MNRR Bilevel/Double Decker Coaches Proposal

-interesting proposal. I always liked the view from the second deck, remember the old LIRR doubledecks? Downstairs was less fun.
The news article in the NY Times mentioned that they would have to curve the roofs quite a bit to fit into the Park Ave tunnels and GCT. Would this make the upstairs window seats cramped and unattractive? Also baggage racks might have to go, what do you do in wintertime?
-another interesting point was that they would have to take out the overhead wiring which is used to bridge gaps in the third rail at switches etc. in the tunnel and terminal. I could see a lot of difficult engineering problems here.
-doubledeckers are well worth a study, but may not be the best way to go, despite the increased per car capacity. Perhaps there really isn't enough clearance to do it right.

Roger

Ouch that would bite for travel north of Harmon. South of Harmon already got the bigger windows on the M7s vs the shoreliners and now the doubledeckers (possible).

Metro-North could also be the first railroad in the area to have power engines for the third rail operations.

Am I reading the article right in that it implies these would not be MUs but locomotive-hauled by an electric? Is there any builder in the world today actually producing DC third-rail electric motors? I can't imagine any have been built in the US since at least the 1930's.

I think so; I had thought at first they were looking at just standard push-pull. Why they couldn't use these coaches with the Gennies I don't know, but the article specifically pointed out the shortcomings of the third rail system in GCT.

I can think of lots of plusses and minuses; would a DC only loco be less of a load on sub-stations than an 8-car EMU? If the HEP goes out on a DC loco, then you have a dead set of coaches instead of one EMU in a consist of 8.

I would think the weight penalty would be much less with such a setup, saving on track maintenance.

If you go with replacing the M3a's with such a scheme (how much of the fleet does this make up?), you're probably not putting too much of the fleet at risk of this not working out; you've got other locos that could probably pull the bilevels.

What about an AC/DC loco? Imagine a loco and coaches that could roam anywhere under electric.

Again there is no plans to make this a AC/DC deal, CDOT has their own fleet of M-8's and making the power cars AC/DC would only make you drag an unneccesary 50 tons around.
As for diesel service the current fleet rebuild will keep the Shoreliners good for another 15 years or more.
the 142 M-3's make up about a 1/4 of Harlem /Hudson Electric fleet.

DutchRailnut wrote:Again there is no plans to make this a AC/DC deal, CDOT has their own fleet of M-8's and making the power cars AC/DC would only make you drag an unneccesary 50 tons around.

So they really are looking to buy an updated version of these: http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/nyc132.jpg ?

kind off, only thing that a S motor has in common is it has a headlight and third rail shoes

Oh, yeah, I know it wouldn't look like an S motor any more than an HHP-8 looks like an EP-3. Just find it interesting that they're considering a modern DC third-rail motor. Are there any designs being produced or in service right now in Europe or elsewhere? I know parts of the UK network use an over-running third rail.

Know that things have to be planned for the future, but bilevels. The railroad is in the process of getting M-8's. Just recently got M-7's and now have an abundance of push-pull coaches and they want to consider bilevels? Employees are being laid off left and right due to budgetary problems and they want to order bilievels. Wouldn't this necessitate lowering the trackbeds in the Park Avenue Tunnel and further clearance issues in GCT? Overcrowding issues won't be solved by adding bilevels. Just run longer trains. Oh, I forgot can't run longer M-7 trains because substation improvements haven't been done although the MTA spent a fortune 15-20 years ago to build 10-12 car platforms. Can't run push pulls longer than 7 cars; Genesis shortcomings and limits on push pull train lengths. Spend and spend money they don't have but lay off the good people who run the railroad and make it one of the best, if not the best commuter railroad in the country.

Ridgefielder wrote:Are there any designs being produced or in service right now in Europe or elsewhere?

No. One generally avoids it if they can - the currents involved are very heavy and create problems, even with double shoes. I'm curious how they expect such a design to work, given the HP and HEP requirements.

There _are_ bilevel MUs in Europe, I don't know how tall they are. They're typically motor/trailer combinations, and packaging is very tight. I know some of the RER ones are 1.5kv, the NS stuff is. The S Bahn Zurich is 15kv, I honestly have no clue where they jam a transformer into it.

But in the form factor of MN? Even a bilevel's a problem.

Performance will be interesting - most bilevels weigh in at 135,000 or so. 8 of those plus 400,000 of loco to lug around, plus all the power one 8 axles (unless they go B+B+B)...

Run more/longer trains and make sure the M-9s are 30,000 lbs or so lighter per car than the M-7s so they don't go blowing up substations...

If MN's fixated on bilevels because they "need" them, look at a set like the more recent NS stock, where you have 3 or 4 bilevels trailers, then a single level power car...

UpperHarlemLine4ever wrote:Know that things have to be planned for the future, but bilevels. The railroad is in the process of getting M-8's. Just recently got M-7's and now have an abundance of push-pull coaches and they want to consider bilevels? Employees are being laid off left and right due to budgetary problems and they want to order bilievels. Wouldn't this necessitate lowering the trackbeds in the Park Avenue Tunnel and further clearance issues in GCT? Overcrowding issues won't be solved by adding bilevels. Just run longer trains. Oh, I forgot can't run longer M-7 trains because substation improvements haven't been done although the MTA spent a fortune 15-20 years ago to build 10-12 car platforms. Can't run push pulls longer than 7 cars; Genesis shortcomings and limits on push pull train lengths. Spend and spend money they don't have but lay off the good people who run the railroad and make it one of the best, if not the best commuter railroad in the country.

Then they will need to make the platforms longer north of NWP since most of them are 6 cars or so. Longer trains also means they will need more conductors on board collecting tickets and you know how the MTA and Jay Walder wants to get rid of conductors..

If you look on youtube a video uploaded in 2007 had a Genesis with 8 shoreliners on the upper upper Harlem Line!

Or they'll continue to do what the do now, "First 4 (6) cars will platform at --------. All passengers for ----------- be sure you're in the first 4 (6) cars." Or for that matter rear 4 (6) cars.

The problem is not upper Harlem platforms, the problem is sqeezing more passengers through the park avenue tunnel.
it is currently at capacity, so only way is up(bi-levels)
And yes the M-3's will need replacement in next 5 to 10 years.
There is no need to lower track, we tested LIRR Bi-lels into GCT years ago when testing the LIRR FL-9ac's.
problem is curves in the two outside tracks, where MNCR needs more clearance.

Sounds like someone envy's what the LIRR and NJT has with the Bi-Levels and wants to introduce them to be an addition to MNCR's fleet. Not for nothing, but it was mentioned on the forums before the bi-levels only seated a minuscule margin more than what the current fleet does so now. Seating capacity is greater on the M3's verses the M7's. Just look how many seats you loose with the ADA accessible bathrooms.

Since MNCR is rebuilding their fleet of Shoreliners, the purchase of M7's, M8's replacing the NH fleet, and the rebuilding of the M3's will be a catalyst to the decision making of approving the bi-levels.

Bilevels only seat marginaly more if 2x2 seating is used, they do seat a lot more if 3x2 seating is used.
The NJT cars seat 140 in 2x2 seating but seat 175 in 5x3 seating compared to around 100 in a M-7