why didnt LIRR go with Comet MU's instead of Double Deckers

I alwsy wondered why they didnt go with Comets MU's instead of the Double Deckers
I kno the Double Deckers hold more people but why be the odd ball ?
seeing a Comet MU with a Genesis engine on LIRR paint scheme
would blow my mind away
anyone know why they choose to be odd ball with this ???

Could you reduce the avatar to correct size it pushes the text of screen.

LIRR or any railroad does not run stuff cause it looks cool.
they run stuff cause its practical or needed and they don't care how it looks,
NJT is getting over 200 Double deckers too and if MNCR had the roof clearance in Park Ave they probably would go for Double deckers too.
You speak of Comet MU's but there are no Comet MU's just coaches and cab cars.

There are pros and cons of getting Comets/Boms instead of the C3's 1 being that the boms would be high and low level capable tuss letting the LIRR take more time in making Lowlevel platforms to the high level, and that the boms are ready proven and work well for MN. how ever there would have been some issues with them too, and even if they did perform 100% better then the C3s and DEs LIRR probly would have found a reason to miss treat them and make something go wrong.

why didn't the LIRR Lease a few gennies and boms from MN in the late 90s for trials to see if that would be the way to go?

Because the LIRR is older and is considered the inferior road within the MTA organization. With that in mind, they do not want to be viewed as having to go to the newer and more favorable MNCR and do it their way. It's like two brothers competing for Momma's attention and neither admitting the other knows better.

As far as the coaches, the Federal funding required a minimum seating capacity (off hand I forgot the number). With the bathrooms and in the cab cars, the Engineers cab taking up space, they couldn't achieve that number without two floors. In addition, single level coaches would have required longer trains translating to longer more costly platforms.

i believe someone who posted here long ago said the GE engines were too tall for at least a few LIRR station overhangs. and this super-sized avatar is annoying.

Invisible computer ink?

Mike

Wasn't someone at LIRR quoted as saying that the Genesis locos were either not "strong enough" or poorly suited for the grades on the Port Jefferson branch? If so, he needs to ride one of MN's dual-mode trains to Danbury and enjoy the profile on that line.

GE wasn't selected as a locomotive builder because they wouldn't build a plant in New York. EMD did.

Jay

DutchRailnut wrote:Could you reduce the avatar to correct size it pushes the text of screen.

LIRR or any railroad does not run stuff cause it looks cool.
they run stuff cause its practical or needed and they don't care how it looks,
NJT is getting over 200 Double deckers too and if MNCR had the roof clearance in Park Ave they probably would go for Double deckers too.
You speak of Comet MU's but there are no Comet MU's just coaches and cab cars.

I don't understand why they didn't go with something which could fit into the future ESA terminal. They run very long EMU trains, so why was there a focus on shortening the push pull trains? Heck, they even built the platforms for the C3, so what was the thinking behind going with something too tall for the 63rd St Tube? The locomotives were specially built, the cars were specially built, and then the platforms were built to suit the trains, so what were they thinking?

On the subject of a Genesis versus DM30AC, didn't the LIRR specify a higher acceleration than the P32DM-AC would have been capable of? I thought the LIRR was looking for more of a locomotive capable of running for extended periods taking power from the 3rd rail and keeping pace nearly that of the EMUs, something the Genesis were not capable of providing. Of course Super Steel Schenectady screwwed the DM30ACs up and after the fires the idea of extended 3rd rail operation seems to have been dropped.

Form19 wrote:As far as the coaches, the Federal funding required a minimum seating capacity (off hand I forgot the number). With the bathrooms and in the cab cars, the Engineers cab taking up space, they couldn't achieve that number without two floors.

If that's true then how has NJT and MN managed to get the Comet Vs during the same time? SEPTA has specified a combination of 2+2 and 3+2 seating on their new cars, so it's not neccesary to have 2 floors for a relatively comfortable seating arrangement. I believe the SEPTA specification even allows for a bathroom and widecab without any issues with regards to the FTA wanting to pack more people in each car.

The LIRR did not build the platforms for the C3s. They started building platforms on the PJ branch in 1983 in preparation for electrification. In the early 1980s, they were going to electrify the PJ, then they decided to electrify the main line instead. Of course that meant high level platforms on the main line. To pacify the PJ riders, the LIRR built high level platforms. The LIRR also said that platforms would improve running times. (It hasn't; the time between PJ and Huntington is no different today than it was in 1980.) Later, the LIRR decided put platforms on the remaining OB and Montauk lines, largely to comply with the ADA (Americans with disabilities act).

The platforms are about 1000 (1080, as I recollect) feet, enough for 12 MUs.

My understanding from reading earlier posts here, the C3s were selected due to federal requirements. This seems plausible, but agencies can usually get waivers if there is a practical difficulty in following federal requirements. Chances are good that the MTA and other commuter railroads urged the feds to adopt these requirements. Double deckers are potentially more efficient from a labor standpoint.

At that time, the LIRR must have felt it was more important to have low labor cost rolling stock than stock that would fit in the 63rd street tunnels. Perhaps they thought that by the time the east side access is complete, the equipment will have reached the end of its useful life. The management might be right on this one.

Earlier posts had many statements about why the LI selected DEs instead of Genesis engines. There is probably some truth in many of those statements. EMD would build them in NY. EMD would build a custom design with superior braking (not acceleration).

I suspect the GEs have very good clearances. They look leaner up top than F40PHs, GP38s, and even DM/DEs, I think. The GEs have a transverse cross-section from the cab back, similar to Baldwin sharknoses wherein the top of the sides cants in a little.

Though I wish the LIRR had GEs, I must admit those beasts are painfully noisy compared to the DE/DMs. Also, the aesthetics of both competitors leave a lot to be desired.

They should have gone with the comet design instead of the m-7s thats for sure. In my opinion, the m-7's are too high tech for the amount of work they will be required to do on the LIRR. It will be interesting to see what kind of shape they will be in 5 years or so down the line when they have been exposed to a few severe NY winters, and all the salt from the valued customers shoes slipping into the cracks and into the electronic equipment. Plus all the conductors and engineers throwing their bags into the cabs day in and out with all that expensive computer equipment in the cabs. I hope i am wrong, they are nice enough to work, we will see..

Alco, the platforms on the Montauk, Mainline and Oyster Bay branches were raised for the C3's.

The ADA required the LIRR only to raise "Key stations". On the Montauk it was designated as Patchogue..O.B. was Mineola (already high platform), Mainline was Ronkonkoma (already high platform). If the LIRR raised Patchogue only, it would have been in full compliance.

The LIRR decided to raise all the platoforms to speed up dwell time in each station. They felt that the low-platforms slowed up ingress/egress from the trains. What was not considered was that high-platforms do speed up ingress/egress but double decker cars are slower to ingress/egress so any benefit of the high-platforms were negated by the C3's.

The Port Jeff Branch does have long platforms built when the LIRR ran much longer trains with the P-72's and 75's. I ran trains up there that had 13 cars and two locomotives on a regular basis. The branches raised with the C3's in mind have much shorter platforms owing to the influence of the C3's.

ADA regulations required a wheel chair accessable bathroom which takes up a large part of the car. In additon, the full cab design of the Cab Car takes up space normally reserved for seating. The LIRR wanted 2x2 seating which further reduced seating capacity. To accomidate the minimum Federal seating capacity, the two floor design was selected.

To see the difference..the M-7's with the ADA in mind, had no choice but to install 3x2 seating to get the seating capacity necessary for funding. Height restrictions in the Atlantic and East Side Access tunnels forced them to use single level cars.

I do not see how the Double Decker coaches are cheaper labor-wise. The LIRR has roughly the same amount of diesel coaches as before. They haven't cut crew sizes and to be honest, the DD design makes it impossible to see through the cars...on the old coaches a crew member could stand in the head car and see all the way to the rear. Can you please explain what you mean? Thank you

I was told that they could not make a C3 MU car due to limitations for placement of the eletronic equipment and all the thigns that you see under a M1-M7. Would a C3MU be a possibility or would the hight limitations under the car void anyideas to make it into a MU?

well if that was alowed it probly would have been used mostly on the main line NYP-Ronkonkoma, Babylon, and Huntington.

As and employee working everyday on the C3's and DE's If you had a choice in the dicission would you have taken the boms or comet 5's over the C3s? and would you think that the abilitily to still keep the LL platforms on many of the stations would have saved millions?

""On the subject of a Genesis versus DM30AC, didn't the LIRR specify a higher acceleration than the P32DM-AC would have been capable of? I thought the LIRR was looking for more of a locomotive capable of running for extended periods taking power from the 3rd rail and keeping pace nearly that of the EMUs, something the Genesis were not capable of providing.""


Couldn't the Genesis engines have been modified to accomidate these requirements? If certain railroads can take freight locomotives and convert them to serve passenger trains, you'd think that a railroad could take a passenger engine and alter it to perform differently for a more demanding passenger service.

Form 19: Thanks for a good summary on the evolution of the platforms and cars. I have for years been skeptical about the rr's claim that it was raising platforms to reduce dwell time. In the 14 years between the time the platforms were raised on the PJ and the time the C3s were put in service, there were no schedule improvements or significant improvements in on-time performance. LIRR planners told me in 1983 the platforms were a first step toward electrification, and that they had to be 1080(?) feet long to accommodate 12 mu's.

My conjecture about labor savings goes like this. On the P72/75 trains the rr had always seemed to have one collector per two cars. If the rr could purchase bi-levels and cut the train from 10 or 11 cars to 8, then the number of collectors needed could be reduced by about 25% if the rr kept the number of collectors per car the same. In practice, on the PJ branch the 10 and 11 car trains are now 8, the former 8 car is now 5, the former 4, 5 and 6 car trains are now 3 or 4, occasionally 5. I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Train 607(later 609)/664 dropped from 13 cars to 11 when the KO was electrified. This train normally did not have 2 engines, but when it did it was pretty cool in terms of both sight and sound.