Discussion relating to the operations of MTA MetroNorth Railroad including west of Hudson operations and discussion of CtDOT sponsored rail operations such as Shore Line East and the Springfield to New Haven Hartford Line

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith

  by N340SG

Now I remember that you had listed those options in a previous post.

Looks like weight is the Monkey Wrench tossed into the equation, forcing a "lesser of all evils" approach.
Perhaps they can still somehow work propulsion/dynamic into option "C".


  by DutchRailnut
The transformer for a triplet that needs to feed two 1050 hp cars and MA power for 3 sets of HVAC and lights etc is not gone be light one. add to that plus a DC link switchover and Pantograph etc will put the car at or near its maximum weight.

  by Nasadowsk
It'll be heavy, but if they only support 60hz with it, it'll be considerably lighter. IIRC, a Metroliner tranny, at 1200hp, was about 18,000lbs, but that had to support 25hz operation.

If they only need to run on 60hz power, the transformer will be quite a bit lighter.

  by DutchRailnut
figure double the weight, Im sure they will built in redundancy for one transformer for two cars 2100 plus parasitic loads like lights HVAC, etc.
  by RailBus63
I recall reading an article within the last year or two that ConnDOT was considering whether to replace the MU's with locomotives hauling non-powered coaches - the advantage being that they would thus avoid the FRA-mandated inspections and other requirements associated with the MU cars being considered 'locomotives'. Was this studied? Given the complications noted above with the various M-7/M-8 combinations, it would certainly be prudent to look at locomotive-hauled consists.

Jim D.

  by DutchRailnut
It was studied and turned down for several reasons:

yards not set up (spacing)for locomotive hauled equipment.
single power source with no redundancy.
slow acceleration compared to MU's.
traction problems in slippery conditions.
power problems with single unit pickup in GCT.
shops and work force already set up for MU operations.

the choice to forgo locomotive hauled trains was made several months ago. read minutes of a few months back at:

  by Homo sapiens
I presume the top speed of the M8s will be 100 on AC, even if there isn't anywhere on the NH Line they can do that. What about on DC? I hope they will be able to do 80 on 3rd rail, unlike the M2/4/6 which IIRC can only do 60. BTW, what prevents the current NH fleet from going faster than 60 where it counts, viz. between CP106 and CP112?

  by DutchRailnut
Even M2/4/6 have no max speed set on DC, they are just slugish on DC and currently a lot of cars are dead on DC but ok on AC.
Once in a bleu moon you get a set that will do 80 on DC.
The max speed for all MNCR MU's and Bombardier is 100 mph even the M7's
  by nh chris
I'm not sure where CP 106 is, but I recently clocked an M2 going ~90 mph on the speedway between New Rochelle and Rye, where the measured mile markers are...

NH Chris

  by Nasadowsk
Sluggish? Even back a few rows you can tell they're dogs on DC....

  by UpperHarlemLine4ever
Regarding the speed issue, about 1988-89, I was on board a Harlem Line train that was very late leaving North White Plains. He made the trip from NWP to 125 in 12, that's right 12 minutes. He was going like a wild man. In the measured mile along Park Avenue in the Bronx, I clocked the train at about 92 miles an hour. The train was made up of M3's. With the speed control equipment and black boxes now in place, I don't think you'll ever see any speeds like this now a days.

By the way, what is IIRC?
  by N340SG
IIRC = "If I Recall Correctly"

  by DutchRailnut
amazing in 88/89 the max speed in bronx was 60 mph. account no cabsignal and old signal spacing.
  by Head-end View
I knew I'd seen this story somewhere before. :wink: On Page 36 of the Aug. 2004 issue of Railpace Magazine the same screwy article that started this interesting thread is reprinted in the Connecticut DOT section of the "New England Dispatch" column, complete with all the incorrect facts. The Hartford Courant and Railpace magazine would have us believe that the typical service life of an MU car is only 20 years and that the catenary/3rd rail changeover occurs at the Connecticut/New York state line, instead of where it actually does near the Mt. Vernon/Bronx border where the former New Haven RR merges with the former New York Central. I'm used to the news media distorting the facts, but you'd think a railroading magazine would do a better job of editing, and present accurate info. :(
  by Tom Curtin
Actually, the power changeover no longer occurs around the Bronx-Mt. Vernon border, either. Several years ago ---- I forget exactly when --- the changeover was moved east, to approximately the spot where the RR crosses the Hutchinson River Valley. Of course, this required installing a few miles of new third rail on all four tracks.

The new changeover location was deemed more efficient for several reasons:

- It can now occur at full track speed;

- It no longer occurs within any interlocking limits, thus the risk of tying up Woodlawn should something malfunction during the changeover goes away.

- The catenary was removed from Mt. Vernon cut, where maintenance had always been a pain.