New Dinky to Nassau Street

How is it crazy to run a 3-car set on the Princeton Dinky? MN and other railroads often run off-peak trains with some cars closed- this wouldn't be any different. There is plenty of physical lead to have a few extra cars. They could probably keep the Arrow III cars running for a while, after that, they'd use a 3-car ML set, or a pair of MLs with an ALP-46A. The equipment commonality is most important.

The dinky already runs with 1 of its 2 cars closed off most of the time. The fact that the cars are closed off does not reduce the miles traveled on them and the frequency and cost of maintenance.

lensovet wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 7:42 pmThe dinky already runs with 1 of its 2 cars closed off most of the time. The fact that the cars are closed off does not reduce the miles traveled on them and the frequency and cost of maintenance.

And? It's still likely cheaper to just run a 3-car set, or a locomotive with 1 car in order to preserve fleet commonality. Having a couple of oddball single-car EMUs is probably not cost effective for NJT. And they're putting, what, a few hundred miles a day on them? It's not nothing, but it's not exactly zooming up and down the NEC.

NJT should have bought single-level EMUs instead of the ML EMU contraptions, but that's a whole different topic. It's just nonsense to say that NJT can't run the Dinky just because they're moving to 3-car EMU sets. They will be able to keep running it just fine, even if the resulting train is stupidly overkill for the job.

Yeah, tying up a locomotive on a 5-mile run sounds like great operational practice.

Who said anything about single-car EMUs?

Kind of weird to be talking about fleet commonality and then saying that they should have gone with single-level EMUs too. Frankly I'm getting whiplash from this post.

lensovet wrote: ↑Sat Nov 02, 2024 11:44 pmYeah, tying up a locomotive on a 5-mile run sounds like great operational practice.

The 3-car EMU set probably makes more sense. But I don't see anything preventing them from running a 1-car ALP-46A train for the Dinky.

Who said anything about single-car EMUs?

That was one of the alternatives presented earlier in the thread.

Kind of weird to be talking about fleet commonality and then saying that they should have gone with single-level EMUs too. Frankly I'm getting whiplash from this post.

There's no whiplash to be had. A fleet of several hundred single-level MUs has a large fleet for commonality, having 1 or 2 single-car EMUs just for the Dinky does not, and creates a maintenance and logistics mess that's probably more work than it's worth, even though it would probably please people in Princeton who like their unique little train.

They could probably keep some old Arrows in service for a long, long time if they keep a bunch of extras for parts, but at what point is the extra labor cost maintaining bespoke equipment more expensive than just running overkill that's common with a much larger fleet?

Having absolutely nothing to do with the Dinky, NJT should never have bought these bizarre ML EMUs. They should have bought direct replacements for the Arrows that are in pairs. The MN S-car system on the New Haven Line is actually a pretty good idea, as you get a cheaper car with no need for cabs or ADA-compliant restrooms.

This thread is about Dinky replacements. You're welcome to discuss other topics in relevant threads.

Single level MUs were dismissed as an alternative by NJT years ago. They are not on the table. The only options that were studied in 2022 were busway with embedded LRT, busway with adjacent LRT, busway with BRT, and status quo. The ones advanced to the next level of consideration were busway with embedded LRT and status quo. That's it.

lensovet wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 1:17 pmThis thread is about Dinky replacements. You're welcome to discuss other topics in relevant threads.

You're the one claiming "whiplash" where there is none.

Single level MUs were dismissed as an alternative by NJT years ago. They are not on the table.

Wrongly so (in general, not as a bespoke fleet for the Dinky).

The ones advanced to the next level of consideration were busway with embedded LRT and status quo. That's it.

And as comical as a triplet of MLs running the Dinky is, it's by far the most practical solution. As you can see from my first post, there's nothing really that crazy or even outside of normal commuter rail practice to run a 3-car ML set for the Dinky (at least so far as there is anything normal about the Dinky itself).

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 1:23 pm

Single level MUs were dismissed as an alternative by NJT years ago. They are not on the table.

Wrongly so (in general, not as a bespoke fleet for the Dinky).

Great, feel free to start a new thread about that. This thread is dedicated to discussion of the Dinky's future, not the supposedly poor procurement of NJT's MU replacement order.

lensovet wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 8:59 pmThis thread is dedicated to discussion of the Dinky's future, not the supposedly poor procurement of NJT's MU replacement order.

That's what I've been talking about. There's nothing out of the ordinary for CR agencies to run with cars closed off. There's no reason that they would have to make the Dinky anything other than FRA Heavy Rail just because they won't have 1- and 2-car Arrow IIIs anymore.

Leasing a Silverliner V or two is a decent idea too, I just don't know what logistical complications that gets into with qualifying the crew on a different equipment type. It should be physically compatible with the PRR electrical and signaling systems, ACSES II overlay, etc, as they are the same ones in use around Philly on the PRR side.

I'd bet on it keeping Arrows as long as they are serviceable and then going to ML IIIs or a very short loco hauled train with Comets.

Light rail? NJT's rail union will fight to the death to keep the Dinky traditional heavy rail. The Dinky jobs are highly coveted and the most senior trainmen usually bid and get the Dinky jobs. Light rail has been talked about for 4 decades and it will never ever happen.