DutchRailnut wrote:The Highliners and Metra equipment are 1500 DC and do not need transformers.So there's no voltage changes or anything else that NJT has between the CSS&SB and IC systems?
Railroad Forums
Moderators: lensovet, Kaback9, nick11a
DutchRailnut wrote:The Highliners and Metra equipment are 1500 DC and do not need transformers.So there's no voltage changes or anything else that NJT has between the CSS&SB and IC systems?
DutchRailnut wrote:The Highliners and Metra equipment are 1500 DC and do not need transformers.The new ones have AC traction motors, so they would need inverters though.
Fan Railer wrote:Metra Electric (and NICTD) Highliners are also close to 16 feet in height above rail, whereas NJT MLV cars are 14' 6" with the special notched-off roof corners for clearance through the North River tunnels.Ken S. wrote:There's all this talk about transformer placement and stuff on these things. One question. How do they do all of this on the Highliner and Gallery MUs used by METRA and NICTD or am I missing something about those cars?Those cars are regular double deck cars with sufficient underfloor clearance to mount equipment. Our cars have a much lower clearance under the floor, so I have no idea where they're going to shove all of the electrical equipment unless they plan to do away with some of the seating space.
Patrick Boylan wrote:Although there may be space between the upper level passengers' feet and the lower level passengers' heads, is that the best place to have high voltage?Technically it's all ready inches from people in the current fleet. I don't see a problem as long as the insulation isn't made in someone's basement as a hobby.
25Hz wrote:This absolutely is for a multilevel power car, not converting existing or option fleet.Sure, just take off one HVAC unit. That gives lots of room! Who needs the HVAC unit on that end anyway?
And on weight: you'd end up removing one HVAC system of the 2, since you'd need one end of the roof for the panto and dynamic brake grid. I also feel that there could be significant changes in roof end design, namely using lighter materials on the non-load bearing bulkheads and interior panels & on the roof itself. You could end up with a 2200 hp power car with less weight than a MLV cab car.
There is a lot of room under the cars at both ends. A re-designed truck with 2 or 4 motors (1 or 2 per axle) probably wouldnt weigh that much more.
In any case... The fact is a MLV based self propelled car is entirely feasable technologically. I wonder about cost. I also wonder about having so many coaches and dual modes with very little talk of system expansion. Perhaps that's the next big announcement? Cape may? West Trenton? Philipsburg? Water gap? That's what I sense anyways. This is the first of 2 shoes to drop.
Jersey_Mike wrote:Wow, some people just refuse to learn. Is buying an M8 just to easy? It's like every tome NJT makes an equipment purchase decision these days they look around to make sure that nobody else has done anything remotely similar just so they can be....idk, different?M8's would be a waste on NJT. What would NJT want with third rail shoes and all their related equipment? It would just be wasted space and wasted weight.
Jersey_Mike wrote:Yes of course it would be an AC-only M8 with SL-V style doors. Even with modifications we know Kawasaki won't screw it up as they have a consistent track record of making good MU products. NJT needs plain old conventional MU trains for its all stops local services. This shouldn't be hard as a perfectly cromulent design already exists.I personally enjoy NJT being different and taking the risks with the new technology, if we dont, then someone else will, and also this new tech means we will be among the best equipped fleets in the business
beanbag wrote: I personally enjoy NJT being different and taking the risks with the new technology, if we dont, then someone else will, and also this new tech means we will be among the best equipped fleets in the businessBest equipped?? Are you kidding? Their fleet is dysfunctional and poorly suited for the tasks being asked of it. Moreover you WANT someone else to take risks with new technology...its called being a guinea pig and that's generally not seen as being advantageous. It was cool when NJT used push-pull sets on it premium limited stop corridor and Midtown Direct trains. Then, forgetting that cookies are a sometimes food, NJT has proceeded to gorge themselves on the concept trying to push-pull heavier cars with longer trainsets on all stops locals.
Jersey_Mike wrote:...NJT would be better served if it innovated with its service plan instead of its rolling stock. For example making all Penn bound PP trains limited stop and providing local connections through all stops MUsNJT does not have the ability to guarantee a push-pull set or an MU set on any particular train on any particular day. It's works out however the equipment pool works. Trends emerge, but there is no way to nail down a set schedule of push-pull/MU only trains.
Jtgshu wrote:You could make the one HVAC unit do the work of 2 with more efficient components. And under the seat section i meant for running cables or pipes, not putting a transformer or battery box. Lighter panels could be made to shake less if designed properly. A lot of vibrations could be nulled with less lose fitting latches, and pads to hold them in position & absorb shocks.25Hz wrote:This absolutely is for a multilevel power car, not converting existing or option fleet.Sure, just take off one HVAC unit. That gives lots of room! Who needs the HVAC unit on that end anyway?
And on weight: you'd end up removing one HVAC system of the 2, since you'd need one end of the roof for the panto and dynamic brake grid. I also feel that there could be significant changes in roof end design, namely using lighter materials on the non-load bearing bulkheads and interior panels & on the roof itself. You could end up with a 2200 hp power car with less weight than a MLV cab car.
There is a lot of room under the cars at both ends. A re-designed truck with 2 or 4 motors (1 or 2 per axle) probably wouldnt weigh that much more.
In any case... The fact is a MLV based self propelled car is entirely feasable technologically. I wonder about cost. I also wonder about having so many coaches and dual modes with very little talk of system expansion. Perhaps that's the next big announcement? Cape may? West Trenton? Philipsburg? Water gap? That's what I sense anyways. This is the first of 2 shoes to drop.
Lighter materials on the "non-load bearing bulkheads" - the walls already shake like crazy quite often, making them lighter will make them shake less! riiight
There is some room hidden in the cars, and there is some space to work with, but not a whole heck of a lot. And under the lower level seats? Its a few inches - what good is that going to do?
I think you will see opposite ends of the mezzanine levels used for placement for various systems, as well as maybe loosing a row or two of seats on one side on the lower level especially for traction motor blowers or something like that.
Cape May? West Trenton? Huh? These cars would replace the Arrow 3 MUs, which there are now 229 of (remember 1308 went away!). Thats a HUGE chunk of the roster. If they can get this idea to work, they might be able to not have to do a 1:1 replacement. Get 100 power cars, and rebuild the Comet 3s and 4s. Thats more than 230 cars right there.
Who knows, but this is going to be interesting.....
it would be kind of cool to see them take one of the ML cars and then take all the parts they took off the 1308 and see if they could figure out a mock up!