Alstom to Retrofit some M7's into Battery EMU's (Was:M7s at Oyster Bay!)

How much would a fuel tank and diesel engine add to weight, in comparison?

The battery “green” stuff is all the craze but those who are pushing it are doing so for instant gratification purposes and give no care in the world to environmental damage those batteries cause during their disposal.

Ideally even with the loss of some seating. An M7 remanufactured as a M7D model “DMU” would be very valuable to the short haul commuter lines and upstarts whose lines are
1) too short to justify full
Loco haul diesel.
2) whose lines ridership doesn’t justify the cost of full electrification.
Using LI for example
A dual mode M7(DMU) would be the perfect concept for oyster bay outside of the rush hour service.
As well as the Greenport Service.
Said DMU would be capable of running on 3rd rail when in electric territory.

As for a battery-diesel-electric “multi-power MU”
I think you’d need a 3rd or 4th car married set. Each car having different components to spread the weight out.
But at what point does it fail.

Personally I don’t like the self propelled married pair concept because if you loose 1 unit you’re out 2 off the bat.
That’s just a matter of opinion I guess.

electricron wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 8:58 pm

Charging Battery A from Battery B just leaves Battery B needing to be charged - what, from another battery? Only things that make sense for a line like Oyster Bay is that the battery charges while care is on 3rd rail, whether moving or waiting to move, including in a storage yard between runs. Since this is a retrofit situation with limited space, this would only work well when the non-electrified portion of a line is short enough for battery capacity. In this case, it would probably help for the Oyster Bay station and any storage tracks to be electrified.

On long runs, and I'm thinking Port Jeff to Huntington, I don't think that batteries would make sense.

This is literally a pilot project that lirr agreed to participate it. If it works within reason good, but This issue is how far can they go on a not so flat and level road.

The ideal testing ground for this program is oyster bay. It’s just over 13
Or so Miles without 3rd rail, has. Grades to really work out the kinks in the battery power system.
And oyster bay can have a charger 3rd rail installed that powered off the 480vac Off pack on 2 track can be converted to put out 480 VDC and install a 3 car lengths of 3 rd rail

I believe only 2 cars 1 pair will be tested

Any more traction on this project?

Without battery-power limitations, would there be any stations they couldn't serve (size/height limitations)?
I was thinking Port Jeff might have some issues due to the curvature of the platform. Though, of course, I am only taking brain measurements, so I may be incorrect.

Attached an image for reference.

photobug56 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 19, 2021 6:07 pm Port Jeff line and Oyster Bay it seems to make sense, to be possible because the distance non electrified is fairly short. The other lines, I'm guessing they are just too long for this to work. Of course, even with lithium ion (and hoping these batteries are built well enough to not blow up, etc.) , they will add a lot of weight to the M7's, not sure what that will do the cars in terms of structure, brakes, motors, acceleration, deceleration, metal stress, etc. But it would make it very easy for access to GCT, for instance. Trains to Penn, HPA, LIC, etc. would stay double decker to minimize capacity loss. Another question - how many PJ line stations have 12 car platforms, or room for such? I believe East Northport has a 12 car platform already.

So it is an interesting proposal. But I'm guessing that a M9B car might make more sense.

Babylon-Patchogue is also a possible service area for them. It's not a far stretch, nearly a half hour-or so. It would make good use for a single-train service from Penn to Patchogue (due to Third Rail from Penn to Babylon) without the transfer at Babylon. Given if there is a charger at Patchogue, maybe to Speonk too, though I believe Patchogue is more practical. If only there was room for a second platform at Patchogue...

This program supposedly went up in smoke.
But there is ample room at Patchogue to install a north platform. As is room to realign west of the station, pull that yard lead out, and double track to Y.
With this work completed Patchogue would be capable of hosting a 10-12 car A & B platform.
And the crossover west of west avenue would permit runaround moves up to 45 mph through the station.
Just gota think what can be don’t and not always say you can’t do something.

nyrmetros wrote: ↑Sat Mar 26, 2022 9:00 pm Any more traction on this project?

If that was a pun, you just got 100 points...

workextra wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 7:27 pm This program supposedly went up in smoke.
But there is ample room at Patchogue to install a north platform. As is room to realign west of the station, pull that yard lead out, and double track to Y.
With this work completed Patchogue would be capable of hosting a 10-12 car A & B platform.
And the crossover west of west avenue would permit runaround moves up to 45 mph through the station.
Just gota think what can be don’t and not always say you can’t do something.

Honestly, I'm surprised the railroad didn't do this already. The bridge over Patchogue river is wide enough for two tracks, in fact, it currently has the switch to the small yard west of west of avenue located on it. It's just crazy to me that they didn't two track to Patchogue. And Yes, Babylon to Patchogue would be a great use of the Battery M7's if they ever came to be. Although, with the lack of news about that program, I surely wonder what happened.

And just like that the great Alstrom battery experiment is dead on the LIRR!

Surprised? Nobody should be.

Like Helena Williams before him, this was part of Phil Eng's "visioning" experiment for some form of DMU (not the right term but you get the idea) for non-electrified territory. It certainly was an awful lot of funding (850k) to "study" the issue in a very short amount of time, and it was conducted without a grant, but rather "in house" funding. Wonder what those funds could have been used for instead.

For those historians out there, the technology wasn't new, as the carrier used battery powered cars with third rail shoes in the 1910's-1920's era between Mineola and Valley Stream (see Arrts-Arrchives for more). I'm sure there is more complexity now with this type of equipment.

Meanwhile, the DM/DE/C3 equipement is approaching a quarter century of service with no replacements in sight.

freightguy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 2:33 am And just like that the great Alstrom battery experiment is dead on the LIRR!

wait, where was it announced?
mind you, alon levy just had a post about IMC trains not being a good idea.
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2022 ... or-trains/

Does it have something to do with this?

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

The announcemant was in today's Newsday, but like most articles in the paper, it has a paywall.