LIRR trip to Hempstead

F40,

LIRR third rail is nominal 750 VDC.

Electrified branches:
Main line Penn Station to Ronkonkoma
Montauk branch to Babylon
Port Jeff branch to Huntington
Port Washington branch
Long Beach branch
Far Rockaway branch
Hempstead branch
West Hempstead branch
Brooklyn FBA to Jamaica (Atlantic branch)
Long Island City to Jamaica
Atlantic branch from Jamaica to Valley

Did I miss any?

Will get dimensions later on. Need to look at book.

Tom

Just 2 that you forgot, 3 if you count "abandonned" lines.

Belmont branch

Oyster Bay branch to East Williston

Garden City-Mitchell Field Secondary til about Washington Av.

Yeah, you missed that one train a day from East Williston. I don't know *why* the LIRR even runs it. That has to be the least used stretch of third rail in the LIRR...

Thanks for filling in the blanks, guys. I should be shot for leaving out Belmont. East Williston I didn't know about.
I guess M of E guys should shy away from those types of questions.

Tom

F40,

M1, M3, M7 all designed for 100 MPH top speed.

These dimensions are all from an LIRR book, so I'm trusting them to be correct.

M1 width 10' 8" over side sheets (10' 9" including handholds)
M1 height 12' 10" rail to roof (13' 1 1/2" to top of antenna)

M3 width 10' 8" over side sheets (10' 9" including handholds)
M3 height 12' 11 1/2" rail to roof (13' 3 1/2" to top of antenna)

M7 width 10' 4 3/4" over side sheets (10' 6" over rub plates)
M7 height 12' 11 1/2" rail to roof (13' 4 1/8" to top of antenna)

C3 width 9' 11 3/4" over rub plates
C3 height 14' 5 1/2 " rail to roof

Note: I do see the discrepency between M1 and M3 height. As I said, the figures come from an LIRR book.

Tom

So, the M-7's really *are* narrower than the M-1/3s. By nearly 4 inches!

Why the HECK did they do that?

Nasadowsk: If you didn't see it, check out yesterday's (Sunday's) Newsday, page A-65. There's an article suggesting that the LIRR might be a more successful operation in the long term if it would run the kind of frequent service that you've suggested in past posts.

So, the M-7's really *are* narrower than the M-1/3s. By nearly 4 inches!

Why the HECK did they do that?

Phil, I am not touching that one with a ten foot pole!

Tom

Why not N340SG?

Because there are numerous complaints about the M-7 cars being cramped, and the seats being narrower than the M-1 and M-3 fleet.
Now we find out that apparently the M-7s are narrower at their widest point than the old cars.
Just for the record, I had nothing to do with it!!

Tom

Here's what I've read in the past. The cars are just as wide as the others, but b/c of new FRA regs, the body had to be thicker, meaning the interior had to be made narrower.

I'm starting to think the FRA is being used as an excuse for poor design by _everyone_, just like Detroit used to blame their inability to build a decent car inthe 70's and 80's on the EPA...

I dunno, the walls really don't look any thicker on the M-7s at all - what does themin is they're narrower cars. Why the MTA didn't just have the M-1/3 body updated to meet the new FRA regs - and I don't think it would have taken much, they were current into the 90's (witness the M-6s) - is beyond me, though I guess someone decided we needed a newer, more ugly design foisted on us

Hey, I'm just going by what I've read both here and on subtalk.

I think the M7 exterior design is pretty nice looking, better than the M1/M3s.

According to the site below, indeed the walls were made thicker and the seats narrower:

http://www.transitconnection.net/images ... rail/lirr/

This statement in particular:

"One major complaint about the M7's is that the seats are too small. The MTA insists that the seats are only two inches narrower than on the M stocks and the C3's, but the walls had to be thicker than they were on the older stocks due to new regulations. This made the seats narrower. "

What exactly were the regulations?

The M-7's are narrower because of Amtrak's newer clearance envelope which may reflect some other standard. New FRA crash standards do not affect the width or side wall thickness but does affect the front configuration.

In the focus groups the LIRR employed to comment on the interior design, many folks wanted a "cozy" environment. The Railroad thought it was giving people what they wanted in the seat style and more concave wall panels.

Apparently those who disapprove have been getting the majority of air time in anti-LIRR, pro-socialist Newsday press stories.

The Railroad truly spent lots of time and effort getting opinions from regular riders on the seat and interior design and trying to please them. Truly. There are much cheaper seats out there that could have been used.

They tried to do the right thing here. Guess you can't please everyone.

My humble opinion is that the cars are excellently constructed, but the usual over-reliance on newer technology of dubious value and inclusion of a handful of favored supplier inferior components will make them very expensive to maintain.

Just my 2- cents which has probably been covered well on other threads.

Clem