Multiple Engine Acceleration/Breaking Question

Tadman wrote:I'm not sure what rules specify a train cannot operate without bathrooms - NJT Arrows and Metra Highliners don't have bathrooms. It may be SLE policy, though.

Actually, Arrows do have bathrooms, albeit tiny ones. You may be thinking of SEPTA's Silverliners, which are indeed sans bathrooms.

Bathrooms are not required on passenger trains, not for passengers anyway, for crew its a different matter.
unless railroad provides bathrooms outside the train, at frequent intervals, a bathroom is required on the train for crew.

Bathrooms are required on trains that travel over a certain distance. SEPTA by-passes this rule by terminating longer runs such as the R7 Trenton and R5 Doyelstown in CC Phila. The train doesn't actually finish its run, it simply changes run numbers and continues as a different train.

pnaw10 wrote:

ExCon90 wrote:

oknazevad wrote:That's a myth. The stream is not continuous enough to carry a current. It was on an episode of Mythbusters

There was a story some years ago about a guy who urinated on the third rail of a CTA line at one of the grade crossings at the west end of one of the blue lines and was electrocuted; supposedly his heirs sued CTA and won, which was why it made the news. Does anyone know whether that's an urban legend, or did it happen?

With Metro-North's topside covers aside... from a moving train, it's impossible even without needing Mythbusters to prove it. The train is wide enough that your "stream" would have make a gravity-defying curve to hit the third-rail on the same track your train is using. Even if you could hit the third-rail on an adjacent track, again, no way the stream could be solid enough.

As for this alleged guy standing next to the third-rail at a grade crossing... if the CTA lost that lawsuit, they need better lawyers. If he was really standing close enough to a third-rail to get a solid stream on it, he was clearly trespassing and got what he deserved.

Check out the thread on the CTA forum about third rails.
BTW ,the Reading used pull-pull train sets with two FP-7s on either end between Reading Terminal and Reading. Both diesels provided power.

Wait, they renumber the train to avoid having to put a bathroom on it? That's a new low.

Why couldn't they stick a cab car in there anyways for the bathrooms? Also, don't they have six trainsets for four trains? Couldn't they piece something together with a loco a cab car and two or three regular cars? Would the schedule allow for a train to be looped/ wyed at each end of the run (with a broken cab car for a bathroom of course)? Is there a facility to do this logically at NHV?

The MNCR New Haven Line trains are pretty atrocious, as they do not have ADA-compliant restrooms. This is pretty despicable, considering that they clearly weren't designed with any consideration to a user in a wheelchair which is bad enough in itself, and the ADA was passed in 1990, giving them more than enough time to modify the cars for ADA complaint bathrooms.

Couldn't they piece something together with a loco a cab car and two or three regular cars?

I'm sure they had any and all forces trying to get a trainset out, and obviously nothing could have been done. Since it has been stated SEVERAL times before, the LAST thing the railroad wants to do is annul a train, so OBVIOUSLY there was a legitimate reason for the occurance. Write a letter with all of your complaints, worries, opinions and ideas...maybe something will get done. Until then, you're beating a dead horse with a stick...let it go.

Would the schedule allow for a train to be looped/ wyed at each end of the run (with a broken cab car for a bathroom of course)? Is there a facility to do this logically at NHV?

There's a wye at OSB and a loop track in New Haven, but there is no extra time built into the schedule that would facilitate looping the train at each terminal

The MNCR New Haven Line trains are pretty atrocious, as they do not have ADA-compliant restrooms.

old equipment built with old guidlines...they are "grandfathered"...only new equipment must meet the more stringent guidlines...but the M8's are coming, so you can sleep better at night...

FL9AC wrote:

...but the M8's are coming, so you can sleep better at night...

Nice one haha. The issue of being grandfathered isn't a legitimate excuse for the railroad to have neglected putting the proper facilities on those trains like decades ago. The original designers shouldn't have needed the ADA (which didn't exist then) to figure out that those restrooms are too small for someone in a wheelchair.

BiggAW wrote:

FL9AC wrote:

...but the M8's are coming, so you can sleep better at night...

Nice one haha. The issue of being grandfathered isn't a legitimate excuse for the railroad to have neglected putting the proper facilities on those trains like decades ago. The original designers shouldn't have needed the ADA (which didn't exist then) to figure out that those restrooms are too small for someone in a wheelchair.

If it wasn't required, they designers/ builders are not going to put it in. the M2s are a design of the late 1960's, no one was concerned about people in wheelchairs having access to the bathroom.n Just like most government facilities , i.e Town Hall, police stations, fire houses, etc. where not built to comply with something totally unforseen. Unlike a buiding, train cars are not easily retrofitted to comply with this regulation.


PS on the ADA grandfather note, even those public facilities did not really have a set deadline to become ADA compliant, it was usually done as buildings underwent significant renovations. I guess you have never left fantasy land and rode NYC Subways, but then again that is another thread. Please go back to your dream world and stop playing games on this board. You are making it almost impossible to come on here and enjoy it. The only way to stop this nonsense is to block out his posts using the 'add foe' feature of this board. Simply click on the user name. Stats for the user will appear along with two tabs, 'Add friend' or ' add foe'. Cllick add foe, and you will only see the nonsense posts if you choose to.

Everything on MNR besides the M7's are not fully ADA compliant in ways besides the restrooms. Even the automated announcements, led signs and guards between cab ends are there for ADA reasons and you don't see anyone crying foul.

railaw wrote:So the SLE consist that recently had a p40 and a GP now has one GP at each end and no cab car in the consist (which also means no restroom). As I watched it come into and then leave state street yesterday as 1632 (I think) it seemed to enter the station very quickly, break quickly, and have a much faster acceleration out of the station than other SLE's do. Is this likely or even possible, or was I just overly excited by the unusual consist? Could or would both engines be providing motive power or one providing hep? does a GP have a separate hep generator? Does two engines help or hinder breaking?

I think we have drifted away from the original topic...

The GP40-H2 have 3000 hp for propulsion and seperate HEP so yes putting two locomotives on a short consist will jump acceleration a big bit.
As for braking, the two locomotives also have blended brake, so yes braking will also be better.