Newsday Article: LIRR Capital Plan 2005-2009

Newsday 9/14/2004 article

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longi ... -headlines

Stay tuned....don't be surprised if some of the plan is scaled back or eliminated.

Ok, so the big projects I'm getting out of this are:

1. 3rd track from Bellrose to Mineola(which is smart for now)
2. 2nd track from Fdale to KO(another smart thing)
3. New yard on PJ line to extend 3rd rail(I think they need to do a 2nd track instead)
Others were:
4. New seaford Platform
5. Signal work
6. M-9(this is just plain stupid)

Good luck with that!

NIMBYkiller wrote:Ok, so the big projects I'm getting out of this are:

3. New yard on PJ line to extend 3rd rail(I think they need to do a 2nd track instead)

They can get much more "bang for the buck" if they extend electrification, and built the yard. A double track will do nothing to improve the PJ line compared to the effect electrification will have on the PJ line. The ridership on the Ronkonkoma branch went through the roof when it was electrified, and so will the PJ line when they electrify. They need elecrification on the PJ line to make the PJ line more desirable to take some of the pressure off the Ronkonkoma branch.

6. M-9(this is just plain stupid)

How so? The M7 order is not enough to replace all the orignal M's on the LIRR electric branches. More will be needed.

<i>3. New yard on PJ line to extend 3rd rail(I think they need to do a 2nd track instead) </i>

Screw that. Electrify it to PJ. A 2nd track on that line is pointless unless the line's electric, since nobody wants to ride the existing DE/DMs, partly because they have to change and the trains are slow and unreliable anyway. Not to mention, I doubt the DE/DMs are cheap to run - looking at published info on the LIRR's operations, there was a sharp uptick in operating costs in the years following their introduction...

<i>6. M-9(this is just plain stupid) </i>

I'd love to see the specs for this thing. And a list of what the LIRR thinks is wrong with the M-7s that they are contemplating a whole new design even though the M-7 order isn't even finished yet.

So far, I've got:

* Crappy seating.
* Bad ride.
* Poor acceleration.
* Overweight by about 20,000 - 30,000 lbs.
* Married pair operation, should be married quads (IMHO).
* Poor interior layout.
* Excessive power consumption.
* Dysfunctional toilets.

Anyone got anything to add?

That's probably why they want to redesign the M7's a bit to the M9's to correct the mistakes of the M7's. It does make sense to not continue with the M7's if they can improve upon it for future orders.

I guess that does make sense about changing the design. It certainly would make people happy. Hopefully they'll just change the interiors and that's it, otherwise it means even more stuff for the mechanics to know.

As for electrification, here's how I see it. The only reason Main line ridership boomed after electrification was b/c it was the only way for a possible one seat ride to NYP. Now we have equipment capable(and yes, they've been fairly reliable lately from what I've heard) of running on diesel lines and into NYP, however, LIRR doesn't seem to want to do that. Instead, they want to electrify the line, telling people it will provide a one seat ride that is already possible with the current setup.

I don't know though if operating costs have anything to do with this. Based on what all yall have told me, I'll go with yes. So then ok, go ahead and do it. Still, it will only do so much with only one track. Look at the main line east of Fdale. It's choked. The same will happen to the PJ line.

I may be proven wrong, but I would expect funding for more M-7s to be the first thing to be cut. The LIRR spent big dinero to overhaul 132 M-1 cars in the late nineties. Now, it wants to send them to Mexico, too?

Debt service from borrowing for past capital programs is what's killing the MTA. To borrow 2.4 billion more for just the LIRR, with all the other MTA agencies also lining up at the feeding trough, is just not likely to happen at this juncture in time.

Better pitches can be made for spending money on such things as 3rd mainline track. There may actually be at least some sort of ROI in doing that.

* Married pair operation, should be married quads (IMHO).

Phil,

You love those huge carsets, don't you?

LIRR shops and yards would require huge changes to do triplets or quads.
West Side Shop only fits one married pair per PI track. The car hoist also only accomodates a married pair.
Hillside's PI tracks hold 3 pair each, with walkways in between each pair. Their car hoists will each also do only two cars max at a time.
And what about yard tracks that only hold up to 10 cars?
And all the stations whose platforms only hold up to 10 cars?

The LIRR will likely stick to married pair EMU configuration for some time, much to your chagrin.

Tom

Long term, it might be better off, though - the NYCTA decided years ago that quads and longer were better than singles or pairs, for a varitey of reasons.

For one thing, going to a quad config would get rid of 2 cabs, and two cab's worth of junk to maintain. It'd also allow one to distrubute the equipment around over 4 cars, which would have advantages. Plus, you'd get rid of one coupler setup.

Actually, I think an A-B+C-D....C-D+B-A setup would be best - you could design the equipment to be much more optimized for it's job. Right now, every M-7 has to be a cab car or a middle car. That's not only a disadvantage from a weight standpoint, but it means lots of unused equipment that needs to be maintained, plus you have to design the car end to allow safe pass through AND be good in a collision. This isn't easy, and it's not optimal. If you could totally eliminate the end door, the cab structure could be significantly lighter, yet stronger than the existing setup. plus, mid train cars wouldn't have a cab - they'd have extra seats.

Yes, I realize that from a shop standpoint, this isn't ideal, thus I'd propose making the end 2 units linked, then having the inter-train cars be a married pair (effectively - end units would be an A-B pair, mid units would be a C-D pair). Thus, you'd still have 'pairs', but they'd be designed more for their position in the train. This might be a better compromise.

The arguements against generic married pairs are numerous, but the arguements for them aren't very big anymore - the LIRR doesn't (and probbably can't due to FRA), make very efficient use of joining/splitting trains, and there's little or no redundancy that the arrangement adds - just more stuff to break. Elsewhere in the world, married pair EMUs aren't very common anymore (though married triples are), except for lighter 'branch line' stuff. Really, if it weren't for the FRA and all of the LIRR's grade crossings, pairs would be just fine. But the FRA's not going to grow up anytime soon, the LIRR has lots of grade crossings, and that makes the economics of A-B pairs a bit suspect, since most of the cars in between the end cars have equipment that's unneeded, but requires plenty of regular inspection and maintenance...

As for M7 poor acceleration: compared to what?

I hope to find out more next month, but on my last trip east I found that M7s could (but only occasionally did) 85 feet from a standing start in 8 seconds, and 425 feet in 18 seconds. I've never seen an Arrow do that, and it hasn't been for lack of watching.

(Note that 425 feet in 18 seconds is an average of 1.79 mph/sec.)

As for how they do over longer distances: that's what I hope to find out.

1.79mph/s is below the stated 2.0, and far below an Arrow III's 2.5mph/s. It's also lower than what the Silverliner II of the 60's could do (It maintained 2.0mph/s from 0 - 40mph), and far slower than what the Silverliner V specs call for. The SL V is spec'd to go 0 - 50 in about 23 secs. I doubt an M-7 can do that.

Oh yes, they've chopped the acceleration rates a bit in the last year or so. The M-7s were decent the first few months, then got slow....

I love how a month ago the buzz was elimination of branches and draconian service cuts, and now we're adding track, buying cars, etc.

Jay

NIMBYkiller wrote:Ok, so the big projects I'm getting out of this are:
3. New yard on PJ line to extend 3rd rail(I think they need to do a 2nd track instead)

Just to clarify :The purpose of the yard is not to extend 3rd rail, if it were then they would just extend it all the way to PJ since there is already a yard there.
The yard is being built to provide better service between Huntington and New York. As you know Huntington is the only terminal on the RR without a yard. Currently there is space to lay up 4 MUs trains -3 in the South Side extension and 1 in the North Track as well as 1 Diesel on the freight track which has no 3rd rail. For a major terminal that doesn't cut it. And when ESA is opened and more slots become available on the west end it will be difficult to take advantage of it with out a yard.
The only suitable locations are east of Huntington, so of course 3rd rail would have to be extended. But extending 3rd rail is a RESULT of building a yard not the PURPOSE building it.

Great...taxdollars well-spent going towards the design of new "M-9's", while we havent even completed M7 delivery...
If the LIRR wants to resolve those problems associated with the M7 then just do that! The M7's are mechanically sound, and do not need a major redesign that will give it some other model name, such as "M9".

-Tom

That's why I say I hope they just change the interior for the M9 and leave the mechanical stuff alone.

As for the new electric yard on the PJ line, I think it's actually both. I never knew there was never any actual yard, though I could never see one. In this case, I guess it does make sense to just extend 3rd rail to PJ, cuz they've already got the yard there.

But they were talking about how the new yard could also extend the 3rd rail to Kings Park(which was one of the areas looked at for the yard).