Would Buying Diesel Trainsets Benefit Metro-North

Would having a few more diesel train sets, even if bought used and kept in reserve, benefit Metro North? This latest incident shows how fragile the system can be.

My own personal thoughts on the subject, from the NHL shutdown thread...

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 5#p1217637

MNR has 30 diesel locomotives, so one day someone decides, "you know what? Let's acquire some more locomotives in case of and extended electrical outage somewhere on the territory." So MNR acquires 5 additional locomotives. These locomotives sit around since they're waiting to be used in an emergency. After a while someone in planning notices this and decides that since these extra locomotives aren't being that MNR can add more regularly scheduled trains with this equipment. So the next schedule change X number of trains are added to the timetable. A few days after the timetable change something like what happened yesterday occurs. Now where are those diesel locomotives? They're on regularly scheduled trains because someone saw that they were sitting around waiting for 'what if' instead of being put to actual use. So now does the RR cancel those trains that they just added to the schedule? How happy would you be if that was your train that was cancelled?

It's just not prudent to secure millions of dollars to purchase locomotives just to always be on stand-by. Imagine the news headlines that MNR spent however many millions to acquire X number of locomotives that can't be used in daily service; meanwhile passengers are complaining for more trains and more seats. How would the MTA explain that one.

Then people say, well MNR can just lease other diesel locomotives from other roads. Perhaps from the above example we can see that not many railroads have spare equipment just laying around. Why do you think MNR only has football trains for 1PM Sunday games, not 4PM or 8PM Sunday games, or for Monday or Thursday night games? And that's for scheduled service, so how much more availability would one expect for unscheduled outages?

Then even if equipment was available, how much is there that is compatible into GCT or with MNR's Bombardier equipment? Really there's none. So I don't know where this just borrow someone else's locomotives and coaches idea has popped up.

And if there was compatible equipment available it would have to be sent back to its home road each day to be inspected and maintained. MNR forces are not qualified on foreign roads' equipment nor does MNR stock supplies and tools or have facilities to work on these things.

If ConnDOT wants to expand SLE or diesel branch service. NJT has many Comet IIIs and F40s (probably bargains), all displaced by Multilevels and ALP45s.

TacSupport1 wrote:Would having a few more diesel train sets, even if bought used and kept in reserve, benefit Metro North? This latest incident shows how fragile the system can be.

If by used you mean second hand diesel-electrics and not electro-diesels (as they are none else out there aside from the current fleets) that are compatible with MNR cab signals, clearances, etc. then they could be useful BUT only in the event the dual modes need to be temporarily reassigned to electric territory due to a power outage, storm, etc. and substitute equipment (the second hand diesel-electrics and coaches) could be used to provide connecting shuttle service (i.e. Croton-Poughkeepsie, Southeast-Wassaic, et al).

However given the relative rarity of events such as the recent NHL power outage it might not be all that necessary to have extra units/trainsets on hand for emergencies. The service pattern during the outage was anything but ideal, but it did it's job the best it could. When there's a snowstorm service is always reduced to 2 hour headways and is run almost entirely- if not 100% entirely- with diesel equipment with no problems. So there's really no need for extra diesel equipment for reasons like those.

Now if extra locomotives were to be purchased in the next dual mode order in addition to the units needed to replace the existing fleet then that's another story and one that would theoretically be more justified. If something goes wrong with 1 or more units at a time not having any spares on hand will come to bite. One reason why just about all the options in the M-8 contract have been exercised is because of the need for an adequate number of spare cars (and of course their relative cheap cost compared to asking Kawasaki to build more EMUs 5-10 years from now).

CTRailfan wrote:If they could be true dual-modes that could run without a drop of diesel to Croton or Southeast with ML's, then they might be rather useful. They would have to be DM's, not electrics for that service, as they might gap out from time to time, so DMs could just fire the diesel and get back on the third rail. Although only getting a few sets might make each car super expensive. However, in regards to the latest incident, they need to figure out how to utilize their existing equipment and get more coaches before they worry about buying more diesels. More coaches could also be shared with SLE, NHHS, or other new services, or they could get some ML's to increase the capacity of the existing P32-based Maxi's.

MNR is already flush with coaches as it is with the WOH rebuilds and ex-SLE coaches now added to the mix of pre-existing Shoreliner Is, IIs, IIIs, and IVs and they're all in great condition so no need to replace them for some time to come. SLE will be getting M-8s in a few years and NHHS will be getting the Geeps, P40s, and Mafersas. Perhaps when the time comes to replace the end door Shoreliners then MNR could do a joint order with ConnDOT to include cars for NHHS if either party so desires. Other than that coach needs are more or less taken care of in spades.

Some of you are writing as if locomotives just "grew on trees". The days of interchangable locomotives and cars are gone, the days of universal ownership (like the PRR, NYC and NH being able to find cars in Chicago, Pittsburgh etc for overflow in New York) are also gone and with every commuter railroad basically using something different, this is what you have. To buy more locomotives and probably cars too just for standby use would be crazy. It would be far better to fix what is wrong with the system and what causes these problems in the first plance than to buy cars and locomotives just in case.
Noel Weaver

R36 Combine Coach wrote:If ConnDOT wants to expand SLE or diesel branch service. NJT has many Comet IIIs and F40s (probably bargains), all displaced by Multilevels and ALP45s.

Yes, you would think someone would buy them, instead of them just going to scrap, but if the scrap value is more worth it to NJT then that's where they will end up...Scrap!!

DutchRailnut wrote:Do I smell a NHairhead?

I seem to smell the same.

Tadman wrote:

DutchRailnut wrote:Do I smell a NHairhead?

I seem to smell the same.

That's what stinks!!!

Clean Cab wrote:

Tadman wrote:

DutchRailnut wrote:Do I smell a NHairhead?

I seem to smell the same.

That's what stinks!!!

I smell a Mr. Wood, that's what I smell.

Noel Weaver wrote:Some of you are writing as if locomotives just "grew on trees". The days of interchangable locomotives and cars are gone, the days of universal ownership (like the PRR, NYC and NH being able to find cars in Chicago, Pittsburgh etc for overflow in New York) are also gone and with every commuter railroad basically using something different, this is what you have.

In a sense, what we could use is a 21st century President's Conference Committee for the Northeastern commuter rail operators-- to come up with a unified design or set of designs (say, one for single-levels, one for bi-levels) that could be used on every system from VRE to MBTA. In the long run, that would probably reduce unit costs for everybody.

On the current topic- the only thing I could see making marginal sense would be a dual-mode version of (or replacement for) the BL20GH's on the Wassaic, Danbury & Waterbury shuttles that in a pinch could operate into GCT.

Ridgefielder wrote:

Noel Weaver wrote:Some of you are writing as if locomotives just "grew on trees". The days of interchangable locomotives and cars are gone, the days of universal ownership (like the PRR, NYC and NH being able to find cars in Chicago, Pittsburgh etc for overflow in New York) are also gone and with every commuter railroad basically using something different, this is what you have.

In a sense, what we could use is a 21st century President's Conference Committee for the Northeastern commuter rail operators-- to come up with a unified design or set of designs (say, one for single-levels, one for bi-levels) that could be used on every system from VRE to MBTA. In the long run, that would probably reduce unit costs for everybody.

On the current topic- the only thing I could see making marginal sense would be a dual-mode version of (or replacement for) the BL20GH's on the Wassaic, Danbury & Waterbury shuttles that in a pinch could operate into GCT.

Well...we kind of do on the coach side. They're called Comets and Bombardier BLV's/MLV's. The various classes of NJT/SEPTA Comets, MNRR/CDOT Shoreliners, and MBTA BTC/CTC-1's are all extremely similar. And nearly every bi-level coach on the east coast from NJT's MLV's to the MBTA's Kawasakis and Rotems to MARC's Kawasakis and MLV's is based off the 35-years-proven Bombardier Bi-Level design. I'm sure even the miniaturized MLV form factor is producible from other vendors; it just hasn't been around long enough for anyone to tap a non-Bombardier source. Everybody's got their preferred door and interior configurations, so that'll be a defining difference. But it's not a very big one, or one that affects procurement costs very much. And except for LIRR with its extra signal aspects, all control cabs are going to have the same cab signal + ACSES gear.

For locos, each system is going to have different needs. The MBTA is going 4600 HP with its next order because it's got humongous 6-7 car bi-level trains to haul on its heaviest-use lines. An HSP-46 would be silly overkill for MNRR pulling 3-5 single-levels out in branchline territory. MNRR and LIRR are the only two who need shoed dual-modes. It's a reasonable assumption that the P32 and DM30 replacement order is going to be synced between both roads for economy of scale. NJT is the only one that needs overhead duals, and they've got their fleet commonality set in E mode with the ALP-46 and ALP-45DP being single-source sister models. MARC and SEPTA have much more limited scale and maintenance ability for electric push-pull; they use what Amtrak uses, and will probably keep doing so if they stick to status quo.

Same with EMU's. M8's have no precedent anywhere in the country because of its unique panto + shoe power inputs. M7/M9's are captive to only the MTA roads at LIRR clearances. They have to be what they are. NJT Arrows and various generations of SEPTA Silverliners do share a lot in common, and the SL V's are going to Denver. That's the closest thing to a generic single-level EMU platform in this country, much like the Comets are the closest thing to a generic single-level coach. If NJT does another class of single-level Arrows they'll quite likely be cousins of the SL V's (hopefully with Kawasaki et al. at the helm instead of Rotem). If MNRR and NJT opt for MLV form factor EMU's I bet they'd be panto vs. shoe cousins from the same builder. It's safety in manufacturing scale for a form factor that's never been EMU'd before. If either road revisits the very different Bombardier power car + generic MLV coach idea, they'd be cousins too for the same reason. And BBD would be able to market the same power car make in the full BLV form factor as bait for the MBTA and GO Transit electrification given both roads' huge coach fleets of BLV + clones origin. I don't expect much divergence in East Coast EMU's the way economy of scale drives some of these massive-size orders.

--------------------

For straight diesels, you could argue that generic is better than customization. The HSP-46 is such a customized beast that the T had to hire hordes of subcontractors to manage MPI on the design. It'll be worth it if those prove to be good engines with mass market appeal, but the effort is questionable if nobody else ends up buying them and it becomes an agency-specific unicorn (even if a good one). You could argue the same about the Brookvilles if they don't get more buyers. Ditto the PL42's since everyone else took a pass on them. The failure of the DM30's to do E mode as well as they should has basically rendered the DE30's an evolutionary dead-ender. The T botched its GP40MC secondhand buy by retrofitting those otherwise great engines with quirky, unproven computers that never totally worked right (although it's a lot better than it used to be), instead of just sticking with what's bulletproof with everyone else's Geeps. These should be teachable moments. Unfortunately, they haven't been.

Those specific examples aside, there is a lot of commonality in the diesels. Those still hanging onto older models like the T/NJT F40PH variants; the T/NJT/CDOT Geep variants; and the MNRR/NJT/CDOT/Amtrak Genesis variants are using the 3 hands-down most ubiquitous passenger loco classes of the last 40 years. MARC's new MPXPresses are the single most ubiquitous class of passenger locos in active production. You could argue the T would've managed its risk better buying stock MP40's or having MPI build a generic mass-market MP46 instead of swinging for the fences on the all-new HSP-46 class...but we'll find out the wisdom of that decision soon enough. It would be great if the MPXPress eventually offered a shoed dual; they can fit MNRR/LIRR clearances. The worst you could say about diesel fleets in the northeast is that NJT needs to get its house in a little bit more order cleaning up its roster of 7 different straight-diesel makes from 4 different classes, but except for the PL42 oddities all of them are generics. Hopefully when they do prune and replace the portion of the diesel roster that's not being supplanted by overkill ALP45's they stick with some tried-and-true new make like the MPXPress or Amtrak's next class (F125?) rather than designing another PL42-like unicorn.

--------------------

The only thing that really has to be done is each individual agency needs to rein in their respective customization fetishes. My local reference point is the MBTA, which has gotten anal retentive to an extreme about micromanaging every knob and contour in the cab and every function in the onboard computers that Rotem and MPI are years late in the latest coach and loco orders. That's not helping, and it's bit them in the butt too many times before. But all of those are cultural tendencies at the agencies. Every one of them has different internal politics. It's the price of doing business with clumsy regional authorities.



--------------------

Now, the one vehicle type where there desperately needs to be a PCC-like committee are DMU's. The FRA-compliants market is so sluggish and lacks scale. If you buy from one vendor, you are stuck with that one vendor's class. They can't intermix. There is no common type of dead trailer that you can add that works with different classes, and they can't pull off-shelf coaches for the same reason EMU's can't. You can get burned like Colorado Railcar's buyers did if the manufacturer pulls out of the market and leaves a fleet orphaned, unexpandable, and unable to trainline with any other make. No vendor has done multiple generations of one class compatible with each other. It's not certain that a market in its infancy is going to have 2nd-gen vehicles compatible with 1st-gen like the M2/4/6 and SL 1/2/3/4/5 EMU's. It's entirely possible someone like Nippon Sharyo is going to have to go half-back to the drawing board for their next gen to perfect the design, and orphan the first gen. Even if the first-gen turns out pretty good; it's not known how much evolutionary juice that one current design has got for the future.

At least with the RDC, every make in the class with compatible with every other make. They were modularly convertible to dead trailer. It was an eminently expandable fleet on scale. We quite badly need something like that. It's a shame the SPV-2000's and Metroliner EMU's were such lemons. Between those and the Amfleet Budd had the beginnings of a converging DMU, EMU, and coach lineup whose later generations could likely play with each other. That's the kind of thing a "PCC" MU could bring to the table. I just don't think getting all the manufacturers to the table to agree on a common platform is realistic today. If a de facto standard emerges it's because the Bombardiers, Kawasakis, Alstoms, and Siemens' of the world start mass producing them and converging on an approximate and de facto standard much like the coach market with the BLV/MLV form factors and the Comet class. It remains to be seen if approximate standard is close enough for vehicle interoperability. Most likely that's gonna take a while and a couple generations of modern vehicles to perfect. And so far all those big boys are standing on the sidelines not overly wowed by the FRA-compliants' immediate prospects, so we're still barely at the starting gates.

CRC did just that at Tri-rail and the cars are S**T
and that's why CRC is Kaput, and no more DMU's are built even by the buyer of plans.

Last week I had a conversation with a Tri-Rail engineer and the DMU equipment is not presently in operation. I don't know whether they will ever operate again or not. He said they were "a piece of junk".
I can't possibly see that DMU equipment would be suitable for any commuter operation in the northeast, better equipment can be had.
Noel Weaver

BTW before anyone asks "What about DEMUs?" (i.e. a dual-mode/electro-diesel DMU akin to the new British Rail Class 800 "Super Express" trainsets, but presumably in the form of an M-7/M-8/M-9 etc.) those are definitely not in the cards and I'd be surprised if anyone at MNR even gave it any thought for *literally* more than a second.

I really do not think DMU's are a purchase option at all until you see Bombardier, Kawasaki, and one of the other Top 5 manufacturers aggressively roll out some sort of modular FRA-compliant DMU platform that's built to last and has technical reassurances that future generations of the vehicle class will work with the 1st-gens. Nippon Sharyo's a pretty significant manufacturer of coaches, but their FRA-compliant DMU's are a very small niche product for them. They look like decent vehicles, but scale is an open question and that's going to scare away all the large commuter rail operators whose massive and diverse fleets put a premium on scalability when introducing any new vehicle type into the mix. They're all studying it, but none have made the leap. The only agencies that have are upstarts with 1 specialty line to operate, or airport dinkys like Toronto's boondoggle Union Pearson Express (which appears to be writing the textbook on how NOT to do this). The big operators won't take those leaps because of scale.


And let's just forget at this point that Colorado Railcar ever existed. They were first with a demonstrator so of course everyone hypes them and uses them in studies as a reference design, but the actual vehicles suck and have no long-term future. US Railcar is little more than an intellectual property holder of CRC's designs. They have no native manufacturing capacity because their manufacturing partners all backed out, they were reliant on public funds to develop any manufacturing capacity, and the only state willing to help them set up a native factory (Ohio) cancelled its DMU line. They're a non-operating entity, and because of that they will never be able to advance their 1st-gen technology nor will they have any decent prospects of selling the design to someone else once the Top 5'ers get into the market. It's dead. Tri-Rail's washing their hands of the vehicles, Alaska RR only has to have its lone unit break or develop reliability issues before the lack of parts quickly ends their experiment, and Tri-Met being the only remaining operator will probably follow suit within a couple years now that the vehicles are dead-cars-walking evolutionarily and more or less unmaintainable unless they acquire Tri-Rail's junk for backups and parts source.