Why no EMUs on MARC?

I think it would be great to see MARC EMU's, although I agree that isn't likely. They would probably look just like South Shore MU's, because both are made by Sumitomo. Would they have that ugly hump that most EMU's on NEC have? And what is that hump? Does it have to do with the AC power?

Tadman wrote:I think it would be great to see MARC EMU's, although I agree that isn't likely. They would probably look just like South Shore MU's, because both are made by Sumitomo. Would they have that ugly hump that most EMU's on NEC have? And what is that hump? Does it have to do with the AC power?

Why would they be made by Sumitomo?

Does anyone remember-the early 80s period when AMDOT/MARC was using leased NJT A2 then A3 cars on the Baltimore-Washington route? As some are mentioning here perhaps MU cars today would be good for some MARC Penn Line services. MACTRAXX

Personally, I wouldn't like to see EMUs on MARC; I prefer to see locomotives pulling unpowered cars. In the past MARC did use DMUs on the Brunswick and Camden, although these were very unfriendly to the environment (every picture I have seen of them has them billowing large quantities of black smoke into the sky). The only services on the NEC that use EMUs are SEPTA, Metro-North, and NJ Transit (to a much lesser degree). The MBTA and SLE both use exclusive diesel service, and NJ Transit uses mostly diesel and electric locomotives (similar to MARC). To me the only advantages of EMUs are their rapid acceleration and the ability to pair large numbers of them together (8-12+ cars), but since MARC doesn't have many stations placed every mile (like SEPTA) and the longest trains are 8 cars long EMUs seem unnecessary. Plus, with the HHP-8s and AEM-7s MARC can operate trains at 125mph, but no EMU in the country can go that fast.

MARC is against EMU's due to three reasons:

1.) Amtrak's charge for power. For those that don't know, Amtrak charges more for power than MTA pays for deisel. Yes, MTA does have electrics, but they are only used for the rush hour trains.

2.) Lack of interoperability. They can only be used on the Penn line, they can't anywhere else. It's better to buy more cars that can be used anywhere.

3.) Size. With record ridership, MTA needs cars that can carry alot of people. EMU's can't carry the people and I was told that they can run at most 3 of them togather, we need 10-20 cars per train.

gprimr1 wrote:MARC is against EMU's due to three reasons:

1.) Amtrak's charge for power. For those that don't know, Amtrak charges more for power than MTA pays for deisel. Yes, MTA does have electrics, but they are only used for the rush hour trains.

2.) Lack of interoperability. They can only be used on the Penn line, they can't anywhere else. It's better to buy more cars that can be used anywhere.

3.) Size. With record ridership, MTA needs cars that can carry alot of people. EMU's can't carry the people and I was told that they can run at most 3 of them togather, we need 10-20 cars per train.

Why could MARC run at most three emu's together when NJT routinely runs ten and eleven?

That was what I was told when I was researching transportation options for MD for a summer internship.

gprimr1 wrote:That was what I was told when I was researching transportation options for MD for a summer internship.

Whoever told you that is wrong. There is nothing inherent in an electric MU that limits its consist size to 3 cars.

An issue with the electrical suppply to the catenary, maybe? I've heard Amtrak was limited to eight-car Metroliner MU trains becasue of power supply issues. Still, you'd think that there wouldn't be such a differnce in different parts of the coridor, especially since all the parts were completed within 20 years or so of each other.

Amtrak ran eight car NJT Arrow III emu sets to Washington on Thanksgiving Sunday.

If you go back far enough, the PRR routinely ran 14 car MP 54 rush hour trains on many of its suburban lines ( now operated by SEPTA)- I saw trains of this length daily at Lansdowne, Pa in the 1960's. ( Some of those MP 54's wound up on what is now MARC's Penn Line back in the early 1970's). One of the theoretical advantages of MU trains is that, at least in theory, operating characteristics should not change as units are added to a consist because each car is powered. I can understand MARC not wanting to use equipment which would be limited to only one of its three lines, but passenger carrying limitations should not be a factor against the use of EMU's.

PC (and Conrail) routinely ran a 14 to 18 car shop train to Paoli.

3.) Size. With record ridership, MTA needs cars that can carry alot of people. EMU's can't carry the people and I was told that they can run at most 3 of them togather, we need 10-20 cars per train.

My guess is that the quoted three-car limit for EMU's is not an equipment limitation, but the economic trade-off point in operating costs between locomotive hauled trains and emu's. Long emu trains are much more expensive to operate, maintain, and inspect than locomotive-hauled trains, since there are so many operating cabs, motors, controllers, etc. This is somewhat offset by the ease of changing train lengths from long peak hour trains to shorter non peak.

Rather than change train lengths mid-day, MARC uses the shorter trains from the Camden and Brunswick lines for mid-day service on the Penn Line.

I would suspect that the biggest reason for not using EMU's lies in the economic area more than the actual performance area. It is my understanding that the FRA considers each MU unit a locomotive, and subjects each unit to the maintenance and inspection requirements applicable to locomotives. Non powered trailer cars are not subjected to these requirements and as a result of this and other factors, are less expensive to maintain. Since MARC is a division of a Maryland State agency, this factor has become very important in light of Maryland's current financial situation.

Run through service isn't likely. VRE is purchasing over fifty new Nippon Sharyo gallery cars, and these cars have low - level doors. Most MARC stops that VRE would stop at (New Carrolton, Seabrook, BWI Airport, etc.) have only high level platforms and are incompatible with this equipment.

VRE is also trying to sell it's twelve Kawasaki bi-levels. If this happens, then VRE would have no equipment that would be compatible with the high-level platforms on the Penn.

Perhaps CAMDEN STATION to FREDERICKSBURG or MANASASS?