NJT MLV EMU Procurement

time wrote:As a daily commuter, I can tell you that public opinion of multi-levels is also very positive. No three seaters, the seats are more comfortable and the ride is considerably smoother than the older stock. I often forget just how nice they are, until I ride in a Comet 5 and get bounced around and hear just about every interior component rattle. It only get worse from there with Comet 4, Arrows, etc.

I realize that a "new car" will always ride better than an old clunker, but even for the multilevels that have been in service since the beginning, the ride is considerably smoother. It makes a huge difference.

So they are deferring maintenance on the Comets in order to make the MLVs seem better.

Fan Railer wrote:While that is true, the passenger flow dynamics are still HORRIBLE on those cars, especially when large luggage is involved.

After decades of Comets and Arrows, people expect those spacious racks above every seat. The MLVs should probably have signs telling people with large luggage they need to stay in the end seats. It took me a while to figure that out, and now my airport trips are a lot more comfortable.

I'd argue the MLV win when it comes to luggage storage. If you have a small bag or suitcase, the luggage rack above the seats in a Comet / Arrow work just fine. But if you're a big family and have tons of luggage, with some oversized bags, the MLVs with their spacious end cap seating is the way to go. It's hard to drag big bags up and down the narrow aisled of a Comet / Arrow. Some folks get around this by standing in the mid-door area, but that only works if both your on/off stops have high level platforms. Also, some folks can't lift even a small bag high enough to get it on a luggage rack due to disabilities or mobility issues. It's nice not to be pestered to haul your bag above your head for those folks.

Sorry, the MLVs just win all around.They are a far superior car than the Comets / Arrows - even if they are a little ugly on the outside.

But that's not any reason why they "win all around" or how they might be "superior". That's just your opinion.

Which, is why I said "I'D ARGUE ..."

I also provided FACTS about why I believe the MLV are superior. Those facts are not opinions. It is difficult to deal with oversize luggage on a Comet / Arrow at a low level stop, since you need to drag them down the narrow aisle to get to the mid-door area or a luggage rack. It is difficult to lift large and heavy bags above your head to put them in a luggage rack, especially if you've got mobility issues.

I've got two decades experience of being a commuter. What are your credentials?

The luggage situation is superior on the older cars, provided you can lift your own luggage (which I'd hope would be the case if you're traveling). I've never had a bag that wouldn't fit up there. Conversely, I don't own any bags that fit on the racks of the ML's, except my laptop bag.

Finally, some movement:
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/201 ... _good.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
RFP scheduled to go out in a few months. Probably going to Bombardier if they don't go under, since they built the original MLVs and would therefore be in the best position to provide a compatible power car.

The article says 113 self-propelled new cars. That is not an even number. I must have missed it. Was it determined that they could fit all the transformers and other gear into a single car and still have enough seating capacity? I thought pretty much they had to be paired to distribute the electrical gear more evenly. Is it know if some are just trailers?

Fan Railer wrote: Probably going to Bombardier if they don't go under, since they built the original MLVs and would therefore be in the best position to provide a compatible power car.

Probably?

Everyone knows NJT only orders from Snowmobiles, Inc.

(Rumor last time was CAF was the low bidder on the Arrow IVs, which is why NJT mysteriously stopped the procurement. In any case, the other builders likely have gotten the message, and NJ residents get screwed with expensive science fair projects and substandard build quality).

Too bad - they should hold out a few years to see how the Stadler KISS sets run over in Cali, and look to tag on to an order of those...

EuroStar wrote:The article says 113 self-propelled new cars. That is not an even number. I must have missed it. Was it determined that they could fit all the transformers and other gear into a single car and still have enough seating capacity? I thought pretty much they had to be paired to distribute the electrical gear more evenly. Is it know if some are just trailers?

You'll know when the RFP goes out what breakdown it'll be in singlets vs. married-pairs vs. unpowered trailers (if any). "113" also isn't a number you can read much into for what the Arrow-replacement fleet size will be, since any order will have a relatively small base quantity and a buttload of extra option orders tacked onto it.


As for seating capacity with all the electronics...I guess since it's 90% likely to be Bombardier you're looking at a Talent 2's guts stuffed in the MLV tincan. Which gives you a starting point for compare/contrast. They don't have any bi-level Talents in Europe, but the platform has been in production for 20 years adapted to many different loading gauges, power configurations (singlet, married pair, triplet, etc.), electrical inputs, and DMU variants so it's the most tried-and-true tech they can possibly apply when making a first-time leap to FRA-compliants and bi-levels. (And don't forget, doing an MLV EMU means they have their leg up for doing a BLV EMU for low-boarding territory...a potentially larger overall domestic EMU market to crack).

While looking for information on the replacement diesels that NJT plans to eventually purchase, I ran into this http://www.njtransit.com/AdminTemp/njt_ ... et2014.pdf. So the plan is for each powered MLV to be able to pull two non-powered trailers. I find that very interesting. Is there such a configuration in use anywhere else in the world? Are they basically planning to take an existing MLV and stuff a down powered ALP-46 on the lower level while leaving the top level for passengers? Given that they want the powered units to be able to pull the existing MLVs, this procurement is Bombardier's to lose.

They probably would not be full-on off-shelf MLV's like the original scrapped proposal to do "power packs" in lieu of true MU's. That proposal, considered too radical, would have sandwiched 2 "any-coach" MLV's between 2 power cars almost like a mini-Acela strung together like tinker toys...but because the trailer trainlining wasn't MU'd but plain old pass-thru the power cars had to be more sophisticated than usual to correct for the fully 'inert' masses between them. True MU trainlining is much different and more complicated from that, with a much 'talkier' data connection every single car in the consist even when some of those cars are unpowered. The new M8 trailers on the New Haven Line (like many, many older example) have the full-on MU connection and even require their own pantographs just for hotel power because the M#'s cable plant doesn't include the electrical connection at the non-married pair couplers. Those trailers aren't hot-swappable with push-pull sets, or vice versa except in an emergency dead-tow situation.


What this could possibly mean is that Bombardier has an idea for a stock MLV trailer that is the same in every way as the P-P trailers...except that instead of having passive P-P trainlining it has 'active' MU trainlining. Therefore they'd be captive to the MU fleet and not interchangeable with the P-P consists...BUT, maintainable in every other way exactly like a stock MLV trailer for economy-of-scale purposes. That does make a great deal of sense, since it's still a fully conventional MU consist...but aims to make the trailers as off-shelf as physically possible while still being captive to that all-important MU data connection.

OR...a slightly bigger reach...they're cooking up an MU-compatible "MLV III" that has the MU data cable but can be switched into 'passive' mode for use in P-P trailers. Such that NJT can order just the unique power cars for the MU fleet, but lump the MU trailers and the Comet IIM/IV trailer replacements into one gigantic mass order. The MLV I's & II's wouldn't be forward-compatible with the MU fleet because they lack that active data cable and it would be too tricky to mod them for it until they're at midlife overhaul age...but at least all trailer orders going forward would have complete portability. This scheme is a little riskier, and definitely drives up the unit cost of the trailers a lot. However, if you're thinking that one trailer make to rule all can have a gigantic order placed for the MU trailers + Comet IIM/IV replacements...they can drive the unit cost down by ordering in larger quantity.

Tricky calculation. I wouldn't be surprised if both solutions are on the table and they're just seeing how it shakes out in the RFP before making a decision on whether these new trailers are going to be captive to the MU fleet or universal.

Fascinating info. In any event, it will be a very streamlined operation - eventually, the whole fleet will be multi-level; the only major visual difference among trains in the system will be some powered by a loco and some independently powered. I can't think of another passenger RR that has both PP and EMU equipment using nearly identical coaches like this.

And Comet V? The Vs seem too young to retire any time soon, but I could see them relegated to Pascack Valley and Port Jervis service.

NJT Fleet Plan doesn't have the last of the flats purged until 2025 when the V's are rebuild-age, and that's the date that syncs with MNRR's next projected West-of-Hudson procurement. So your hunch is probably correct about where they'll be grouped after the IIM's and IV's are gone.