DMU Purchase

Tadman wrote:The Nippon Sharyo DMU in Marin County is marketed as FRA compliant.

Are they identical with those on the Union-Pearson airport service in Toronto, and have the Toronto DMUs been operating long enough to answer questions about reliability, shunting, etc.? Another question: As to clearances, if the LIRR bought some, where would they have to be maintained and serviced?

Some relevant snips:

...

MTA spokesman Sal Arena said the LIRR had met with railcar developers and investigated potentially purchasing DMUs, but didn’t find the right fit.

“Unfortunately, none of the DMUs under development were compatible with LIRR’s network,” Mr. Arena said.

In 2012, LIRR officials said they were looking to buy “off the shelf” scoot models rather than have new ones built. The $37.2 million would have allowed them to purchase five scoot trains, which come in sets of two cars each.

In addition to expanding service east of Ronkonkoma, scoots were also planned for the Oyster Bay line and in Brooklyn.

...

“That is the heart of the system,” said Riverhead resident Vince Taldone, who is a member of Five Town Rural Transit, which seeks to improve public transportation on the East End. “We need to have more frequent rail system — which isn’t saying much, considering that on winter weekends, we don’t even have any rail service.”

The self-propelled scoots would be less costly for the MTA than running diesel engines that pull numerous passenger cars, Mr. Taldone said.

“The problem with the scoot train is that the design did not come back the way we though it was going to,” said Mitch Pally, Suffolk County’s representative on the MTA’s board of trustees. “They were too heavy; they didn’t fit the tracks. There were a variety of reasons it didn’t work, but that doesn’t mean it won’t work with another design. It just means that this design didn’t work.”

Note it's a board member, NOT an employee, who made the curious quote about too heavy, not fitting.

I'd be curious as to what the issues were. My assumptions from the previous posts, etc., must be car width at platform height, or platform height itself. The whole rationale was for lighter DMU sets that wouldn't involve bi-levels and push-pull DM engines. So the "heavy" comment must have to do with FRA compliance.

As for being non-FRA compliant, I don't see that as a huge hurdle; given the limited service, you just need a block on passenger vs. freight hours, or a waiver. Outside of a few sidings and Brookhaven transload, how much is there out beyond KO that NYAR runs? Especially during daylight hours anyway. It would definitely be a bigger hurdle in Brooklyn. I have no idea what Oyster Bay freight volume is.

As for MNRR, P&W serves Tilcon at night over the Danbury and Maybrook, and Waterbury freight is RARE. HRRC does not run over ANY MNRR trackage. A DMU could work on those branches with increased performance over the Brokeville fleet. So a joint procurement works. Outside of the "network-compatible" argument, on which the info is sketchy.

From the previous cap plan: http://web.mta.info/capital/pdf/Capital ... n_1014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rolling Stock ($44 million)
A key initiative for the agency, LIRR continues to prepare for the award of a contract to begin replacement of the worst performing cars in its aging M-3 fleet. In addition, LIRR adjusted the Alternate Diesel Equipment and DMU Specification Development projects to reflect refinements in its diesel fleet strategy. Scoot service has been identified as an opportunity for the Oyster Bay Branch and East of Ronkonkoma. Utilizing existing diesel fleet for the Oyster Bay Branch to support a potential scoot-type service, the Alternate Diesel Equipment project is decreased to reflect the adjusted need ($41 million). The refined strategy also eliminated need for a customized specification, exploring existing car products available in the rail car industry ($3 million).

Recent Board Minutes / attendee comments: http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/docs ... script.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Joe Versaggi Bridgewater NJ:

The LIRR's diesel fleet situation is not being taken seriously. The fleet:
‐ has miserable MDBF
‐ is incompatible with other RR fleets (i.e. MU cables pins)
‐ delivering unacceptable OTP due to MDBF and over‐crowding on weekend Montauk and Greenport trains
‐ is inadequate in size
‐ not a sustainable situation

In the short run, at bare minimum, you would do well to come out of denial and add 10 ‐ 20 cars to the current Bombardier Multi‐Level (MLV) car order now being delivered to MARC and make whatever customizations needed to make compatible with the C3 cars.

Then focus on Super Steel loco replacements, which everyone knows was a political deal for Governor Pataki.

This needs to be done regardless of the DMU / East End Shuttle situation.

Ouch much?

Jeff Smith wrote:*SNIP*

As for being non-FRA compliant, I don't see that as a huge hurdle; given the limited service, you just need a block on passenger vs. freight hours, or a waiver. Outside of a few sidings and Brookhaven transload, how much is there out beyond KO that NYAR runs? Especially during daylight hours anyway. It would definitely be a bigger hurdle in Brooklyn. I have no idea what Oyster Bay freight volume is.
*SNIP*

I don't believe it's simply a matter of passenger vs. freight, it's a matter of crash standards. In other words, the non-FRA equipment can't intermingle with any FRA equipment regardless if it's freight or passenger.

Jeff Smith wrote:Some relevant snips:

...

MTA spokesman Sal Arena said the LIRR had met with railcar developers and investigated potentially purchasing DMUs, but didn’t find the right fit.

“Unfortunately, none of the DMUs under development were compatible with LIRR’s network,” Mr. Arena said.

In 2012, LIRR officials said they were looking to buy “off the shelf” scoot models rather than have new ones built. The $37.2 million would have allowed them to purchase five scoot trains, which come in sets of two cars each.

In addition to expanding service east of Ronkonkoma, scoots were also planned for the Oyster Bay line and in Brooklyn.

...

“That is the heart of the system,” said Riverhead resident Vince Taldone, who is a member of Five Town Rural Transit, which seeks to improve public transportation on the East End. “We need to have more frequent rail system — which isn’t saying much, considering that on winter weekends, we don’t even have any rail service.”

The self-propelled scoots would be less costly for the MTA than running diesel engines that pull numerous passenger cars, Mr. Taldone said.

“The problem with the scoot train is that the design did not come back the way we though it was going to,” said Mitch Pally, Suffolk County’s representative on the MTA’s board of trustees. “They were too heavy; they didn’t fit the tracks. There were a variety of reasons it didn’t work, but that doesn’t mean it won’t work with another design. It just means that this design didn’t work.”

Note it's a board member, NOT an employee, who made the curious quote about too heavy, not fitting.

I'd be curious as to what the issues were. My assumptions from the previous posts, etc., must be car width at platform height, or platform height itself. The whole rationale was for lighter DMU sets that wouldn't involve bi-levels and push-pull DM engines. So the "heavy" comment must have to do with FRA compliance.

As for being non-FRA compliant, I don't see that as a huge hurdle; given the limited service, you just need a block on passenger vs. freight hours, or a waiver. Outside of a few sidings and Brookhaven transload, how much is there out beyond KO that NYAR runs? Especially during daylight hours anyway. It would definitely be a bigger hurdle in Brooklyn. I have no idea what Oyster Bay freight volume is.

As for MNRR, P&W serves Tilcon at night over the Danbury and Maybrook, and Waterbury freight is RARE. HRRC does not run over ANY MNRR trackage. A DMU could work on those branches with increased performance over the Brokeville fleet. So a joint procurement works. Outside of the "network-compatible" argument, on which the info is sketchy.

Unless they were squeamish about fuel tank proximity to the third rail in event of a derailment, I can't imagine what would be "network-incompatible" about an FRA-compliant DMU. If it's FRA-compliant, it meets every modern crashworthiness standard.

and the separation of service would also extend to terminals were it connects with rest of LIRR system.
add to that how do you move this stuff to workshop?

I've said this before and I'll say it again.
Why do we have to re-invent the wheel? The Budd RDC was marvelous. First, it was a standard railroad passenger car with compatible couplers and air hoses and could be towed by any locomotive. It offered fast acceleration and when operating in trains with other RDCs, it offered the capablilty for crew and passengers of walking through the train from one car to another, just like EMU cars did.
Now, an upgraded RDC, with power operated doors, wheelchair compatibility, and upgraded FRA safety standards, I think would be just the thing. I think Hawker-Siddley had the license to build cars according to the Budd RDC design. The necessary upgrades to make it suitable for operation in today's physical and legal environment shouldn't be too difficult

A RDC would need hell of lot of upgrading and would turn into a CRC DMU disaster.
Again a DMU does not have the benefits some people claim. and for example Metro North or MBTA will never again go for a purchase.
They learned their lessons from RDC's , polluting, labor intensive, and no fuel savings at all.
ask a guy like MN president Joe Giulietti how he likes DMU after Florida forced the CRC DMU on Tri-rail.
Tri-Rrail just unloaded the cars to some other Florida outfit, their still celebrating the departure.

Believe BBD holds the Metroliner,Amfleet,and SPV-2000 designs that were bought from the Budd Co remains,
the Comet design,along with the Horizen varient,were Pullman Standard designs,as was the Superliner I design

DutchRailnut wrote:A RDC would need hell of lot of upgrading and would turn into a CRC DMU disaster.
Again a DMU does not have the benefits some people claim. and for example Metro North or MBTA will never again go for a purchase.
They learned their lessons from RDC's , polluting, labor intensive, and no fuel savings at all.
ask a guy like MN president Joe Giulietti how he likes DMU after Florida forced the CRC DMU on Tri-rail.
Tri-Rrail just unloaded the cars to some other Florida outfit, their still celebrating the departure.

D-MUs are less expensive to purchase than additional regular diesel equipment, which MTA and LIRR refuse to do despite deplorable conditions for passengers every summer on all diesel lines when they shorten trains. Excuse for no more service to east end has been no equipment, only reason MTA and LIRR don't want D-MUs is because they wouldn't be able to use that excuse anymore. MTA and LIRR are content in discriminating against people who live on east end of LI.

what good is cheap purchase when they become maintenance headaches and use more fuel than locomotive consist.
for example two SPV's in daily service on Danbury Branch used 300 gallons a day each and required maintenance on 6 diesel engines.
for same run a Brookville BL20gh or equivalent and 3 passenger cars uses about 420 gallons requiring maintenance on 2 diesel engines.

as for east end, you knew full well when you moved there that there was little commuter service ?

I think it's a bit hyperbolic to claim discrimination against Eastenders. The service sure could be better, of course, as demographics shift. Especially on the Main Line out to Riverhead, and the North Fork. It's not exactly commuter territory, but more service is needed.

I think Jaap does a good job of pointing out the short-comings of DMU service. We all like to romanticize the good old days, of course. A two car DMU set sure would look nice.

But economically what's the difference between the size of the "Brokeville" fleet on MNRR (a maintenance headache) vs. a DMU fleet of the same size? Would you only realize the savings if the DMU was an LRT instead? And then you have the shared terminal issue, etc.

It's an interesting discussion. Let's not be so dismissive of the possibility, but let's also be realistic.

DRN, Your bringing some very good arguments to the table in regards to the DMU concept.
Less the fuel cost. What difference is a EMU compared to and Loco hauled diesel or electric train?

With each EMU being classified as a "locomotive" and subject to the FRA 92 day locomotive inspection and so on, would it not be cheaper to operate coaches and locomotives? I'd feel safer running a geep then a DMU, or M7 or Cabcars which again are classified and blue carded as "locomotives"

From your experience and background, what can you add or disprove the Pro's and Cons of going full LOCO haul, regardless of 3rd rail, which is a minor headache but a good engineer can design something to combat it.

Jeff Smith wrote:I think it's a bit hyperbolic to claim discrimination against Eastenders. The service sure could be better, of course, as demographics shift. Especially on the Main Line out to Riverhead, and the North Fork. It's not exactly commuter territory, but more service is needed.

I think Jaap does a good job of pointing out the short-comings of DMU service. We all like to romanticize the good old days, of course. A two car DMU set sure would look nice.

But economically what's the difference between the size of the "Brokeville" fleet on MNRR (a maintenance headache) vs. a DMU fleet of the same size? Would you only realize the savings if the DMU was an LRT instead? And then you have the shared terminal issue, etc.

It's an interesting discussion. Let's not be so dismissive of the possibility, but let's also be realistic.

Discriminate, verb: make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things

MTA and LIRR are making a distinction in the treatment of people who live on East End because "It's not exactly commuter territory" you said it yourself. Also, many people on the East End commute. You must have never been on 25 or 27 during rush hour. Plenty of people commute. But MTA and LIRR won't serve them. People on East End pay same taxes into the MTA as everyone else, therefore they deserve service levels the same or similar to everyone else.