M-10 Cars?

When would they start considering an the M10?

TacSupport1 wrote:When would they start considering an the M10?

Near the very end of the M8's useful life.

lirr42 wrote:

TacSupport1 wrote:When would they start considering an the M10?

Near the very end of the M8's useful life.

Isn't that what got them into trouble in the first place? Waiting until the cars were past their useful life before considering to replace them? You'd think they'd at least put the wheels in motion in the next few years, or maybe make a bi-level to accommodate projected increased ridership.

A bi-level wouldn't be an M series car, and MNR has looked into the idea.

If double decker sets as planned were Electric MU it still be M series, as for M-10 plans the plans are being worked on, but no concrete plans on building or funding.
the Name M series cam from original design of M-1 or Metropolitan series, the M-2/4/6's are Cosmopolitans.
The M-7's and M-8's have nothing to do with Metropolitan design but still use same standards doors at 1/4 points, length , width etc

DutchRailnut wrote:If double decker sets as planned were Electric MU it still be M series, as for M-10 plans the plans are being worked on, but no concrete plans on building or funding.
the Name M series cam from original design of M-1 or Metropolitan series, the M-2/4/6's are Cosmopolitans.
The M-7's and M-8's have nothing to do with Metropolitan design but still use same standards doors at 1/4 points, length , width etc

Doubtful the any bi-levels would be EMU's seeing as the M9s were not. But who knows. Just for posterity, from MTA 2015-2034 Capital Plan

With the replacement of the M-3, End-Door coach, and Genesis locomotive fleets in this 20-year period, Metro-North seeks to improve operational and maintenance efficiencies. One alternative being considered is the purchase of M-9s jointly with the LIRR to replace the M-3 fleet. This would consolidate Metro-North rolling stock to five major fleets (M-7, M-8, M-9, Coach and Locomotive). Another alternative combines all three planned fleet replacements in a single purchase of coaches and locomotives with potentially greater operating range and better internal efficiencies by reducing the number of fleets to maintain. Metro-North will complete its alternatives analysis and business case (including comparative efficiencies and life cycle costs of each strategy) and make a decision in support of the 2015-2019 Capital Plan.

Make your own conclusions.

Having talked with several people in engineering, I do not have to draw conclusions

DutchRailnut wrote:If double decker sets as planned were Electric MU it still be M series, as for M-10 plans the plans are being worked on, but no concrete plans on building or funding.

So are the double deckers planned as EMU's? If they're not EMU's as planned then why would they be M series? If the plans are worked on by people you speak with often why only say that they were planned as EMU's not that they are planned as EMU's and that they are in fact double deckers. No, of course not, because you just said "no concrete plans on building or funding." And the fact is the MTA has provided documentation that would indicate its interests in expanding its coach and locomotive capabilities jointly for MNR and LIRR. Plus, for reasons that are obvious, a double decker EMU is not practical for MNR. Double decker cars that are electrically powered however are not impractical. And may be a logical alternative, one which you actually stated as a possibility. Is that not so?

Anyway back to M8's.

RearOfSignal wrote:

DutchRailnut wrote:If double decker sets as planned were Electric MU it still be M series, as for M-10 plans the plans are being worked on, but no concrete plans on building or funding.

So are the double deckers planned as EMU's? If they're not EMU's as planned then why would they be M series? If the plans are worked on by people you speak with often why only say that they were planned as EMU's not that they are planned as EMU's and that they are in fact double deckers. No, of course not, because you just said "no concrete plans on building or funding." And the fact is the MTA has provided documentation that would indicate its interests in expanding its coach and locomotive capabilities jointly for MNR and LIRR. Plus, for reasons that are obvious, a double decker EMU is not practical for MNR. Double decker cars that are electrically powered however are not impractical. And may be a logical alternative, one which you actually stated as a possibility. Is that not so?

Anyway back to M8's.

It would depend. If they're regular married-pair EMU's just with multi-level carbody, logic would dictate they're M#'s. Same EMU lineage, same class of vehicle.

If it's something like a shoed version of that radical NJT Arrow-replacement MLV power car idea where the power cars are towing stock MLV coaches sandwiched in the consist...that's a very different class kind of electric vehicle apart from an EMU. And might merit a different name.


But it's not publicly known what they're looking at. Odds would certainly favor an M# on known-known technology.

Topic split from M8 topic. Please use a new thread when your post does not relate to the topic at hand.

M10's are just barely in the early talking stages. Even if MN knew exactly what they wanted M10's to be, it'd be 5 to 7 years before they'd even go out for bid.

Is there information about the M10s? What will be different from the M8s?

It's impossible to know. Technical specs are many, many years away from being drawn up.

The given is any lessons learned from the M-8's will be applied to the M-10's.