenance of existing equipment.

Well, if keeping the existing system in place is going to be futile then why not do a light rail conversion? Wouldn’t be too terribly difficult in regards to current infrastructure.

Thing is though, whenever the EMU set that they have there breaks down don’t they bring another to replace it and bring the broken one out to be fixed? Wouldn’t swapping to light rail mean a maintenance building would have to be constructed for the new vehicles?

Bracdude181 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 04, 2022 5:23 pm Well, if keeping the existing system in place is going to be futile then why not do a light rail conversion? Wouldn’t be too terribly difficult in regards to current infrastructure.

The railroad union will never ever allow member jobs to be lost -- light rail conversion has been talked about since the 1990s and zip has happened. You will see an electric bi-level train on the Dinky line in the future.