future LIRR electrifications

why did they need 17 cars?

nytrainsgogo wrote:why did they need 17 cars?

To accomodate all the passengers, obviously. This train was immediately preceded in the timetable by another Hunterspoint to PJ train, which had a 2000hp C-liner, 13 P-54s, and the twelve-wheel club car "Syosset." This was the train on which the railroad installed it's first bar car - in an unairconditioned P-54. Its first stop was Cold Spring Harbor, skipping Hicksville and Syosset, and probably skipping a few more stops. These were served by the following 17 car train.

DutchRailnut wrote:maybe two C liners but not one as Keyboard claims.

As has been mentioned before, the LIRR C-liners were built without M.U. capability. Apparently in 1951, this was an extra-cost option, and the LIRR felt the C-liners were so powerful they would never need double heading. If a train was that heavy, the LIRR would lash up two Alco RS-3s or two F.M. H-16-44s.

The C-Liners were remarkable. If you can get ahold of Trains mag's C-Liner issue from the early 1950s (reprinted in Classic Trains about three years ago), it tells of a Milwaukee Road passenger train with two 2000hp Erie-builts on the head end. One day they hooked up a single CPA-24 C-liner demo unit to haul the train with two dead Erie-builts behind the C-liner just as a demonstration. The C-Liner's throttle was shoved into Run 8, and that thing just dug in and pulled, no wheel slip. The C-Liner actually accelerated the train (with its two dead Erie-builts in tow) up a steep grade, and got the train in ahead of the schedule.

DutchRailnut wrote:

keyboardkat wrote:

DutchRailnut wrote:2400 ponies won't get 17 cars moving very fast unless there are one or two other engines behind it.

I guess you don't remember them thar C-Liners.

If they where that flippin marvelous they would still be around.
a single E-8/9 was rated for 9 cars max at 2250 hp

But the E-8/9 had A1A trucks front and rear, so it didn't have as much of its weight on drivers. Also, FM's locomotives had high main generator excitation at any given throttle setting. The OP engine in the F-M units was quick revving, and quick loading.

The reason the C-Liners aren't around anymore has less to do with the impressive performance of the locomotives, and more to do with the expensive maintenance on the Opposed Piston engine. In order to work on the lower power assembly, the upper crankshaft and pistons had to be removed, a big job costing a lot of downtime. Also, the Westinghouse main generator in the 2400hp models had a tendency to self-destruct if, for example the engine hit a patch of slippery rail and the wheels started to spin. This caused Westinghouse to exit the heavy railroad generator and traction motor biz for a while. F-M had various fixes for the OP engine, but the problem of sufficient market penetration proved insurmountable. F-M exited the locomotive business in 1963, leaving the LIRR units as orphans.

I heard from one source that while crews didn't like the C-Liners because they broke down frequently, the railroad liked them because they made good time, and could make up for delays and keep the schedule. They could really get a train over the road.

17 cars is a hell of alot o passengers. They're lucky even to get 10 these days. How did they platform?

The majority of the cars were 54 foot cars. they held less passengers then the 72 foot cars.
The platforms in diesel territory were all low platforms then, so the trains would make one stop, generally with the head cars on, and the passengers in the rear would just step down on the ballast.
The low platforms were very flat anyway, at some stations there was no elevation to them at all.
Go take a look at some abandoned station such as Quoge, Or Center Moriches. Any tar or cement you find trackside is whats left of the low platform, thats how low they were at some spots.
On the lower Montauk, there was just dirt or gravel at some stations, no platform at all.
I dont think I ever saw a c-liner haul 17 of the longer cars.
My Father used to tell me abut G-5s pulling long trains too. Saw a few pictures, only recall one G-5 as a child, average size train.

keyboardkat wrote:
But the E-8/9 had A1A trucks front and rear, so it didn't have as much of its weight on drivers. Also, FM's locomotives had high main generator excitation at any given throttle setting. The OP engine in the F-M units was quick revving, and quick loading.

don't forget a C.Liner only had 4 traction motors and about same axle loading as a E8/9 so I still think they probably ran in pairs and not solo.
as for MU system correct a F-M unit would only MU with another F-M unit, but they sure as hell could MU

There are pictures all over the net of single c-liners pulling long trains.
Here is one..
http://www.trainsarefun.com/RMLI%20Cale ... 5front.jpg
another..
http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirrphotos/ ... e-1956.jpg

DutchRailnut wrote:

keyboardkat wrote:
But the E-8/9 had A1A trucks front and rear, so it didn't have as much of its weight on drivers. Also, FM's locomotives had high main generator excitation at any given throttle setting. The OP engine in the F-M units was quick revving, and quick loading.

don't forget a C.Liner only had 4 traction motors and about same axle loading as a E8/9 so I still think they probably ran in pairs and not solo.
as for MU system correct a F-M unit would only MU with another F-M unit, but they sure as hell could MU

The C-Liners could not MU at all. The H-16-44 hood units had WABCO pneumatic MU, which was not compatible with the standard electrical MU on Alco and EMD units. Their MU jumper was an air hose. A separate electric jumper carried such functions as sanding, reverser etc. Thus the H-16s could MU but only with each other.

Later 1600hp hood units from FM had standard electrical MU with 27-point jumpers, but the LIRR didn't have any of those.

Ok, understood. 17 54' cars equals 10 72' cars or close to that. Thank you.

Also, with the low-level platforms, the MTA does a very good job about keeping them high, none at all on the LIRR and on MN only at Breakneck, Manitou, AT and the Waterbury Branch [which is somewhat lacking itself.] Unlike NJ Transit, what a disgrace.

NJT even has low level stations with electric trains, like Jersey Ave, Monmouth Park and Millburn. The semi-high platforms such as Tuxedo are probably insufficent, with transfers at Secaucus probably hell for disabled persons. And isn't Hoboken all low level?

nytrainsgogo wrote:NJT even has low level stations with electric trains, like Jersey Ave, Monmouth Park and Millburn. The semi-high platforms such as Tuxedo are probably insufficent, with transfers at Secaucus probably hell for disabled persons. And isn't Hoboken all low level?

Hoboken has mid-height platforms. Based on photos i've seen the prior owner originally had the same rudimentary low platforms, but at some point they added concrete on top, tapering off in height out towards the yard to the level they were originally. The concourse between the tracks and station building used to be a sort of ramp, now it's more or less a straight shot across. The platforms taper in steps, and up near the station building end they have mechanical wheelchair lifts. Some of the stations mentioned, jersey ave for example, would be hard to create a high platform there without messing up the parking lot or disrupting service. That station is a park-and-ride, not really going to have many ADA issues there in the first place, and new brunswick is a lot nicer as you can go inside vs out exposed.

There was talk a couple years ago of electrifying to Yaphank, but I don't know what came of it, or if it's still a plan.
The former LIRR president talked at a NRHS meeting about 3 or 4 years ago, and that was one of the topics.

That is still the talk from the current LIRR President Helena Williams when we had the Symposium last year. The priority is to add the second track to Ronkonkoma, and the third track between Bellerose (Queens), and Hicksville (Divide) before that happens. Don't forget, the "Scoot" is not running during the Winter Weekends now.

HBLR wrote:

nytrainsgogo wrote:NJT even has low level stations with electric trains, like Jersey Ave, Monmouth Park and Millburn. The semi-high platforms such as Tuxedo are probably insufficent, with transfers at Secaucus probably hell for disabled persons. And isn't Hoboken all low level?

Hoboken has mid-height platforms. Based on photos i've seen the prior owner originally had the same rudimentary low platforms, but at some point they added concrete on top, tapering off in height out towards the yard to the level they were originally. The concourse between the tracks and station building used to be a sort of ramp, now it's more or less a straight shot across. The platforms taper in steps, and up near the station building end they have mechanical wheelchair lifts. Some of the stations mentioned, jersey ave for example, would be hard to create a high platform there without messing up the parking lot or disrupting service. That station is a park-and-ride, not really going to have many ADA issues there in the first place, and new brunswick is a lot nicer as you can go inside vs out exposed.

Do you know if it costs the RR a significant amount to add traps to the bilevels, especially when most electrified stations are high-level?
They should be good about it like the MTA...all high on MN and LIRR!