• New NY Dual Mode Discussion

  • This forum will be for issues that don't belong specifically to one NYC area transit agency, but several. For instance, intra-MTA proposals or MTA-wide issues, which may involve both Metro-North Railroad (MNRR) and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR). Other intra-agency examples: through running such as the now discontinued MNRR-NJT Meadowlands special. Topics which only concern one operating agency should remain in their respective forums.
This forum will be for issues that don't belong specifically to one NYC area transit agency, but several. For instance, intra-MTA proposals or MTA-wide issues, which may involve both Metro-North Railroad (MNRR) and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR). Other intra-agency examples: through running such as the now discontinued MNRR-NJT Meadowlands special. Topics which only concern one operating agency should remain in their respective forums.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith

  by Pensyfan19
 
Like I said in the BEMU topic, I can't help but feel that the introduction of M7/M9 BEMUs on diesel routes might make dual mode replacements moot..... :P
  by R36 Combine Coach
 
Jeff Smith wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 8:34 am Danbury? That's been bandied about for years, but always written off as too expensive for the yield.
The 45's would be ideal for through service on Danbury, and Waterbury.
Danbury was wired until 1961 and could work for a battery MU, not too far our and the mileage
"off the grid" is less than to Greenport.
  by ConstanceR46
 
BEMUs don't have the range for some of the longer runs these do.
  by ElectricTraction
 
Jeff Smith wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 8:34 amThey've backed themselves into a corner by basically procrastinating on their replacements, not by the lack of electrification.
Procrastinating on their replacements just means that they get new dual modes later. If they had actually planned ahead and electrified, the dual-modes wouldn't be needed.
That's not to say that some electrification extension is not worth it. However, DC electrification extension is by its nature very expensive with the need for many more substations. When MNRR electrified the Upper Harlem in the early 80's, they did a poor job of it, underestimating the power draw of the M-1's and 3's. Except for some short LIRR projects and Penn Access, I don't see DC being extended anywhere.
Much of the LIRR system can't provide enough power for full acceleration of M-7 sets, and as you note, the Upper Harlem system can't handle full length trains. Extending DC power makes perfect sense for OB, PJ, and Patchogue, as the LIRR is an entirely DC system. The cost to do dual third rail/overhead EMUs and have two separate fleets would be astronomical.
The 20-year plan for MNRR at some point talked about extension of the Hudson to Peekskill; Poughkeepsie is a "Bridge too Far".
That's an application for AC overhead, switching at Highbridge, so that Amtrak could electrify to Albany with AC from Penn, MN Penn Access could run on AC, and freight wouldn't have to deal with third rail. Harlem would still have 3rd rail access to Yankees-153rd.
No mention of the "upper" Upper Harlem. It's 53 miles GCT to Southeast; it's another 29 to Wassaic. That's a lot of work for very little yield. DMU's would work instead of shuttle mini-Bombs; maxi's for through service.
They only have four through trains a day to Wassaic. They could just get rid of them, and add sidings to do more frequent DMU shuttle runs. I can't see any case for electrification beyond Southeast. Fixing the current system so that 12-car M-7 sets could come into Southeast does make sense, however. Depending on what is done with White Plains, a diesel train or two a day could go down there from Wassaic.
Danbury? That's been bandied about for years, but always written off as too expensive for the yield. The 45's would be ideal for through service on Danbury, and Waterbury (to New Haven or Stamford), if those could be routed to Penn.
It was electrified at one point, it would make perfect sense to put it back in order to handle direct service to GCT and Penn.
Ditto OB.

PJ I'm not too sure; that is a little farther.
PJ has a lot more traffic than OB. OB makes sense simply to provide direct service. Unfortunately, they now need to fix the screwed up track arrangement that they are building right now in Mineola. OB is the lowest priority out of the branches affected by the dual-mode situation.
Pensyfan19 wrote: Sat May 15, 2021 5:23 pmLike I said in the BEMU topic, I can't help but feel that the introduction of M7/M9 BEMUs on diesel routes might make dual mode replacements moot..... :P
BEMUs are, at this point, completely unproven in US heavy rail applications. Traditional electrification has been working reliably for over 100 years, and can electrify routes in the dozens of miles (DC) up to the thousands of miles (25kV AC).

HMUs are actually a more promising technology. While hydrogen cars are probably a non-starter due to lack of fueling infrastructure and up-front cost, for a basically captive fleet of trains that run back and forth, it starts to look a lot more attractive.
  by west point
 
A lot of this talk about DMUs reminds me what was the reasons for getting SPVs. Prediction ==== If DMUs are purchased within 10 - 15 years will be replaced with EMUs.
  by ElectricTraction
 
west point wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 8:22 pmA lot of this talk about DMUs reminds me what was the reasons for getting SPVs. Prediction ==== If DMUs are purchased within 10 - 15 years will be replaced with EMUs.
It's going to be really tough to make an argument for electrifying Waterbury, Wassaic, Greenport, or Patchogue to Montauk. There's a role for DMUs and eventually HMUs.
  by ConstanceR46
 
west point wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 8:22 pm A lot of this talk about DMUs reminds me what was the reasons for getting SPVs. Prediction ==== If DMUs are purchased within 10 - 15 years will be replaced with EMUs.
The thing is - the concept behind SPV's was relatively sound and true; and the idea of a modern-day RDC would have been a good one.

However, everything else with them was the problem.

Also - i see no case for electrifying, say, the Atlantic City Line, or the Waterbury Branch, or to Greenport...
  by ElectricTraction
 
ConstanceR46 wrote: Sun May 23, 2021 3:41 pmThe thing is - the concept behind SPV's was relatively sound and true; and the idea of a modern-day RDC would have been a good one.
The Nippon-Sharyo DMUs are really nice, their current design can't clear the third rail though. The Colorado Railcar DMUs were arguably the first modern FRA-compliant DMUs, they were nice until CRC went out of business.
  by Pensyfan19
 
Quick update on progress for these engines.

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews ... -stations/
HARTFORD, Conn. — Funding for new locomotives and two new stations is included in $839 million in transportation projects approved Tuesday by Connecticut’s State Bond Commission, the Hartford Courant reports.

The commission unanimously approved the set of 58 transportation projects. Included are $280 million for new dual-power locomotives to replace aging diesels used on some Metro-North Railroad branch lines, which will enable new express service to New York City. A release from the office of Gov. Ned Lamont and the bond commission agenda do not indicate the number of locomotives involved or other details of the planned purchase.
  by edflyerssn007
 
Saw some new info today from NGEC. They are calling the new dual modes the ALC42e. Metronorth and LIRR variants will have third rail shoes and will be certfied for 80 in that mode. The state equipment might end up with a hybrid passenger car with a catenary pickup and battery packs for any gaps. All the ALC42e's will have lithium-ion batteries to bridge any gaps in 3rd rail. Timeline looks like 2024/2025 delivery. LIRR versions will have the 36 pin plug for the C3 units. Should be able to supply power to 8 trailers vs 6 on the current.
  by west point
 
If the LIRR and MNRR use a separate diesel loco and use the Amtrak version of the power car next to the loco that can solve many of the weight problems. This is the first I have heard of this but it should work fairly well. The biggest problem is the current draw using a power car. If the batteries can provide enough back up DC 3rd rail will work fairly well. Amtrak using CAT 12Kv with transformer in power car will enable them to accelerate to 125. No weight problems with much of the AC - DC equipment in the power car.
DC third rail is somewhat different. Now with both third rail and 12Kv AC CAT is a whole another ball of wax.
  by SRich
 
If for the LIRR/MNRR the powercar and ALC42 have 3 rail pickup shoes then there is no need for an pan on the hybride powercar. Less weigth and cheaper. I suspect that NY state version will be an Amtrak ALC42E variant
  by RandallW
 
The MNRR Chargers and LIRR, CT DoT and NY DoT options have third rail shoes (see the briefing linked to in this topic earlier).