M8's to the LIRR

Surprised no one reported this.

On 12/16/16, we were recipient of M8 cars 9160/61 to be tested at a future date on our property with MN's expansion into New York Penn.

What is the clearance profile on the M8s? I know this would never happen, but could they fit into ESA

no they will not fit in ESA and why would they divert trains from GCT to ESA ???

For whatever reasons the LI is exploring the M8s is beyond me. However if they would clear in the ESA tunnels, it would be really for say Mid day turn such as:
NHV-NYP (MN crew)
Quick turn in station with LIRR crew
NYK-PWS
PWS-ESA(GCT)
GCT-PWS
PWS-NYK.
Quick turn with MN crew
For a PM Peak
NYP-NHV.

The above is just an example drawing a turn out for a member of the forum.
As for something like the above shown equipment turn actually happenin, would probably be subject to equipment availability at the moment.
If the LIRR was "in the bag" I wouldn't be supproised to see M8s heading to KO, Babylon, or Huntington. They fit and got the time to go, guess what, they're going. Like it or not!

For emergency reasons at that NJT/Amtrak DMs would probably be able to come to LI if the need materialized.

The narrow, selfish one track isolationism that has for years ruined the LIRR needs to be flush down the drain.

Like it or not. To increase capacity in Penn requires through service. But the isolationist have derailed that train here before. And not up for further discussion.

The M-8 does NOT fit in ESA

The cars are at LIRR for testing of dual purpose third rail shoes.

Yes, we get that. Calm down.

We were both thinking LONG term, if/when the LIRR and MNR find a way to share fleets.
If you don't mond me asking, what on the top of the car is preventing clearance? AC/Electrical stuff? That light thingy?

Its a pantograph lol and I'm not sure as to the exact reason why they wouldn't clear ESA

Both the pan and the roof blister make the M-8 too large for the ESA tunnels,but if somebody botched a routing thru Harold,
OH !!!

the m-8 is two feet higher than a M3 or M7 and the tunnel is about one foot lower than the M-8 , think that is enough of a reason ??
besides pantograph the hump contains braking resistors and the two HVAC units.

and even if routing gets botched the engineer, would probably be smart enough not to go where he/she is not qualified !!

DutchRailnut wrote: and even if routing gets botched the engineer, would probably be smart enough not to go where he/she is not qualified !!

inter-operability of LIRR and MN fleet will never happen, LIRR cab signal system has more aspects and are only partially compatible.
each train operating on others railroad needs train orders and would be restricted at wrong speeds.
only place currently allowed is Harold to NYP , adding PTC will not change Cab signal or ATC .

DutchRailnut wrote:
besides pantograph the hump contains braking resistors and the two HVAC units.

This was the info I was looking for, thx.

Also, if aside from culture wars, the best reason that interops won't happen that you can give is that there is essentially a software issue, it can and probably will be done.

cab signal and ATC is not software issue

Train Orders? No.

how else would you run non-compatible equipment ??
MN only has 4 codes Restricted 15 mph (no code) - Medium 30 mph (60 code) - Limited 45 mph (120 code) - Normal max authorized speed (180 code)