M9 and M9A Procurement & Acceptance

I think that's a little short-sighted and stupid. In the old days when LIRR was a railroad, all MU cars, of all types and vintages, had to be compatible. This is in the interests of enhancing efficient equipment utilization, because any MU car could run anywhere (Flatbush Avenue clearances aside), with any other LIRR MU cars. They modified the M3s so they could run with M1s. What's so difficult about making the M9 compatible with the M7s? Is there that much of a technological advance? Would it not be a simple matter of making the coupler electrical section pin assignments the same?

I think that's a little short-sighted and stupid. Back in the days when the LIRR was a railroad, run and managed by railroad men instead of government bureaucrat types, all LIRR MU cars, of all types and all vintages, had to be MU-compatible, in the interests of efficient equipment utilization. This meant any LIRR MU car could operate anywhere in electrified territory (Flatbush Avenue clearances aside) with any other LIRR MU cars.
They modified the M3s so they could operate with M1s. What would be so hard about making the M9 compatible with the M7? Wouldn't it simply be a matter of making the coupler electrical section pin assignments the same? Is there THAT much of a technological leap from the M7 to the M9?

Main reason LIRR does not want them compatible is cause the M-9 will be wider then M-7

It's due to the computer network system on the individual types and there being a proprietary issue with each manufacturer working together to make them compatible.

keyboardkat wrote:I think that's a little short-sighted and stupid. In the old days when LIRR was a railroad, all MU cars, of all types and vintages, had to be compatible. This is in the interests of enhancing efficient equipment utilization, because any MU car could run anywhere (Flatbush Avenue clearances aside), with any other LIRR MU cars. They modified the M3s so they could run with M1s. What's so difficult about making the M9 compatible with the M7s? Is there that much of a technological advance? Would it not be a simple matter of making the coupler electrical section pin assignments the same?

This is an interesting point. Here, CTA generally goes in groups of compatible cars. In that way, you get some flexibility but also the ability to do a significant design change every few generations.

Not surprising they won't be compatible. The M-7 is already a 15 year-old technology. The first ones arrived almost 13 years ago. I'm sure the M-9's will be a substantially different machine re: electronics and such, the same as the M-1/M-3's were, only more so because electronics are advancing more and more rapidly these days.

M9 prototype:

Fan Railer wrote:M9 prototype:

Now that looks nice!

I take it that this car is a prototype and was made in Japan. Is that correct?

yes test train is built in Kobe rest in Lincoln Nebr.
the 14 test cars have to be on LIRR property by spring of 2016.

If anything, the first M-9 has the same number as the first M-1.

I know, I think the M1 and M3's should have been in the 1000 series, with the M7 and M9 using the 7000 series.

why would they number two different type of cars in same number series ???/ not making sense.

Fan Railer wrote:M9 prototype:

See the sign in Japanese in front of the coupler? See, they don't want us to know the coupler pin assignments! Ah, the inscrutable Far East!!

Very sharp looking! I like the high-visibility yellow. But we probably still won't be able to see out the front just like on the friggin' M-7's. Interesting that MTA is re-using the M-1 numbering. I still remember the day in 1969 when I first rode M-1's 9001-9002.