Railroad Forums 

  • Alstom to Retrofit some M7's into Battery EMU's (Was:M7s at Oyster Bay!)

  • Discussion of the past and present operations of the Long Island Rail Road.
Discussion of the past and present operations of the Long Island Rail Road.

Moderator: Liquidcamphor

 #1569157  by Maverickstation1
 
Covered by the NY Post as well.

https://nypost.com/2021/04/19/lirr-to-t ... ed-trains/
Some trains could be equipped with batteries as soon as next year, after an initial feasibility study. Eng said the tech would also enable single-seat rides into New York City by eliminating the need for transfers at Jamaica Station.

“The first eight months we’ll be looking at how many batteries are needed to support our operational needs so they will they fit in the train car,” he told reporters.

“Part of the analysis will tell us if we need additional charging stations for longer distances — how fast can a battery recharge in that 60-second stop [at a station].”
Last edited by nomis on Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: added fair use quote
 #1569176  by NH2060
 
I was somewhat skeptical when I first heard this proposal, but when you think about it it’s operationally not too different from when steam locomotives took on extra water at a station.

My main concern though is in the event of a widespread power outage how would the trains be charged or recharged if the LIRR loses its power from the grid? One main benefit of having a coexisting non-electric fleet is the ability to still run in inclement weather and when there’s no electricity supplied to the 3rd rail.

Agreed with what others are saying, this will be very exciting to watch! It will interesting to see if they decide to place the batteries on the roof and encase them with a “hump” similar to the M-8s.
 #1569189  by 4behind2
 
What is particularly interesting is that the "study" is being funded directly from the Carrier's operating budget (860k), no grants. I'm surprised retired transit policy makers aren't writing screeds on social media and local papers about this malfeasance.

Over the decades, there have been many studied "replacements" for engine hauled consists, the most recent being the alleged DMU's for non electrified branches under Helena Williams. In the 1990's there was the Tram study connecting Oyster Bay to West Hempstead. And who could forget the promise by Jim Dermody of nine peak dual mode trains to Penn Station which never materialized and riders were lucky to get five.

As for "more service" to NYC, that is constrained by operating slots into Penn Station, even with the new third track. It won't get any better when ESA opens as Metro North begins to run trains from Lefrak City, etc. into Penn Sta.

The study is great publicity though!
 #1569199  by freightguy
 
[quot
4behind2 wrote:What is particularly interesting is that the "study" is being funded directly from the Carrier's operating budget (860k), no grants. I'm surprised retired transit policy makers aren't writing screeds on social media and local papers about this malfeasance.

Over the decades, there have been many studied "replacements" for engine hauled consists, the most recent being the alleged DMU's for non electrified branches under Helena Williams. In the 1990's there was the Tram study connecting Oyster Bay to West Hempstead. And who could forget the promise by Jim Dermody of nine peak dual mode trains to Penn Station which never materialized and riders were lucky to get five.

As for "more service" to NYC, that is constrained by operating slots into Penn Station, even with the new third track. It won't get any better when ESA opens as Metro North begins to run trains from Lefrak City, etc. into Penn Sta.

The study is great publicity though!

Would you put this on par with the Garett jet turbine trains from 50 years ago tested on Long Island?
 #1569211  by Cannon Ball
 
Time for a funny story, in response to the earlier question "Why does it take 3 Diesel switchers to deliver 2 coaches?"

Decades ago, I ran an excursion on a midwestern regional railroad, with 5 passenger coaches and 4 engines, 2 at the head end and 2 at the rear end. One of the RR's owners was on board, and sort of huffily asked the Chief Mechanical Officer, who was along in a management role, why in the world he brought along FOUR engines to pull FIVE cars? Without missing a beat, the CMO responded, "So we can be pretty sure at least ONE of 'em will still be running when we get to the other end!" We heard nothing further from the owner for the rest of the weekend.

So, why 3 switchers to pull 2 coaches???
 #1569213  by railfaned
 
Having had the opportunity to ride the GE Garret turbo trains for a week, they were great from a riders point of view They ran about 15-20 minutes faster than the diesel trains did between Ronkonkoma and Jamaica. To bad they were noisy and fuel hogs. The failure of the turbines lead to the electrification to Ronkonkoma.
We have to let this battery test run, to see what problems they encounter. I see the need for a short 3rd rail at Oyster Bay to charge the batteries when they layup the M7's there.
 #1569220  by 4behind2
 
The two four car sets of turbos were mostly Federally funded. There are tales of them running out of fuel midway on AM Montauk runs. The mechanically retracting steps were neat. Two pairs of the Garretts briefly ran as MU's, but were withdrawn due to being rough riders.

The Turbo demonstrations weren't the reason KO was electrified. The original plan was to double track PW to KO.

Oh, and I forgot the original dual modes (C1's) in the last post too. They came as a demonstration in lieu of electrification of the entire Pt. Jeff branch courtesy of the Congressman at the time from Huntington.
 #1569228  by ConstanceR46
 
I think BEMUs can find a niche in places like Long Island, or Philly, or even Denver as a way of expanding service beyond electrified areas without having to deal with diesels - especially if these can charge while moving.

I'm reminded of a similar program they did back in the USSR around the middle of this century - early EMU cars would get gigantic battery packs to expand suburban services.
 #1569235  by CTG
 
NH2060 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 9:50 am ...

My main concern though is in the event of a widespread power outage how would the trains be charged or recharged if the LIRR loses its power from the grid? One main benefit of having a coexisting non-electric fleet is the ability to still run in inclement weather and when there’s no electricity supplied to the 3rd rail.

...
I wouldn't be too concerned about the impact of a widespread power outage on the battery cars. If the LIRR lost power, you'd have MU sets stranded all over the system. Nothing would be getting through or around them -- diesel, battery or otherwise.

I remember a power outage across the northeast back in the 2002-2007 era and seeing commuters walking along the tracks of the New Haven line in the Larchmont area. I think that the LIRR also lost power at that time, but trying too hard to remember just makes me feel old...
 #1569244  by photobug56
 
If I understand correctly, you take a car like an M7, add the controller and charger and presumably Lithium Ion battery packs, all sorts of extra but light weight framing, improved brakes and motors, new software, upgraded 3rd rail shoes and related equipment, ability to plug in at terminals and yards to get extra juice - but also be able to charge from 3rd rail. An only use it on Oyster Bay and PJ lines because they are far shorter. And only on select trains that will go into Grand Central, maybe into Penn also. Keep in mind these cars have far less capacity than double deckers unless you have a long train. Some diesel country stations like East Northport have long platforms (12?), I'm guessing many don't.
 #1569249  by CTG
 
People keep mentioning the Oyster Bay and Port Jeff lines, but I'd think the stretch from Babylon - Patchogue would be a natural fit, as well as the Central Branch.
 #1569251  by freightguy
 
CTG wrote:I remember a power outage across the northeast back in the 2002-2007 era and seeing commuters walking along the tracks of the New Haven line in the Larchmont area. I think that the LIRR also lost power at that time, but trying too hard to remember just makes me feel old.
Yes summer of 2003 LIRR had M series equipment sitting everywhere.

My thing is where do they dispose of all these batteries after they're no longer useful? LIRR buried a bunch of old batteries from Morris Park years ago by the Arriva concrete switch near Moriches Middle Island on the mainline( Shirley/Yaphank). It was a huge soil remediation project they spent a lot of money on the LIRR cleaning up the land.
 #1569255  by NH2060
 
1) I stand corrected on the power outage scenario.

2) The Central Branch is marked for electrification in the 2020-2024 Capital Program so as of now they won’t be needed there.

3) Yes the Babylon-Patchogue “Scoots” as well as the KO-East Yaphank/Riverhead/Greenport? “Scoots” would be perfect for these trains.

4) Agreed on the post-battery life disposal issue. There doesn’t need to be another case of “it provided clean power but then was an environmental nightmare when it came time to dispose of them” situation.
 #1569291  by scratchyX1
 
NH2060 wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:40 pm 1) I stand corrected on the power outage scenario.

2) The Central Branch is marked for electrification in the 2020-2024 Capital Program so as of now they won’t be needed there.

3) Yes the Babylon-Patchogue “Scoots” as well as the KO-East Yaphank/Riverhead/Greenport? “Scoots” would be perfect for these trains.

4) Agreed on the post-battery life disposal issue. There doesn’t need to be another case of “it provided clean power but then was an environmental nightmare when it came time to dispose of them” situation.
I would hope that disposal/reuse is part of the plan. I know that secondary reuse of power packs for stationary power is an option, which would push out disposal by a decade.
I'm waiting on supercapacitors and next gen batteries with less damaging components to scale up.
I'm also wondering about the "Loop", full of battery powered cars in small under ground tunnels.