by dowlingm
Has stringing catenary into GCT even been on the table?
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith
dowlingm wrote:Has stringing catenary into GCT even been on the table?I highly, highly, highly doubt it. It's roughly 15 miles from Grand Central to Mt. Vernon E/Pellham (where the centenary begins) and that's a long way to string overhead wires. Plus you'll have to get wires into every nook and cranny in GCT so you don't lose that flexibility to put trains practically wherever.
khansingh wrote:Does this mean they've ruled out bi-levels?Were bi-levels ever considered?
morris&essex4ever wrote:Bi-levels may still be being considered. The base order cars are only for the LIRR. If Metro-North would want in on the M9 fun it would be as an option down the road, but they still have some time to decide.khansingh wrote:Does this mean they've ruled out bi-levels?Were bi-levels ever considered?
morris&essex4ever wrote:yes, MN can only go up, longer trains or more trains are out of the question. GCT is at capacity.khansingh wrote:Does this mean they've ruled out bi-levels?Were bi-levels ever considered?
lirr42 wrote:i-levels may still be being considered. The base order cars are only for the LIRR. If Metro-North would want in on the M9 fun it would be as an option down the road, but they still have some time to decide.I thought that bi-levels could not navigate the switches and tunnels north of Grand Central Terminal?
Thomas wrote:Full generic bi-levels can't. NJ Transit's shorter multi-level coaches can, since they are designed to fit into Penn and clear the LIRR third rail. Whatever minor differences may exist between Penn's and GCT's switch clearances are easily tweaked at the factory for an MNRR order. It's a negligible difference. A regular 3rd rail EMU stuffed into the MLV dimensions or a power car + blind coach mixed consist (like NJT's Arrow-replacement proposal) in those dimensions would fit. As would any regular P32-hauled push-pull using off-shelf MLV blind coaches. The only thing you definitely cannot do at MLV dimensions is a New Haven Line car with pantograph. The MLV car height + the pantograph is too much, so these would have to be 3rd rail-only cars for Hudson/Harlem with New Haven permanently having to make do with M8-dimension single-levels.lirr42 wrote:i-levels may still be being considered. The base order cars are only for the LIRR. If Metro-North would want in on the M9 fun it would be as an option down the road, but they still have some time to decide.I thought that bi-levels could not navigate the switches and tunnels north of Grand Central Terminal?
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Full generic bi-levels can't. NJ Transit's shorter multi-level coaches can, since they are designed to fit into Penn and clear the LIRR third rail. Whatever minor differences may exist between Penn's and GCT's switch clearances are easily tweaked at the factory for an MNRR order. It's a negligible difference. A regular 3rd rail EMU stuffed into the MLV dimensions or a power car + blind coach mixed consist (like NJT's Arrow-replacement proposal) in those dimensions would fit. As would any regular P32-hauled push-pull using off-shelf MLV blind coaches. The only thing you definitely cannot do at MLV dimensions is a New Haven Line car with pantograph. The MLV car height + the pantograph is too much, so these would have to be 3rd rail-only cars for Hudson/Harlem with New Haven permanently having to make do with M8-dimension single-levels.So you are saying that NJ Transit's Bi-Levels could be equipped with 3rd Rail Shoes to still handle the switches and all four main tracks under Park Avenue in Manhattan?
Thomas wrote:NJT's MLV's are just coaches, not EMU's. Those aren't an option except for loco-hauled push-pulls. They can buy them to their heart's content for future coach orders for Hudson and Harlem diesel territory, Waterbury, Danbury, Port Jervis, etc. They can lash up to a P32 and go to GCT just like the Shoreliners. But straight-up coaches are not what they're evaluating here.F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Full generic bi-levels can't. NJ Transit's shorter multi-level coaches can, since they are designed to fit into Penn and clear the LIRR third rail. Whatever minor differences may exist between Penn's and GCT's switch clearances are easily tweaked at the factory for an MNRR order. It's a negligible difference. A regular 3rd rail EMU stuffed into the MLV dimensions or a power car + blind coach mixed consist (like NJT's Arrow-replacement proposal) in those dimensions would fit. As would any regular P32-hauled push-pull using off-shelf MLV blind coaches. The only thing you definitely cannot do at MLV dimensions is a New Haven Line car with pantograph. The MLV car height + the pantograph is too much, so these would have to be 3rd rail-only cars for Hudson/Harlem with New Haven permanently having to make do with M8-dimension single-levels.So you are saying that NJ Transit's Bi-Levels could be equipped with 3rd Rail Shoes to still handle the switches and all four main tracks under Park Avenue in Manhattan?
Is it likely for Metro North's potentially new Bi-Level Cars to be pulled by locomotives or be 3rd Rail equipped?
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:NJT's MLV's are just coaches, not EMU's. Those aren't an option except for loco-hauled push-pulls. They can buy them to their heart's content for future coach orders for Hudson and Harlem diesel territory, Waterbury, Danbury, Port Jervis, etc. They can lash up to a P32 and go to GCT just like the Shoreliners. But straight-up coaches are not what they're evaluating here.When (what year) will they have to make that decision?
What they would be evaluating is a 3rd rail EMU built to fit within the MLV dimensions. It wouldn't be the same cars NJT runs, just the same size as NJT's coaches. And hopefully similar seating capacity to NJT's coaches after they make room for all the EMU electrical equipment. These would be sort of like Metra Electric's gallery car EMU's, except much smaller. The trick is whether any qualified manufacturer can build a reliable bi-level EMU inside that constrained a space and have it perform roughly equivalent to the M3/M7's. NJT's MLV coaches are not the greatest-riding coaches out there because it's a tricky design to make work. So if they don't find a satisfactory bid, this LIRR order for the M9's is the 'known-known' safe fallback position and they can pick up their option for those more-or-less M7 clones. But they have a couple more years to study out the options before they're required to make that decision.
Thomas wrote:LIRR's M9 order is set for 2016-2020 delivery. MNRR's options would be the very last ones in the order, for 2019-20. So they probably have until about 2018 to decide on the option unless there's a deadline built into the contract. They still have extra options on the M8's they don't have to exercise for at least another year because those deliveries are still chugging through the main order.F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:NJT's MLV's are just coaches, not EMU's. Those aren't an option except for loco-hauled push-pulls. They can buy them to their heart's content for future coach orders for Hudson and Harlem diesel territory, Waterbury, Danbury, Port Jervis, etc. They can lash up to a P32 and go to GCT just like the Shoreliners. But straight-up coaches are not what they're evaluating here.When (what year) will they have to make that decision?
What they would be evaluating is a 3rd rail EMU built to fit within the MLV dimensions. It wouldn't be the same cars NJT runs, just the same size as NJT's coaches. And hopefully similar seating capacity to NJT's coaches after they make room for all the EMU electrical equipment. These would be sort of like Metra Electric's gallery car EMU's, except much smaller. The trick is whether any qualified manufacturer can build a reliable bi-level EMU inside that constrained a space and have it perform roughly equivalent to the M3/M7's. NJT's MLV coaches are not the greatest-riding coaches out there because it's a tricky design to make work. So if they don't find a satisfactory bid, this LIRR order for the M9's is the 'known-known' safe fallback position and they can pick up their option for those more-or-less M7 clones. But they have a couple more years to study out the options before they're required to make that decision.
When is the MTA planning on replacing their diesel locomotives?
DutchRailnut wrote:(Should I kick this question to the MNRR forum?)morris&essex4ever wrote:yes, MN can only go up, longer trains or more trains are out of the question. GCT is at capacity.khansingh wrote:Does this mean they've ruled out bi-levels?Were bi-levels ever considered?