SIRT "replacement" cars

[Kamen Rider]

Electronics is NOT HARDWIRED but the are PHYSICAL SUPPORTING ITEMS (heavy cast transponder receivers etc.) that are part of the physical car, and except for the brief R-44 period, SIRT has had RR trainsets, and they can be quickly car-floated to LIRR/MN trackage for repair.

First, a history lesson. This year is the 90th anniversary of the arrival of the MUE-1s. they were based around the BRT/BMT AB stanards, in the hopes of joint service via the narrows tunnel. When the North shore and South Beach lines closed, surplus cars were shipped over to NYCTA and operated, almost unmodified, on the subway. The line opened in 1860. that means for the majority of it's existence, the line has been operating with equipment based upon the current State of the art on the subway.

"Quickly car floated?" With what? Staten Island doesn't have a float bridge for SIRTOA to use. Metro-North has none directly ether, and the LIRR's link still requires a diesel to tow it for a long distance. Nether railroad has any overhaul infrastructure anywhere near by. It's an 8 mile drive from Clifton Shops to Coney Island. Meanwhile, the LIRR's shops in Hillside are a 20 mile trip and Metro North's shops are all well north of the city (anything Highbridge can do, Clifton can do, so it's ether Stamford, North White Planes or Croton)

There are also structural and mechanical difference between the R44SI/MUE-2 and it's subway counterpart. Nothing you have said precludes the design of a Staten Island R211. Because these cars are still being designed, there is nothing to prevent them from removing things or going back and changing them latter. Go hang around an R142A and then ride an R188 conversions set and you'll see what I mean.

Yes, railfans, still and the MTA at first wanted to make the SIRT, and the LIRR "rapid transit", but the SIRT has more in common with a railroad than a subway, and it would be short-sighted to make it a subway.

It's already part of the Transit Authority and is within subway fare control. It can be, at best, quantified as a hybrid. It's the Prius of rail transit. While the FRA no long oversees the line, they still operate as a railroad of their own volition. (or in simple terms, because the choose to). Using transit equipment on "railroad" tracks is not out of the question. the two car share if agreed on properly.

BTW, the R-211 specification has been given to several manufactures in parts, under code-names, to toss everyone off the R-211 nomenclature, for comment.

You proof of this? I would think our sources would have caught on a long time ago. Even then, how do you know such modifications as Backshophoss and I have mentioned are not part of the preliminaries you speak of? IF you have seen these plans and are talking to us, you might be in serious trouble. those car builders protect their trade secrets so much, they'd practically lynch you if you so much as go near the shop floor with a camera. the Transit museum once had a tour of the Kawasaki plant in Yonkers once. If you had worked for Bombardier or Alstom, you could not go.

[tdoran1951]

DP World (design builds, and/or operates, and/or owns many port facilities, some highly automated and huge in size) worldwide that is closely aligned with Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A. (MSC) that is a leader in building and operating 300-400 meter 20,000 plus container vessels, also the fact that China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) actually at this moment leads MSC by one or two vessels, operating 300-400 meter 20,000 plus container vessels.

The Richmond County Upper New York Harbor waterfront is one of only a few possible, that is just two or three east coast ports that could be considered for a port facility to handle 300-400 meter 20,000 plus container vessels with a small compressed footprint that is highly automated.

Some factors are a depth of water at MLT (>15-meter), 500-meter turning basin minimum, reasonable wind conditions with one or two possible issues and other climatic factors, sea state (surge /tidal factors) etc., all of which make Richmond County Upper New York Harbor waterfront close to “ideal” with one or two possible issues, “NIMBY – not in my back yard”, “labor relations in the port, and high to almost total automation”, and since the greater New York Metropolitan Area is a “special security area”, overall security aspects. Boston, Baltimore are out of the running, Norfolk / Newport News is possible, as is one other shared military port. If a Nimitz aircraft carrier class can “fit” is one criteria, but unlike such that take upwards of six hours to “tie up” at the port with much external assistance, these 300-400 meter 20,000 plus container vessels routinely do such in 90-minutes without any external assistance.

Given the already heated sentiments over a “transload facility” to be built somewhere on the old NY Connecting, LIRR Montauk, Bay Ridge, or involve all, extreme care would be taken to keep any such development discussions of the Richmond County Upper New York Harbor waterfront to a very small closed group, since such development would involve the cross-harbor tunnel (and again the old NY Connecting, LIRR Bay Ridge) and that in turn would mandate reconnection to Port Ivory.

Any “contract modification” to an R-211 contract would involve cost, whereas the “off the shelf” M-9A’s used for MN (not LIRR, uses second set of frequencies for ASC, and not NORAC) would work just fine (increase in quantity may actually lower cost per car to MTA), and “car floating” the M-9A’s from Staten Island to either MN / LIRR maintenance facilities would be easy, as the national railroad network could be used with cars “dead in tow” (designed for such operation), or even to Delaware Car for a major modification and/or rebuild, plus the fact that if either or both interconnection are completed, no car float needed. Also the fact that MN / LIRR maintenance facilities are FRA certified and compliant with FRA monitoring to perform ATC/CSS work (the NYCTA CI shops are not such, and the keeper of the standards for compliance for the current US ATC/CSS standards is the FRA).

[Kamen Rider]

Chinese port routine excised as unnecessary and never happening

Any “contract modification” to an R-211 contract would involve cost, whereas the “off the shelf” M-9A’s used for MN (not LIRR, uses second set of frequencies for ASC, and not NORAC) would work just fine (increase in quantity may actually lower cost per car to MTA), and “car floating” the M-9A’s from Staten Island to either MN / LIRR maintenance facilities would be easy, as the national railroad network could be used with cars “dead in tow” (designed for such operation), or even to Delaware Car for a major modification and/or rebuild, plus the fact that if either or both interconnection are completed, no car float needed. Also the fact that MN / LIRR maintenance facilities are FRA certified and compliant with FRA monitoring to perform ATC/CSS work (the NYCTA CI shops are not such, and the keeper of the standards for compliance for the current US ATC/CSS standards is the FRA).

No it would not work "just fine". Commuter rail cars operate at 750V DC. SIR uses 600V . Metro North uses a bottom contact third rail, SIR uses top contact. So there will be costs involved, ether modifying the SIR's power systems, or having to switch out the show equipment on the 9As or both.

You are throwing a high holy fit over the signal system, meanwhile are trusting electrically incompatible equipment on the line.

The car floating would not be easy as there is no float bridge on Staten Island. They would have to be craned on and off, just ask how much of a PITA is was getting the Brookvilles off.

There would be no costs to modify contracts not yet let. maybe aside from paying someone to so sit there and draw for a few hours.

The M series is just too big for SIR. Too many seats, not enough doors. And you really think they want to worry about bathrooms too?

[tdoran1951]

No it would not work "just fine". Commuter rail cars operate at 750V DC. SIR uses 600V . Metro North uses a bottom contact third rail, SIR uses top contact. So there will be costs involved, ether modifying the SIR's power systems, or having to switch out the show equipment on the 9As or both.

As with M-8's the shoe is triple position, top. bottom, or retracted. Operation is suppose to be "normal" from about 550 VDC to 1000 VDC. And upgrade to 750VDC is fairly easy with the normal routine maintenance cycles in most case.

[R36 Combine Coach]

Given the already heated sentiments over a “transload facility” to be built somewhere on the old NY Connecting, LIRR Montauk, Bay Ridge, or involve all, extreme care would be taken to keep any such development discussions of the Richmond County Upper New York Harbor waterfront to a very small closed group, since such development would involve the cross-harbor tunnel (and again the old NY Connecting, LIRR Bay Ridge) and that in turn would mandate reconnection to Port Ivory.

Any “contract modification” to an R-211 contract would involve cost, whereas the “off the shelf” M-9A’s used for MN (not LIRR, uses second set of frequencies for ASC, and not NORAC) would work just fine (increase in quantity may actually lower cost per car to MTA), and “car floating” the M-9A’s from Staten Island to either MN / LIRR maintenance facilities would be easy, as the national railroad network could be used with cars “dead in tow” (designed for such operation), or even to Delaware Car for a major modification and/or rebuild, plus the fact that if either or both interconnection are completed, no car float needed. Also the fact that MN / LIRR maintenance facilities are FRA certified and compliant with FRA monitoring to perform ATC/CSS work (the NYCTA CI shops are not such, and the keeper of the standards for compliance for the current US ATC/CSS standards is the FRA).

If the North Shore is fully reactivated, SIRT M-9s could have their major work done at the MMC under contract via the Arthur Kill lift bridge.

[tdoran1951]

Given the already heated sentiments over a “transload facility” to be built somewhere on the old NY Connecting, LIRR Montauk, Bay Ridge, or involve all, extreme care would be taken to keep any such development discussions of the Richmond County Upper New York Harbor waterfront to a very small closed group, since such development would involve the cross-harbor tunnel (and again the old NY Connecting, LIRR Bay Ridge) and that in turn would mandate reconnection to Port Ivory.

Any “contract modification” to an R-211 contract would involve cost, whereas the “off the shelf” M-9A’s used for MN (not LIRR, uses second set of frequencies for ASC, and not NORAC) would work just fine (increase in quantity may actually lower cost per car to MTA), and “car floating” the M-9A’s from Staten Island to either MN / LIRR maintenance facilities would be easy, as the national railroad network could be used with cars “dead in tow” (designed for such operation), or even to Delaware Car for a major modification and/or rebuild, plus the fact that if either or both interconnection are completed, no car float needed. Also the fact that MN / LIRR maintenance facilities are FRA certified and compliant with FRA monitoring to perform ATC/CSS work (the NYCTA CI shops are not such, and the keeper of the standards for compliance for the current US ATC/CSS standards is the FRA).

If the North Shore is fully reactivated, SIRT M-9s could have their major work done at the MMC under contract via the Arthur Kill lift bridge.

Without the M-9’s, or even M-8’s (just think. Run OCS Port Ivory to NEC, Union Station, next, but Penn Station via NEC is a possibility) if an add-on to contract were possible, this would be the final blow to any major industrial development for Richmond County and to any possible future reconnection to the national railroad network, that in turn would kill forever any chance of a cross-harbor tunnel to Brooklyn (Kings County) (and beyond the scope of any reality is a diagonal tunnel to Manhattan, just for commuter purposes), and reconnection to Port Ivory.

Just six of these ships per month would double the entire Port of New York container volume, and more than ten per month, or almost 250,000 containers are very possible; ground transportation other than by automated pick and selection off ship to the selected designated railcar full automated 24x7 is the only way to move that volume.

DP World is the “major player” in this new effort, and it got “burned badly” in 2006 when political bickering, public interest groups (in NYC this now includes railfans and associated groups), labor unions, all strongly rallied against its US purchases, even when such was supported by President G. W. Bush, when it purchased a great many US ports, and was forced to sell then off a year later due to uproar. They know how to keep this very quiet this time, especially with mufti-billion dollar project.

[MattW]

Wait a minute, would the M8/M9 even fit within SIRT's loading gauge? Looking at a number of pics such as this one: http://hostthenpost.org/uploads/3a4f75c ... 37e1c0.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; versus this one: http://erausa.org/img/slideshows/2010/04-17/03.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; if you'll note, the floor height of the R44s appears to be significantly lower than that of the locomotive, which appears to be about level with the Shoreliner floors in the first pic. That's the most obvious part of the loading gauge I'm sure there are other issues such length, the R44s are 75ft long and the M8/M9s are 85ft long. I'm not even sure how the issue of M8/M9s has even come up here.

[Kamen Rider]

It came up because tdoran isn't thinking logically.

It's like we've got another Wallyhorse, the subchat poster who's a touch on the "cloudcuckooland" side.

The M series is not deisgned for short haul rapid transit operation, which as much as he doesn't like it, is how the SIR operates. He just wants comuter cars for some reason to the point he makes up facts. like "top ,bottom or retracted" what good would moveable third rail shoes do on equipment that will never see the other rail style. on the M8s, it makes sense, M9s and M9As it does not. And hell, why in God's name would they give an third rail only train RETRACTIBLE shoes? That's like retracting the landing gear on a plane that's not flying

[tdoran1951]

Wait a minute, would the M8/M9 even fit within SIRT's loading gauge? Looking at a number of pics such as this one: http://hostthenpost.org/uploads/3a4f75c ... 37e1c0.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; versus this one: http://erausa.org/img/slideshows/2010/04-17/03.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; if you'll note, the floor height of the R44s appears to be significantly lower than that of the locomotive, which appears to be about level with the Shoreliner floors in the first pic. That's the most obvious part of the loading gauge I'm sure there are other issues such length, the R44s are 75ft long and the M8/M9s are 85ft long. I'm not even sure how the issue of M8/M9s has even come up here.

LIRR electric MU equipment has operated there before.

[tdoran1951]

It came up because tdoran isn't thinking logically.

It's like we've got another Wallyhorse, the subchat poster who's a touch on the "cloudcuckooland" side.

The M series is not deisgned for short haul rapid transit operation, which as much as he doesn't like it, is how the SIR operates. He just wants comuter cars for some reason to the point he makes up facts. like "top ,bottom or retracted" what good would moveable third rail shoes do on equipment that will never see the other rail style. on the M8s, it makes sense, M9s and M9As it does not. And hell, why in God's name would they give an third rail only train RETRACTIBLE shoes? That's like retracting the landing gear on a plane that's not flying

The retractable is for tow or movement in non-3rd rail areas, you like a few others in this forum never want the SIRT to return to FRA governed railroad, which it was for most of it operational life.

There is great potential for the SIRTA to return to its former status, that is an FRA CLASS III railroad, and it is very possible that it may happen for economic justification on a massive scale that impacts the entire region.

It is not about “commuters” but being ready and prepared for such return, only one recent “rapid transit” electric-multiple unit FRA CLASS III railcar was ever built, the PA-5, for PATH, all others have been from a short-haul commuter base.

If the cross-harbor tunnel or a reconnection to Port Ivory occurs, there is a very strong chance that it will occur within the next 20-25 years, well within the “designed life” for the new railcars, and at that point, FRA CLASS III railcars would be required. This just forward planning and thinking, the MTA has also done further, other than the discussed ATC/CSS signal system, to permit this in the future, and “not close the door” forever.

[R30A]

Pretty sure M9s are too long to run there. I don't see any reason why R211s are less than ideal for this line.

[Kamen Rider]

The retractable is for tow or movement in non-3rd rail areas,

Which serves no purpose. If they are in non-third rail areas the shoes would be dead anyway.

you like a few others in this forum never want the SIRT to return to FRA governed railroad, which it was for most of it operational life.

Stictcly speaking, no it wasn't. the FRA only came into being in the late 60s. The legal distinction between Railroad and Rapid Transit only came around in WWI.

There is great potential for the SIRTA to return to its former status, that is an FRA CLASS III railroad, and it is very possible that it may happen for economic justification on a massive scale that impacts the entire region.

It's not going to happen because as it stands the line will never be reconnected. the north shore line is on track to be converted to a busway.

It is not about “commuters” but being ready and prepared for such return, only one recent “rapid transit” electric-multiple unit FRA CLASS III railcar was ever built, the PA-5, for PATH, all others have been from a short-haul commuter base.

PATH is FRA wavered. They are except from certain rules. that also doesn't justify converting a rapid transit line to railroad speck. Railroad trains and transit trains can share under timesharing

If the cross-harbor tunnel

Jersey to Brooklyn without SI

or a reconnection to Port Ivory occurs

which it won't, see above.

, there is a very strong chance that it will occur within the next 20-25 years

and you know this for sure because?

well within the “designed life” for the new railcars, and at that point, FRA CLASS III railcars would be required.

No they wouldn't, see above.

This just forward planning and thinking, the MTA has also done further, other than the discussed ATC/CSS signal system, to permit this in the future, and “not close the door” forever.

And saddle the NYCTA (SIRTOA is under Transit) with equipment it can't maintain...

[Head-end View]

Kamen Rider, just curious, in what way is PATH FRA waivered?

[Kamen Rider]

While they share the rights of way, the do not share trackage, so the FRA cut them some red tape slack.

The thing with FRA regs is they can be complicated. Each self propelled vehicle is classed as a locomotive and has to be treated and inspected as such.

For example, we would say the LIRR has 45 locomotives in passenger service. the FRA says they have 1,051 locomotives.

[R36 Combine Coach]

Kamen Rider, just curious, in what way is PATH FRA waivered?

PA5s do have FRA cards in the cabs.