Should LIRR Return To A Non-Dual Mode Single Level Fleet?

Please pardon the lengthy response. F-Line as usual your posts are thorough to the t so I had to take some time to dissect everything

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Metro North just released its new fleet plan calling for phase-out of its 200 Shoreliners for bi-levels over a 10-year span, so the MTA is going for fleet standardization towards MLV's not away from it.

Isn't that still in the exploratory phase at this point or have they actually gone on record saying that they will be procuring bi/multilevels to replace the Shoreliners?

Even the C3's were too LIRR-overcustomized for their purpose

Considering that no one else was making/developing a bi/multilevel car at that time that could fit into either the Hudson or East River tunnels the C-3s were -on their own- custom cars to begin with. MNR and NJT were both planning new single level coach fleets at that time and yet the LIRR still went with bilevels. So who's to say they won't go again with a customized model next time regardless of how similar or dissimilar it may be to NJT or MNR equipment? For one aren't the dimensions in the East River tunnels somewhat different than those of the Hudson River tubes and the Park Avenue tunnel or is there not much of a difference?

2) With the LIRR planning long term of extending electrification further into Suffolk County (when/if that happens) the need for a large fleet of dual mode locomotives might not be there and with the remaining non-electrified stretches of the LIRR being much shorter in length the need for diesel equipment would be primarily for Mineola-Oyster Bay, Yaphank/Riverhead-Greenport, and Patchouge/Speonk-Montauk "scoot" service (save for the East End summer service, etc.). Those services (even through services to/from Hunterspoint Ave., Long Island City, and Jamaica) could be adequately covered by a fleet of straight diesels and coaches.

*Maybe*. It really depends on what manufacturer submits what bids. It's a good bet that the next generation of shoed duals is going to be a lot different and a lot more capable than the DM30's and P32's up on Amtrak and Metro North. And not as ungodly overcomplicated as the ALP45-DP. Amtrak's next-gen diesels from Siemens on their state-sponsored order might be one to watch here. That is supposed to have a lot of parts commonality with the ACS-64, making their fleet standardization easier (IF Siemens produces a working unit that fulfills that promise). If that turns out to be a winner enough for them to open floodgates on the option orders and replace the national fleet of P42's, they and New York State will probably be looking to the same platform for a P32 replacement.

Now, that has relevance to LIRR/MNRR in some respects more than others. I would expect Amtrak's next duals purchase--if the stars line up on the Siemens platform--to be overhead not 3rd rail. But if Siemens is truly trying for a unified locomotive platform with some solid degree of modularity and parts commonality...they should in theory be able to cook up a 3rd rail equivalent that swaps out all the AC transformers for the DC input + DC-to-AC conversion and be able to offer it at competitive price. And should in theory be able to produce a straight diesel version of this dual that leaves out the DC input but lets one get swapped in later.

I somewhat doubt LIRR wants to buy and maintain a super-expensive fleet of nothing but duals when half of them are going to run in the same all-diesel shuttle service as today. But pay a little bit more for something modular that can upgraded to or downgraded from dual based on changing needs? That's a little more intriguing a possibility.

. . .but also very speculative at this point, because we don't know what next-gen designs manufacturers are going to pitch to them this far out.

With the timing of the electrification extensions roughly lined up with the timing of the replacement of the DE/DM fleet (c. 2034) the decision on whether or not to proceed with either dual mode & diesel or just diesel will depend on what the LIRR decides to do with their electrification expansion plans. The current plan is to bring electric service to 16 stations in Suffolk County on 3 lines over the next 20 or so years. That presumably includes the rest of the Port Jeff Branch, the Main Line to either Yaphank or Riverhead and the Montauk Branch to either Patchogue or Speonk. At this point my bets are on Patchogue and Riverhead which could very well mean continuation of the use of diesels and coaches for Riverhead-Greenport if that much of the Montauk Branch remains dieselized.

Though it may be speculative at this point and anything is anyone's guess for now it will indeed be interesting to see what they plan to do 5-10 years from now when the last 10-15 years is approaching for the current diesel/dual mode fleet if they haven't already drafted an even semi-firm plan by now.

3) Should electrification indeed be extended that far into Suffolk County and diesel service truncated to mostly the aforementioned areas the issue of slots will come into play regarding 10-12 car M7s and M9s vs through running <6 car diesel scoots. With the Main Line for example being at capacity the 10+ car MUs will almost certainly get those slots as they can carry more riders. And with the East End not having nearly as dense population/commuting levels as the western parts there won't be any need for bilevels when single level vehicles (even if they are DMUs) would work perfectly for those services. And with a smaller, but still decent economy of scale to consider in this scenario it could be more economical to buy (and maintain) say 20-25 diesels and 75 coaches instead of 15 diesels, 5-10 dual modes, and 90-100 or so coaches.

I don't understand this logic. If bi-levels seat more, shouldn't you be able to shorten consists on lower-demand runs and reassign those freed-up cars to higher-demand runs? How are less space-efficient singles going to help when you use exactly the same number of cars as before on those lower-capacity runs and have no spares to reassign elsewhere.

If electrification is extended THAT much further towards the East End the concept of through runs or higher capacity runs with diesel equipment might be called into question if:

1) a high enough percentage of the distance between Point A and Point B is covered by electric trains originating/terminating at Penn Station and ridership levels east of the electric zone does not justify running a 6-8 car set of diesel equipment in those territories for even 1 round trip. This would pertain particularly to east of Riverhead and Speonk. Still more than enough overall ridership to warrant multiple frequencies (5-10 RTs per day), but not enough on an individual run to warrant running more cars than needed.

2) the LIRR decides to go ahead with procuring DMUs or other equipment for the remaining non-electrified segments to be used as "scoots" to connect to/from the electric zone. If they plan on doing so for the Oyster Bay Branch who's to say they wouldn't want to do the same for the Yaphank/Riverhead-Greenport and Patchogue/Speonk-Montauk segments. Keep in mind residents on the East End aren't complaining about the lack of one-seat rides into NYP or even LIC/Jamaica. They just want more frequencies period, regardless of where they terminate westward. The East End Shuttle proposal 8 or so years back was one result of those complaints.

3) (getting back to ridership outside the electric zone) Building/buying a small fleet of bilevels specifically for the Oyster Bay Branch and the outer Main Line and Montauk Branches won't really be a economical as one might think unless they really do fill up the same way the M7s fill up during rush hour. One reason service on the Main Line east of KO was curtailed was because of costs and the RR has floated the idea of DMUs as a more economical way of transporting riders on the East End.

Now one could compare the LIRR to MNR with their non-electrified services -especially in regards to bundling rolling stock purchases- however, MNR's setup is much different than the LIRR's. For starters MNR AFAIK has NO plans to extend electrification anywhere on their system so coaching stock will always be needed and in large quantities. The Upper Hudson and Harlem lines -as well as the Port Jervis, Pascack Valley, Danbury, and Waterbury line/branch services are adequately served by diesel equipment and then some. And with service expanding/growing on the non-electrified lines as well as on the New Haven-Hartford-Springfield and any future Waterbury-Hartford services no doubt there will be a VERY BIG coach order. If the LIRR indeed goes ahead with extending electrification there will be a lesser need for diesel equipment, though it still will be needed. The question would be just how much/little would the LIRR need at that point in time.

Now ideally would the existing (and any supplemental) service on the outer reaches continue to/from NYP, LIC, and Jamaica as it does today? Aboslutely. But with track capacity constraints being what they are these days occupying as many slots as possible with longer MUs and moving the connections further east might be what the LIRR could be looking at down the line, especially if it would be more cost effective in the long run to go electric further east. This is in fact what they are floating around for the Oyster Bay Branch, correct?

1) Though the bilevels do offer higher passenger capacity (137-143 pax per car) they have terrible luggage rack space and with clearance restrictions being what they are on the LIRR outside NYP a bilevel akin to MBTA's Kawasaki and Rotem cars will be too tall. The highest capacity Comet/Shoreliner OTOH can still seat 130 passengers with ample storage space for suitcases, etc.

To this specific point...that's the price you pay for getting bi's that can fit into GCT, NYP, Philly, or Montreal's Mt. Royal Tunnel. MARC passengers aren't real nuts about their MLV's lacking the luggage room of the Kawasakis, but MARC needed replacement coaches and it needed expansion coaches badly enough that taking NJT's option orders was easier than funding an order of full-height bi's from scratch. No one said there wouldn't be compromises.

If every single commuter agency in the country is in agreement that bi-levels are the most efficient possible way to do push-pull, you've got to have a damn compelling counter-argument or reason why LIRR is so incredibly unique it has to go in the exact opposite direction with its fleet than everyone else including its MTA sibling.

Well there is one good enough argument and it makes up most of my reasoning for single levels vs bi levels for the LIRR: ridership demographics. The Montauk Branch in particular carries a large number of customers between to/from NYC and the Hamptons who bring 1-2+ pieces of luggage (suitcases, etc.). And when those pieces of luggage don't fit into the luggage racks in the bilevels guess where they end up? On the adjacent seat. Having taken the train to/from the Hamptons in years past I can say firsthand that this can be a problem when the conductors make the announcement asking riders to try to make room for other passengers. And it's not just on Friday afternoons in the summer Remember there's barely room for anything under the seat or even in between your seat and the seat in front of you. Now granted this is an issue unique to only the Montauk Branch and (to a limited extent) the Main Line east of KO. However, considering how heavily the Montauk Branch is used not just during the summer season (which in itself is a big enough chunk of the year), but during holiday periods, etc. as well the luggage issue cannot be overlooked.

This is where LIRR does set itself apart from the other commuter RRs on the East Coast. VRE, MARC, SEPTA, NJT (with the exception of perhaps some Jersey Shore traffic to Bay Head?), MNR, SLE (with perhaps a few exceptions), and MBTA (except the CapeFLYER). With the exceptions noted these carriers cater to almost exclusively commuter/leisure/recreational traffic that do not usually bring pieces of luggage with them. Even a small suitcase can't fit into the LIRR bilevel luggage racks. Now the CapeFLYER uses bilevel equipment, but there was of course the set of MBBs that were due to be overhauled. I wonder if part of the rationale for using them was ample luggage rack space compared to that of the K and R cars. They are much taller than the C-3s, but even they don't seem to have deep luggage rack space.

At the end of the day if the C-5 design can truly be an improvement over the C-3 then by all means power to the LIRR. But unless they figure out how to more adequately improve luggage capacity it'll be problem they'll have to deal with until they can.

MattW wrote:The only way I could see LIRR going single-level is if they really really wanted to run diesel service into GCT, but they'd have to spec a dual-mode that fits the space requirements of that tunnel which I gather would be a huge technical challenge, and probably not worth it.

I don't think we'll be seeing through service into GCT and -for the foreseeable future- definitely for the reasons you stated.

F-Line to Dudley via Park wrote:The only way more destinations can get to GCT is by building out more electrification for the EMU's to reach. That's going to be cheaper over the long-term to pay for than buying unicorn locos of totally unique design...only for them...which nobody else will ever have the slightest need to sniff at.

Hence another reason why more electrification + a smaller straight diesel fleet (even with C-5s) might be economical/easier in the long term even with the sizable upfront cost.

MattW wrote:Sorry F-line, but I'm pretty sure the MP36, and BL36 can not fit into NYP. I'll be happy to be proven wrong, but I'm fairly certain neither can, both look about as tall as the Bombardier BiLevels and Rotem BiLevels (the ones for Metrolink and Tri-Rail) and I know those can't fit into NYP.

I think he meant the Genesis alone being the reason it's impossible to not buy a loco that can't fit into NYP and GCT. Not that any model that came after it can fit.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:LIRR diesel/dual territory isn't expanding per se...MU territory is. And they're sort of in the same boat as NJT is at pegging the economics of their push-pull purchases: buy new, grind it to dust, buy new again and don't pussyfoot with rebuilding unless the rebuilds are a cinch to last as long under maximum punishment as all-new.

Again one more reason why a homogenous straight diesel fleet might be something for them to consider if they do indeed go ahead with expanding the electric zone into Suffolk County.

You guys have way too much time on your hands.

No.

...and before the "yeah, but!. . ." rebuttals start flying too far in the face of reality:

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 9&t=157498" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There you go. NJT is purging all remaining single-level cars (including replacing all Arrows with MLV-dimension bi-level EMU's) on an aggressive schedule and is explicitly citing the capacity of bi-levels as the impetus for ponying up the bucks to accelerate their retirements. There will now be NO commuter railroad in the country still running singles in 10 years with the Big Three users NJT, MNRR, and MBTA in scorched-earth mode on their purges junking almost 1000 cars. All remaining non-Amtrak/intercity carriers--of which there are only a few dozen singles on their current rosters--now get their retirement decisions forced by the numbers and the sudden disappearance of any and all parts scale for all Comet-class single-levels in existence. And if there were any halfway-fleeting flirtations with the idea of buying more...of anything except maybe a Viewliner-derived intercity coach...now get quashed by cold, hard economic reality that singles are a dead issue for North American commuter rail.

It's over...move on. The economics for LIRR changing its push-pull buying habits just went from very suspect to outright horrible/unsustainable.

The problem with gallery cars as used in Chicago is that each car has only one door per side. This makes entry and exit somewhat difficult. On exiting, passengers from all four stairways from the upper level as well as from both ends of the lower level, all must exit through the one door. This increases dwell time at stations and slows down the schedule, terminal to terminal.
The LIRR C-3s, as well as the lozenge-shaped cars in use on Toronto's GO Transit, and in use on Florida Sunrail, TriRail, and elsewhere, with two doors on each side, feature faster boarding and exiting. And passengers who can't find seats on the upper levels have an easier time moving to the next car.

All Aboard Florida has selected Siemens to build the locomotives and passenger coaches for its intercity passenger-rail line that will connect south and central Florida, the companies announced yesterday.

The trainsets will include Siemens' diesel-electric Charger locomotives and feature modern single-level intercity passenger cars that will be manufactured in the United States.

I know it's basically not commuter but just wanted to add because it is a single level car order.

This is an interesting idea, but at this point in time, with ridership growing, bi-levels provide a great deal more in seating capacity. When trains can only be so many feet long, so many feet wide, and so many feet tall to fit through the tunnels or to not foul interlockings, bi-levels are a nice way to maximize seating in confined space. Lots of people with lots of luggage isn't that big of a deal during the normal, regular rush hours, and running longer consists can reduce loading which can leave more room for people to put luggage not in the luggage racks and avoid inconveniencing others.

Yes, electrification for more places in Suffolk County is "coming" but it has also been "coming" for years and years and years and years. And if you want people to ride those lines after they are electrified, you can't kill off ridership now by cutting service. In the mean time, dual modes can be a good interim substitute for electrification. The current fleet lacks both in reliability and in quantity. If the next diesel fleet is not as skimpy as this one, then we might have a much different attitude towards it...look how Metro-North's diesel territory service operates, like on the upper Hudson Line. They are getting along just fine with dual modes, and since service is not minimal, and people don't have to needlessly change trains at Croton-Harmon, ridership is good.

I never drive to Chicago from harvard. Its a nightmare once you get to O'haire on 90.The traffic is worse than NY. If Im going to Chicago, to go to a Cubs Game, or the RR retirement Board, I take the train. I live on the last stop On the union Pacific North-west line. In LIRR terms think of it as Speonk to Penn, about the same distance. Recently I had to go to the RR Retirement Board, and I took a rush hour train home. I also noticed the one door system, however the dwell time in each station was really no longer than the LIRR BiLevels. Thats because the stairs are in the center of the cars, and the regular commuters are well trained to be up and ready to get off as the train enters the station. Did not seem any longer than a LIRR Bi-level. We usually get a lot of snow here in winter, and the temperature can drop to 15 to 20 below in January and February. That is the actual temperature, not the wind chill. Of course they have occasional switch trouble in such conditions, but because most of the Branches are all diesel, they have never shut down Metra in the 5 and a half years I have been here. So far this year we have had a mild winter.