daybeers wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 11:31 pmRTD Commuter Rail doesn't have any low-level platforms, and neither does the electrified portions of CDOT. They are moving towards full high-level operation with only Windsor Locks on the Hartford Line (plus some Springfield platforms), everything on Waterbury except it and Bridgeport, and a couple on the Danbury.
Low-level platforms with high-level equipment need to go.
I basically agree, but then you run into an oddball situation here or there. I'm wondering if SEPTA might have a few issues with high-level platforms on freight lines, and then you've got situations like extending SLE to Mystic or Westerly.
New London also sucks with the M-8s, as the low-level platforms are much, much longer, and they used to use the crossing to load/unload off of the Mafersa cars. So I'm thinking that a common fleet that can be easily optioned for traps and 25hz transformers makes sense.
We need more standard designs. We should be able to handle most of the US commuter rail fleet with these 6-9 standard car designs:
1. Third rail EMU: MN and LIRR
2. M-8 style EMU for third rail and 60hz for MN
3. 25hz capable EMU with traps for MARC, SEPTA, RTD, NJT, MN-Penn, CDOT, MBTA, and new-build FRA heavy rail commuter systems
4. Bi-Level car for south/west
5. 15'6" ML car for MARC/MBTA push-pull
6. 14'6" NYP-capable ML car for NJT
7. Gallery cars for Metra and VRE
8. Single-level cars
9. Single-level DMUs
Right now, LIRR would need 6 for DM service to NYP, which should be eliminated in favor of expanded electrification using exclusively 1. NJT is huge, so a bespoke car for them isn't the end of the world.
Applications that have the demand for 5 on MARC and MBTA should probably just be electrified with 3, branches and shuttles should use 9 instead of 8. So likely get rid of 5 and 8. In theory, 4 should replace 7, but Metra seems to be obsessed with gallery cars over everything else.