Great Neck Fiasco

Nasadowsk wrote:<i>The M7s are actually pretty reliable cars.</i>

Technologywise, the M-7s are a joke. They would have been impressive 15 years ago.

So the diesel fleet sucks because they were built with new untried technology and were not a reliable as they should have been...hmm ok seems reasonable.

The M7s were built with tried and true off the shelf technology, have so far proven to be very reliable, and they are a joke because they are not high tech enough.....hmmm.

<i>The M7s were built with tried and true off the shelf technology, have so far proven to be very reliable, and they are a joke because they are not high tech enough.....hmmm.</i>
*rant mode on*

No, they suck because they're 40,000+ lbs heavier than they had to be, thus use more power and are no faster than the old stuff, they hold fewer passengers, the interior layout is a joke, and the seating sucks. And there was <b>zero</b> reason for that, other than the MTA/LIRR's refusal to go stand up and fight the FRA over their 'safety' regulations, which are 100% out of touch with the rest of the world, and had no bassis in reality. No crash testing, no studies, no nothing. IMHO, a waiver would have been realatively easy, and if not - gee, that's what congresspeople and lawyers are for.

It's sad. NY taxpayers, and LIRR riders will be paying more for their ride and getting <b>nothing</b> in return. The M-7 is no 'safer' than the M-1s are, period. There's simply <b>zero*</b> data to support that assertion. And history has shown the M-1s to be very safe - the operational record on them on the LIRR is far better than Amtrak's record. But, since nobody seems to want to design rail equipment based on sound engineering and science in the US, we instead get emotion based regulations which push the costs far beyond what any rational country** would pay for the results we get. Propose a design like the M-7 in Europe, you'd get laughed out of the room. Too expensive to run, too slow.

Tried and true? AC traction sure is - it's a 20+ year old technology. It was new when the M-3s were delivered to Metro-North. It was unproven then. By the late 80's, it was mature.

Very reliable? Let's see a MDBF on the order of 500,000 - 750,000 miles or more. You know, something that can be compared to the rest of the industrialized world without giggling? The M-7's aren't bad out of the gate, but they're not exactly headline material.
*rant mode off*

What the M-7 should have been, if state of the art was followed, was a triplet or qudruplet, cars under 90,000 lbs (80,000 or below is readily achiveable), active tilting, AC traction (well, we got that...), a realistic car end design (great way to protect the crew - put them 1 foot from the collision point and a door nearby to get popped in by a protruding object), seats designed for humans, a bathroom smaller than a 747 and not located where it can overflow into and stink up the whole car. With a 10 ton axle loading, high speed tilting could speed up the curvy parts of the PW***, Huntington, and Ronkonkoma lines, not to mention make electrifying the <b>whole</b> Osyter Bay line a no brainer (let's see - no freight, realign the tracks for nice curve speeds. How about taking 30mph curves at 50? 40mph curves at 60? Or, 60mph curves at 80?). And you'd get the lowdown punch of AC traction and STILL cost less to run. Oh yeah, and you'd not be beating up track like crazy. And we've not gotten into 'unproven' technology, with that. Just inline with what's been seen in the real world in the last 5 or so years.

Come on - it's not unreasonable to ask that our tax dollars get spent on current, proven technology and achive performance levels that are in step with real life elsewhere. I commend the LIRR for making that seemingly bold (in the US) step of going AC and at least trying to embrace technology****. At least we're not stuck in the 50's like a certain system out west *cough*Metra*cough* insists on doing...

The DM-30's problem is it's based on an idea which doesn't work, and was made by a company that has no clue how to build a modern locomotive.

* This is also known as 'zilch', 'nada', 'none', among other things.

**And, contrary to popular belief, European RRs aren't awash in easy money. A few went bankrupt in the last year or so, or close.

*** Poster child for high performance equipment. Average speed of 26mph with EMU operation! A decent acceleration rate, active tilt for Queens + east of Great Neck.... of course, if you could get an end to end run to be under 30 minutes and be able to quick turn trains at the terminal, you'd then be able to offer really nice service for less money and attract a LOT more passengers.

**** Those info displays popping up at stations are a great thing. I only hope they go systemwide at some point. Much better than the mushy chatterbox speakers at stations...

Nasadowsk,

You make some points that are certainly worthy of discussion. I have lots of first hand knowledge of the design and component selection of the M-7's so I'll take a stab at adding some answers and insight into what was done and why it was done this way. I'm not sure of your background, so it is quite possible that I'm preaching to the bishop here and that you are better informed in some areas than I, but as I work with these things daily and had some say in their design I can provide some first hand information.

The M-7's are heavier simply for safety and duribility concerns. There is plenty of data proving a heavier car is safer. The crash protection mandated by the FRA provides substantial reinforcement to the ends of the cars. Even a quick visual inspection shows the M-1, and to a lesser extent, the M-3 to be lacking in the crash protection area.

Component selection was a problem as political concerns often overode common sense. Certain suppliers of inferior products were required to be used as the State of New York wanted some local manufacturers to get the business. Many complaints about these cars cone from these components. Toilets, radios -- virtually any part that users complain about were political decisions.

AC Traction was required by the Feds who were funding a great part of the acqusition. The LIRR felt the loss in reliability in using AC propulsion (computer/electronic control, far more complex components) would not justify the power savings. So we were stuck with AC by the Feds.

A three or four unit "married set" would not work for the LIRR. We suffer with married pairs as they are difficult to accommodate in older yards and shops and greatly decrease availability when one car must be removed from service for repairs.

"Active high speed tilting?" Come on now.. we can't keep motorized doors working reliabily.

Speeds on the LI are determined by distance between stations and signal limitations, not by the cars. The M-1's can easily attain 100 MPH, but the MAS has been limited by power costs and cost/benefit analysis of roadbed and rail wear. A review I did for the Railroad some 20 years ago found only three places where 100 MPS operation could actually be attained. (this was pre-Main Line electrification).

Interior configuration was truly studied using focus groups of passengers. The Railroad tried and tried to design a car and seat that riders liked. The hundreds surveyed liked the seats and design. It's that simple. If the riders did not like it, something else would have been selected. Thats the truth. The Railroad really tried on this one even though some minor details were changed to accommodate one or two baffoons in positions of authority -- like the removal of about 12 sears to make walking through the cars "more pleasant".

The automatic announcements, which passenger HATE, was felt to be required by the ADA.

Yes the bathroom size is absurd -- some idiot's paranoid views on the ADA laws. The horrible plumbing that causes crap explosions is a result of using a supplier mandated by the State.

After the dismal failures of the C-3 design, the Railroad tried to order an MU car that would be more reliable while keeping those technical zealots paying the bills happy. The overall design is fairly good. The cars are far, far too complex to repair with Channelocks in driveways, as we generally repair out fleet, but it generally was the least technology that the Feds and the State would allow. What computers and hi-tech crap the cars do have will cost, cost and cost the taxpayers in coming years. As any Long Island taxpay will attest, Government is not the least bit concerned with costs.

Overall they are pretty good cars and will, at a very high cost due to fancy stuff, serve well long after I'm gone...


Clem

Your wasting your time Clem. This has all been explained numerous times , by a number of people since the M7s hit the rails. Almost anything the RR or the MTA and I guess we can now add the FRA says or does is wrong.
Hopefully we will never find out how effective the FRA mandated crash Regs are. But imagine the sh#t storm that would be created if a train was to hit a cement truck at 80mph killing a bunch of people in the front and then it came out that the MTA spend all sorts of money on lawyers to get around FRA crash regs.

<i>The M-7's are heavier simply for safety and duribility concerns. There is plenty of data proving a heavier car is safer.</i>

Really?!? It's 100% out of step with the rest of the industrialized world. The trend in railcar design has been a lower weight, and has been for decades. As far as 'safer' - how does the heavy weight prevent a crash? See, safety isn't walking away from an accident - it's not having the accident in the first place. Realize, the best safety record, in terms of passenger fatalities Vs passenger miles, is the Japanese Shinkansen, where the cars have <b>no</b> crash standards at all. They operate on the extreme concept that there will be no crashes. The cars won't even come close to passing for UIC specs. Then again, European passenger RRs as as safe as US ones, despite many more conflicting moves occurring.

Safety? The LIRR gets it by high crew training and certification standards, and a signal system that's proven an ability to prevent serious collisions. Both are totally independant of car design.

Durability? The M-1s lasted about as long as anyone rationally expects a railcar to last.

In any case, weight has proven a poor indicator of crash survivability, as numerous grade crossing accidents with the TGV have shown (including one that hit an 80 ton paving machine - no passenger fatalities).

<i> The crash protection mandated by the FRA provides substantial reinforcement to the ends of the cars. Even a quick visual inspection shows the M-1, and to a lesser extent, the M-3 to be lacking in the crash protection area. </i>

How many train-train crashes has the LIRR had in the last 30 years that has a speed greater than 15mph in ASC territory? I can't think of any. If the probability of a train-train collision is effectively zero, it makes very little sense to design a train's crash 'safety' around that incident.

Go design for grade crossings, which are a real danger on LI, that's poorly adressed by both FRA regs and real car design. I shudder to think what will happen when a diesel heading towards NY in push mode at 80mph in the morning rush hits a car/pickup/SUV at the rossing right by Nassau tower. Given the history of US style bilevels to flip in push mode grade crossing accidents, it won't be pretty at all.

<i>AC Traction was required by the Feds who were funding a great part of the acqusition. The LIRR felt the loss in reliability in using AC propulsion (computer/electronic control, far more complex components) would not justify the power savings. So we were stuck with AC by the Feds. </i>

Loss of reliability? That's a good one! In the real world, and in the industrialized world, tons of experience has shown that AC inverter drives are far far far more reliable than comperable DC systems. Which is why virtually nobody buys a DC system anymore. Nobody buys DC motors for any moderate power applicatiion unless they've got no other choice, or their labor's so cheap they can aford to tend to them all the time...

Anyway, wasn't there a brag in here a few posts ago about how reliable the M-7s are? IIRC, it's on the order of 10X better than the M-1/3s, and will likely go up slightly more as the bugs get kicked out.

<i>A three or four unit "married set" would not work for the LIRR. We suffer with married pairs as they are difficult to accommodate in older yards and shops and greatly decrease availability when one car must be removed from service for repairs. </i>

I'm not proposing an entirely married set, but rather and A+B (cab + cabless) and C+D (cabless + cabless) setup. Such a setup has numerous advantages from a weight <b>and</b> crash survivability standpoint.

<i>"Active high speed tilting?" Come on now.. we can't keep motorized doors working reliabily. </i>

Given that doors get abused by customers? This isn't a surprise. Doors are historically a weak point.

<i>Speeds on the LI are determined by distance between stations and signal limitations, not by the cars. The M-1's can easily attain 100 MPH, but the MAS has been limited by power costs and cost/benefit analysis of roadbed and rail wear. A review I did for the Railroad some 20 years ago found only three places where 100 MPS operation could actually be attained. (this was pre-Main Line electrification). </i>

I'm not talking about 100mph operation, which I ageree is mostly useless. I'm talking about active tilt at lower speeds, which has been shown to be very useful on slow lines. Adding 10 - 20mph to a curve speed at 40mph is a LOT more useful than adding 20mph to an 80mph run. One of the biggest uses of tilt is now becomming curvy rail lines at lower speeds. The physics work the same at 20mph, 80mph, 800mph, 8000 mph.

<i> It's that simple. If the riders did not like it, something else would have been selected. Thats the truth.</i>

*sigh* I know nothing more than what you've said about the methodology, so I can't comment, except that I can't imagine with the money sunk into this order, nobody couldn't modify an M-1 pair or two with the proposed layout, for a widescale test. Then again, I was part of the 'focus group' for the R-142's interior. What we were shown and what was built weren't really much different....

<i>The automatic announcements, which passenger HATE, was felt to be required by the ADA. </i>

Felt to be, or actually required? Granted, ADA is a REALLY broad, ambiguous, and fuzzy law. I can't really fault the LIRR here - everyone else has decided the same thing too.

<i>Yes the bathroom size is absurd -- some idiot's paranoid views on the ADA laws.</i>

It's not too terribly larger than Amtrak or NJT's. The location stinks (both literally and figuratively). Of course, the bigger size has advantages for commuter romances

<i> The horrible plumbing that causes crap explosions is a result of using a supplier mandated by the State. </i>

Yippie.

<i>After the dismal failures of the C-3 design, the Railroad tried to order an MU car that would be more reliable while keeping those technical zealots paying the bills happy. The overall design is fairly good.</i>

They're better than the C-3s, by far.

<i> The cars are far, far too complex to repair with Channelocks in driveways, as we generally repair out fleet, but it generally was the least technology that the Feds and the State would allow.</i>

Welcome to the 1990s. Computers are a fact of life.

<i> What computers and hi-tech crap the cars do have will cost, cost and cost the taxpayers in coming years. As any Long Island taxpay will attest, Government is not the least bit concerned with costs. </i>

Forget the 'costs' of repairing the computers. The added costs of propulsion power and track will outweigh the savings from going to AC traction, etc. How do you repair a computer anyway? Pop it out, pop a new one in. It's not like to pop the lid off an IC and start soldering in new gates And man, tracing sneak circuits and bad relays and all? UGH. been there, done that. Give me a PLC any day.

hey there clemule. i love this sight i'm learning so much about the lirr. when we had the job fare at york they hired a few people who were into electronic. they told us that the new lirr was high tech and required people with skills to fix them. i guess they were right. i had no idea the lirr was so high tech. nasdowsk i guess u must work for the lirr in the electronic design dept? if you were so against the new cars why didnt u tell them when you guys were designing the cars? seems kinda late now for you to complain so much about them. my boyfriend was hired by the lirr in electronic and he told me he really likes the new cars. i dont know much about them but im trying to learn.

<i>nasdowsk i guess u must work for the lirr in the electronic design dept?</i>

God no. I like antique design/repair as a hobby, not a profession. I'd go into railcar design, but I don't want to move to Europe, and the freight RRs are so behind the times that you get no transferable skills designing crap for them. "Hi!!! I can design high power DC motor switchgear, hire me!!!" Yeah, that worked 30 years ago.

Today? If you can't understand computers or AC inverters or PLCs, you're dead in industry - relay logic's only holdout is safety interlocking. Typical elevator controller 20 years ago had 100- 200 or more relays, 5 - 10 contactors, and an MG set. Now, that's all a PLC, 20 relays, 2 - 5 contactors, and an AC drive. Rides smoother, works better, tells the repair guy what's wrong. Less setup, the routine maintenance is checking the error log.

Gee, the holdouts on DC are really high speed spindle motors on CNC machine, though that's going brushless, and railroads in North America. That's litterally it.

Nasadowsk

You appear to be a difficult person to talk with, being that you know so much more than most people who do this for a living, and use lots of foul language but I'll give a try to answer some of your points as I think you are being serious.

Regarding the benefits of weight in frontal impact accidents with motor vehicles and debris: If your Kia never faces up with a cement truck it would be a heck of a way to learn that you're wrong.

Technology can be very effective if used properly. In designing a successful product as much consideration must be given to the user, the environment, operating costs and repair costs as to the state of the art employed. Good designs aren't just a collection of all the latest stuff.

Rail environment is quite unique. Its workforce is unique.

I mentioned that many repairs are executed in driveways with Chanelocks. Hammers are popular tools too. When a component fails enroute, the train must get moving in minutes, not hours. Spare parts are nonexistant in the field and are limited to what an engineer carries in his bag. Those charged with the repair have varying skills. Some can compete with the finest electrical engineers in the nation, others spell Jamaica as "Gamakka" and couldn't change a light bulb. That's the way it is. Technology must be carefully selected with this in mind.

It's very easy for someone outside the industry to find fault with design, workforce, union agreements, management, operating rules, etc. Buffs tend to do this and this is the reason most railroads shun hiring them. After their resumes go in the trash they become bitter and rant about their superior qualifications.

The challenge inside the industry is to accept what will not be changed today and design a system that operates well within parameters that now exist.

Let me put it this way:

That M-7 gives up the ghost in the East River Tunnel with your wife and kids on it, the smoke is getting thick and La-Qwanda is the conductor.

What kind of technology would you want on that car?

Clem


By the way, Nasadowsk, did you graduate York too?

Clem and Nas: Both of you guys are obviously knowledgeable in your fields. And you both have interesting viewpoints in different contexts. I don't think anyone's right or wrong here. Nas is perfectionist (like myself) who wants everything to be the best it can be. I agree. Like Clem, I also work for a government agency, and I understand the limitations of how govt. does things. And it stinks. Like having to buy sub-standard plumbing equipment from a politically favored manufacturer.

Some years back when my employer was doing a major equipment replacement we wanted to buy from a certain manufacturer who we felt could provide the best equip. for our needs. But we were over-ridden by our county government who had a contract already in place with a local distributor for a different manufacturer. So we had to settle for their builder who did not even make stuff that met our needs and spec's. They very reluctantly had to custom build it for us, to meet their contract obligations. What a circus! Like the M-7, the equipment does the job, but could have been so much better.

What's interesting here though, is that the operating personnel seem to reasonably like the M-7 and think it's a good car. When the people operating the equipment are happy with it, that normally a good measure of success.

<i>You appear to be a difficult person to talk with, being that you know so much more than most people who do this for a living</i>

I'm being 'difficult' because I'm sick of the same myths being spouted time and time and time again. And I don't care if you work for the LIRR, are a railbuff, or whatnot.

Admittingly, you struck a nerve on a bad day for me - hey, sorry, I'm human too.

But, the fact remains that your comments about AC traction causing a "loss in reliability in using AC propulsion (computer/electronic control, far more complex components) would not justify the power savings." displays a fundimental misunderstanding about AC inverter systems vs high power DC systems - one that you're hardly alone in. But the fact remains that AC inverter systems have proven throughtout the entire industrialized world to be <b>far></b> more reliable than comparable DC motor systems. There is no ground for argument here, period. Nobody in the industry, beyond sales forces, ever talks about DC motors - particularly ones the size of RR traction motors and particularly ones in rough service like RRs - as being 'reliable' or even cheaper than AC. They are known maintenance disasters, even in realativly 'clean' machine shop environments, which is why even decades old equipment has their DC motors ripped out and replaced with AC systems. This is why there are so many packaged AC inverters on the market - everyone wants a piece of the action. Especially as power gets beyond the low power arena and into the 1,000+ HP realm, where the DC motor is all but gone (maybe left in a few mill applications? I've heard but never seen any).

Weight arguments? Sorry, but the entire world doesn't feel the way the FRA does. UIC requiredments haven't changed in years, and aren't changing. Even the US DOT's own research has deterined that raw buff strength is a meaningless term, and that equalizing it between cars is far more important than picking a specific high number. And, what's so magical about 800,000 lbs as opposed to 700,000, 600,000 or 500,000?

<i>Regarding the benefits of weight in frontal impact accidents with motor vehicles and debris: If your Kia never faces up with a cement truck it would be a heck of a way to learn that you're wrong. </i>

The US DOT tested a Silverliner whose cab end was reinforced to the then proposed (and now existing) standards. In a head on collision with an F-40 reienforced to the new standards, the lead car was totally obliterated. At 30mph.

All smashing bigger weights does is create bigger crashes. Equipment design, not bulk strength or weight, has proven far more of a factor. This can be seen in the wide variety of collision results on RRs with a wide variety of equipment. The weight/bulk strength theory says that heavier trains should alwyas fare better, but this hasn't proven the case, at all.

I'm talking about grade crossing collision only here. IMHO, train - train collisions aren't worth serious consideration because they are 100% preventable. It is a controllable variable in life, whereas the LIRR really can't do anything to prevent a grade crossing accident. They can - and have very sucessfully - prevented serious train-train collisions.

We could design LIRR trains to be able to withstand nuclear bomb strikes. It <i>could</i> happen, afterall. But we don't. Because it's not in the realm of probbable. There are lots of things we could design against, but most aren't probbable, and thus we don't.

<i>Technology can be very effective if used properly.</i>

True.

<i> In designing a successful product as much consideration must be given to the user, the environment, operating costs and repair costs as to the state of the art employed. Good designs aren't just a collection of all the latest stuff.</i>

True. But, technology moves on, and the targets to hit move, too. What was considered 'ok' 50 years ago isn't today. Requirements change and technology changes. AC drive didn't pop up because some bright guy decided it'd be a cute idea, it happened because it solved a lot of very real problems, and it spread through railroads as fast as it did because it brought very real advantages to the table. Ditto for computer controls. Computers didn't appear everywhere because they're so cool, they did so because they filled real needs, and made possible things that weren't possible years ago.

20 years ago, I'd agree - AC wasn't ready for prime time, the microprocessor was still maturing and expensive. But, today, neither technology is a frontier anymore.

<i>Rail environment is quite unique. Its workforce is unique.</i>

No, it isn't. It still abides by the same exact laws of physics that everyone else follows. Workforce issues aren't unique to RRs at all. The rest of the world gets the span of rocket scientists and villiage idiots, too. I've had to deal with both in my life. Beilieve me, they're everywhere

<i>It's very easy for someone outside the industry to find fault with design, workforce, union agreements, management, operating rules, etc. </i>

True. But, being an outsider doesn't mean someone can't find fault, particularly when they're paying the bill (if the LIRR was private? I couldn't care less how the M-7s were built - it wouldn't be my money wasted. That is not the case, however).

<i>The challenge inside the industry is to accept what will not be changed today and design a system that operates well within parameters that now exist.</i>

True, however nothing about the FRA regulations were set in stone, and there were plenty of parts that could have, should have at least been challanged. The LIRR's unique and different accident scenarios apply vs other operators. That's why there are waivers.

There was a strong case to be made that a modified version of the existing body M-1 could have provided equal safety in probable accidents on the LIRR, and such a design could have been significantly lighter than the current M-7s (assuming a switch to AC traction and modified body, I guesstimate that it'd come in 20,000 - 30,000 lbs lighter). And that would have translated to significant cost savings over the life of the cars, and a better performing fleet.

Hey Clem...look at it this way, you tried. He doesn't want to hear it.

Unfortunately for Phil, he seems to forget that as a Government owned company, the specs and design for the M-7's were written in the mid-90's to secure the funding necessary to buy them and what is available and perfected now or considered "state-of-the-art" now was not then when they were designed. And, like any Government owned company, to make decisions to add, delete or modify a major purchase like 800 M-7's require the consent of LIRR Capital Programs, Engineering, Maintainence of Equipment, Transportation, Public Affairs, Strategic Investments and the Bangledeshi guys who run the news stand in Jamaica Station. A project like the M-7's have a hundred people working on it, each with their own goals and input and usually the most overbearing of the bunch acts like the lead guy and has input in items he has no idea about. And after all those people are consulted on how to build an M-7, the last line and most powerful of them all are the politicians from the various Counties who voted on the funding with companies in their districts in mind as suppliers. And while we are at it...the requirements and conditions for obtaining the Federal funding have to be met.

Tell the FRA to take a hike? The last Vice-President who did that Phil, ended up as a Brakeman on NJT. Yeah ok...just tell the FRA to take a hike. Let's ask Congress to amend the CFR so the LIRR can build cars different than what the FRA demands. Waivers? Of course, why didn't one of the oldest railroads in North America think of that. It's just 1,2,3.

Your preaching to the wrong choir Phil. The problem is much bigger than the LIRR. It's the process and pitfalls of having to beg government for money to buy these cars. You want new M-7's..you have to do it their way.

After reading all of the above it seems wise that the LIRR purchased heavy cars without tilt capability. Hopefully, nuclear explosions are rare and don't need to be designed for, but grade crossing accidents are common. It seems rather obvious that all other things being equal, a heavy reinforced train will suffer less damage than a light one.

As for the tilt mechanism; it would be just one more thing to go wrong. The number of shop personnel would have to be increased. It does not seem that the initial and long term expenses would be worth saving a few minutes on a few of the schedules. Aside from the Oyster Bay and the Port Jefferson branches, most of the RR is pretty straight.