NJT MLV EMU Procurement

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 7:00 pmBy comparison the Arrow I was 700 HP (four 175 HP motors per car and geared for high speed unlike the Silverliner III (550). The Westinghouse Metroliners were 1,200 HP (GEs were 1,020).

The Lackawanna electrics were in motor-trailer pairs, with the motor unit having four GE 740 motors (255 HP each, 1,020 total).

That's very interesting. Those older cars were quite a bit lighter, not the absolute unit that the M-8s are, so 700HP is probably close to the M-8's 1060HP. Does AC vs. DC traction matter for acceleration? Whoa, the Metroliners must have really flown.

lensovet wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2024 9:12 pmpost1493646.html#p1493646

So can they be MU'ed essentially to anything? Including hauling Comet cars around (not that anyone is going to beat the MBTA at weird looking consists)? There is some discussion about the trade-offs in speed related to gearing. Is this still the case with inverter-driven AC traction, or does that partially or completely eliminate the gearing trade-off?

There are no married pairs in this consist. The powered (pantograph-bearing) cars are the only powered (with motors) cars. Note that the original order had a ratio of roughly 1:1 for trailers and powered cars, so in a typical consist, I suspect we will be seeing more than 1 powered car for every 2 trailers, as otherwise these will be running like molasses.

Weird. It seems they won't be much, if any better than loco-hauled push-pull. The horsepower still seems unknown as well. It seems that they're going to mix them up with ML I and ML II cars, meaning that the consists could be about... anything. And I'm still not convinced that these things will be any faster than just putting two ALP-46As onto a loco-hauled train.

Where exactly are all these extra locos available to run trains with two locos attached to them?

lensovet wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:20 amWhere exactly are all these extra locos available to run trains with two locos attached to them?

As stated in my previous post, the premise is that if NJT actually had enough locomotives, are EMUs faster than loco-hauled trains? Comparing horribly underpowered trains that can't get out of their own way is useless for understanding anything about loco hauling vs. EMUs, all it tells us is that NJT has way underpowered trains.

I suspect that a 12-car 12,720HP EMU set with all axles powered would accelerate to 50 or 60mph faster than a 15,000 HP pair of ALP-46As lugging 12 equivalent cars, with the ALP-46As being faster to get from 60 to 100mph, but I'm not positive I'm right on that.

MM-96 (NJ Transit MMC job) tried to come out to the Northeast Corridor as a "test train". Dispatcher sent them back to the MMC as they couldn't be handled until 1AM. Given the proximity to the "unveiling" of Multilevel IIIs last week this might be interesting.

MM-96 is on duty Sunday - Thursday 9PM - 7:30AM.

What is with the constant hypotheticals? We live in the real world, not a fantasy.

NJT doesn't have enough locomotives and doesn't have any funding to purchase more (or a builder who would actually produce them). This order was signed 7 years ago. The horse hasn't bolted from the barn – it's literally on the other side of the country by now.

Yes, an EMU set with all powered axles will be faster than a 12-car set with 2 locomotives on it. So? Neither one of those is going to happen in real life, so I'm not sure why we're discussing it or what the relevance is to this thread, which is about the committed MLV procurement and delivery.

JuniusLivonius wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 11:57 pm MM-96 (NJ Transit MMC job) tried to come out to the Northeast Corridor as a "test train". Dispatcher sent them back to the MMC as they couldn't be handled until 1AM. Given the proximity to the "unveiling" of Multilevel IIIs last week this might be interesting.

MM-96 is on duty Sunday - Thursday 9PM - 7:30AM.

A test train with one car?

Or I guess they could couple it to one of the legacy ones and see how compatible it really is.

https://newjerseymonitor.com/2024/10/30 ... ble-fleet/ says that apparently these cars will have 11% more capacity than existing MLs. That's an awfully specific number that still doesn't give you a whole number when taking any of the existing configurations. I'm guessing they put more seats in the middle level?

Also saw some photos that show one USB-A and one USB-C port per pair of seats. Not the worst. Also there's bike hooks for storing full-size bikes.

lensovet wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 12:15 am A test train with one car?

Or I guess they could couple it to one of the legacy ones and see how compatible it really is.

No idea. This is new to me. I'd be surprised they'd go straight to testing on the NEC. Hopefully they announce the consist (leader number + number of cars) when they try to come back on the corridor at 1AM as I expect.

1:55AM Amtrak dispatcher needed MM-96 to move around in Hudson Yard. Nothing after that. Another day...

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 11:50 pm

lensovet wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2024 12:20 amWhere exactly are all these extra locos available to run trains with two locos attached to them?

I suspect that a 12-car 12,720HP EMU set with all axles powered would accelerate to 50 or 60mph faster than a 15,000 HP pair of ALP-46As lugging 12 equivalent cars, with the ALP-46As being faster to get from 60 to 100mph, but I'm not positive I'm right on that.

Using the power to weight ratio (HP x 100/curb weight), here are the results:

Arrow I: 0.608 (115,000 lb, 700 HP)
Silverliner III: 0.523 (105,000 lb, 550 HP)
Metroliner (WE): 0.75 (166,000 lb, 1,200 HP)
M-1: 0.703 (91,000 lb, 640 HP)
M-2: 0.578 (112,000 lb, 648 HP)
M-3: 0.545 (110,000 lb, 600 HP)
M-6: 0.498 (130,000 lb, 648 HP)
M-7: 0.834 (127,000 lb, 1,060 HP)
M-8: 0.757 (140,000 lb (approx.), 1,060 HP)
ACMU: 0.344 (116,000 lb, 400 HP)
NYCT R33/R36 (IRT): 0.63 (72,000 lb, 460 HP)
NYCT R46/R68: 0.50 (92,000 lb, 460 HP)
NYCT R142/R188 (IRT): 0.642 (70,000 lb, 450 HP average - some cars both axles powered, some single axle power)
PATH PA5: 0.72 (75,000 lb (approx.), 540 HP)
Lackawanna electric: 0.398 (128,000 lb average between motor unit and trailer, 1,020 HP in motor unit, 510/car)

12-car Multilevel with ALP46: 0.481 (0.425 including locomotive)
GP40 with six Comets: 0.5

The 8501 has been returned to Bombardier to be finished following the press junket the other day. It will not be on any train, test or otherwise, for the foreseeable future. There are a few cars, one ML 3 cab car, two ML 3 power cars, and one existing Multilevel cab car (7013) en route to Pueblo for testing

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 4:47 amUsing the power to weight ratio (HP x 100/curb weight), here are the results:

Arrow I: 0.608 (115,000 lb, 700 HP)
Silverliner III: 0.523 (105,000 lb, 550 HP)
Metroliner (WE): 0.75 (166,000 lb, 1,200 HP)
M-1: 0.703 (91,000 lb, 640 HP)
M-2: 0.578 (112,000 lb, 648 HP)
M-3: 0.545 (110,000 lb, 600 HP)
M-6: 0.498 (130,000 lb, 648 HP)
M-7: 0.834 (127,000 lb, 1,060 HP)
M-8: 0.757 (140,000 lb (approx.), 1,060 HP)
ACMU: 0.344 (116,000 lb, 400 HP)
NYCT R33/R36 (IRT): 0.63 (72,000 lb, 460 HP)
NYCT R46/R68: 0.50 (92,000 lb, 460 HP)
NYCT R142/R188 (IRT): 0.642 (70,000 lb, 450 HP average - some cars both axles powered, some single axle power)
PATH PA5: 0.72 (75,000 lb (approx.), 540 HP)
Lackawanna electric: 0.398 (128,000 lb average between motor unit and trailer, 1,020 HP in motor unit, 510/car)

12-car Multilevel with ALP46: 0.481 (0.425 including locomotive)
GP40 with six Comets: 0.5

I'm not sure if that's the whole story though. Can those ALP-46As actually deliver their full horsepower at low speed, or do you need more tractive effort to do that? That's where EMUs may outperform loco-hauled, even if they don't have quite as many raw horsepower?

CNJGeep wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 4:07 pm The 8501 has been returned to Bombardier to be finished following the press junket the other day. It will not be on any train, test or otherwise, for the foreseeable future. There are a few cars, one ML 3 cab car, two ML 3 power cars, and one existing Multilevel cab car (7013) en route to Pueblo for testing

Aw that's too bad. I got a little jumpy because I've never heard of a "test train" for NJ Transit, but they could be testing almost anything. It just seemed interestingly close to the press junket and they plan to roll these out in a 6 month timeline.

CNJGeep wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 4:07 pm …, and one existing Multilevel cab car (7013) en route to Pueblo for testing

Glad to hear they are taking the compatibility issue seriously and testing with older cars from the outset. That was one of the things that plagued the CV fleet.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2024 9:13 pm

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Tue Nov 05, 2024 4:47 amUsing the power to weight ratio (HP x 100/curb weight), here are the results:
M-8: 0.757 (140,000 lb (approx.), 1,060 HP)
ACMU: 0.344 (116,000 lb, 400 HP)
NYCT R33/R36 (IRT): 0.63 (72,000 lb, 460 HP)

I'm not sure if that's the whole story though.

Don't forget there are other factors at play - MU's hook up better because you have far more powered wheels. You also have wheel sizes and gear ratios to factor in. Subway cars have smaller wheels and different gearing for very rapid starts and stops but usually top out at 55. Commuter trains on NEC are expected to do 79+, if not 90 or 120. That requires bigger wheels. Recall the GG1 was no slouch but had huge wheels and that probably helped. However an Arrow could probably walk away from it at a station start.

Keystone and Regional regularly hit 120 between New Brunswick and Trenton.

These cars are rated for 125.