M-8 Cars - Delivery and Acceptance

So can the M-8's operate past State St. on SLE? I forgot the voltage from MILL RIVER-BOS.

Patrick

Yes so far only the 11.5 kv 25 hz option was dropped, mill river to Boston is 25kv at 60 hz.

Thanks Dutchie, this may hopefully quell the salivating of a NH-NYP service for the "regulars" at Milford

Patrick

so besides MNR not wanting to deal with another locomotive type, was there ever a consideration for a multi voltage electric motor aka an EP5, AEM 7 or ALP 46 instead of dealing with EMU's and their weight capacity.

No locomotive hauled Commuter trains for New Haven was never an option, its near impossible to guarantee a dual powered electric on rear of a push pull from gapping in terminal.
Also a locomotive hauled train would be to slow for commuter service on a mainline like New Haven unless only run as limited express.

so you are saying that
1. distances between stations east of New Haven do not equate to the same distances as NJT and their mainline requirements
2 3rd rail electrics motors in push mode may stall in the crossover gaps at GCT, but why don't Gennies running in electric mode stall in the same gaps unless their electric mode is the same myth as on FL9's)

why do I remember all those EP 3's 5's and T and P motors cruising past the Williamsbridge station when I was a kid?

To answer the second question, its not to uncommon to hear a Gennie running off electric when they cannot secure a "straight-in" platform spot on the upper level I think the three middle tracks. An ALP or ASEM-7 if configured would only have 2 3rd rail shoes and since MNR is not running trains which need Shoriliners versus MU's on the mainline, an aquisition of those type cars with DC chageover would not work well for MNR.

Cheers,
Patrick

When a Genesis gaps you run up de diesel, when a electric motor on rear end of a push -pull gaps what do you fire up to get it going????
The Genesis inbound have diesel ideling till first car gets on platform.
One of problems with push pull is the engineer has no view of where engine is located compared to the gaps, with the engine in lead a engineer can spot the engine on thirdrail.

In old days the New Haven and NYC electrics had thirdrail pantographs for overhead third rail in GCT, this system has been gone for a few years now, it was only usefull for when engineer could see the overhead third rail.


OK lets get back to M-8's and not the fantasy world of other equipment

is it fantasy equipment when one electric motor pushing existing non powered cars (yes there is no longer an overhead system in GCT)could save the exhorbitant costs cove some clugde need to do everything - but poorly - emu?

as you can read my original question also implied whether MNR even considered a motor alternative.

thank you also for admitting they never turn the diesel motor off on the Genesis because the design is flawed.

.

Duplicate post deleted.

I'm not sure we can respond to your first paragraph, since we can't figure out what it is you're saying. Fix it up and we'll give it another shot.

As to the rest: No, MNR didn't consider a locomotive-hauled solution, as explained by Dutch.

Nothing in what Dutch said states or implies that the Genesis design is flawed. In fact, They do turn off the diesel engine, as soon as the train enters the platform. It's turned back on on the northbound trip after the train exits the Park Avenue Tunnel. There's no better way to do it, unless you're ok with trains gapping and being unable to move without assistance of another locomotive - at great delay to the customers on board.

What's with the antagonistic attitude here? You seem to have a beef with some aspect of this discussion.

Jim

ajp wrote:to do everything - but poorly - emu?

.

I must have missed the part about the two bussiest commuter railroads in the country using "do everything - but poorly" EMUs. Seems there are about 1800 - 2000 EMU that have have served from 2 to 30 years and quite well, all things considered.

Still, no one has addressed your comment that no, apparently a push pull/one locomotive, set up does not provide the needed acceleration to allow a train to keep schedule.

and you dont consider Mr dutch's bold print antagonistic?

to the point - single voltage EMU's (LIRR, MNR) appear to be no problem, but reading thru the majority of the previous threads it appears that the M8 is a compromise - show me where i'm wrong, where that if it had all the proper electrical equipment to do everything - SLE, the Conn/NY main line, approaches to GCT and the "fantasy" approach to Hellgate and NYP would be grossly over weight, not even including bracing for new crash standards by the federal govt.
Wasn't an original design thought for the new NH fleet a combination of 1 m7 type and 1 new AC rectifier.

Single voltage pickup systems (NJT, MARC, SEPTA, Montreal) dont appear to have problems with motor push/pulls - so I do understand thats a limitation of a third rail system

and didn't Dutch say that they use diesel mode to goose the train thru the crossover gaps. Maybe i didnt understand that

I remember reading studies that yes, a diesel powered commuter train takes longer to crank up to speed because of motor/generator lag time, bit an electric motor has no such lag case in point an ALP 44 delivers over 50,000 pounds of tractive effort from the get go

Antagonistic? No - just want to find out answers to legitimate questions

Maybe discussions about motor hauled consists vs EMU's should be moved to another thread[/i]

ajp wrote:and didn't Dutch say that they use diesel mode to goose the train thru the crossover gaps. Maybe i didnt understand that

What he meant is that when the Genesis gaps out, you can still move it out of the gap by firing up the diesel. But when electric engines gap out, you have to get another locomotive to move it, unless gravity is working for you in the right direction, or you want to get out and push.

Plus, the Genesis P32s have third rail shoes on each truck IIRC, so more contact points than an electric engine with a single pantograph.

Why don't you create a new topic as you suggested to discuss this further.

ajp wrote:single voltage EMU's (LIRR, MNR) appear to be no problem, but reading thru the majority of the previous threads it appears that the M8 is a compromise - show me where i'm wrong, where that if it had all the proper electrical equipment to do everything - SLE, the Conn/NY main line, approaches to GCT and the "fantasy" approach to Hellgate and NYP would be grossly over weight, not even including bracing for new crash standards by the federal govt.
Wasn't an original design thought for the new NH fleet a combination of 1 m7 type and 1 new AC rectifier.

You're mixing apples and oranges here. The requirements of the CDOT-funded New Haven Line are vastly more complex than any of the other systems you mention - maybe than any other North American system. All of the other systems you mention run on one source of electrical power - either third rail or catenary. The New Haven Line has the unfortunate history of having been built with reliance on two forms of electrical transmission, and we're stuck with that today.

If the M8 is a compromise, it's not because it has to be, it's because its primary owner (CDOT) wants to have a vehicle that can operate in territories with different electrical characteristics. There's nothing that says an M8 is required to operate on Amtrak's Shore Line, other than that CDOT wants it to. It only HAS to be capable of 13Kv 60Hz AC and 650 VDC.

ajp wrote:Single voltage pickup systems (NJT, MARC, SEPTA, Montreal) dont appear to have problems with motor push/pulls - so I do understand thats a limitation of a third rail system

Again, apples and oranges. This isn't a single-voltage pickup system, it's a dual-voltage & dual transmission system. In addition, those systems use catenary, while MNR uses third rail for it's approaches and enty into Grand Central Terminal.

Third rail, when used in combination with push-pull locomotive-hauled service, has the disadvantage of gaps, for which the designers must account. Overhead catenary does not have that disadvantage.

Now, you can debate for the rest of your life the merits/disadvantages of push-pull operation, but in fact, the efficiencies of push-pull operation mean that it's with us to stay and you need to factor it into any thoughts you may have.

ajp wrote:and didn't Dutch say that they use diesel mode to goose the train thru the crossover gaps. Maybe i didnt understand that

Engineers only have to go into Diesel mode when they have the unfortunate occasion to have to stop with the locomotive in the gap - not every time they come into GCT. If the locomotive were on the head end of the train they wouldn't have that problem, because the engineer can plan his stopping spot with the gap in mind.

ajp wrote:I remember reading studies that yes, a diesel powered commuter train takes longer to crank up to speed because of motor/generator lag time, bit an electric motor has no such lag case in point an ALP 44 delivers over 50,000 pounds of tractive effort from the get go

Once again, apples and oranges. An ALP44 can't run on third rail, which makes it irrelevant here.

ajp wrote:Maybe discussions about motor hauled consists vs EMU's should be moved to another thread

Agreed. If your issue is that you feel that EMUs are inferior to locmotive-hauled non-powered vehicles, then yes, start a new thread. Keep in mind you're having a fantasy discussion in that case, though, because Metro-North has already done the investigations and determined that, for its operation, EMUs are the better choice. SEPTA agrees, LIRR agrees, and NJT has its head in the sand on this issue as on many others. ;-)

Jim