What kind of equipment would you like to see on MN?

What kinds of cars and engines (or MU sets) would you like to see on MN?

Personally, I would like to see amfleet-styled* coaches for runs into diesel territory, and M7s with more seating and darker (as in less lights) interiors for electric areas.

I'm interested in hearing what others would like to see, both railfans and commuters.

Nester

[I know that most of what we could talk about would never happen, but I am curious to see (or read) what others are thinking]

*Amfleet-styled refers to the characteristics found on amfleet cars - end vestibules, 2x2 reclining seats, running with lights off at night, possibly electrical outlets, etc.

In terms of amenities, I'd pay a modest fee for Wi-Fi internet access for my laptop!

On the New Haven, any new equipment would be nice. Amfleet style coaches are unrealistic on Commuter Trains. You need at least 90+ seats per car, and the seats need to be vinyl to be cleaned easily and eventually the roofs and air conditioning leak anyways. I would love to see on a New Canaan train someone fully reclined into the others lap that would be precious.

mncommuter wrote:In terms of amenities, I'd pay a modest fee for Wi-Fi internet access for my laptop!

I never thought about that one. Unless there was some sort of broadband cellular link that the train could access, and then redistribute over wi-fi, I don't see how that could be done. Unless you were referring to satellite, which would not work in the tunnels

Nester

Swedish Meatball wrote:On the New Haven, any new equipment would be nice. Amfleet style coaches are unrealistic on Commuter Trains. You need at least 90+ seats per car, and the seats need to be vinyl to be cleaned easily and eventually the roofs and air conditioning leak anyways. I would love to see on a New Canaan train someone fully reclined into the others lap that would be precious.

Refresh my memory.. how many seats does an Amfleet coach have?

[Please note that I said style, not transplant. I know that vinyl would be much better than cloth for heavy-duty commuter use.]

Nester

An I-2 Pacific on the Waterbury shuttle :->!

You'll only have to lower your platforms and then this is what should run on your line:

http://www.stadlerrail.com/file/pdf/Flirt_en.pdf

Anyway, it would ride smoother than the M-2 M.U's

And another piece of advice for MN: Change your tracks!

What I'd like to see?

On the NH line: M-8s. 6 car-M-8 trains sets to replace all SLE "shuttles". At least two, possible three 9-car trains each way peak hours making through trips between GCT and Old Saybrook/New London. Corresponding NH line trains that make the SLE connections first to be assigned M-8s.

One peak hour P32AC-DM through train each way between GCT and Waterbury.

All the other lines seem fine -- only the Connecticut rail system needs improvement, the rest pretty much outside MN's territory (SLE, New-Haven to Springfield line).

David Telesha wrote:You'll only have to lower your platforms and then this is what should run on your line:

http://www.stadlerrail.com/file/pdf/Flirt_en.pdf

Anyway, it would ride smoother than the M-2 M.U's

And another piece of advice for MN: Change your tracks!

NO WAY! Never in a million years.

The Shoreline route has been there since the mid 1800's, electrified circa 1907 (+/-) orig. with 11,000V AC.

Have you even visited the electrified Shoreline????

Do you know how many tracks it is, how many trains it is used by, and how many passengers and railroads (Amtrak and CSX and P&W freight RR's) use it????

No offense, but your idea would NEVER work.

Yes, I've rode the Shoreline several times from New Haven to NY but not recently.

I admit that my idea is utopian not only because of the platforms but also because of the voltage. But imagine modifying the railcar itself. A change in the rectifier of current could do the Job.

And I really think the M-2 M.U's are AWFUL! When I rode them, I couldn't read a single newspaper! They're rumbling! The design is terrible too... they look like containers and the inside like a subway! This is personal but I do not like at all the small windows (which are often dirty) and the 3+2 seat range. I've read that the windows on the M7 are bigger. I'd rather like to see the old NHRR M.U's than those horrible railcars.

As for the tracks you're wrong. I live in Switzerland in Lausanne. This Year the CFF (national railway) was able to change the tracks on a DOUBLE track portion near Geneva. On this portion, passenger trains run each 5 - 10 minute each way(without taking consideration of the freight trains :-d). And they've done even better... they add a third track!
It means a lot of work! And it was done with few disruption.

On the Shoreline you have 4 tracks!!! And if I remember well, the center tracks (concrete ties) are quiet new and the trackside ones (wooden ties)
are VERY old! I think there's a lack of funding and above all MN doesn't show any initiative!

I don't mention the timetables because I would be extremely critical !!

Correct me if I made a mistake

The FLIRT (Heh:) would actually be able to be modified easily for the NH line's voltage - it's already 15kv AC, you'd just need a tranny that could run 12kv or 25kv AC, but at 60hz - lighter and smaller.

286,000 pounds for a 4 car train? Not bad - that's barely more than an existing MN 2 car set.

The thing being - MN is high level platforms - oh well.

Ride quality? Look at all the overweight stuff beating the track to pieces, and frankly, US railcar truck technology is mostly on par with museum pieces overseas. Even recent railcars have pretty poor ride qualities (the LIRR's M-7s in particular are pretty bad - supposedly BBD 'fixed' this one...). The Acela's ride is rather poor, the Amfleets are horrid, the ex SPV cars CDOT owns are worse than most subway cars. Older US equipment has that annoying soft sprung undamped bouncey bouncey bouncey ride that old Americans love, and anyone with functional ears hates.

Actually, I always figured that MN would do better with a modern lightweight tilt EMU on the NH line, though even still, I doubt it would do much to improve speeds. The real issue is the poor acceleration of the existing stuff, and the frequent really tight curves and the bridges. Oh well.

"The real issue is the poor acceleration of the existing stuff, and the frequent really tight curves and the bridges. "

You must ride a different MNCR from the one I ride. On the MNCR I ride, the things that most delay trains are:

- The merges/crossovers. Woodlawn can be atrocious. It often takes 5 minutes to get through. In the AM southbound New Haven Line trains have to cross in front of northbound Harlem Line trains. GCT is also atrocious. It can take 8 minutes to get from the platform to the emergency exit at 59th St on many mornings. Southbound approaching the Harlem/Hudson line merge is bad both mornings and evenings. And maybe I just have bad luck but if I ride the NH line my train always seems to have to wait for an Amtrak train at New Rochelle.

- Door problems. On many days, the engineer complains over the intercom that he hasn't got a door light, or the conductors can't open the doors, or something goes wrong.

I would agree with your assessment as it affects Amtrak speeds on MNCR track, but not as it affects MNCR travel times.

Nester wrote:

mncommuter wrote:In terms of amenities, I'd pay a modest fee for Wi-Fi internet access for my laptop!

I never thought about that one. Unless there was some sort of broadband cellular link that the train could access, and then redistribute over wi-fi, I don't see how that could be done. Unless you were referring to satellite, which would not work in the tunnels

Nester

A Never-Going-To-Happen suggestion to your question...

Extend the 3rd rail for the entire lenght of all the lines to act as a extremely long physical internet connection. The shoe on the engine would pick up the signal and send it to an on-board server located in the locomotive. The server would send the signal down to each car via internet cables to the wireless transmitters (located in the ceilings at both ends and on in the middle of each coach) and BAM!... wireless internet on all trains. Also, to keep the signal strong, put a web server at each station along every "Wireless Line".

This is just a completly crazy idea, but it would be awesome...

Nasadowsk wrote:Older US equipment has that annoying soft sprung undamped bouncey bouncey bouncey ride that old Americans love, and anyone with functional ears hates.

LOL

Well I never rode the old NHRR M.U's but I'm sure I would prefer them from any current MN M.U.

I agree with you, the (very) heavyweight railcars damage the tracks and as a result the infrastructure maintenance cost will rise and thus you gotta carry out big "costly" projects like changing the tracks! Well if you want to have a nice ride...come to switzerland, our new double decker cars are incredibly quiet and I promess, no bouncey ride!!!
Lighter cars would be a dream but a real improvment in the MN transit! As for the speed, lightrail or non-heavyweight vehicles allow much better acceleration. Because of the numerous stops between NY and NH I think it would really increase the transit speed!

The MN should introduce fast trains which would only stop in important stations like New Haven, Bridgeport, Norwalk, Stamford, Greenwich, Port Chester, New Rochelle and Mt. Vernon and Amtrak should cease this "regional service". And then the local trains would "connect" these intercity trains (If I may say so) in the main stations, I'm thinking particularly of the branchlines like the Danbury and the New Canaan ones. And that only with a 5 minute connection to improve everyday's commuter journey. Then they could rehabilitate the Canal line through New Haven and build a lightrail line to Hamden... OK I stop dreaming now !!!

I know that it would imply huge funding from the State of Connecticut but I'm sure that this way, the ridership will increase durably!

[quote="David Telesha"]
And, unfortunately, the Canal Line is now a bike trail. Good luck trying to pry it back from the NIMBY's and Greenies.
[quote]

Well it's half true because the Canal line in New Haven city is abandoned and there's no bike trail on it. But if I remember well the bike trail begins in Hamden(??). And what is the NIMBY? Because as a foreigner, I do not know what this abbreviation mean.

Well I'd say the bouncey ride may have it's charm!

And what is the NIMBY? Because as a foreigner, I do not know what this abbreviation mean.

That means "Not In My Back Yard". That means that residents who live along the area there claim that such trains or anything related would disrupt their "quality of life", meaning their peace and quiet in their neighborhood, and residents living in homes near the tracks would be complaining about the noise made by trains and other issues that would breach their peace, quiet and tranquile quality of life.